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.
Got their start as Red Diaper doper babies. Indoctrinated in Marxist ideals and the calls for revolution by their parents, instructors, and "comrades".
Those who come to conservativism probably point to one individual here or there who got them on the path (and then led them to more reading, etc).
The dominant media has browbeat the public for decades that to be "politically correct" is to be liberal. Anything else is satirized and demonized and wholly misrepresented. Even historical accounts are revised to serve the movement.
And anarchy is a libertarian thing; no difference.
If a populist movement arises in a society which has a fairly free market, that is true. But if one arises in a society which is dominated by government, such as Poland in the late 1970s or America under Obama, it isn't true.
Correct.
When you are dealing with a dictatorial communist like 0bama, who uses no holds barred, hardball, destructive tactics to crush all who oppose him, you have no alternative but to his his own tactics against him. Always put yourself in the mind of your enemy, and figure out what they are going to do next, then use his own strengths and tactics against him.
Thats funny, when you consider that the most dangerous thing he does is to roll the tape and let us hear them speak with their own words coming out of their own mouths.
The issue that should concern conservatives is that the Tea Party movement is a populist movement. And populist movements are inherently unconservative.
Huh? You can’t have a populist movement in support of enumerated Constitutional rights (also known as republican form of government)? I think they chose the name Tea Party because it beckened back to another populist movement called the American Revolution.
There’s a broad spectrum of philosophies that go under the name of libertarian and not all believe in abolishing government.
“True Conservatives” by this guy’s definition would have loved Mussolini.
When you have a Kenyan Muslim Communist in charge, determined to destroy the country with the help of corrupt idiots like Pelosi and Reid, then that’s hardly the time to sit back on your sofa and think about Original Sin.
Yes, there is original sin. And there’s also actual sin. And there’s evil. And I’m sorry to say that evil people have taken over our country. Corrupt, greedy, power-drunk, heartless. The kind of people who like to kill babies and smile while they do it.
The term “conservative” in our country usually applies to individuals that believe the constitution should be followed as written and do not believe it is a living document unless the amendment process is followed.
But non-conservatives sometimes forget that that same constitution was written by revolutionaries. If the constitution has become ignored and irrelevant over time that revolutionary spirit will return. The term Tea Partier fits that feeling very well.
A civil society does not pass on trillions of dollars of debt to children not yet born.
A civil society does not force its citizens into an inferior health care system while providing the political class with a superior system just for themselves.
A civil society does not seek to destroy law-abiding businesses with destructive regulations and fees to battle an imaginary crisis.
A civil society does not confiscate the wealth of the nation and dole out the spoils out to its political comrades.
A marxist society is NOT a civil society.
And to compare the Tea Party to the radicals of the sixties is idiotic in the extreme. How many inner cities have the Tea Partiers burned down? How many cops have they killed? How many soldiers have they spit on? How many god-awful folk singers have they unleashed?
Sometimes, just letting the dictator flame out without any help is sufficient. That’s the tack the GOP is taking in the Bummercare fiasco.
Alisky’s rules are Stalinist by nature. Say one thing to tear down the opposition. Use one argument to pass some legislation. Hypocrisy is not an issue. “By any means necessary” is.
They lie like Stalinists and do not have any moral feelings that this is “wrong”.
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!
All who have read and absorbed Edmund Burke's "Speech on Conciliation . . . ." or any who knew Dr. Russell Kirk or his extensive writings will immediately recognize that this writer neither knows nor understands either of these two great thinkers. What a shallow summation of both!
So much for his "analysis" of Tea Partiers and/or conservatives!
One fact is certain: those who are involved in Tea Parties must not let either the Far Left or radical elements in the society define them. The problem with labels, such as "conservative," is that they mean one thing to one person and another to another.
The future of liberty in the world is at stake right now, and those who truly wish to preserve (conserve) the principles and ideas of liberty underlying our Declaration of Independence and Constitution must define themselves as just that--preservers of liberty!
Really, not Freedom, not Liberty? The problem with a statement like "societal stability" is that it allows others to define what creates the stability and/or creates limiting factors to create said stability. "Societal stability" is a result, it isn't a finish line.
Could John Feehery and David Brooks possibly be more clueless? I think not. Even when armed with a dictionary definition of conservatism, they still manage to get it wrong.
This is confused gobbeldegook.
The things he attacks -- Rush, conspiracy theories, incivility -- were around before the tea parties and don't really make a single cohesive package.
Politics have always been rough and tumble, and if you make stability or institutional continuity or some vision of "social stability" your touchstone you lose out to those who are willing to mobilize masses and passions. If only in self-defense, you can't simply speak softly and celebrate the status quo.
But he does have a valid point: movement politics do tend to get out of control and sometimes people do come to relish polarization more than the actual goals they strive for. Enmity or animosity can become an end in itself when passions get too strong.
One of Alinsky’s key tactics is to try to use your own values against you. That is the primary thing this article does. It fails, because like most non-conservatives he doesn’t understand the nature of American conservatism, which has nothing at all to do with traditionalism and does not place order as its supreme value.
For us its constitutionalism. Rule of law. Personal responsibility. Liberty.
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.