Skip to main content

Because of this assumption, members of the Tea Party right, like the members of the New Left, spend a lot of time worrying about being co-opted. They worry that the corrupt forces of the establishment are perpetually trying to infiltrate the purity of their ranks. – David Brooks New York Times Columnist

First of all I want to apologize to all of those people from the peace movement, civil rights movement, and the other groups from the sixties who fought and died for long denied social change in America for this article from David Brooks. Obviously while so many Americans were actually trying to grapple with a social system that they felt no longer represented who they were Mr. Brooks was too young to know what was going on. I have a real hard time taking anyone seriously who writes about a period of history that they did not actually participate in. To me most post-history is either conjecture or an attempt at a mulligan for those who are promoting their own agendas.

At no time has this fact become more true as it is now during the current period in our history when we are about to be bombarded by the "memoirs" of the disgraced Bush officials and their apologists. The three poster children for this period of selective amnesia ought to be Cheney, Rove, and now Brooks. If this column weren’t so dangerous it would almost be laughable. The reason that this column is dangerous is that it attempts to give legitimacy to the tea-partiers as neo-hippies taking on "the man" and "the system". Nothing could be further from the truth. The tea-partiers began as astro-turf bankrolled by the defeat health-care lobbyist and no amount of cover from the right will legitimize them.

What Mr. Brooks fails to realize is that there are profound differences between what the tea-partiers are protesting and the protests of the "new left". Has he forgotten that there was actually a war going on in Southeast Asia that was taking the lives, dreams, and family members of hundreds of thousands of Americans? Has also forgotten that blacks were living under the crushing oppression of Jim Crow while their civil rights were being denied in all areas of America? Has he forgotten that many blacks were still being lynched, sent to prison, and beaten for trying to express the rights that he and his friends take for granted? His attempts to equate the tea-partiers exploits to those of people who were willing to risk life, limb, and future for a true cause is not just disingenuous, it’s an insult to the memory of all of the slain civil rights workers and anti-war protesters.

To be fair many people may actually believe that President Obama is a foreign-born citizen and is not legitimately President. There also may be those who truly believe that he is leading the country towards socialism through a government take-over of healthcare. There may be those who truly believe that the federal budget was balanced prior to his taking office, that the country was at full-employment, and our economy was flying right along until President Obama’s coup took over in January of 2009. The truth is that we know that the "paranoia" of the sixties radicals was well founded by the release of so many FBI documents and internal government memos. To compare their legitimate fears to those of a bunch of folks many of whom who have some form of government healthcare today who believe that healthcare reform is a government plot to create death panels is unconscionable.

Actually, I am quite pleased that the Republicans are trying to recruit the tea-party folks it will give them a taste of what Democrats go through daily when you have a big tent. When you allow every voice to be heard you are liable to hear some things you weren’t expecting and for a party where everything is scripted right up to the candidates voting record for the next 10 years this could be a little disheartening. I agree the tea-partiers are radical and theatrical but to compare corporate mouthpiece Dick Armey to Saul Alinsky who spent his life trying to improve the lives of those less-fortunate is a stretch even for Brooks.

"Negroes were being lynched regularly in the South as the first stirrings of black opposition began to be felt, and many of the white civil rights organizers and labor agitators who had started to work with them were tarred, feathered, castrated -- or killed. Most Southern politicians were members of the Ku Klux Klan and had no compunction about boasting of it" – Saul Alinsky

For David Brooks to try and give credence to the "straw" and "boogie" men of the tea-partiers as being similar to the new left is criminal. Mr. Brooks, I don’t know where you got your research of the sixties and seventies but you might leave that history to those who were actually there. Another small difference between the two that continually gets ignored by the mainstream media is during the protests of the new left all races were represented because the issues being addressed affected all the people in the country. Where is the "melting pot" with the tea-party movement? If the issues they are protesting actually affected us all like the injustices of racism or the destruction of a senseless war where are the rest of the folks? Are minorities not concerned with losing their freedoms in a communist takeover?

One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide. – Saul Alinsky

Originally posted to Forgiven on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 09:58 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (11+ / 0-)

    As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. - Josh Billings

    by Forgiven on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 09:58:14 AM PST

  •  From my rejected LTE response to Brooks: (6+ / 0-)

    Well, both groups are fond of tea.

