The Very Angry Tea Party

-- It's hard to tell if a lefty is self deluded or is intentionally dishonest, or a mixture of the two. --

I'll say "it depends." Sometimes the evidence admits a clear conclusion. I've seen Juan Williams, for example, agree to a counterpoint when confronted with evidence; then, minutes later (on a different program), revert to the premise he knew and agreed was shown to be false. The programs were both on FoxNews, and both were live, so there was no mixup of "time order" to this observation.

Not to say everything Mr. Williams says is a willful lie; just that I caught him at one. A thoughtful person would remember a significant (and agreed) correction that happened less than an hour previous; and would temper future public assertions.

But, I don't think knowing whether the story is a willful lie or not matters, at bottom; except as we humans are inclined to judge character. The writings say what they say, and stand or fall of their own weight.

You might be interested in this then. At the heart of Liberalism is the promotion of groupthink behaviors to secure member belief systems.

Here they are recast slightly.

I
Thou shalt create an illusion of invulnerability shared by most members to foster excessive optimism and encourage extreme risks taking

II
Thou shall not allow any member to question the group's inherent morality, instead members shall be encouraged to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions

III
Thou shalt promote collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings, or other information that might lead members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their assumptions

IV
Thou shalt reinforce stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purpose

V
Thou shalt self-censor any deviation from the apparent group consensus, inclining each member to minimize the importance of their doubts and counterarguments

VI
Thou shalt create and maintain a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgement conforming to the majority view

VII
Thou shalt apply direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members

VIII
Thou shalt appoint mindguards to protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions

Typical leftist screwball, strawman "argument." In the course of his mostly unreadable diatribe, Bernstein claims that Tea Partiers want to balance the budget without raising taxes. Bernstein, for some unfathomable reason, apparently doesn't realize that the budget can be balanced by cutting spending. He also goes on a rant about how valuable certain public services are and that Tea Partiers want all government eliminated. Again, this is a dishonest claim.

This idiot doesn't know the first thing about what Tea Partiers want. The only things he knows about TPers are tiny figments of reality that exist in his fevered, leftist skull.

J.M. Bernstein is University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the New School for Social Research

No kidding. I'm not entirely sure it's useful invoking Descartes and Hegel in attempting to find a context for a particular populist political movement, although both men had a good deal of interesting things to say about such movements in general. Positing a broad, formless psychological angst over the disempowerement of individual by government isn't particularly deep analysis when a narrow, very precisely-expressed anger against that very thing is the perfectly defined core of the movement. It is also the only one. One needn't strain to understand it.

Why the anger? Is this really a serious question? Name a single populist movement, including the artificially formed one that placed 0bama in government, that exists without it. Without "Hate-Bush" the Dems would still be on the outside looking in. That is how political movements are formed, and an outward expression of anger is such a basic part of political speech that I marvel at anyone who marvels at it. Clearly the good Professor has been behind a desk too long.

But this particular anger does have a clear target, as the author appears dimly to comprehend. Yes, it is the basic relation of individual to government, but it is not some fuzzy realization that a "myth" of individualism is no longer cogent in the modern world, but that the reality is being taken away. Given the very concrete manifestations of this - a government move on health care, on corporations, the creation of dependent classes, the commitment of future generations to paying for this one's excesses, on the persistent tendencies of the party in power to protect its gains at the expense of the general public - these aren't manifestations of anyone's Hegelian zeitgeist, but facts resented by those who are expressing that resentment in the arena of free speech. In short, it's exactly as it's supposed to be.

Pathological Fear of Constitutional Government-PFCG Syndrome

Maybe there’s Stimulus Grant in DC somewhere ...I could apply for to “help us understand the deep meaning and significance of the fear of Liberty and Freedom”

Or better yet...to define clinical parameters for institutionalization of individuals believing in outdated 18th century ideals....

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.