"From all I can see, the Tea Party movement is not simply about the size and scope of government. If it were, it could be a useful force in our politics, if it only spelled out honestly how to balance the budget without raising taxes. (Even Rand Paul won't be drawn on specifics.) It is a movement about identity politics, in which the US Constitution is an emblem of a certain demographic, and that demographic is as much about the Christianist right as it is about fiscal responsibility. Gingrich hit the two pillars of what they hate: "secularism" and "socialism."
Secularism isn't atheism; it is the principle that religious disputes and political disputes should be regarded in separate categories, for fear of unresolvable sectarian conflict (i.e. culture war). Anti-"socialism" means ... well I'm not sure what exactly. Abolition of social security? Medicare? More tax cuts? I wish I knew.
I don't think it has any real traction or coherence apart from a cultural revulsion against modernity, a majority-minority country, separation of church and state, and an abstract loathing and suspicion of anything to do with government. When they offer us some concrete proposals or policy options, I guess we can make a judgment as to the impact on the GOP. But right now, it feels like a primal. and somewhet elderly, scream." -Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Something Someone Else Said
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Years from now people will laugh at the overuse and intellectual vacuity of calling something "socialist".
Teens will say "dad's a socialist"... for not giving them more pocket money, and you'll have a hell of a time explaining the irony.
Following the same line of thinking as you, magpie. I've been thinking that with the economy and our stock markets slowly improving, people may start to think that socialism's not so bad after all.
"Obama's a socialist and things are pretty good. I'm cool with socialism then."
Post a Comment