I want to advise the New York Times of a grievous printing error in today's paper: the column of Paul Krugman should appear on the left and that of David Brooks should be on the right. On second thought, Mr. Krugman's column should be on the first page of the paper and that of Mr. Brooks should disappear completely.
Mr. Brooks (Wal Mart Hippies) attempts to find a parallel between the radical movement of the 1960's and the activities of those in the Tea Party today. He speaks of both of these groups attempting to "take on the Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution". Mr. Brooks, you have been drinking the Kool Aid.
In stark contrast, Mr. Krugman (Bunning's Universe) writes of the Democrat and Republican parties living on different universes, intellectually and morally. He views a world where those on the right are concerned not with the plight of the downtrodden, but with the estate tax liability of the super rich.
Mr. Brooks you fail to see the world as do I, or Mr. Krugman. You try to romanticize a movement built on nothing. It does not stand for progress. It does not stand for caring. It does not stand for anything but making sure it stands on top.
In the real world Mr. Brooks, we see the problems that must be encountered and addressed. We see that there are burdens, not just benefits, that come with being a member of this society. We see that there are obligations, both intellectual and moral, that we must meet. We see that the world of the Tea Party movement has none of these beliefs. Mr. Brooks, the hippies of the 60's would find your attempted glorification of the Tea Baggers, by comparing these two groups, as insulting and demeaning. Today's 'activists' are not radicals, they are just loud, obnoxious and uncaring boors. Mr. Brooks, please read today's piece by Mr. Krugman. Move over into our universe.
5 comments:
Politics is impossible. To do anything you need people to trust that your short term solutions are needed to realize long term goals. The short term solutions give way to short-sighted faux-populism which brings out the misplaced rage in people. It is thus impossible to be a politician with vision and impossible to fight against the shallow temperament and intellectual mediocrity of many people. It is these that the Tea Baggers solicit.
Robert one of your clearest insightful comments.
Am I receiving comments from France? What is the noise in Paris about the American misery of the moment?
Very good. I wholeheartedly agree, except with one statement: that today's teabaggers are activists but not radicals. Quite the contrary, an activist has a specific cause, which the teabaggers do not (unless you count intense, irrational anger towards government--only when the government is not headed by a white person--as a platform), and a radical is someone who holds opinions far outside the mainstream, which the teabaggers do. Though the term 'radical' is generally reserved for the left, the teabaggers are united foremost by their far-right-wing fervor, which could arguably be described as radicalism.
Thanks for the endorsement of most of the piece.
I appreciate your analysis and your 'criticism' of some of the terminology used. I hope the thrust of my argument more than offsets any imprecise use of the language.
I was just steamed reading what Brooks tried to pass off in an attempt to legitimize these hooligans.
Post a Comment