Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Tea Party vs. the Intellectuals
Hoover Institution ^ | June/July 2010 | Lee Harris

Posted on 06/15/2010 7:47:06 AM PDT by Palter

Intellectual critics of the Tea Party movement most often attack it for its lack of ideas, especially new ideas — and these critics have a point. But the point they are making reveals as much about them as it does about the Tea Party. Behind the criticism lies the implicit assumption that comes quite naturally to American intellectuals: Namely, that a political movement ought be motivated by ideas and that a new political movement should provide new ideas. But the Tea Party movement is not about ideas. It is all about attitude, like the attitude expressed by the popular poster seen at all Tea Party rallies. Over the head of a hissing rattlesnake threatening to strike is inscribed the defiant slogan so popular among our revolutionary ancestors: “Don’t tread on me!” The old defiant motto is certainly not a new idea. In fact, it is not an idea at all. It is a warning.

If you are an intellectual, you can debate an idea, but how do you debate a warning? No evidence can be adduced to refute it. No logic can be introduced to poke holes in it. All you can do with a warning is to heed it or disregard it. “Don’t tread on me!” is not the deliberate articulation of a well-thought-out political ideology, but rather the expression of an attitude — the attitude of pugnacious and even truculent defiance. But take away this attitude, and what is left of the Tea Party? Not much that respectable intellectuals can respect. First of all, there appears to be no consistent ideology or coherent set of policies behind the movement. Second, when intellectuals turn to examine some of the more radical proposals championed in Tea Party circles, such as the abolition of Social Security or the return to the gold standard, they can only shake their heads in dismay. These crank nostrums are well past their historical expiration date. They may elicit fanatic support from the politically naïve and unsophisticated, but no one who knows how the political world operates will pay them a moment’s notice. Reviving the gold standard in order to solve our economic problems is akin to reviving the horse-and-buggy to reduce our level of carbon emissions. It ain’t gonna happen, and those who put their energies into pursuing these quack solutions are at best engaged in the politics of make-believe.

It is little wonder that so many sober intellectuals find it difficult to take the Tea Party seriously, except to see it as a threat to the future of American politics. But anti-Tea Party intellectuals who are liberal have a luxury that their conservative brethren don’t have. Liberals can attack and deride the Tea Party without fear of alienating their traditional allies among ordinary voters. Indeed, their mockery of the Tea Party makes good sense to them politically. It is throwing red meat to their base. But conservative intellectuals are in a wholly different position.

As the Tea Party gains in momentum, conservative intellectuals are faced with a dilemma: to join the party or denounce it. If they join, they risk losing their status as respectable public intellectuals. If they denounce the party, they risk losing influence over the traditional Republican base.

An alienation of affections

There is something puzzling about the dilemma confronting conservative intellectuals. The Tea Partiers, after all, are emphatic in their insistence that they are true-blue conservatives. Shouldn’t conservative intellectuals be delighted at the rise of populist movement made up of conservatives like themselves? But that is just the problem: The Tea Partiers are not conservatives like themselves. Eminent conservatives, such as David Frum and David Brooks, have made this point by their serial put-downs of the Tea Party movement, largely on the grounds that it lacks intellectual respectability. A few conservative intellectuals, and an even smaller number of liberal intellectuals, have expressed sympathies with the anger and frustration expressed by the Tea Partiers, but, by and large, they have decidedly mixed feelings about the populist conservative movement. They believe it merits close attention, but not serious endorsement.

Liberals can attack and deride the Tea Party without fear of alienating their traditional allies among ordinary voters.

For example, shortly after the Tea Party’s Nashville convention, Arianna Huffington warned that too much emphasis on the “ugly” aspect of the Tea Party movement should not blind us to “the fact that some of what’s fueling the movement is based on a completely legitimate anger directed at Washington and the political establishment of both parties. Think of the Tea Party movement as a boil alerting us to the infection lurking under the skin of the body politic.” Though Arianna Huffington is usually put in the liberal camp, she is here expressing the sentiments of many leading conservatives more sympathetic to the Tea Party movement than Brooks or Frum. According to this point of view, the anger and frustration expressed by the Tea Party movement is understandable. They are the ugly symptoms of a serious problem. But the remedies proposed by the Tea Party to deal with these problems are simplistic and often downright wacko.

If this is the closest that our public intellectuals can get to empathizing with the Tea Party — by looking upon it as a “boil” on the body politic — then perhaps we should consider the possibility that America’s intellectual elite has become radically out of touch with the visceral sensibility of a large chunk of their nation’s population. This might not be a serious problem for liberal intellectuals, who, by and large, have long since ceased to have any interest in influencing the many Americans who have expressed sympathy with the Tea Party movement (according to various polls, as much as 40 percent of the population). But it poses a very grave problem for conservative intellectuals loyal to the Republican Party. Since the election of Nixon in 1968, the Republicans’ political successes have been predicated on winning over the bulk of those Americans who have come to look on “liberal” as a dirty word. Nixon called them “the silent majority.” Pundits after the 2000 election observed that they tended to live in the red states. Alienated by the causes championed by liberal intellectuals, they have reliably voted the Republican ticket, often simply because Republicans were not liberals. They may still vote Republican in the future, but only for those Republican candidates who are willing to join the party — the Tea Party, that is. This puts conservative intellectuals in a terrible bind. If they hope to retain their influence on the Republican Party, they must either join the Tea Party, too, or else battle it out to the bitter end. The bitter end strategy is fraught with peril, however. When conservative intellectuals like Brooks and Frum attack the Tea Party, they win accolades from liberal intellectuals, but they make no dent on the Tea Partiers themselves. Instead, the Tea Partiers simply look on them with the same contempt they have long felt towards liberal intellectuals.

