Your Must-Read for this beautiful Sunday. A very good analysis of the Tea Party movement by William Voegeli at the Claremont Institute. Read the whole thing, of course, but here’s a snippet to whet your appetite đ
The Tea Party movement caught fire one month after Barack Obama’s inauguration. It is, in part, a reaction to the Obama presidential campaign and its accompanying cult of personality. It is also a reaction to the Obama Administration’s effort to keep the financial crisis from going to waste by using it to enact an agenda of “shock and awe statism,” to borrow a phrase from Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana.
There are clear signs, though, that the Tea Party movement cannot be summed up by its relation to the dawning of the Age of Obama. It emerged at the culmination of the long project to supplant a ruling class based on social position and wealth with one based on brains. The new meritocrats who direct our government, economy, and national discourse are being disparaged at Tea Party meetings and blogs by the people whom they govern. This is an important, unexpected developmentâthe democratic repudiation of the consequences that have followed from the successful effort to democratize entrĂ©e to the nation’s highest circles of power…
The Tea Party movement presents itself as an anti-cult not only because many people in it find such extravagant praise of a still unproven politician absurd and insufferable, but because of increasing evidence that Obama himself believes, like Mae West, that too much of a good thing is wonderful. As political scientist James Ceaser recently observed,
Only the most rare of persons, after being the object for over a year of such unrelenting adulation, could have resisted the temptation to think that the world revolved around him. Barack Obama is clearly not that person. His speeches and remarks are filled with references to himself in a ratio that surpasses anything yet seen in the history of the American presidency.
The hyper-competitive types who survive and triumph in campaigns that become more grueling every four years do not climb that long hill in order to serve a term or two as hold-the-fort, B+ presidents. As soon as they’ve bested all their living political opponents they begin competing against their dead predecessors in the historical greatness derby.
Tammy, this is indeed a “must-read.” We will not let Urkel and the “progressives” (how I hate that word – sounds so positive!) turn us into another socialist/European country. Everywhere I go, people are angry. 148 days to Election Day, and so I say to the Dems/Libs: BRING IT ON!
This article covers a lot of turf, which I guess limits its focus. I appreciate the content, but I’m not sure it brings me additional clarity about what the Tea Party movement is or where it’s going.
I think our fundamental problem is the accumulation of centralized power, at the expense of personal liberty. Too many American now look to Washington to solve every personal problem: Educate me and my children, give me a good-paying job, cure me when I’m sick, maintain my retirement income, provide for my food and utilities and transportation, etc. Also, chastise and tax that other person that I don’t like. The problem is, the foregoing topics, which should have been immediately dismissed as unconstitutional, instead are debated as if they were legitimate political issues. At that point we’ve already lost our liberty, because when you have to come up with “reasonable” arguments why you and not the government should make intimate decisions about your health, you’re tacitly acknowledging that maybe it’s okay that the government controls your body if enough of your peers say so and they think it’s done in a good cause.
In their rush to grab power before their moment fades, the liberals have overplayed their hand lately. Those with open eyes can see them more clearly now. Helen Thomas speaks openly of a Jew-free Middle East. Woody Allen lusts for Obama to become a dictator. Thomas Friedman writes longingly of the day when Washington will be able to run America with an iron fist like the government of China. I don’t think these are isolated examples; I think they define the goalpost of modern liberalism. If America doesn’t reject this, then we deserve what we get.
“The problem is, the foregoing topics, which should have been immediately dismissed as unconstitutional, instead are debated as if they were legitimate political issues. At that point weâve already lost our liberty, because when you have to come up with âreasonableâ arguments why you and not the government should make intimate decisions about your health, youâre tacitly acknowledging that maybe itâs okay that the government controls your body if enough of your peers say so and they think itâs done in a good cause.”
Maynard, well put. I have learned that Americans have been dealing with false choices for a long time regarding the role of the Federal Government (and even how pushy a State or Local government should get). We’ve been forced to argue against the twisted way the Statists will argue that things really are Constitutional, when they are obviously not.
I have gotten quite a few statists to admit on message boards that they either abhor the Constitution or at least belive that it has outlived its usefulness. I thank them for their statement and make it clear that this is the kind of honesty that Americans need right now: we need to make a properly informed decision – Constitution or no Constitution.
That is the ultimate choice. That is what we need to make clear to Americans during the next elections.
“I donât think these are isolated examples; I think they define the goalpost of modern liberalism. If America doesnât reject this, then we deserve what we get.”
This merges well with what you said above. People have to realize where the Left leads – either to Europe (including Greece) or Soviet Union/China/North Korea/Cuba/Venezuela.
It’s called intellectual honesty. And honestly, I don’t know if enough Americans are really ready for that. They voted for Obama and many are still in denial about what he really is. They refuse to believe the worst of the Left, even when the evidence stares them right in the face. It’s the “it can’t happen here” mentality. And underestimating people always gets you into trouble.
I hope this turns around, if not fully in 2010, then in 2012. But of course, the Republicans better get their act together with a decent Reaganesque candidate for 2012, or we will have four more years of this BS and it may just turn into the nail in the American coffin.
I first heard him called a malignant narcissist here. That sums him up completely. I no longer look to explain his behavior, he simply can’t help himself, and I will continue to use the label for him whenever I can. I know folks are puzzled by the term, but I am hopeful that some will take the time and make an effort to figure out what it means, and then, the lightbulb in their brain will go on. The “AHA” moment when the puzzle pieces fall into place, and it all makes sense. Even Hitler was eventually seen by his “followers” as a danger to their goals, and I think Obama’s downfall will come at the hands of his followers more than at the hands of the many Patriots who refuse to feed his hungers.
Worthy of a second read… not sure where I am going to get the time ,though.
I hope your next book comes with a hands-on CD. I like to sit back with the lights out and hear your thoughts.