The New York Times has been running a column on their website called “The Stone”, which is billed as a forum for contemporary philosophers on issues that are “both timely and timeless”. The latest writer considers the anger in the Tea Party movement, and concludes that sometimes things are about a “clash about what is real and what is not.” Referencing Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, he boils down the passion, frustration, and conviction of those organizing and marching on the streets to “nihilism” and a dangerous “fantasy of destruction.” Tea Party members are frustrated with the modern world and can’t cope, he argues, so – clinging to their delusions about personal autonomy and independence – they’re lashing out.
In reality – though it may be easy for him to miss – the anger of a lot of the Tea Party movement is towards people like the author, who write paragraphs of condescending, patronizing remarks under the guise of intellectual discourse. Academics who are political hacks, but are given legitimacy by large newspapers and universities as experts. Everyone is wondering why the Tea Party is full of so much passion, and the truth is that although Tea Party members want to focus on fiscal and constitutional issues – which they’re trying to do – and want to put them at the center of the debate, the anger – the emotion driving them – comes from a cultural divide. They feel that although all they ever wanted to do was have an honest debate on issues, instead of being given that chance, they’ve been put down and called names.
Between – at least – the 60s and the emergence of alternative sources of information like Fox News, journalism was dominated by a liberal bias, the entertainment media was dominated by a liberal bias, and academia today continues to have a liberal bias. From those sources, the message to everyone was something like this:
If you want enforcement of immigration laws, you hate brown people – if you disagree with affirmative action, you hate black people – if you’re against gay marriage, you hate gays – if you want more restrictions on abortion, you’re a religious nut – (heck) if you believe in any objective morality at all, you’re a religious nut – if you oppose minimum wage laws, you hate the poor – if you oppose nationalized health care, you hate the poor – if you want a strict interpretation of the Constitution, you’re backwards and dangerous (and want to take away women’s rights, as Sen. Kennedy said) – if you think postmodern philosophy and art and sociology are nonsense, you’re ignorant – if you want a tough stance against militant enemies, you’re a warmonger.
It didn’t help that academics would write pages and pages of discourse arguing their points – “Everyone who opposes affirmative action is a crypto-racist because of X, Y, Z…” The experts – those with diplomas and degrees – all agreed that one had to support certain policies and beliefs, and anyone who disagreed – those who were politically incorrect – were marginalized.
After years of fighting those messages, conservatives started to make inroads, and in 2000 – for the first time in decades – they had control over the government – winning control of both the Presidency and Congress. By that time, they also had their own outlet for news on cable, and plenty of voices on talk radio. They were getting ready to show that they could govern and that they could work with the other side. Even with large Republican majorities, Bush declared he wanted to be a “uniter, not a divider,” and reached out his hand to people like Senator Kennedy on issues like education reform.
But, from the first day of Bush’s Presidency, there was an effort to destroy both him and the Republican party – a backlash by people who were losing power and felt threatened. As some Progressives I met said to me, no lie, the aim was to “make the Republican party a thing of the past, confine it to marginal areas in the Deep South, and unable to win national elections.” Howard Dean – unaware of the irony – called out Republicans as divisive for no other reason than because of their political positions. – Because they disagreed with gay marriage, they were dividing gays and straights. – Because they disagreed with affirmative action, they were dividing blacks and whites. – Because they wanted strict immigration enforcement, they were dividing Mexicans and Americans. – Because they complained about the biases of journalists and academics, they were dividing common people and educated intellectuals. And, even though Bush was labeled a fascist, Nazi, liar, and warmonger – and there were artists and filmmakers suggesting his assassination would be warranted – it was Bush who was being divisive. Why? Because those attacks on him were warranted by his horrible policies. Bush’s Presidency was argued to be illegitimate, stolen by legal intimidation and help from conservative members of the Supreme Court. Dean put together a 50-state strategy, which sought to do just what those Progressives I talked to were calling for – marginalize the Republican Party.
Fast forward to 2008 – Obama’s campaign message is that the source of all the country’s problems was a “failed conservative philosophy” that was “ruling the country for 30 years”. To all of the Republicans who were out of power and fighting slanders from the left for those 30 years, it must have been insulting. Even as he was running as a bipartisan, ‘a new politician’, someone who would help the country grow past its bitter divides, he was bitterly partisan and divisive. When he said the country was divided, what he meant was – like Howard Dean said just a few years earlier – “Republicans are dividing the country.” His slick campaign – outwardly calling for bipartisanship – and the years of Bush being faulted for everything and anything that happened – the downfall of the economy, Katrina, global warming, you name it – allowed him to ride to victory. The American public bought into the idea that maybe the divisiveness was in fact Bush’s fault, and considered that maybe, if only we had a better, smarter President, we could be more united as a people.
Conservatives weren’t content to let that go. So, after years of anti-conservative activism from the Left, the Tea Party is the conservative movement’s blunt way of saying, “Hey, we can organize too.” They want to out-Acorn Acorn. And the anger is because they feel like they’ve been bullied, pushed around, patronized, demeaned, looked down on… So, they’re giving up on moderates in their party, who they feel have made them look weak and allowed them to compromise too much, and are taking it to people’s faces.
The reason Bernstein can’t see that is because he doesn’t realize he’s the target of their anger: he’s an elitist. He’s the type of person who would have been writing those papers arguing why they’re really crypto-racists. Or homophobes. Or greedy. Or have a false consciousness. Or are ignorant. But those arguments don’t work anymore, so they’re just nihilists, with “fantasies of destruction.”
In the real world, anger is never because of abstract existential crises — it’s because of the actions of other people.
/