Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Tea Parties
I’ve been trying to understand my gut feeling toward tea parties for quite awhile now, and I think I’ve finally figured it out. I feel the same way about them as Nock did about women’s suffrage – I don’t see how it’ll do any harm, but I don’t think it’ll do any good either. Being a fundamentally lazy person, I’m not inclined to put any effort into something that I don’t think will do any good.
Protests in general seem to be a way for the masses to express themselves. Dare I say that civilized people don’t stand on street corners with hand-made signs, chanting slogans? I’ve gotten the impression that these tea parties have had an above average share of decent people in attendance, but they’ve had their share of freaks and idiots too.
My parents attended a local tea party. They reported back that there were several people there open-carrying in violation of state law, and wearing t-shirts that basically dared the police to arrest them. I’ve gotten the impression that that sort of over-the-top behavior was not at all uncommon as these tea parties. Add in the fact that the Ron Paul nutter crowd seems to have come out in force, and you’ve got a mass movement of decent people mixed in with a bunch of weirdos.
A stopped clock is right twice a day, and mass movements are right once in awhile too. This mass movement is right on most issues, but participating in it still feels icky to me. Let the masses have their fun, I can think of worse ways to express themselves. Arson and vandalism, for example, which is the usual result of this many leftists congregating in one place.
I think the right in this country is in a dangerous place right now. The moderates are still in love with Obama. The mid-right has no leadership. The far-right is recognizing that there is no true opposition party in this country, and they’re becoming disillusioned by the faux opposition that the Republicans have been providing. The tea parties are the far-right reminding both parties that they still exist, and that they won’t be ignored. But now that the fifteen minutes of fame is over, the Democrats are still going to ram health care “reform” through without debate. Nothing has changed.
So…. What now? The best plan I’ve come up with is to make some popcorn, watch the fireworks from a distance, and bury gold coins in the back yard. It’s not the most satisfying plan, but the tsunami that is the will of the masses will not be denied. They turned out in droves to elect a socialist, and now they’re getting exactly what they asked for. If I knew of an effective way to oppose them, I’d do it. In the meantime, I’ll go back to training the horses and tending the orchard.
Comments
-
I certainly understand the sentiment, and not uncoinky-dinky, it was a discussion on our sofa yesterday.
The tea parties are interesting in the sense that they haven’t done anything, except give people a place to get together to find camaraderie and commiseration with fellows of like minds. Since I know your sources for your opinions about these sorts of things, it can be a bit difficult to sort out the pros and cons.
What is really fascinating about the tea parties is that they haven’t morphed into anything of measurable or quantifiable action, ie, so far they’ve been generally useless, and all signs are that they are continuing to be so. They are dog and pony shows and I haven’t seen a national call to translate the angst to action: no calls to inundate their representatives with phone calls, no championing of anyone to fill the seats of those who ignore The People, and no lists of candidates to whom to donate money to change the status quo. They haven’t even made lists of representatives, and enemy lists are generally the first action taken by angry mobs.
It has been my experience in life that there are few chiefs, but a helluvafalot of indians waiting for someone to lead them, and tell them what to do.
That does not bode well for a government of and by The People (which is why our shared mentors, critics, and philosophers scoffed at the very idea).
But it is an interesting turn of events and another opportunity for the masses to identify themselves as Isaiah’s flock or a miserable, disorganized rabble.
Will Americans spread Isaiah’s warnings or will they board-up themselves in their houses, waiting for others to do what they should be doing themselves?
It is an interesting test of “every man is capable of self-direction and self-leadership” and the stakes are very high. Either enough people will rise to the occasion or we’ll be lost to the dustbin of history.
I have yet to see any evidence to think it will be anything other than the latter, but I am always working for the former.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”
--Samuel AdamsBe that tireless minority.
Mrs. du Toit | 4/28/2009 09:45 AM CDT -
It is an interesting test of “every man is capable of self-direction and self-leadership” and the stakes are very high. Either enough people will rise to the occasion or we’ll be lost to the dustbin of history.
I was thinking about this as well. The right is lacking leadership.... so what do I do about it? Try to find a way to lead them myself?
I have a million excuses. I won’t bother to list them here.
Being a political leader is not an option for me. Leading by example, and leading by speaking out are things I do everyday. I can only hope that someone is paying attention.
American Farmer | 4/28/2009 10:26 AM CDT -
People who don’t believe in coercion cannot in good conscience run for political office these days, I think. I think about it—it’s utterly ridiculous. I have no relevant experience and two small children and live in California. No one would want me to run for anything.
But what would I do with it even if I had it? Just vote ‘no’ on everything?
However, I do not look down on the Tea Parties. I say this with great reservations, because I do like both of you and enjoy reading your blogs, but I think you two need to um, get over your elitist tendencies. I don’t mean to be rude or anything, but as long as you think most people are cattle just as the corporatists do, how much better than them does that make you? I mean, at the very least you’re willing to let them be free range cattle....
I’m pretty sure the people who went to Tea Parties were just hoping to find they were not alone. And that’s what they found. There has been a very small win in New Hampshire, protesting a so-called “fifth quarter” tax bill.