  •  mainstreaming of these guys (0+ / 0-)

    very dangerous. People really don't want to know what these guys will become when they encompass every aspect of the political world. The main guys behind them are not concerned about the middle class and are racist, sexist, homophobic freaks

    "Don't bet against us" -President Barack Obama

    by moonpal on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:11:17 AM PST

  •  I wouldn't worry too much about what Brooks says (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, happy camper, luckylizard

    As an academic or an intellectual he's at best a bit player.  A phony.  The kind of hack who has gained prominence only because he has a kind sponsor.

    People who take Brooks seriously are themselves not to be taken seriously.

    "You have no interest in helping me do my job and I have no interest in helping you do yours" - Rep Geoff Simpson to wingnut radio host.

    by slippytoad on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:16:58 AM PST

    •  He is reviled by the right after his anti-Rush (0+ / 0-)

      Limbaugh piece in Newsweek last year.

      "Don't knock's just like chess but without the dice" - john07801

      by voracious on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:25:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good (0+ / 0-)

        That means that only a few tools on Capitol Hill probably think he's to be taken seriously.

        It's a pity the Times doesn't pick up on this and drop him.  He's an embarrassment.

        "You have no interest in helping me do my job and I have no interest in helping you do yours" - Rep Geoff Simpson to wingnut radio host.

        by slippytoad on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:32:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  So sorry to nit-pick, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DanK Is Back

    "I have a real hard time taking anyone seriously who writes about a period of history that they did not actually participate in."

    Actually, that's what most historians do, as do many commentators. I don't think this comment hits the real problem with Brooks' analysis of the '60s.

    There was a great discussion of Brooks' article on DKos yesterday, BTW. Lots of points of view about what the New Left was and what it was not.

    Listen up, guys! It turns out that if we don't hurry up and change the world, later it's the world that changes us. --Mafalda

    by forester on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:17:51 AM PST

    •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

      But just because it is how things are done does make it the way they should be done. Just as with any historic fact it is always based on the interpretation of the author. I guarantee how we view ancient history isn't how those who were living during that period view it.

  •  Bo Bo fills another diaper with poo poo (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I can't believe he gets paid for this crap.

    I have my retirement money invested in show turtles. And they can be converted into soup turtles if the need should arise.

    by mydailydrunk on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:27:17 AM PST

    •  Plus he's like 2 months late to this particular (0+ / 0-)

      form of poo slinging.  Look at all the hot tempered postings at dailykos during January with people accusing the "fix the bill" folks of being libertarian tea-party types.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:36:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Brooks is just trying (0+ / 0-)

    to be "fair and balanced".  I'm really beginning to hate that phrase.

  •  When was the last time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Brooks was right about anything?


    That's what I thought.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 10:41:41 AM PST

  •  NOT historically correct. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    forester, DBunn, luckylizard

    "The tea-partiers began as astro-turf bankrolled by the defeat health-care lobbyist"

    The Tea Parties began in 2007, initiated by the Libertarian party and Ron Paul folks, with a fairly narrow focyus on taxes. They then invited Dick Armey's operation to join them, a serious error, as they quickly lost control to their much better funded and Fox connected 'allies.'

    At the core of the ensuing schisms, differences over the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and PATRIOT Act.

    "Do your taxpayers a favor, and leave him alone." (My State Assembly Rep, Marc Pocan, to Denver's City Atty before 2008 DNC)

    by ben masel on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 11:12:06 AM PST

    •  Tea-Partiers? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't believe that the Ron Paul folks ever called themselves the tea-party. Some of their members may have joined up with their "better funded" allies, but I attended some Ron Paul events and I didn't see any tea-party antics at any of them, but I could be wrong.

      •  They called the annual event the "Tea Party." (0+ / 0-)

        Transformartion to an ongoing movement by that name came after the Fox infusion.

        "Do your taxpayers a favor, and leave him alone." (My State Assembly Rep, Marc Pocan, to Denver's City Atty before 2008 DNC)

        by ben masel on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 12:55:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site