New York goddamned Times

[ritaxis]

First fueled by anti-establishment anger, Tea Party activists are now trying to take over the establishment.

What the hell? Tea Baggers aren't anti-establishment, any more than Brownshirts are.

Comments

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Do you expect the NYT to say things that are obvious and true, like . . . the Teabaggers are the establishment? :p

[ritaxis.livejournal.com]

I expect them to be kind of a bit right of the truth, but I don't expect them to be the mouthpiece for the most right-wing, savage, anti-civilization forces we have. Next thing they'll be putting the manifesto of Christian Identity out as news analysis.

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

They are, though.

Back when I was a conservative, one of the things people on the right used to say about the left was that it was a liberal monolith, unlike the right, which was a coalition of many loosely-affiliated movements. As I moved away from the libertarians to the liberals, I saw that this had been as inaccurate a thing to say about the left as its reverse would be to say about the right. Successful politics is always a matter of coalition-building. Tea Baggers are populists, so they're never going to hold the reins.

One of the reasons that so many of the right maintain that permanent air of injury even as they are privileged above so much of the rest of society is that there are so many different pieces of the coalition that most of them never get to occupy a position of power. Privilege, yes. Power, no.

Is this true on the left, too? I think so.

[madwriter.livejournal.com]

I know I'm wicked, but I still love the look I get from many pro-Tea Baggers when they ask me if I support the movement, and I say, "I've been supporting it since Bush was president!"