The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

The Start of Something Big

September 14th, 2009 by Myrhaf · 6 Comments · Uncategorized

 

When I see this massive crowd, I hope Janeane Garofalo continues to describe them as “unmitigated douchebaggery.” I hope Harry Reid calls them “evil mongers.” And I hope Obama gets even angrier.

Why do I hope these things? Because in the history of mankind no one was ever persuaded by insults. No politician ever won a vote by demeaning voters. And Obama’s anger is a sign of weakness.

Something big is happening in America — and it is the truest grassroots movement I have seen. Who is leading the Tea Party movement against big government? What charismatic leader does it have? There is no leader; there are only individuals motivated by the idea of liberty. An idea can be a powerful thing — especially when all the opposition has is insults.

6 Comments so far ↓

  • Kelly Koenig

    I was there and it was incredible! History has been made!

  • Mike

    I’ve been wondering whether the ultimate effectiveness of the “Tea bag” movement is limited by the fact that it’s a protest against collectivism that uses a collective tactic to deliver its message. On a further level, by definition no individualist would join a collectivist organization for the purpose of protesting collectivism! Or so it would seem. Maybe there’s some angle to this I am not seeing, because the recursion is a bit off-putting. I WANT to imagine that this is a spontaneous outpouring of individualism, and I certainly don’t buy the “astroturf” arguments. My concern is more that these individualists are failing to dance with the one that brung ’em.

    It’s kind of like imagining a protest against the right to publicly demonstrate. Or a protest against free speech. Doesn’t that, y’know, NOT WORK, by definition?

    Sam Kinison might have nailed it:

    “‘Rock against drugs,’ they said. ‘Rock against drugs.’ It’s the dumbest f__king thing I ever heard. Rock CREATED drugs! Don’t they understand this? ‘Rock against drugs.’ Might as well be ‘Christians against Christ.'”

  • Grant

    Mike,

    Cooperation is not collectivism.

  • Jim May

    I still hold by my view of the Tea Parties as a sharp outburst of the American sense of life — but no more.

    Until I see people standing up for their right to say no to the outstretched hand of need, I expect it to fizzle out and die.

    I’ll admit that I expected that to have happened by now — that the mainstream right would have co-opted and deflated it by now. I’m happy to be wrong about the speed, but we have yet to see about the ultimate end.

    For me, the big positive is not that the Tea Parties themselves will achieve anything big, but that they function as a much, much better filter for identifying active-minded prospects for our ideas than anything I’ve ever seen.

    A person’s stand on the Tea Parties is far more informative w/r/t active-mindedness than their positions on the other, much more arbitrary divides in our culture (most notoriously, that between the Left and conservatism). This can only work to our advantage.

  • Embedded I

    Further to Jim May’s point:
    The Fallacy of False Division holds that all members of some group carry the traits of, and are representative of the whole, within a specified context.

    American soldiers fighting in WW2 were fighting for American values, but exactly which? Some fought for Individual Rights, which would be true “patriotism”. Some were fighting for “America & The Flag”, which is “nationalism”. Some were fighting for “Democracy”, which is a confusion of political values.

    In the American Revolution the northern colonies joined with the slave colonies in the south. The slave issue had to be secondary to American Independence, and would have to be resolved later.

    The Tea Parties must be viewed the same way. Objectivists hope to make gains towards individual rights (or at least curtail the statism of the Democrats). Tea Partiers, as a whole, help move matters in a better direction.

  • Mike N

    Mike:
    I would respectfully urge you not to use “Tea bag” when referring to the tea party movement. Tea bag refers to a disgusting sexual activity. I ‘m sure you don’t want to be associated with the likes of Keith Olberman who deliberately used that term on TV to refer to the protesters.