The alienation of affection between intellectual conservatives and the Republican base is like any marriage that has fallen on hard times — it is not easy to determine who first started alienating whom or where blame should be assigned, or even if there should be any blame at all. Conservative intellectuals, appalled by the Tea Party, will of course blame those who started the movement, while the Tea Partiers themselves can return the charge by claiming that they have been betrayed by those conservative intellectuals who in their hearts gone over to the other side. They have become “polite company conservatives,” as Tunku Varadarajan has called them in an attack that singled out both Frum and Brooks. The pcc (short for polite company conservative) is defined by Varadarajan as

a conservative who yearns for the goodwill of the liberal elite in the media and in the Beltway — who wishes, always, to have their ear, to be at their dinner parties, to be comforted by a sense that liberal interlocutors believe that they are not like other conservatives, with their intolerance and boorishness, their shrillness and their talk radio. The pcc, in fact, distinguishes himself from other conservatives not so much ideologically — though there is an element of that — as aesthetically.

Logic 101 points out that ad hominem attacks are invalid. But Varadarajan is really not trying to rebut Frum and Brooks. Instead, he is making an observation about the social psychology of polite company conservatives — a point we need to examine at greater length.1

The company we keep

The field of social psychology deals with how individuals are influenced by the circles in which they move. When the people we are around think a certain way about a particular issue, their judgment will invariably influence our own. Because most of us do not like to be in open conflict with the company we keep, there is natural tendency to align our opinions with those of our companions, especially when it is important to us to be looked upon favorably by them. A socialite moving up the social ladder will adopt the opinions favored by those on a higher rung, often without even noticing it. But under virtually all circumstances, there will be an unconscious movement towards a cognitive harmony with our friends and associates, a process by which our individual minds are fused imperceptibly into a group mind.

This process will be familiar to anyone who must frequently pass between opposing camps. An individual who is in polite company one day but in “rude company” the next will easily appreciate the pressure exerted by the group mind. To be accepted and respected by one group he must repudiate the values and ideals of the other, a problem that most of us avoid by limiting our company to a single group that shares the same values and tastes. But this solution comes at a price. Those who limit their company to a single circle of like-minded friends and acquaintances will inevitably become victims of an irresistible illusion. They will be completely unaware of the immense influence their specific social circle exercises over their own ideas and attitudes. If asked why they hold certain views and opinions, these people will sincerely argue that these are the views and opinions to which they have chosen to subscribe based entirely on their own deliberations and reflections. If asked why he supports gay marriage, for example, a liberal will not say, “Because I have been influenced by elite opinion.” He will argue that he supports it because it is morally right. Needless to say, conservatives who limit their company to others of like mind will suffer from the same illusions. If asked why he thinks Obama is a Marxist, a conservative will not respond by saying, “Because I have been influenced by my favorite right-wing blog.” Instead, he will tell you that it is obvious — anyone can see that Obama is a Marxist.

In the eyes of polite company conservatives, the Tea Partiers clearly represent “rude company” conservatism.

In the eyes of polite company conservatives, the Tea Partiers clearly represent “rude company” conservatism. David Brooks has strongly implied this by calling the Tea Partiers “the Wal-Mart hippies.” Wal-Mart, after all, is not the place where the polite company does its shopping. On the contrary, Wal-Mart is usually chock full of country bumpkins and blue collar types. But while Brooks’s put-down of the average Wal-Mart shopper might delight the sophisticated set that regularly reads the New York Times, it has close to zero effect on Wal-Mart’s customers. They are not bothered in the least that polite company conservatives like Brooks look down their noses at them. This is not because they fail to show adequate respect for David Brooks — it is because they have <never heard of David Brooks.

There are advantages to everything, including ignorance. If you are too ignorant to know who the elite opinion makers are, you will be entirely indifferent to the opinions they hold. Since the people who shop at Wal-Mart do not normally attend the same dinner parties as David Brooks, they will be completely indifferent to the scornful comments made about them by those who do. Because they never read the New York Times, and certainly wouldn’t take it seriously if they did, they could care less about what its op-ed writers say about them. As a result of their ignorance of such matters, they do not judge ideas by whether they come up to the standards of intellectual respectability accepted by the elite. They judge them with their own common sense, caring little whether their conclusions will be shocking and scandalous to polite company. By doing so, they remain outside the influence of elite opinion makers.

The nature of American politics has been revolutionized by the Tea Party’s ability to politicize people who were once apolitical.

Of course there is nothing new in the fact that plenty of ordinary working-class Americans are ignorant of, and indifferent to, the elite opinion makers. This has always been the case. But for most of our nation’s past, this approach to elite opinion had a negligible effect our way of politics. The reason for this was simple. Those who weren’t influenced by elite opinion usually had no political opinions of their own and so had nothing that could be influenced. They were apathetic and apolitical. They did not interest themselves in public affairs, usually because they didn’t find public affairs very interesting. They had better things to think about — their jobs, their families, their homes, their cars, their favorite sports team. If other people were willing to tackle the complicated and tedious problems associated with governing the nation and defending it against foreign foes more power to them. So long as the managerial elite was taking care of business, and ruffling no one’s feathers, ordinary Americans were content to stay on the sidelines. The silent majority would remain contentedly silent, provided that the elite in charge of things did nothing to offend or outrage them.

This is no longer the case. The shock of September 11, the protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the debacle following hurricane Katrina, the inability to control illegal immigration, the financial crisis, the massive bailout, the election of Barack Obama — all these events catastrophically undermined the implicit trust that the silent majority once placed in the competency of our national leadership. For many it has become an article of faith that something has gone terribly wrong with our country. Meanwhile people who previously never bothered to take the trouble to form a strong opinion on political questions began to rally together, staging conventions, endorsing candidates, issuing platforms. Overnight, the apolitical have been transformed into the politically committed. Zeal has replaced apathy. Those who a generation earlier might have expected their leaders to do the right thing have now become convinced that their leaders will inevitably do the wrong thing. Suspicion and paranoia have replaced confidence and trust. The attitude of citizens towards those handling the nation is no longer more power to them, but rather, take away the powers they have stolen from us.

The nature of American politics has been dramatically revolutionized by the Tea Party’s ability to politicize people who were previously apolitical. Having never felt any deference for elite opinion makers in the first place, the newly politicized Tea Partiers find it easy to turn their backs on them. Having never been in the mainstream, they have no qualms getting out of it. Having never spent any time in polite company, they are indifferent to the opinions that circulate there. Instead of relying on elite pundits, the Tea Partiers prefer to get their opinions from flagrantly non-elite sources, such as right-wing blogs and talk radio, both of which are held in disdain by respectable mainstream intellectuals. Tea Partiers enthusiastically embrace what polite company regards as intolerance, boorishness, and shrillness. They wholeheartedly identify with the hissing rattlesnake on their posters and they feel no qualms in warning off intruders with their defiant “Don’t tread on me!” That is why any attempt to discredit the Tea Party movement by attacking its lack of intellectual respectability is certain to backfire. Such a strategy will simply confirm what the Tea Parties already know: that America is governed by an out of touch elite that is openly and relentlessly hostile to the values of ordinary men and women like themselves.

What sparked the Tea Party revolt is mounting dissatisfaction at living in a society in which a small group has increasingly solidified its monopoly over the manufacture and distribution of opinion, deciding which ideas and policies should be looked upon favorably and which political candidates will be sympathetically reported. Even more, the Tea Party rebels bitterly resent the rigid censorship exercised by this elite over the limits of acceptable public discourse. Those who have the power to rule an opinion “out of order” do not need to take the trouble to refute it, or even examine it. They can simply make it go away.

The goal of such censorship is to create a population that has been so well trained and disciplined by the political elite that it will be incapable of even thinking forbidden thoughts. When the forbidden thoughts are deeply repugnant to us personally, it is easy to sympathize with the goal of the censors. The elimination of racist thinking, along with all the other forms that bigoted intolerance can assume, would surely be a national blessing. But this blessing would come at a steep price. If the censors have the power to eliminate thoughts they find objectionable, what will prevent them from abusing their formidable capacity by imposing their own narrow agenda on the rest of society, and for their own selfish purposes? Indeed, what is to keep them from establishing a totalitarian regime that does not need to rely on terror or brute force simply because it has developed far more effective methods of obtaining the consent of the masses — namely, cultural indoctrination?

Challenging cultural hegemony

In his most famous novel, 1984, George Orwell envisioned a society in which the ruling elite has successfully mastered the politics of mind control by altering what was formerly known as the English language into a vehicle of subtle propaganda known as Newspeak. For Orwell, the first and most important step to political totalitarianism was the consolidation of elite control over mass culture. The more thorough and pervasive this control, the harder it would become for anyone to think outside the box of approved ideas. Imperceptibly and over time, the elite would shrink the dimensions of this box until people had very little choice but to toe the party line — not because they thought it to be correct, but because they could no longer imagine an alternative to it. The party line becomes their common sense.

Cultural hegemony, according to Gramsci, did not have to be imposed on the people through threats and intimidation.

A generation before Orwell devised the idea of Newspeak, the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci had developed a concept that in many ways foreshadowed it, but with one major and considerable difference. Before Gramsci discovered Marx, he had been a student of languages. Gramsci was especially fascinated by what happened when two languages collided. Throughout European history, conquerors had routinely moved into new territories where the inhabitants spoke a different language. In some cases, such as the Normans in France, it was the conquerors who picked up the language of the conquered, but more frequently, it was the other way around. What explained this fact? Why did a conquered people so often abandon their own language in order to learn the language of their conquerors?

Gramsci argued that what led people to discard their native language was the greater prestige of the conqueror’s language. The idea of prestige, which had never played a role in classical Marxism, became the key to Gramsci’s most famous concept, cultural hegemony. For Orwell, the cultural hegemony sought by the totalitarian state had to be imposed on the masses through diabolically cunning devices such as the telescreen, a reverse television system that permitted the Thought Police to watch and monitor the activities of citizens in the privacy of their own homes. People did not watch the telescreen. Instead they were watched by it, fully cognizant that if they did anything to displease Big Brother they could face the most ghastly consequences imaginable.

For Orwell the basis of cultural hegemony was terror. For Gramsci, on the other hand, it was prestige. Cultural hegemony, according to Gramsci, did not have to be imposed on the people through threats and intimidation. It didn’t need to be imposed at all. Conquered subjects sought to emulate the prestigious language of their conquerors, while they simultaneously came to look down on their own native tongue as gross, defective, and inferior. In modern liberal societies the same principle has been at work, but with different players. As education became the ticket to worldly success, it naturally became a source of prestige. Prestige no longer came from conquest by arms, but from earning a Ph.D. In modern secular societies, the eminence of the intellectual elite allowed it to unilaterally allocate prestige to select ideas, thinkers, and institutions. Objects imbued with the magical glow of prestige did not need to be pushed on people — on the contrary, people eagerly vied with each other to obtain these objects, often at great personal sacrifice. That is why prestigious institutions, such as major universities, well-endowed foundations, and posh clubs invariably have far more candidates for admission than can possibly be accommodated — a selectivity that makes them even more desirable and prestigious. That is the beauty of prestige: It doesn’t need to lift a finger. It can just sit back and relax, confident that people will flock to its feet, begging for the crumbs from its luxuriant table.

A governing elite that has a monopoly over the allocation of prestige has immense power over a culture.

A governing elite that has a monopoly over the allocation of prestige has immense power over a culture. It can decide what ideas, thinkers, and movements merit attention, while it can also determine what ideas, thinkers, and movements should be dismissed with scorn and contempt — assuming that the elite even condescends to notice their existence. Needless to say, such a setup will lead to a high degree of intellectual cronyism, in which members of the “in” group mutually endorse and reinforce each others’ prestige; but like crony capitalism, this is standard operating procedure of all elites and should come as no surprise. Relying on the natural human desire to gravitate towards prestige, the intellectual elite has no need to resort to the ham-fisted methods of Orwell’s Big Brother.

Despite the fact that Gramsci regarded himself as a Marxist, the central role that he gave to prestige led far from Marxist orthodoxy. In Marxism the ruling class can be easily identified: it has a monopoly on the production and distribution of things. For Gramsci, there is a new ruling class, which has a monopoly on the production and distribution of opinions. Capitalists only trade in products and services. Intellectuals shape and mold people’s perceptions and ideas. In earlier societies, in which intellectuals could only influence people by books and pamphlets, their reach was limited. But with the advent of the modern technology have come new means of reaching out to even the most illiterate masses, influencing them in new and subtle ways, while ingenious methods of psychological manipulation and subliminal persuasion have made it quite simple to mask propaganda under the guise of entertainment. The intellectual elite, simply by achieving cultural hegemony over the masses, could obtain a power of influencing the popular mind that tyrants and despots of a previous era only dreamt about. Because of their immense prestige with the general public, the intellectual elite can frequently win people over to their cause. Those who wish to be regarded as intelligent and current in their ideas will quickly move to adopt those ideas that happen to carry the greatest intellectual prestige at any given time, just as the fashion-conscious will quickly start dressing themselves in the latest clothes concocted by the most prestigious designers. The spell cast by prestige gives those who possess it an immense power to influence society. For Gramsci, the prestige of the dominant elite was sufficient to make people discard their native language in order to acquire a language that ranked higher in prestige. And if people are willing to change languages because of prestige, they will certainly be willing to change their ideas, their values, their customs, and their traditions for the same reason.

Defying the iron law of oligarchy

For better or for worse, the profound cultural changes in American life during the past half century are testament to the enormous influence exercised by our cultural guardians. Ideas, customs, and traditions that no longer find favor in the eyes of the cultural elite have been stigmatized as out-of-date and old-fashioned, while an array of progressive policies have received the imprimatur of elite prestige. In fact, about the only segment of the population that has remained resistant to these progressive policies are the crowds that assemble at Tea Party rallies, holding up their handmade posters. It is the Tea Partiers’ indifference to the whole idea of intellectual respectability that renders them immune to the prestige pressure that molds and shapes the ideas and opinions of those who do care about being intellectually respectable. To put it another way, the Tea Partiers can escape the otherwise all-pervasive influence of our cultural elite because they are the people who Gramsci called marginalized outsiders.

When referring to marginalized outsiders, Gramsci had in mind the kind of people who inhabited his native island of Sardinia. Tough and hardy, ferociously independent, stubborn in their ways, and pugnaciously proud of their own cultural identity, Sardinians embodied the “Don’t tread on me!” attitude and were prepared to back it up with action, often quite violent action. Italians born on the mainland looked down on the islanders, regarding them as crude and uncouth, which by sophisticated standards they certainly were. They also spoke a dialect of Italian that was considered barbarous by those who spoke the preferred Tuscan dialect of the educated and cultured classes. Yet Gramsci, far from feeling shame about his native Sardinia, remained intensely proud of it all his life. Indeed, it was thanks to his native Sardinia that Gramsci came to recognize that snobbery is a powerful form of oppression. Those who establish a monopoly of prestige are no more willing to share their cosa nostra with others than those who have created commercial monopolies.

The only defense that the marginalized outsider has against this onslaught is to not give a damn. And the fact that the Tea Party movement does not give a damn about the current standards of intellectual respectability makes it problematic for the intellectual, who cannot take the same attitude. But it is also the characteristic that justifies the Tea Party’s claim to be revolutionary. To be sure, this is not the revolution envisioned by Marx, in which the working class overthrows the capitalist class. It is rather the revolt of common sense against privileged opinion makers, and, by its very nature, it can only be carried out by men and women who are not constrained by the standards of intellectual respectability current in polite company. Again, it is precisely their status as marginalized outsiders that allows them to defy the monopoly of prestige possessed by the cultural insiders. This fact may put them beyond the pale as far as the conservative intellectuals are concerned, but it is precisely what makes them a force capable of resisting the liberal elite’s efforts to achieve cultural hegemony — a resistance that conservative intellectuals had hoped to mount but which they have not mounted, which explains why the Tea Party movement has so little use for them as a whole. As the Tea Partiers see it, what is most needed right now are not new ideas — we have already had far too many of those. What is needed is the revitalization of a very old attitude — the attitude shared by all people who have been able to maintain their liberty and independence against those who would take it away from them: “We do not need an elite to govern us. We can govern ourselves.”

Ideas, customs, and traditions that no longer find favor in the eyes of the cultural elite have been stigmatized.

A strong argument can be made that this attitude is based on a delusion. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot perish from the earth, because none has ever existed on the earth. Orwell’s Animal Farm  famously tells us that some animals (humans included) will always be more equal than others, which means that every society that has claimed to be a democracy has in fact been managed by an elite, or juggled among a competing group of elites. Sometimes the elite has governed openly, sometimes covertly. Even in ancient Greece, critics argued that the veneer of popular democracy was merely a mask for the cynical manipulation of plutocrats. Twentieth century thinkers such as Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and Robert Michels have argued that every functioning society will inevitably be governed by a ruling class, just as every business enterprise will be governed by its executives — it is what Michels has dubbed “the iron law of oligarchy.”  

All this may be perfectly true. Elite rule may be unavoidable. But this conclusion does not mean that the delusion of pure democracy should be tossed into the trash bin of history. On the contrary, the iron law of oligarchy is itself the best reason for keeping the democratic delusion alive and well. The American philosophy of pragmatism has long recognized that an idea can be an illusion and yet still play a vital and wholly positive role by motivating people to act on it. In particular, the illusion that the people can govern themselves, without the need of an elite, has proven to be immensely useful in restraining elites in their incessant quest for greater and greater power.

The only truly effective check on elite rule is the fear that the people will become fed up with it. When the people decide to try to rule themselves, their first step toward self-government will be to toss out the old elite. True, the people may simply end up by bringing in a new elite, but this is little consolation to the elite that has been replaced. Hence, any ruling elite that wishes to maintain its hold on power will learn to exercise its power within prudent limits, not overreaching and creating dangerous resentment and backlash among the people. This formidable check on elite power does not arise from flimsy constitutional safeguards, which can always be circumvented, but from the suspicious, even paranoid attitude of defiance displayed by ordinary citizens, which is much harder to get around.  

The lesson of history is stark and simple. People who are easy to govern lose their freedom. People who are difficult to govern retain theirs. What makes the difference is not an ideology, but an attitude. Those people who embody the “Don’t tread on me!” attitude have kept their liberties simply because they are prepared to stand up against those who threaten to tread on them. To the pragmatist, it makes little difference what ideas free people use to justify and rationalize their rebellious attitude. The most important thing is simply to preserve this attitude among a sufficiently large number of people to make it a genuine deterrent against the power hungry. If the Tea Party can succeed in this all-important mission, then the pragmatist can forgive the movement for a host of silly ideas and absurd policy suggestions, because he knows what is really at stake. Once the “Don’t tread on me!” attitude has vanished from a people, it never returns. It is lost and gone forever — along with the liberty and freedom for which, ultimately, it is the only effective defense.


Lee Harris is the author of The Next American Civil War: The Populist Revolt Against the Liberal Elite (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). His previous books include The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West (Basic, 2007) and Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History (Free Press, 2004).


1 While Varadarajan has criticized polite company conservatives, he has by no means been a blind or enthusiastic champion of the Tea Party.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: parties; politics; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 06/15/2010 7:47:06 AM PDT by Palter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Palter

“Intellectuals” should be in quotation marks... just like any other contrived, self-congratulatory term.


2 posted on 06/15/2010 7:48:43 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? You are a socialist with no rational argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

It concedes too much bias to call the “critics” intellectuals.

There is no debating a Socialist. They lie too brazenly and will never concede a point.


3 posted on 06/15/2010 7:48:45 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Throw the bums out in 2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter
Eminent conservatives, such as David Frum and David Brooks

Stopped right there. Anyone who takes seriously that these two clown are eminent or conservative is clueless.

4 posted on 06/15/2010 7:49:40 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

Tea Party is for the ideals of the Founders, They aren’t new but they are timeless and they work.


5 posted on 06/15/2010 7:50:19 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

That is part of the ‘intellectual’, lol, framing who or what a person is.


6 posted on 06/15/2010 7:51:01 AM PDT by Palter (Kilroy was here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Palter
Faux Intellectuals.

By their actions they demonstrate no more intellectual ability then a parrot.

Their chief skill is to mindlessly regurgitate what ever pablum was fed to them by the Progressive Fascist political/media machine

7 posted on 06/15/2010 7:52:15 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The problem with Socialism is eventually you run our of other peoples money. Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

It renders this article worthless though. No conservative from any station in life that I know accepts the absurd premise that Brooks or Frum are “eminent conservatives.” Ironically, it turns the article into an intellectual exercise, not based in reality.


8 posted on 06/15/2010 7:53:12 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Palter
The Tea Party vs. the IntellectualsELITISTS

And there are a few other choice names I could come up with.

9 posted on 06/15/2010 7:53:38 AM PDT by Outlaw Woman (Blessed Is The Nation Whose God is the Lord. Psalm 33:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

Do you not think there is such a thing?


10 posted on 06/15/2010 7:53:50 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Palter

That’s a lot o’ words....

An my feabile brain ain’t gots so much space.....

So alls I kin think is them thar intIElectuals cain’t figgure out that

Stimulus don’t stimulate
Bailouts reward failure
Nationalization of industry is communism
0bummerCare is a kind of physical slavery

I jes cain’t figgure out how to talk with them thar inTIElectuals if they don’t unnerstand that.

Whats a simple poor fool gotta do sos them inTIElectuals will let him join there club? Go study up on Plato?


11 posted on 06/15/2010 7:54:23 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (0bummer calls opponents "Teabaggers". So we can call Kagan "Carpet Muncher." Right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
Stimulus don’t stimulate
Bailouts reward failure
Nationalization of industry is communism
0bummerCare is a kind of physical slavery

This should be repeated at every townhall and campaign rally. Nothing "new" or "intellectual" about those ideas, just plain common sense.
12 posted on 06/15/2010 7:57:59 AM PDT by YankeeReb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Palter

What a load of self-puffery.

Tea Partiers have an excellent blueprint. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

And it’s time tested, as well. For centuries.


13 posted on 06/15/2010 7:58:01 AM PDT by Tigerized (pursuingliberty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter
OK, the problem I becoming more and more convinced of is that those who consider themselves "intellectual" are stupid.

We have a national debt of $13 trillion. The "intellectuals" want to spend more money. The Tea Partyers shout "NO, YOU WILL DESTROY OUR COUNTRY" The "intellectuals" can't see their point. The only explanation for this inability is that they are really stupid people who think they are smart.

14 posted on 06/15/2010 7:58:59 AM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

“The old defiant motto is certainly not a new idea. In fact, it is not an idea at all. It is a warning.”.....

Intellectuals have great ideas...if you live in a bubble. They can run a classroom but not a country! Their ideas are pure chaos when guiding a countries people and economy!


15 posted on 06/15/2010 8:00:10 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

Who gets to define “intellectual”? I’m not much impressed by their choices lately.


16 posted on 06/15/2010 8:00:30 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter Of Fact, Not A Matter Of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

Democrats calling themselves “intellectuals” is like a pack of “skinheads” carrying the Confederate flag...they just don’t go together.


17 posted on 06/15/2010 8:00:48 AM PDT by FrankR (Standing against tyranny must start somewhere, or the future belongs to the tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Intellectuals are all about ideology...not running anything!


18 posted on 06/15/2010 8:01:11 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

I didn’t read this blathering, excessive lib crap.


19 posted on 06/15/2010 8:01:20 AM PDT by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Palter

Libs are oh so wise! If only the Tea Party had some actual ideas!!!

Telling government to stop spending isn’t an idea, it’s just... awful!

Government control and socialism? Now THERE’s an idea good smart libs can get behind. And if you object? well we’ll set up some re-education camps. And if you can’t be educated well, maybe 20-25 million will have to be killed-MAX.

Now there’s some dam good ideas, right Harris?


20 posted on 06/15/2010 8:01:23 AM PDT by Mr. K (This administration IS WEARING OUT MY CAPSLOCK KEY!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter
This article is based on a false premise. The so-called "intellectual" of academia and the Far Left is only a pseudointellectual.

Most have not studied the history of civilization, the writings of the great thinkers of history, or the philosophy and ideas underlying their nation's own Declaration of Independence and Constitution. How can they be labeled "intellectuals"?

On the other hand, a substantial number of the so-called TEA Partiers have been reading the now-available-online writings of America's Founders and early historians, and they are basing their protests on IDEAS--ideas which were articulated clearly and concisely in THE FEDERALIST, in the words of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, the Adamses, and ordinary farmers and newspaper columnists of the founding period.

This is much ado about nothing. America's Founders and the TEA Partiers of today have much in common--they share a passion for their liberty, which they feel is threatened in the same manner as that of the colonists in 1776.

"The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people." - John Adams

Clearly, the "passion" in the minds of America's Founders was liberty. New generations, faced with tyranny by an overgrown government power, are acquiring that passion also--and it is based on ideas.

21 posted on 06/15/2010 8:02:31 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

I think that describing liberals as “intellectuals” is lunacy, considering their entire philosophical belief system flies in the face of anything even remotely resembling rational thought or even reality itself. The label is entirely self-derived by liberals themselves, hence the apt descriptions “contrived” and “self-congratulatory”.

Liberals are as far removed from true intellectual thought and discourse as one can possibly get.


22 posted on 06/15/2010 8:07:28 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? You are a socialist with no rational argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Palter
Total crap. I stopped at the tea-party movement isn't about ideas, it's about attitude.

Just another arrogant "intellectual" pontificating on his own superiority.

If there is one truth about the tea-party movement, it is that it is fundamentally about ideas, and more important (and also missed by this clueless jerk) it's about ideals. To be precise, it's about the ideals of our Founding Fathers and those things which are absolutely fundamental for liberty, freedom, prosperity, and security.

What a putz.
23 posted on 06/15/2010 8:09:24 AM PDT by Sudetenland (Slow to anger but terrible in vengence...such is the character of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

The Tea Party movement has an Idea,the Idea is not new and the Idea deeply attacks the so called intellectuals core beliefs.

That Idea is called the US Constitution and the message of less government equaling more individual liberty.

The so called intellectuals are collectivists and the concept of the ‘individual’ is foreign to them.


24 posted on 06/15/2010 8:11:32 AM PDT by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I almost stopped reading it but the article actually ends well. This wasn’t meant for Tea Party people this was meant for the “elite” to read.
25 posted on 06/15/2010 8:11:53 AM PDT by outpostinmass2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Palter
Is a new bad idea better than a old proven idea?

As Rudyard Kipling wrote in the poem copybook headings...
BTW- if you are unaware the copybook was the method of education where students would practice by writing down such thing as "A- in Adam's fall we sinned all." This accomplished the passing on of knowledge while learning to read and write.

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race, I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind, So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Rudyard Kipling


26 posted on 06/15/2010 8:14:48 AM PDT by DaveyB (Alcohol ,Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store not a bureaucracy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

Well your comment was without that context so I thought you meant there is no such thing.


27 posted on 06/15/2010 8:17:15 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Huck

It stopped me for a moment as well.


28 posted on 06/15/2010 8:21:18 AM PDT by RedMDer (Throw them all out in 2010... Forward with Confidence! Forward!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Palter
In my dealings with the TEA Party on a local level (want to stress that), it wasn't the ideas they had; it was that they had no ideas. They purported to be opposed to tax increases, spending, etc., but ended up supporting a guy who as a school board members voted to raise property taxes on several occassions (to go along with the increase in appraisals). There was also a lot of talk and no action in terms of working for candidates, building a real grassroots organization, etc. It was nothing more than a clique. And I say again, that was one group at a very local level.
29 posted on 06/15/2010 8:23:48 AM PDT by Sic Parvis Magna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

I reject the premise of the headline.

The snobs are saying:

tea party = stupid

intelectuals = not tea party = smart.

very orwellian.


30 posted on 06/15/2010 8:25:38 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter
The premise behind "intellectuals" can be generalized as "I have read the works of Sartre in their original French, therefore I am not merely fit to rule you, I have an actual duty to do it."

There seems to be a lot of BS (especially calling Brooks and Frum conservatives), but this last paragraph is worth the dig through it.

The lesson of history is stark and simple. People who are easy to govern lose their freedom. People who are difficult to govern retain theirs. What makes the difference is not an ideology, but an attitude. Those people who embody the “Don’t tread on me!” attitude have kept their liberties simply because they are prepared to stand up against those who threaten to tread on them. To the pragmatist, it makes little difference what ideas free people use to justify and rationalize their rebellious attitude. The most important thing is simply to preserve this attitude among a sufficiently large number of people to make it a genuine deterrent against the power hungry. If the Tea Party can succeed in this all-important mission, then the pragmatist can forgive the movement for a host of silly ideas and absurd policy suggestions, because he knows what is really at stake. Once the “Don’t tread on me!” attitude has vanished from a people, it never returns. It is lost and gone forever — along with the liberty and freedom for which, ultimately, it is the only effective defense.


31 posted on 06/15/2010 8:25:52 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (I am so immune to satire that I ate three Irish children after reading Swift's "A Modest Proposal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

Tea Partiers needn’t be “intellectuals,” but they should be “intelligent” enough to not split the vote in a three-way race between a conservative who has raised nearly $200,000, Military Veteran and who served in sub-cabinet positions at eh Department of veterans Affairs and Department of Homeland Security and a brash in your face candidate who is vague on his Military service and has raised only $8,000 and hand the race to a young RINO establishment candidate, claiming to be conservative, but supports and votes for a bill that favors the SEIU.


32 posted on 06/15/2010 8:29:42 AM PDT by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

“If you are too ignorant to know who the elite opinion makers are, you will be entirely indifferent to the opinions they hold.”

Why is it unimaginable to the author that there are many people who know the identity of ‘elite opinion makers’ full well, but DON’T CARE what their opinions are?


33 posted on 06/15/2010 8:33:10 AM PDT by Clioman (wHAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter
The very term "intellectual" falsely implies a level of true education and understanding that most "intellectuals" don't have. Keep in mind that virtually every university has a degree program along the lines of "ethnic studies" or "women's studies" etc. What level of education about the real world do these degrees impart? Exactly zero, by their very definition. If one were to study history, for example, only through the lense of "African-American" studies, one would have a warped, inaccurate, and very, very limited view of world history. Even more importantly, the very definition of the course program implies a bias - one that suggests that all things will be pro-African American, both in the sense of favoring them and in the sense of focusing on their part whether such focus is warranted or not. In essence, we have degree programs which are not designed to educate - they are designed to indoctrinate the students with a particular world view.

However, the implication of indoctrination is not limited to blatantly biased courses like "Women's Studies". When something on the order of 95% of your teaching staff are members of a particular ideology (left-wing Democrats, for example), one cannot expect coursework in even otherwise impartial study programs to remain unbiased. As a recent example, we have two schools of thought among climatologists in the world: one in which man-made global warming is occurring, and one where man-made global warming is not occurring. Since left-wing Democrats, in the political arena, have made the "man-made global warming is occurring" position part of their party platform and have wholly incorporated it into their ideology, we cannot reasonably expect a left-wing Democrat teaching staff in the area of climatology or any other related science to be unbiased in their teachings on that subject. So, if man-made global warming is NOT occurring (or if there is merely no evidence to show that it is) and yet we have university professors across the globe teaching that it IS occurring, then our students are getting a factually incorrect "education", which is worse than no education at all. Teaching that 2+2=4 is good. Teaching that 2+2=5 is not only bad, it is worse than not teaching math at all.

Once you understand that these course programs are designed to indoctrinate rather than educate, and that ideology rather than fact dictates most of the "intellectuals'" positions on matters, the term "intellectual" becomes meaningless. Framing the debate as "intellectuals" vs. common people falsely implies that the "intellectuals" have any greater education in ANYTHING than the "common" people who constitute a grass-roots movement like the Tea Party.
34 posted on 06/15/2010 8:36:06 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Perhaps instead of shouting, “NO YOU WILL DESTROY OUR COUNTRY,” they should explain why they believe that is what will happen.

Intellectuals, as they’re called in the article, probably want to hear reasons, rather than get shouted at.
But that’s like anybody, really.


35 posted on 06/15/2010 8:37:37 AM PDT by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

“I think that describing liberals as ‘intellectuals’ is lunacy”

This sums up my response, as well. I’m reluctant to even respond to the assertion of “liberal intellectualism” out of concern that my thoughts might be polluted by such a ludicrous concept.


36 posted on 06/15/2010 8:37:50 AM PDT by Brouhaha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Palter

As Robert Bork once pointed out, an “intellectual” is someone who works with words and ideas but that doesn’t mean the “intellectual” is smart. I do not believe that Lee Harris necessarily believes “intellectuals” to be actually intelligent or to possess wisdom. I also believe that when he refers to Frum and Brooks as elite intellectuals he is employing the term as more of a title or way they would think of themselves and not as an objective or demonstrable fact.

I found this to be an excellent essay that showed a good deal of insight and understanding of current political conditions. Mr. Harris is a brilliant man. I have read other things he has written and he seems to me to have a pretty good read on things.


37 posted on 06/15/2010 8:48:15 AM PDT by scory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter
I guess Ambassdor and Justice Clarenc Thomas are not "intellectual" enough and have no ideas.

Here's an idea:

Obey the Constitution or amend it. One possible amendment:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied persons at least 17 years of age and under 60 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States. At the time of entry into the militia, Congress shall supply each militia member with a modern small arm and a ready stock of ammunition for it.

Works for the Swiss, except they only include men. I'd include everyone.

38 posted on 06/15/2010 8:56:36 AM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario
Perhaps instead of shouting, “NO YOU WILL DESTROY OUR COUNTRY,” they should explain why they believe that is what will happen.

IOW, there is a group of people who declare themselves to be thinkers that cannot see that it is self-evident that destroying the meaning of our money and making workers feel it is not in their self-interest to work for a wage, farmers to feel it better to hoard their product for barter, the defense industry to feel it is not worth it to innovate and manufacture etc. is destroying or at best greatly weakening and impoverishing this nation.

It wouldn't be so bad if these people just simply recognized they were clueless and not try to influence policy, but as I noted this group of very stupid people think they are smart.

I mean you understand that it is self-evident that incurring debt that is impossible to pay is a very, very bad and destructive thing, right?

39 posted on 06/15/2010 9:02:46 AM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario
Intellectuals, as they’re called in the article, probably want to hear reasons, rather than get shouted at.

Been there done that. A two by four works better on most of the "intellectuals".

40 posted on 06/15/2010 9:04:33 AM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Palter
Eminent conservatives, such as David Frum and David Brooks

Why I am not a conservative ... say, wasn't that the title of an essay by Hayek?

41 posted on 06/15/2010 9:04:58 AM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I guess Ambassdor and Justice Clarenc Thomas

Try that again

I guess Ambassdor Alan Keyes and Justice Clarence Thomas...

42 posted on 06/15/2010 9:07:53 AM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Palter
Wal-Mart, after all, is not the place where the polite company does its shopping. On the contrary, Wal-Mart is usually chock full of country bumpkins and blue collar types

The WalMart I go to, when I must, is full of guys and gals in shades of green, and many women and children in T shirts with a big "A" or the word "Army" on them. Actually true of the 3 closest WalMarts.

I'll take their company over that of "the polite company".

43 posted on 06/15/2010 9:11:45 AM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Yep, I sure do. All I can figure is that Americans are eternal optimists. They always figure things will be better in the future.

That’s why people take out mortgages, or school loans, or borrow money to start businesses. That’s why unemployed job-seekers will buy a new suit on credit, so that they can go on interviews.They figure that borrowing money against future earnings will enable them to raise their incomes and pay that money back.

Back in the 1980s, there was a real fear that the US would never be able to balance its budget again. But things change. What looks impossible today can seem relatively achievable in another five years.

As long as the money that’s borrowed is used for productive investment instead of mere present-day consumption, I don’t have an issue with deficit spending. It’s how I started my small business, and it’s paid off.


44 posted on 06/15/2010 9:13:53 AM PDT by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: worst-case scenario
That’s why people take out mortgages,

So it would be absolutely fine in your view for a couple making $35,000 to take out a mortgage on a $500,000 home?

Maybe we should look at from the lenders point of view because that's what We The People really are concerning the debt. Do you think it self-evidently unwise to loan money to a couple making $35,000 for a mortgage on a $500,000 home?

45 posted on 06/15/2010 9:19:12 AM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Huck

If conservative means to conserve the status quo of diminishing individual liberty, enormous Federal government, and perpetual foreign wars, I suppose Frum and Brooks are good conservatives.

If conservative means something like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan thought it meant, Frum and Brooks fail.


46 posted on 06/15/2010 9:19:48 AM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I noticed that the author touched on the intellectuals tendency to label solutions as “simplistic” when they are simple.

Tell us why it won’t work, “intellectuals”. You don’t get to dismiss it without addressing why it won’t work as well as your “complex” ideas.


47 posted on 06/15/2010 9:23:27 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Clioman
“If you are too ignorant to know who the elite opinion makers are, you will be entirely indifferent to the opinions they hold.”

Why is it unimaginable to the author that there are many people who know the identity of ‘elite opinion makers’ full well, but DON’T CARE what their opinions are?

That statement you specifically pulled out makes no sense whatever -- if it's intended to insult, it misses entirely. One cannot be "too" ignorant, either you know or you do not, there is no qualifying. As you note, Clioman, even if you are aware of whom these so-called elite opinion makers are, indifference to their opinions is no slam. I'm thinking this one was written by yet one more of these folks who want to pontificate their intellectual capacity by using *big words* -- only to demonstrate they don't comprehend their meaning.

48 posted on 06/15/2010 9:27:07 AM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrB

As an engineer, I know the simplest solutions are best. Simple in concept at least. Implemenation is often another matter. But if the basic concept is simple, and easy to understand and analyze, it will likely work, if it’s not discarded during the analysis. Or if it doesn’t work, it will be pretty obvious pretty quickly.


49 posted on 06/15/2010 9:31:08 AM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

What a silly question, a perfect Straw Man argument. I’d think such a mortgage was impossible, unless there was some solid indication that their incomes would be increasing dramatically and in a very short time, say, weeks.

The only way I’d be “absolutely fine” with such a loan is got such remarkable terms that they can afford the payments on their current salary. Let’s say 5.5% for 100 or 125 years. But there aren’t any mortgages that exist like that. No legitimate bank would offer them.

Aside from positing completely ridiculous scenarios, what about my premise that responsible deficit spending can be legitimate, both personally and nationally?


50 posted on 06/15/2010 9:35:01 AM PDT by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson