Tea party and New Left
Jonah Goldberg writes at National Review about New York Times columnist David Brooks' comparisons between the Tea Party movement and the New Left of the 1960's:
"[T]he basic arguments and outlook of the Tea Parties are simply and profoundly different from the outlook of the New Left. The Tea Partiers are not in any meaningful sense Rousseauians. They certainly don't reject original sin in any serious way. And I suspect if you asked many of them they would say that the American people deserve their share of blame for the financial mess we're in. They do believe, I would bet, that America is a basically decent nation that has drifted into a kind of soft-despotism or Nanny-statism. But that vision isn't Rousseauian, it's De Tocquevillian."
First of all, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am not now nor have I ever been part of the Tea Party or any Tea Party function. I thoroughly enjoy the Tea Party. I would much rather have dinner with or spend time with members of that movement than members of the New Left movement of the 1960s. I would also find much more in common with the Tea Party movement than those of the New Left movement. I remain highly skeptical of Ron Paul and I doubt that Sarah Palin could win the Presidency although, again, I would find much more in common with Paul and Palin than members of the New Left.
To me the most important distinction between the Tea Party and the New Left movement is made by Goldberg at the end of his essay:
"Brooks' colleague Thomas Friedman believes that we need to start thecalendar at Year One with the new Energy Climate Era or some such). Itwas Obama who wanted a "new declaration of independence." The Tea Partiers like the old one just as it is, thank you very much. And that spells all the difference in the world."
I've heard of people who want some new amendments to the Constitution in order to make it work better; it makes me immediately suspicious of them. I usually reply that we first should follow our current Constitution.
My conservative dream is that every single middle school history class would spend six weeks on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - those original source documents that make us so unique. I would suspect that I would find nearly unanimous support for this proposition among the members of the Tea Party. Those who still claim the views of the New Left movement from the 1960s, not so much.
Thanks, David.
"[T]he basic arguments and outlook of the Tea Parties are simply and profoundly different from the outlook of the New Left. The Tea Partiers are not in any meaningful sense Rousseauians. They certainly don't reject original sin in any serious way. And I suspect if you asked many of them they would say that the American people deserve their share of blame for the financial mess we're in. They do believe, I would bet, that America is a basically decent nation that has drifted into a kind of soft-despotism or Nanny-statism. But that vision isn't Rousseauian, it's De Tocquevillian."
First of all, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am not now nor have I ever been part of the Tea Party or any Tea Party function. I thoroughly enjoy the Tea Party. I would much rather have dinner with or spend time with members of that movement than members of the New Left movement of the 1960s. I would also find much more in common with the Tea Party movement than those of the New Left movement. I remain highly skeptical of Ron Paul and I doubt that Sarah Palin could win the Presidency although, again, I would find much more in common with Paul and Palin than members of the New Left.
To me the most important distinction between the Tea Party and the New Left movement is made by Goldberg at the end of his essay:
"Brooks' colleague Thomas Friedman believes that we need to start thecalendar at Year One with the new Energy Climate Era or some such). Itwas Obama who wanted a "new declaration of independence." The Tea Partiers like the old one just as it is, thank you very much. And that spells all the difference in the world."
I've heard of people who want some new amendments to the Constitution in order to make it work better; it makes me immediately suspicious of them. I usually reply that we first should follow our current Constitution.
My conservative dream is that every single middle school history class would spend six weeks on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - those original source documents that make us so unique. I would suspect that I would find nearly unanimous support for this proposition among the members of the Tea Party. Those who still claim the views of the New Left movement from the 1960s, not so much.
Thanks, David.
Comments