Sully on the Tea Party

In a fantastic two part post, Sully reiterates his confusion with the Tea Party ideology, or lack thereof.   Specifically his confusion with the movement's curious anti-government veil covering what amounts to a pro-government face. 

The Bush-Cheney presidency was, in some respects, the perfect pseudo-conservative administration. They waged war based on loathing of the experts (damned knowledgeable elites!); they slashed taxes and boosted spending for their constituencies, while pretending to be fiscally responsible; they tore up the most ancient taboos - against torture - with a bravado that will one day seem obscene; and they left the country in far worse shape than they found it.

Throughout all this, the Tea Partiers supported them. So how do they manage the cognitive dissonance that two failed wars, a financial collapse and a debt crisis have brought? How do they deal with the fact that their beloved president was manifestly the most incompetent and disastrous in modern times? They blame it on the next guy.

Yes, they are doing all they can to avoid facing the fact that they did all of this ... to themselves. And sometimes, the truly, deeply humiliated can only carry on through blind rage.

Carrying luggage takes a wide stance, ctd.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Excellent Sullivan Reader email...

A Sullivan reader emails...

Pascal notes, then asks:

When I consider the brief span of my life absorbed into the eternity which comes before and after--memoria hospitis unius diei praetereuntis--the small space I occupy and which I see swallowed up in the infinite immensity of spaces of which I know nothing and which know nothing of me, I take fright and am amazed to see myself here rather than there: there is no reason for me to be here rather than there, now rather than then. Who put me here? By whose command and act were this place and time allotted to me?

The answers that make sense to me now are: no one, and by no command. When I was young, I believed in God and I was terrified of death. When I was in my late teens, I realized: there is no God. It was a hot summer's night. I was laying in bed. And a deep sense of calm washed over me. There would be no me, and thus I need have no fear for that person who would not be. That freed my life from fear. I stopped asking 'who'--a human question if there ever was one. Pascal describes a feeling that I still feel. It's called the sublime. Existence is sublime. I am here in this time and place, and I have no fear.

Nail on the head, really.    Some people like to deal with the inevitability of death by believing (hoping?) that their loved ones are "happy somewhere, looking down on us."    Frankly the thought of that freaks me the hell out.  But if it helps you through your difficult times I take no issue. 

I do believe, however, that the finite nature of life and non-existence of death can breed a better moral society than one which should supposedly live in fear of an almighty judgment or an eternal life loaded with forgiveness.   For the judgment line, this would appear rather disingenuous; as if to say you only act just and morally because you're being watched.   Where's the integrity in that?    The forgiveness line opens the door for the lawless behavior of the Catholic hierarchy, who deem the sexual abuse and emotional handicapping of children as a "forgivable" offense.  

But if this is it?  A finite existence with no judgment or forgiveness to speak of?  One thinks that should gives us all the more reason to do what's right with the small space and time we've been afforded. 

What does this tell you?

Sullivan posts a nugget from Weigel/WaPo about Favorability of the term Libertarian:

Overall, 38 percent of Americans view "libertarian" favorably to 37 who view it unfavorably. Democrats (39-37) and independents (44-32) view the term most favorably, while Republicans view it negatively by a 13-point (31-44) margin.

I'd say this makes pretty clear how someone like me - who enjoys the finer points of Libertarianism - can be turned off by the current GOP and Tea Party Movement.  These groups are not free thinking or small-government-minded at all if they perceive a movement like Libertarianism as a negative thing.   More negative than those evil pinko socialist liberals do, to boot.

Sully on Tea wth Miss McGill

Meant to post this yesterday - or at least thought I had.   Sully breaks down the Tea Party express and the article may as well have sucked from my mind as if we were hooked up to a Frankenstein machine. 

The whole thing is worth a read.  His wrap:

In my view, this confluence of feelings can work in shifting the public mood, as seems to have happened. When there is no internal pushback against crafted FNC propaganda, and when the Democrats seem unable to craft any coherent political message below the presidential level, you do indeed create a self-perpetuating fantasy that can indeed rally and roil people. But the abstract slogans against government, the childish reduction of necessary trade-offs as an apocalyptic battle between freedom and slavery, and the silly ranting at all things Washington: these are not a political movement. They are cultural vents, wrapped up with some ugly Dixie-like strands.

When they propose cuts in Medicare, means-testing Social Security, a raising of the retirement age and a cut in defense spending, I'll take them seriously and wish them well.

Until then, I'll treat them with the condescending contempt they have thus far deserved.

Sully does well to leave Palin out of the mix, but I wonder if that was simply to avoid cheapening his criticism and catching guff for Palin Derangement Syndrome.  Still, it shouldn't ignored that she's the de facto leader and iconic face of the movement.  A truth that speaks volumes of the group's validity. 

New Drinking Game: Terrorist, Radical or Protester

Sullivan linked to an internal debate among the Newsweek staff which was initially intended to be a banter about the difference between Joe Stack and the Undie-Bomber but evolved into a taxonomic discussion over the definition of the term "Terrorist."  It's certainly worth a read to see how the different positions are defended.

Sullivan and Greenwald keyed in on Managing Editor, Kathy Jones' take (Sullivan today questioned the potential irony factor):

Did the label terrorist ever successfully stick to McVeigh? Or the Unabomber? Or any of the IRS bombers in our violence list ?   Here is my handy guide:
 - Lone wolfish American attacker who sees gov't as threat to personal freedom: bomber, tax protester, survivalist, separatist
 - Group of Americans bombing/kidnapping to protest U.S. policies on war/poverty/personal freedom/ - radical left-wing movement, right-wing separatists
 - All foreign groups or foreign individuals bombing/shooting to protest American gov't: terrorists

Personally, I'm not convinced it was irony but I also see the world through dark, slanted glasses and assume that we're loaded up with people who only understand terrorism as defined in a post-9/11 world.  I was much more interested in Digital Editor, Devin Gordon's spin: