I have always thought of David Brooks as the token conservative idiot at The New York Times, but this column sent by Munz makes some sense. I might also ask why the left isn’t also hitting to streets to demand our own brave new world. Of course, when the left make a move – as with the anti-globalization folks – they are too often confronted by some variation of the above, whereas the Tea Baggers seem to have the law on their side. (Those are Peruvian riot police.)
“About 40 years ago, a social movement arose to destroy the establishment. The people we loosely call the New Left wanted to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution. Today, another social movement has arisen. The people we loosely call the Tea Partiers also want to destroy the establishment. They also want to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution. There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart. But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left. (Click here for the whole column.)
.JPG)
5 comments:
The problem is those who hold office or have the cash to back the left are fucking pussies. Whereas the ones who hold office or have the cash to back the right are sharks.
We need some SHARKS.
Are they bourgeois or Wal-Mart shopping white trash? Oh, and which "Tea Party" are we talking about? Simplifications.
... Simplifications. You're being generous, Nick. Brooks is in no danger of becoming a thinker. What a mess of half-baked ideas and contradictions. "Mental flailing" comes to mind.
I've noticed certain similarities twixt New Lefties and the so-called Tea Baggers, but ultimately they are -- as Kass and Nick point out -- superficial, as is David Brooks. There's a huge difference between people trying to save the human race and people trying to keep their taxes low. And to compare con man Glenn Beck -- the Lonesome Rhodes of the 21st Century -- and Abbie, who fought for voting rights in Mississippi and to end the war in Vietnam and was harassed by the full weight of the law enforcement complex, is plain idiotic.
Post a Comment