Enter Stage Right

September 28th, 2010 by zen

The Populist movement looked like it would have a similar impact.  Led by the charismatic outsider William Jennings Bryan, this movement held gigantic rallies and seemed like a revolution in the making. It provoked fear and a hostile response from the establishment of its day, in both political parties. Yet the Populists ultimately failed to make a significant impact on national policy, and were absorbed into the Democratic Party. 

Today’s Insurgency could go either way. Success is not inevitable. 

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

Posted in America, analogy, analytic, authors, chicago boyz, conservativism, culture, democracy, democratic party, ideas, insurgency, intellectuals, lexington green, Liberalism, networks, Oligarchy, open-source, organizations, politics, primary loyalties, Republic, republican party | 10 comments

Previous post:
Next post:

  1. Charles Cameron:

    September 28th, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Congratulations, Michael!  I’m looking forward to part II.

  2. Mithras:

    September 28th, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    As Kevin Drum says:

    Too many observers mistakenly react to the tea party as if it’s brand new, an organic and spontaneous response to something unique in the current political climate. But it’s not. It’s not a response to the recession or to health care reform or to some kind of spectacular new liberal overreach. It’s what happens whenever a Democrat takes over the White House. When FDR was in office in the 1930s, conservative zealotry coalesced in the Liberty League. When JFK won the presidency in the ’60s, the John Birch Society flourished. When Bill Clinton ended the Reagan Revolution in the ’90s, talk radio erupted with the conspiracy theories of the Arkansas Project. And today, with Barack Obama in the Oval Office, it’s the tea party’s turn.

    I think that’s right. The Tea Party is just the latest manifestation of that abiding mix of nativism, religious and cultural reactionarism, xenophobia, and a Social Darwinistic set of beliefs that I call "just plain mean."  I think it comes out of the Civil War, where the losers never really accepted the ideas of the winners, and the fact that the World Wars never touched our territory (while they burned similar traits out of the social fabric in Europe for a long time). It’s Calhounism married to unquestioning belief in Empire and a perverted, belligerent Christianity.

  3. Mithras:

    September 28th, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    Oops, forgot the link to Drum.

  4. Lexington Green:

    September 28th, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    Mithras should read his Sun Tzu.  If you simply project onto your opponent your own dream of vileness incarnate, you won’t understand your opponent.  A Leftish thinker who tried to be fair, went in person to look, and had something interesting to say, is Jonathan Raban: 

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/mar/25/at-the-tea-party/?pagination=false&printpage=true

    Jonathan Rauch, not a Right-winger, also was open minded and had some interesting things to say, links here:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/246560/jonathan-rauch-tea-party-open-source-movement-reihan-salam

     

  5. Stuart Berman:

    September 28th, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    Lotus has published a great pair of posts. Not only do the established powers fight change to protect their interests, but their world view as well. While those who believe the world is getting better each and every day (and especially once their ‘program’ is enacted), the Tea Party represents the view that the course we are on is both reckless and unsustainable.

    One worldview points to Europe as a shining beacon of what we need to become (and then some) while the other (oftimes by those from Europe) screams ‘Don’t go there!’ knowing the dirty little secrets of European inside/outside culture.

    One worldview says that it is the government’s duty to take care of our needs while the other knows that government can’t take care of itself let alone the rest of us.

  6. Purpleslog:

    September 28th, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Mithras…I am not surprised that a Mother Jones contributor would want to characterize the Tea Party-ers as crazies/bigots/racists/stupid/meanies/evil-mongers/crypto-fascist etc.

    I am aware that the lefties I have interacted with my entire adults life can’t understand why anyone would disagree with their policy prescriptions…unless those people are crazies/bigots/racists/stupid/meanies/evil-mongers/crypto-fascist or just not yet fully informed/educated as the awesomeness of the philosophy of the left.

    No democide body county threshold seems to ever convince the left they are wrong.

    No failure of policy ever seems convince the left that anything but more of the same – passionately more so – isn’t the solution.

    I will give the left this…they are tenacious.

    Anyways…I think this works as a summary of the Tea Party principles [1]:

    (1) Public Policies must be at their core fiscally responsible/conservative
    (2) Ruthlessly end corruption/cronyism/ethic-less-ness in GOV
    (3) Preference for Individuals and Markets over Central Planning
    (4) Federalism…more please.
    (5) Reduced complexity and quantity of GOV laws, regulation, and programs.
    (6) America doesn’t need to apologize or be ashamed for being America
    (7) Remember and follow the principles in US Constitution

    I think the left will continue to strongly attack the Tea Party-ers as alternatively crazies/bigots/racists/stupid/meanies/evil-mongers/crypto-fascist and of people of significance whatsoever ("move along, nothing to see here").

    I think the big biz/big gov/elitist right and the social conservative right will mildly attack them and continue to try to co-opt them.

    [1]
    https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/here-is-my-understanding-of-the-tea-partyish-principles/

  7. Purpleslog:

    September 28th, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Stuart…right on.

  8. zen:

    September 28th, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    Mithras pointed to Kevin Drum’s piece in Mother Jones. After reading the article, it seemed to me that Kevin was channeling a lite version thesis of Richard Hofstadter’s classic essay, The Paranoid Style in American Politics.
    .
    The problem with this, other than Kevin may not have read Hofstadter firsthand, is that the latter either did not understand American populism of the 19th century or Hofstadter chose to gloss over the substantial differences between the agrarian populists and postwar anti-communists in scoring polemical points.
    .
    There are major issues related to elitism and cultural freudianism in that blind spot that Drum simply assumes into his own argument, not to mention that Hoftstadter was factually wrong in his assumptions about such figures as, say Alger Hiss or the extent of Soviet espionage in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

  9. Lexington Green:

    September 28th, 2010 at 9:26 pm

    Got the coveted Robb link.  Whoa. 

  10. onparkstreet:

    September 29th, 2010 at 10:54 pm

    Cool beans, Mr. Green.
    .
    Nice thoughtful pieces.
    .
    – Madhu