Posted on 03/09/2010 1:39:29 PM PST by Ronbo1948
I hate it when David Brooks writes a column on a subject that I have been researching on and planning to write about for weeks. And he did it to me Friday morning, with a great column [1] about “The Wal-Mart Hippies.”
His central thesis is that the tea-party crowd is not really conservative at all. “Both the New Left and the Tea Party movement are radically anticonservative. Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings. That idea was rejected in the 1960s by people who put their faith in unrestrained passion and zealotry. The New Left then, like the Tea Partiers now, had a legitimate point about the failure of the ruling class. But they ruined it through their own imprudence, self-righteousness and naïve radicalism. The Tea Partiers will not take over the G.O.P., but it seems as though the ’60s political style will always be with us — first on the left, now the right.”
I think that is spot-on, but I would also take it a step further.
True conservatives value one thing over any thing else: societal stability.
When so-called conservatives adopt tactics of the left—like Alinsky’s “Rule for Radicals”—they help further the cause of the left, which is social instability.
The dictionary definition of conservative is, “Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.” Russell Kirk, the iconic conservative thinker, considered conservatism “the negation of ideology.” Edmund Burke, considered by many the father of conservative thought because of his condemnation of the French Revolution, put it this way, “custom reconciles us to everything.”
But what do the Tea Partiers do?
They march with signs of Barack Obama in a clown face. They spend an inordinate time wondering if Obama was born in America. They attack institutions.
They use Alinsky’s rules against the left, but by doing so they create anarchy.
Dick Armey, the self-proclaimed father of the Tea Party movement, has been unapologetic in his use of these tactics. James O’Keefe, the right-wing provocateur, seems to enjoy channeling his inner Abby Hoffman.
Even the leading lights of so-called conservative talk radio, guys like Rush Limbaugh and especially Glen Beck, use many of these tactics to provoke, to entertain, and to shock the public.
But conservatives should think long and hard about by being right-wing left-wingers.
If conservatives decide to adopt the same tactics of the left, if they decide to be every bit as uncivil as the craziest radical, if they choose to be every bit as rude as the rudest hippy, if they choose to use language meant to abuse and destroy their opposition, who really wins and who really loses?
If we have an uncivil society, doesn’t that serve the interests of those who would prefer anarchy? If we treat the left like they treat us, doesn’t that mean that they win, because everybody loses?
Conservatives should be defending, not deriding, the democratic process. They should be insisting on civility in democratic discourse. They should practice basic politeness, and they should show respect for those who hold office.
It is altogether fun to bash the political class, and to make fun of all politicians. It must be therapeutic to call them all crooks and to march and protest, and read from Abby Hoffman’s playbook.
It is even more fun to follow Glen Beck’s conspiracy theories, to connect the dots in ways that were never meant to be connected, to speak darkly of the Trilateral Commission and to talk about succession and nullification.
And it must be a lot of fun for people to talk about how they are going to arm themselves and resist against the terrible federal government.
But, that isn’t what being a conservative is all about. Conservatives don’t look for ways to undermine civil society. Conservatives respect the Constitutional process as designed by our Founders, and modified on occasion by our forefathers. Conservatives appreciate the democratic process, and seek to make society better, not through revolution or radicalism, but through evolution and incrementalism.
Abby Hoffman once said that sacred cows make for a tasty hamburger. He also said that the first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.
A real conservative doesn’t play that game. A real conservative puts a high value on civil society, stability, and a social contract based on mutual respect and equal opportunity.
A real conservative doesn’t try to “get away with it.”
“The Rules For Radicals” was designed as a guide for the left to use to tear down civil society and build up something utopian in its place. It tactics are not applicable to those of us who value a stable, civil, and prosperous nation.
That one jumped out at me as well. It It's not my definition either but it could fit quite a few here. I'd say Rush would agree with this definition but Hannity would not.
Some are. Some are Libertarians. Some are Populists.
What should make the Democrat and ‘Pubbies wonder is: “What is pulling all these different types of people together?”
I’ve been to a couple of things that people associated with tea parties, and everyone I talked to seemed like they should be a FReeper if they weren’t already.
Of course the dots were never meant to be “connected” - doing so exposes the commies, marxists and radicals in Zero’s inner circle.
Bigger question is why the media, so big on that “free press” mantra didn’t connect them, and left it up to a TV show pundit.
“And populist movements are inherently unconservative.”
Unless you are a Southerner. Down here, conservatism is mixed with a good dose of anti-Wall Street, anti-Big Business, and anti-Big Money isms.
This is why George Wallace did so well with blue-collar Democrats. You don’t pick Curtis “Bomb them back to the Stone Age” LeMay for your running mate, and the guy one heartbeat away from the presidency, if you’re a liberal.
parsy, who grew up on SAC bases, and the warm comforting sound of eight huge engines revving up on the flightlines.
I hear that. im a tea partier an I aint no wal mart hippie
The above text is nothing but dribble meant to get conservatives to stop pushing for power and just allow the leftists to have the field.
The article is a piece of trash not worth the bandwidth it is wasting.
I’m two years away from SS and think it should be cut 10% immediately. People within 20 years of retirement should be grandfathered in or have the choice of personal retirement accounts. All others should be forced into personal retirement accounts set up so as to preclude the government from having access to the funds.
