Being David Brooks VI

A frequent commenter here who goes by the name of Zorro pointed me to an article, "The Tea Party Teens", written by David Brooks in the New York Times that outlines the possibility of this movement becoming center stage. The tea party movement has only just begun that article posits. It's an interesting perspective and I suppose Brooks has a point, especially considering how this country started with a ban of dissenters opposing a then powerful empire.

Brooks points out the movements of the 60's and 70's that changed the landscape of America. The main difference here as I see it is that the civil rights movement and the feminist movement had to do with human rights. The frightening thing about the tea party movement with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as spokespersons is the hate, divisiveness, and violent aggression that is exhibited at their rallies, not to mention the racist background and rhetoric of the tea party founders, If this movement can transform America it will indicate that we have not really evolved and the history of oppression can readily re-emerge.

Fear, real or imagined, has a way of bringing up deeply seated biases and prejudices. If this movement indeed has the potential of becoming center stage, I understand even greater now the message of Jews: "never again." I see the tea party as an ominous movement, not because of its passion but because of its racist divisive message coached in constitutional rights such as the right to bear arms and speak freely. I also find it correlative that such a movement emerged with the election of the first African American president. Vigilant we must be!

Another thing that is important to mention is that Brooks is an intellectual and conservative. While I appreciate much of what he writes, the fact that he uses Rasmussen in his article as proof of his ideas for a central point which includes the all-important independent voters, did not sit well with me. Rasmussen, the hired pollster for the Bush administration, is known to be bias. Its polls are ALWAYS favorable to the issues on the right even when all others are left by large margins. This seems to indicate prodding via questioning to evoke a desired response.

The problem also with intellectual types is that they take themselves too seriously and hence tend to find reasons to support their opinions as opposed to doing the exact opposite, finding reasons to negate them. With the latter reality is more readily revealed. I am not particularly disparaging Brooks, rather making a general statement. I do, however, find his last statement a bit ironic considering all that came beforehand. Perhaps, he is indicating that he has actually taken the opposite view to arrive at his reasoning. This is understood. But I do wonder about Brooks' motive.