Maybe it will help the republicans in congress man up and vote no a few more times. Maybe it helps people find whoever they will need help from in the next 4-20 years.
silvermine | 4/28/2009 11:03 AM CDT -
Try to find a way to lead them myself?
NO! Not at all. On the contrary, keep whispering in their ears, get out of their way, refuse to lead, and force them to notice that they are alone to lead themselves.
A child can’t learn to walk if the parents never let go of their hands. The parents should catch them when they stumble, and tend to their boo-boos, but they must get out of the way to allow them to flourish on their own.
However, for every great leader there were thousands who made it possible, whispering of the worthiness of their platform to others… and sewing seeds to see the amazing things the fret and festering of it will allow them to do.
It is that the Tea Parties can (and are) doing, and for that reason, need our encouragement and support, not our condemnation.
Mrs. du Toit | 4/28/2009 11:10 AM CDT -
Silver,
I understand the point, but basically you’re hearing Farmer and I talk out loud about things we used to keep private… because of how they’re interpreted.
I refuse to set aside my elitist tendencies. It is a nation of elites we’re needing to foster (and was the goal of what the Founders gave us), not lower our standards to level of Democrats.
The difference is, perhaps, that I believe that everyone is capable of becoming a member of that elite, and I EXPECT them to do so, and not behave like a group of second-string team members needing someone to lord over them.
“[If a] people [are] so demoralized and depraved as to be incapable of exercising a wholesome control, their reformation must be taken up ab incunabulis. Their minds [must] be informed by education what is right and what wrong, [must] be encouraged in habits of virtue and deterred from those of vice by the dread of punishments, proportioned indeed, but irremissible. In all cases, [they must] follow truth as the only safe guide and eschew error which bewilders us in one false consequence after another in endless succession. These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure of order and good government.”
--Thomas Jefferson, 1819That is the “elite” I desire.
Mrs. du Toit | 4/28/2009 11:14 AM CDT -
Okay, that makes sense. I agree. I believe most people do have the ability to be useful, civilized people and have just been broken by the system.
As for the Tea Parties, I haven’t attended one, myself. I’m happy for the people who attending them makes them happy, or feel like they have camaraderie. But I’m not taking a 6 and 2 year old to downtown San Jose to demonstrate.
I guess I just hope they will lead to something. When the major thing you object to is centralized power, it takes a little longer to organize.
Don’t forget that. I believe in self-organizing systems, but they take slightly longer to get their act together than a top-down one. It looks different because it *is* different. Just like Fred Thompson—he was defeated early on because he was different. He didn’t want to campaign for two years or promise handouts. Well, if the Tea Parties take a few months to get their act together, it’s because maybe it’s finally something different.
I guess I just have hope that it’s a different kind of awakening. For the sake of my just retired parents, and for the sake of my kids.
silvermine | 4/28/2009 11:23 AM CDT -
...I think you two need to um, get over your elitist tendencies
Unlikely. It’s part of my charm.
Seriously, I’m getting old and cranky. I AM elitist, and I like it that way. You’d never know it if I met you on the street, but this is my anonymous blog, so I let it hang out a bit more here than I would otherwise. I apologize if you took offense.
Mrs du Toit - point taken.
American Farmer | 4/28/2009 11:29 AM CDT -
You two posted while my last comment was on hold for a minute.
Mrs du Toit has it exactly right. I am elitist, and that isn’t changing. I want people to rise to my standards, I don’t want to crow over them how I am superior. I CRAVE equals, if that makes any sense. I want people to better themselves, for their own good and for the good of the country.
I don’t have any expectations that everyone is capable of this, but many people are. No one is bettered except by their own choice. So lead by example and hope for the best.
American Farmer | 4/28/2009 11:36 AM CDT -
I think the best thing the tea parties did was let people know they’re not alone, especially those of us living and working in states so Blue as to be visible only to bees (if I can steal one of Bill Whittle’s better lines). It’s hard to get yourself together to write your elected official, send money, or otherwise get involved when you suspect you’re the only one out there. Once you realize that you’re not alone you can visualize not one letter arriving on your congress-critters desk, but that your letter is one among potential hundreds. Makes you think you’re not just wasting your time.
We’re fundamentally different than the Liberals. Liberals WANT to be led, so any half-baked jerk with a decent amount of charisma can lead them around by the nose (yes he can!). Conservatives don’t want to be led, the concept of someone telling them what to do is abhorrent to them, as is the idea of being the one doing the leading. Lack of leadership, and rejection of would-be leaders when they arise, makes it more difficult to get Conservatives to accomplish anything. Actually reminds me of the way our government is designed to work, it’s fundamentally inefficient, and I suspect that that’s a feature, not a bug. Dictatorships, on the other hand, are extremely efficient, which is why our military is run as one.
Mark D | 4/28/2009 11:43 AM CDT -
I wish I had evidence to agree with you, Mark, but the fact is, I don’t.
I’ve seen no evidence of so-called conservative “leaders” doing anything other than acting like tyrants and lording over other conservatives, and self-labeled conservatives falling in lockstep.
The silence of the majority is evidence of their complacency, lethargy, and dereliction of responsibility. You can’t be silent when you’re supposed to be a government of and by the people. Silence is for lemmings. You can’t look for others to do things for you, however small.
Mrs. du Toit | 4/28/2009 12:33 PM CDT -
Mrs,
That’s kinda the point, real Conservatives have trouble getting into politics because the idea of leading others is anathema. The so-called Conservatives who did get into politics are politicians first and Conservatives second, and they’re often only Conservatives relative to the other side (I offer John McCain as exhibit A). As Daniel Webster said, they may mean to rule well, but they mean to rule, they may intend to be good masters, but they intend to be masters. There may be some few who are truly sacrificial in their service, but most wish to service the public in the same manner as a bull services a cow.Most of us just want to be left alone, we don’t want the government to do much for us beyond keeping the roads open, the borders closed, and our enemies at bay. The problem is that other folks don’t want to be left alone OR to leave us alone, then we have trouble gearing up to counteract that.
Mark D | 4/28/2009 01:05 PM CDT -
But that’s wacky, Mark (not you, the idea). Conservatives are supposed to humbly govern and represent, not lord over.
Ronald Reagan did that, and so did Eisenhower. These were not leaders in the rule-over-others sense. They understood who they worked for and who paid their salaries.
Sam Johnson (praises be upon his name) is our Representative. He gets this. He lives it daily and manages to represent his constituency, and get re-elected.
Even our not-perfect governor, Rick Perry, is able to do this effectively.
I truly believe the larger problem is not one of conviction or a lack of suitable material. The problem is that the right is full of folks too focused on social issues rather than constitutionally defined responsibilities. If the person doesn’t sound like a Baptist preacher, flaunting his religious-creds in public, excoriating gays or abortion, they’re not “right” enough.
Until the right figures out that there are things more important than that, and that those things don’t belong on the list of Constitutionally-limited government, we’ll continue to be irrelevant.
He is aware, with Edmund Burke, that “there never was for any long time a corrupt representation of a virtuous people, or a mean, sluggish, careless people that ever had a good government of any form.” He perceives, with Ibsen, that “men still call for special revolutions, for revolutions in politics, in externals. But all that sort of thing is trumpery. It is the soul of man that must revolt.”
--Albert Jay NockI hope that the tea parties have focused attention on those things that are Caesars, but I’m not optimistic.
I just don’t see how a nation that watches and discusses the goings on of American Idol will expect anything but a gauche spectacle from their elected representatives.
Mrs. du Toit | 4/28/2009 01:34 PM CDT -
FYI, Kim had considered a run to replace Sam Johnson when he decided it was time to throw in the towel. Kim had a brief email interchange with a fellow who made it quite clear that Kim’s atheism would make him fight his nomination with every bone in his body. It came as close to a death threat as an email can get.
I, too, feel a calling to serve, but I’m certain that my less-than-perfect financial history, and other personal skeletons would make it impossible, and I’d end up embarassing those who would support me.
That is not to say that I’d entirely rule it out, but it’s just not likely… but I am more and more desperate each day for something hopeful on the horizon.
Mrs. du Toit | 4/28/2009 01:45 PM CDT -
Mrs,
A couple weeks ago my wife asked me if I’d consider running for local office, town council, mayor, etc. We live in a small town (about 11,000 people) in suburban NJ. While tempting to try and fix some of the problems we have, I wonder if a platform consisting of “Stop asking the government to do things for you that you ought to do for youselves!” would fly even in a bright-red county (our congressman is rated A by the NRA and F by the Brady Bunch) in a solidly blue state. That, and I’m diplomatically challeneged, fellow town council members don’t like being asked what the (expletive deleted) they’ve been smoking/ drinking/ snorting/ injecting or if everyone in their family is as stupid as they are.I DO have the “right” creds too, I’m a Christian, pro-life, opposed to gay marriage, pro-gun, go to church every Sunday, etc. I consider questions like abortion and gay marriage to be distractions to the serious problems such as “Where does the Constitution say you’re allowed to use taxpayer money to bail out people who took mortgages they couldn’t afford?”
As I said above, I don’t WANT to govern other people, which perhaps makes me more qualified to do so than most.
Mark D | 4/28/2009 02:26 PM CDT -
There’s nothing wrong with saying “no” to every proposed change. That’s the very essence of conservatism.
To even think of saying “yes” implies that something requires change. I would respectfully suggest that not much does, nowadays, unless it’s to turn the clock back, say, with respect to the Welfare State and similar horribleness.
For some reason (no doubt, because of liberalism), “progress” is seen as universally good—and it isn’t.
What we actually need is more recidivism (to un-PC behavior), revanchism (in the moral sense) and reversal (of failed policies).
Change should not always be forward, in other words, especially when we have the examples of history to guide us.
(Mr.) Kim du Toit | 4/28/2009 03:13 PM CDT
