Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Revolt

3 Comments

…of the bourgeois:

A New York Times survey earlier this year occasioned shock when it found that “Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class.” We’re so accustomed to the notion of a revolt of the dispossessed that a revolt of the possessed (in the non-demonic sense, of course) strikes us as a strange offense against the nature of things. But it’s threatening to wash away the Democratic congressional majorities in a historic wipeout.

In extremis, Democrats and liberal commentators have dragged the debate over the tea party into the well-worn rut of elite condescension to the bourgeois, a term coined in its modern sense by Rousseau and not meant as a compliment. For more than a hundred years, the bourgeois have been accused of being insipid, greedy, and unenlightened. To the long catalogue of their offenses can now be added another: unenthralled by Barack Obama, the Romantic hero seeking to transform the nation.

Apres Barack, liberte.

3 thoughts on “The Revolt”

  1. Regarding the last part of the linked opinion piece:

    The last time Republicans benefited from a wave election, they had their own Beckian figure at the top in the person of House Speaker Newt Gingrich. They wallowed in their revolution and let Gingrich’s ideological grandeur define them — to their regret in the end. If the wave comes this time, Republicans should endeavor to be a sober and responsible party for sober and responsible people, resolutely cleaning up after the failed Obama revolution.

    They could do much worse than to take their cue from the tea partiers at the Lincoln Memorial, who knew how to make an impression without scaring anyone or trashing the place.

    I wonder if the Tea Party can succeed as a “movement” without trying to constantly promote people (most often Sarah Palin) to lead it and make it “personality” driven. Seems to be doing fine without any clearly defined leadership. Also, this makes it incredibly difficult for the Left to use their Alinsky inspired tactics which are focused around “personalization” so that their “ad hominem” attacks can work.

  2. Back when Tea Partiers were of below average income and education, the left painted them as a bunch of ignorant racist rednecks who needed to be told what was good for them. Now that the income gradient is shifting upward, they’ll paint the Tea Party as a bunch of rich robber baron sons of bitches who want to keep ripping off the working man and need the “boot heel of government on their necks” to make em pay their “fair share”.

  3. “Also, this makes it incredibly difficult for the Left to use their Alinsky inspired tactics which are focused around “personalization” so that their “ad hominem” attacks can work.”

    That is what is driving the left crazy. No leader, no snarky Letterman put down. No one to do a really bad impression of on SNL, and no one to turn into a one or two word punch line. The only way to go after the Tea Party is to attack it as a group, and that just isn’t comedy gold.

Comments are closed.