The American Revolution was an elitist revolution, which is what made it so remarkable and successful.
The French Revolution was a populist revolution.
Wallace’s consersativism was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. Discuss.
The first tip off that this writer was full of crap is that he says David Brooks wrote a “great column.” Yeah — NEXT...
It’s been over 40 years, so my memory needs some help. I went here and got this:
http://wikibin.org/articles/george-wallace-presidential-campaign-1968.html
“Wallace ran a “law and order” campaign similar to that of the Republican former Vice President, Richard Nixon. Nixon himself worried that Wallace might steal enough votes to give the election to the Democratic candidate, Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Some Democrats feared Wallace’s appeal to blue-collar workers and union members (who usually vote Democratic) would hurt Humphrey in Northern states like Ohio, New Jersey, and Michigan.
Wallace’s campaign rhetoric became infamous, such as when he pledged to run over any demonstrators who got in front of his limousine and asserted that the only four letter words that hippies did not know were w-o-r-k and s-o-a-p. He accused Humphrey and Nixon of wanting to radically desegregate the South. Wallace said, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties.” His campaign in California and other states attracted the interest of the far right, including the John Birch Society.”
As I remember,(I headed up the George Wallace student campaign in my junior high elections project) Wallace said, on welfare, that it was one thing to help somebody who was too old or too sick to work, but everybody else needed to get a job.
I can also recall the constant remarks about the liberals and intellectuals in their ivory towers. IIRC, Spiro Agnew started aping Wallace on some of this. Again, IIRC, Wallace railed against big money and big business. I’ll try to find cites to something more than, “He was a Populist”, which there is plenty of.
So, lets see:
1) Strong defense
2) No welfare for the able bodied
3) More state rights than Federal power
4) Limit what the Federal government can do
So, that seems pretty “conservative”. Now I need to find where he blasted banks and the rich.
parsy, who is old enough to remember the AUH2O bumper stickers.
Bingo! Great post!
L O L !
Here’s some more, but I am trying to find some specific Wallace quotes or speeches about the working man and middle class against the elites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
George Wallace, Four-Term Governor of Alabama, led a populist movement that carried five states and won 13.5% of the popular vote in the 1968 presidential election. Campaigning against intellectuals and liberal reformers, Wallace gained a large share of the white working class vote in Democratic primaries in 1972.[69][70][71]
Populism continues to be a force in modern U.S. politics, especially in the 1992 and 1996 third-party presidential campaigns of billionaire Ross Perot. The 1996, 2000, 2004, and the 2008 presidential campaigns of Ralph Nader had a strong populist cast. The 2004 campaigns of Dennis Kucinich[72][73][74][75] and Al Sharpton also had populist elements. The 2004 and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has been described by many[76] (and by himself) as a “one economic community, one commonwealth”[76] populist.
Comparison between earlier surges of populism and those of today are complicated by shifts in what are thought to be the interests of the common people. Jonah Goldberg and others argue that in modern society, fractured as it is into myriad interest groups and niches, any attempt to define the interests of the “average person” will be so general as to be useless.[citation needed]
parsy, who says this is just the way things still are among a lot of Southerners. We can’t stand Big Banks, etc.
Yup, gotta get insider their OODA loop. Only way to win...
I need to buy this book, I guess. But it dovetails with what I have been saying on FR for years. Conservatives have become way too influenced by Libertarians in economic issues to the point where the “populist” roots have been forgotten:
The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics (Paperback
Carter also provides great detail into minds of the inner circle of those men who managed Wallace’s candidacy in his state and later national campaigns for President, including talented speechwriter but also violent racist Klansman Asa Carter (no relation to the author), who would later become famous as the author of the historical novel that inspired the Clint Eastwood movie “The Outlaw Josey Wales”. Biographer Carter’s premise is that by Wallace’s strong showings in the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972 (before he was derailed by an assassination attempt) that Wallace succeeded in moving the national political debate to the right, especially in the area of social policies and politics. Carter has gone on record in other books and speeches as trying to link the Republican policies of welfare reform, re-examination of affirmative action policies and anti-crime legislation as being directly descended from Wallace’s bigoted early campaigns. While I think he stretches the point I do think that some of Wallace’s populist appeal did pave the way for successful Presidential campaigns of other southerners, such as Georgia’s Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Arkansas’ Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Carter sees Republican Ronald Reagan as more of a direct descendant of Wallace, but this reviewer sees it as a fact that most successful Presidential races since 1968 whether Republican or Democrat have taken Wallace’s anti-Washington bureaucrat populist rhetoric and support for a stronger defense and lower taxes as being more important than his racial stances.
Of course Wallace himself moderated his racial stances through the succeeding years, until he was running as a populist with appeal to both blacks and whites in the 1980’s and appealing for forgiveness to many of those he had wronged. Carter dutifully reports this later conversion, although he seems to question some of the sincerity behind the public conversion.
parsy, who will hold off now until he can find some speeches, etc.
Your statement is complete garbage.
Conservatism is very easy to understand. Attempts by progessives to “redefine” it only demonstrate the inherent flimsiness of their own ideology.
Conservatism means traditional American values. I don’t care if it makes you flinch, or squirm, or whine.
Individual libery, less government, fighting for right over wrong, a belief in absolute morals, and of course the free market. Throw in as many names and personalities as you wish, you are incapable of changing the definition of American conservatism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.