Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Though generally a fan of the Tea Party, Matt Lewis urges conservatives to pause to think about five elements about the movement that could prove destructive:
1. Lack of reverence for conservative leaders and organizations. It has been my observation that many of today's new activists are quick to conflate being "old" with being part the establishment....Conservatives would be foolish to abandon the wisdom of elders, much less eschew the infrastructure that has been created over recent decades, merely because it existed prior to 2010.
2. A move away from social conservatism. [T]he Tea Party has the potential to change [the conservative movement], possibly making it more libertarian...This could be good or bad (depending on your views), but it is a phenomenon worth considering.
3. Anti-Intellectualism. [C]onservatism began as a coherent intellectual philosophy. But in recent decades, conservatives have mocked "pointy-headed liberal intellectuals," creating an impression that intelligence is almost something to be skeptical of. While I am certainly not advocating elitism, I would strongly encourage conservatives to reject populism. Conservative candidates who can eloquently advocate for conservative positions have a better chance of impacting the culture than do demagogues who cannot effectively communicate their philosophy to the masses.
4. Purges. [T]here is...a danger of Jacobinism, where even fellow revolutionaries are purged -- not for philosophical apostasy but for not being "team players." In recent weeks, we have seen conservative writers labeled RINO's for questioning the background of a Tea Party candidate.
5. The Victim Card. Recently, a prominent conservative voice accused Karl Rove of sexism. While sexism certainly does exist, fair criticism and analysis of a female political candidate does not constitute sexism. Though winning is important, how you play the game is, perhaps, more telling. Conservatives should avoid copying the tactics of the left.
I can't exactly see where Lewis is coming from with his fifth point -- a single example can hardly be used to identify a characteristic of an entire movement -- but his other points seem fair and constructive. Though it seldom happens in the world of politics, a bit of introspection seems like an entirely healthy and positive thing.
- Comment (78)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Franco: Anti intellectualism. Calling someone anti intellectual is not an argument, it is just conflating disagreement and skepticism and giving it a convenient label. I am not at all anti intellectual, but I do understand the limits of abstractions. A lot of very smart people obviously don't. · Sep 28 at 3:36pm
Nicely put. Item #3 from the original post is akin to the left running around calling everyone Islamophobes/homophobes/etc.
Tom Sowell sums it up well in his book on the subject..
"Yet the American public honors intellectual achievements in science, engineering or the medical profession -- which is to say, fields whose practioiners exhibit high intellectual ability but who are not intellectuals in the occupational sense defined here. As in many other contexts, imputing unworthy notions to others serves as a substitue for answering their arguments."
May '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Nor is an appeal to authority a strong argument, if both sides do not agree on that person or organization's expertise.
Edited on Sep 28, 2010 at 4:40pmSep '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Now i'll try to paraphrase and pass it off as my own argument.
I do not believe there is a strong positive correlation between being skeptical of intellectuals, and being "skeptical of intelligence". This is evidenced by the high esteem in which most americans hold highly intelligent individuals in fields like engineering, science, and medicine.
Sep '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
And really, who are the intellectual pundits? Certainly Karl Rove is smart but he isn't an intellectual. Mike Murphy? Not an intellectual. Krauthammer? Yes. Victor Davis Hanson? Yes (he is with the tea partiers mostly)Thomas Sowell? Definitely, and also sympathetic to Tea Party sentiments.
David Frum? David Brooks, Ross Douhat? These are the ones who really thrive by playing contrarian, mostly based on their own agenda. Conservatives resent that they allow themselves to be used as props to advance the Democrat narrative. So, either they aren't smart enough to realize they are being used, or they don't care since they are getting paid and advancing their own agenda. Being against these guys is not being anti intellectual, not at all.
Not to be all anti intellectual or anything, but often if you have a feeble argument, you need an intellectually adept person to advance it. This doesn't mean that all intellectual arguments are invalid of course, but I'm not an intellectual and I can see through many of these arguments, so what does that make them? Im not very impressed, and I certainly am not going to hold "reverence" for their opinions.
Edited on Sep 28, 2010 at 6:11pmJul '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Franco: David Frum? David Brooks, Ross Douhat? These are the ones who really thrive by playing contrarian, mostly based on their own agenda. Sep 28 at 6:08pm
Edited on Sep 28 at 06:11 pm
True, but what is that agenda? Perhaps it's to receive the occasional pat on the head from left-wing cultural elites. Perhaps it's economically viable. Both of those probably come into play to some degree. But I think the main reason they are so often contrarian is to develop credibility with their audience. I don't mean that they are lying, I just think that any time they see an opportunity to disagree with conservatives broadly, they take it.
So, when they do pitch a conservative policy, their opinions matter (with their audience) because they aren't in the tank for every right-wing idea that appears.
Edited on Sep 28, 2010 at 6:39pmSep '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Palaeologus
But I think the main reason they are so often contrarian is to develop credibility with their audience. I don't mean that they are lying, I just think that any time they see an opportunity to disagree with conservatives broadly, they take it.
So when they do pitch a conservative policy, their opinons matter (once again, with their audience) because they aren't in the tank for every right-wing idea that appears. · Sep 28 at 6:34pm
Edited on Sep 28 at 06:37 pm
I really dont think they are convincing anyone at CNN or readers of the NY Times . Media outlets are pretty polarized these days and these pundits are just serving as pawns to advance the progressive narrative. They are usually asked to disown conservatives and once they do, they are treated as somewhat reasonable (but wrong anyway) They also serve as props to help these liberals feel they are engaging with their opponents and debating them when they actually aren't.
The worst thing is they actually share assumptions with liberals, so they aren't even addressing the real questions. Once you buy the lefts assumptions, you have already lost the argument.
Jul '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Franco
I really dont think they are convincing anyone at CNN or readers of the NY Times . Media outlets are pretty polarized these days and these pundits are just serving as pawns to advance the progressive narrative. They are usually asked to disown conservatives and once they do, they are treated as somewhat reasonable (but wrong anyway) · Sep 28 at 7:01pm
You may be right, in a general sense you probably are. But, when a Mickey Kaus pitches a leftist concept I take it a great deal more seriously than when a Paul Begala, Bobby Reich, or Paul Krugman does.
It's not just because Mickey is more thoughtful (though he is) it's also because he has credibility with me. Even if I reject his case on the merits, which I routinely do, I still keep his better points in mind. Thus, he influences me while I dismiss the polemicists. I suspect Brooks, Frum, & Douthat aim along those lines at different targets.
May '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
I think that Lewis is wrong on every point. It's as if he isn't actually acquainted with anyone who is active in one of the various Tea party movement, which is odd because I'm fairly sure he is.
May '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Frankly, I would like the Tea Party movement to become an unabashedly pro-free market movement. Government intervention is as bad in the business realm as it is in the social and intellectual realm.
May '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Frankly, I would like the Tea Party movement to become an unabashedly pro-free market movement. Government intervention is as bad in the business realm as it is in the social and intellectual realm.
Jul '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Except, Stopping Obama isn't the end point, it's only the beginning.
After the Obamacare is Repealed and that bill is Vetoed, there is still going to have to be a Defunding. And then after Obama is removed from office in 2012 (God Willing) another vote, when it counts, will come up to repeal. And that is when the RINO's always stab you in the back. Better to have the traitors gone, than betraying you just before changing parties.
I think RINO is not only appropriate, I thing the likes of Jeffords, Spectre, Murkowski, Crist and Castle have justified the moniker by their actions.
May '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
True, true, Jaydee, and as noted, my support for Castle becomes daily more embarrassing. But when Krauthammer or Geraghty gets labelled as a RINO, the term loses its punch. I mean, what kind of shrivelled rump of a conservative coalition can you put together without those two?
And, well, I don't think Coons will defund Obamacare. Yeah, yeah, it's an old argument, but I think it was the right move, even holding the nose.
Sep '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
I gave up using the term RINO when I realized that Republican is a political party and apparently anyone can join regardless of their views. That is how the party works. In some ways this bothers me but I also sympathize, they cant have a litmus test, and NYC is different than Alabama.
So it is up to voters to decide for themselves whether a given candidate is worthy and shares their perspective enough to vote for him/her.
What galls me are the many the GOP insiders who believe they own conservative loyalty ~ that somehow conservatives have to moderate their views in order to conform to the local zeitgeist, or else they are stupid and suicidal. These GOPers refuse, absolutely refuse, to accept the fact that sometimes they nominate and support candidates that go beyond acceptability to conservatives, and they resent having to include that consideration in their political calculations.
This makes me question their abilities and their political goals. Too much emphasis is placed on the results of getting people with an R elected each cycle and not enough on a coherent direction and the long term political damage ideologically disloyal incumbents create sometimes for decades.
