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.
What I posted are the roots. Americans don’t like big government because that means big power. We don’t trust power anywhere but in ourselves. That’s why conservatives have guns. Really good conservative, and Southerners, have whole big bunches of guns. And ammo. Cause we don’t really trust anybody else to defend us.
And, it is very traditional to dislike big banks. Look at the founding fathers. Look at Andrew Jackson. Look at us now, raising h*ll about the bailout because there is a big part of us that don’t give a d*mn about Goldman Sachs, and wishes it flatly would fall off the face of the earth. Look at the Tea Party.
Listen to Andrew Jackson (a somewhat shy and meek Southerner):
Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add… artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society — the farmers, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government.
Andrew Jackson quotes:
Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves.
Andrew Jackson quotes:
You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out.
Andrew Jackson quotes:
The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests.
parsy, who couldn’t agree more....
I’d like to see some of Jackson’s shyness and meekness take hold in congress these days.
Me too. Can you imagine Andrew Jackson sitting where Chris Dodd, or Barney Franks is, when they have one of those hearings?
He’d come across that d*mn desk, grab Ben Bernanke by the throat, start throttling him, and it would be “You no-good S___of a B______!!!! Whatta you mean you don’t know where $500 billion went, well by the time I get through thrashing your worthless hide, you gonna know where it went, or By God! they’ll be sending you outta here to where ever you come from slung over your saddle!!!”
parsy, who says, or maybe worse...
That has been my take on just about all the Lefty writing about the Tea Parties. And I was standing in a cold rain on the capital steps on the very first day of the Tea Parties.
Capitol, that is.
Who is this moron? Sniffing David Brooks’ farts is bad for one’s mental state, apparently.
True conservatives value one thing over any thing else: societal stability.
WTF Is that?
(Well stated comment worth repeating, pissant. Thanks.)
Obviously, this guy, Feehery, doesn't now anybody who is a Tea Partier...and has been to no Tea Parties.
Analyzing without observing isn't a very serious way of analyzing...
Wrong. In out time the "stable" is the liberal establishment. We want to destabilize that construct and all it stands for...
Beg to disagree.
"Populism" is a particular political philosophy -- at bottom, demanding government protect the little guy from the big guy.
Tea Parties are demanding, instead, that government stay the f*ck away from their lives. It might be a movement of the "little guys", but it's quite distinct from populism.
Based on my experience: HELL YES!
Sounds like a good place to start.
What really needs to be done is somebody should educate them about the intellectual and moral errors of socialism—how it equates to slavery, and how the only way to get people to fall for it is to keep it out of the educational system so that basically people don’t understand what it is.
Excellent remarks on the article.
I posted it on my blog:
http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2010/03/radical-republican-tea-partiers.html
The author - a typical Leftist - applies the European definition of “conservative” which is “reactionary.”
As you point out, it is the Marxists (Progressives) who are the true reactionaries since they would turn the clock back to feudalism with themselves as lords living in the castle with the rest of us their serfs who are expected to labor the day away quietly for the Lord & Master.
Therefore, American conservatives are in fact radicals and revolutionists who love to jump in and swim in the stormy waters of a dynamic society were free minds and free markets rule.
Alinsky concern trolls have gone syndicated.
The American Revolution was an elitist revolution, which is what made it so remarkable and successful.
The French Revolution was a populist revolution.
They were both populist, the big difference was the Americans had the benefit of several centuries worth of English common law and the Protestant model of self government (decentralized church structure) to build with. The French revolution disposed of all law, creating it anew and had only a Catholic (Roman hiarchcal structure) central church model to build with. The French also posited rights beyond those provided by God in their founding documents, thus creating envy and entitlement as the motive force for society from the start. The Americans were lucky to be largely Protestant and have a secular legal and economic structure based on common law. These are the big reasons America succeeded where France failed. But both revolutions were by definition “populist”. Only one had the tools to evolve beyond the mob.
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.