Edited on Sep 29, 2010 at 5:13amSep '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Palaeologus
But, when a Mickey Kaus pitches a leftist concept I take it a great deal more seriously than when a Paul Begala, Bobby Reich, or Paul Krugman does. It's not just because Mickey is more thoughtful (though he is) it's also because he has credibility with me. Even if I reject his case on the merits, which I routinely do, I still keep his better points in mind.
I like Mickey Kaus too ... Christopher Hitchens Pat Caddell as well, can't think of any more right now on the left whose opinion I respect. I think these guys are paleoliberals (Hitchens I'm not sure) who still hope the Democrat party will hold onto American tenets of individual liberty while granting equal rights to all citizens.
News flash...Democrats won't . In fact I really don't think (again with the exception of Hitchens) it is accurate label these guys left.. Intellectuals can be misguided by their attachments and emotions too.
These guys are intellectually honest rejecting certain assumptions and tactics of Democrats, while Frum and Co, are accepting many of the assumptions of the left when making their arguments for the GOP to ditch conservatives..
May '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Franco: ... maddening when we put forth our strategy for it to be ignored by some of these politicians and pundits. It is as though they just cant hear it. The GOP view is so ossified they literally cant understand what the Tea Partiers are saying.
No, Franco, some of them know how to win campaigns better than you do, and they disagree.
GOPers .... just expect conservatives to fall in line. Then they start insulting people when the expected votes from conservatives don't materialize. Then they tell us to be introspective? · Sep 28 at 3:21pm
Franco, I hate to break the news, but there are not enough of what you would define as being "true" conservatives in the US to implement our program. Period. I wish there were- but I don't believe in Santa Claus either. We have to sell the middle to win- then not scare the bejabbers out of them as we steer the ship toward the Right.
I support Joe Miller- Murkowski's current behavior is appalling. But if voting 2/3 of the time the way the ACU prefers is being a Jeffords or Chaffee "RINO", we will never succeed. Ever.
Sep '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Duane,
Who is we? What is "our" program? You are proving my point quite well.
Please read my comment about the word RINO and why I don't use it.
Those who know how to win elections have to get their guy nominated first, right? They failed in Delaware and, like Obama, arrogantly blame the voters! These are the smart guys you put your trust in?
And Duane, there are no longer enough Republican moderates to win elections either. If it is a game of chicken then moderates will lose every time. I'm sure that is quite frustrating for you, but the time for capitulation is over. Going by some rating scheme isn't going to suffice in this environment. Getting 66% of votes ( which votes ? and what did these guys get in terms of compromise for their votes from the party leadership?) and then jumping ship a la Jeffords and Specter and running around trashing elements of their own party on MSNBC...you really believe they are a net gain for the GOP? Moderates should consider these things , but they seem to ignore them deliberately.
Edited on Sep 29, 2010 at 12:07pmSep '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
The damage that a potential turncoat in your midst can be devastating. Going after near term majorities by accepting politicians who can undermine the party for decades isn't an effective strategy.
Hegal endorsed Obama. Powell, though not an elected official but appointed by Bush, endorses Obama. That was devastating, and it is devastating indictment of Republican moderates, since it wasn't some right wing zealot running but moderate maverick John McCain.
And how much vital information could Senators like Specter, Hegal Jeffords and Chaffeey have passed on to Democrats in the legislature and to the media off the record considering their ultimate displays of disloyalty? Has anyone thought of that? I bet they sang like birds.
Specter made the GOP jump through hoops with nearly every vote watering down legislation. When all these compromises are made, blunting the effectiveness of GOP policy then the party loses credibility with independents and conservatives and Congress swings back to Dem control. Gee, brilliant strategery there GOP insiders!
Jul '10
Re: Constructive Criticism for the Tea Party
Diane Ellis, Ed.
EJHill:
It's politics, not therapy. · Sep 28 at 10:08am
Indeed. But don't you agree that introspection would do the Republicans a bit of good? They get elected, they mess things up by being incompetent boobs or acting like liberals, then they get voted out. Rinse and repeat. If only they'd pause to think about what's happening and develop some sort of plan to correct it, perhaps they wouldn't get sucked into the same death trap over and over. · Sep 28 at 10:25am
The death trap is cultural. Welcome to Washington, the trappings of power, the lobbyists, the social circuit, the press, radio, television, academe, consultants, public employee unions, etc. A kind of rarefied, pathological, distillation of civic "virtue" that erodes even some of the strongest personalities of the Republic. We make a point of the fact that liberals poll as only 20% of the population, but they are drawn to our centers of power to replicate.