"The Million Moron March"

Image courtesy of Mario PiperniRiffing off John Batchelor's column ("The Festival of Fools") and John Avlon's column ("I Have a Nightmare"), both for the Daily Beast, I too came up with a pithy title for this post on the most recent Tea Party event (because that's really what Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" march on the Washington Mall is.  The demographic is exactly the same.)  I generally agree with Batchelor that this particular march is a non-issue:

The celebrity Glenn Beck has organized a festive and apparently harmless public event for the Washington Mall that he calls “Restoring Honor.” This theme is so deeply bland that it invites us partisans to look for inner meaning, such as the fact that August 28 is the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s revolutionary March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, or such as Beck’s Fox News Channel seeking a low-budget reality show to sell for the dog days of summer programming.

The trick here may be that Beck’s event, which will feature the celebrity Sarah Palin, is not about anything at all. It is a farce of an event in the way the bookish Karl Marx meant it, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

However, I disagree with Batchelor's contention that we should take Beck's idiocy at face value: and I have a few general qualifications for the "Tea Baggers are morons" crowd.

(1) Beck and Palin should be watched and taken very seriously.  Andrew Sullivan is right.  After all, the Byzantine Empire was undone by sport rivarly hoologanism, Ming China was taken over by makeup-wearing men with no testicles, the West was preoccupied with silly wars over arguments about imaginary beings for centuries, etc.  All sorts of seemingly frivilous things have shaped history before.  Is it too much to think it possible that Glenn Beck, a "clown", could destroy the United States?  Just because it isn't at all reasonable to think that Glenn Beck could ever command any real political power doesn't exclude it from the realm of possibility that he could directly influence things for the far worse.  Stranger things have happened.   

(2) We need to recognize that the Tea Party movement at it's core is logical, predictable, and fair-minded, and try to address the grievances of the movement like Solomon instead of dismissing them as springing from idiots unworthy of an audience because the average Tea Partier doesn't possess as much technical political or economic knowledge as we might think we ourselves do.  (We should do the same in the Middle East, by the way, not to suggest the Tea Partiers are terrorists.)  Forgive the run-on, but one thing about democracy which is absolutely inescapable is that everyone's opinion is equal.  When it all comes down to it, Ezra Klein and the average Tea Partier are the same.  The battle for hearts and minds will not be won with snobby liberal elitism and poking fun at all the rednecks for their spelling mistakes.  Presidents will continue to be chosen on the basis of their "character" and not their policies.   

(3) Let's not allow charlatans like Beck and Palin to harness the righteous anger of the Tea Partiers. Every political movement has it's foot-soldiers, and for every sophisticated, urbane libertarian at Reason or the Cato Institute (minus Will Wilkinson and Brink Lindsey now), there are a million quiet, average Joe libertarians who just want to be left alone.  These libertarians are sick of being forced to fill out forms and pay fees and register for things and send their children off to wars they don't support and see their taxdollars go to huge multinational corporations while they and everyone they know remains unemployed.  After all, the only difference between these two groups of libertarians - one elite and sophisticated and one uncultured and not so gifted with words - is that when the former cites Locke, Rousseau, or Jeremy Bentham, the latter thinks they're talking about Lost.

Ultimately, as the Tea Party experience seems to show, our liberal media values being pithy over being right.  And if our liberal media is willing to dehumanize the poorest, least educated, and most marginalized of our citizens, then it should question its own commitment to democracy, because each person has exactly one vote (except when it comes to the Senate, where red-staters get far more say).  Instead, we should focus on calling out the Glenn Becks of the world for being Fagins, instead of ridiculing their Oliver Twists.

Comments

[Jessica]

Although it drives liberals absolutely crazy that someone like Sarah Palin who represents most of the U.S (except the illegal immigrants) can actually have so much impact and political attention; i don't think the word charlatan is applicable. In fact, i find it ironic that you would refer to someone like Glen Beck as a Faggin type character...when it has been actual charlatans like Al Sharpton, the ACLU, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Pelosi who have high jacked the blood sweat and tears of the civil rights by turning it into pluralistic power that devours the very foundation of true E pluribus Unum. Glen Beck is worthless to the true conservative movement that is rapidly organizing in this country, he is the least of your problems. The leftist islamic radical sympathizers in this country better awaken quickly, because you are so self righteously arrogant that you have completely underestimated the real "folks" of this country. The tea party movement is just the beginning of a revolution. I'm so sorry sir but you are not a true liberal like Jefferson and Locke. You are a quencher of all things true in this country, the elitism that flows through your article reflects how completely detached you are from what it means to be a passionate liberal whose soul burns for freedom, and whose heart carries a burden for this country's future security. You can hardly stand 90 percent of us who are actually american and you deny all the foundations on which we stand united! We are tired of the pseudo peace that liberals in this country claim to advocate, all we care about is our freedoms.

[Christopher Carr]

Jessica, I largely agree with you on all those other celebrities being the same as Beck, although I'm not sure why everyone seems to hate the ACLU so much. Their work basically consists of curtailing government power, which was the founding principle of the conservative movement and is what the Tea Partiers seem to be rallying against today. The American Civil Liberties Union exists as direct heir to Jefferson's Bill of Rights.

My main problem with Beck is that he capitalizes on the righteous anger of the Tea Partiers to boost his own celebrity. He deliberately stirs up anger instead of focusing people on rationally solving problems. The Tea Party - if it is a conservative movement - would be better served to elevate reasonable conservatives like David Frum, James Poulos, Patrick Deneen, or even Jonah Goldberg or Charles Krauthammer. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck are celebrities and liars, and the Tea Partiers cannot expect anyone to take their complaints seriously if their primary representatives remain people who are factually incorrect (and dangerously so) about what's going on in this country.

I'm not a liberal, by any means, although I can sympathize with the liberal program's goal of providing some kind of safety net for the most unfortunate members of our society. I think the liberal program has largely reached its goals (or gone as far as it can) and our society must now correct liberal overreach as increasing government involvement in our society is seeing negative returns. But I will admit that at least most of the liberals in our country, even the "worst" ones, like the aforementioned writers at the Daily Beast, or Paul Krugman, or the fellows at the Daily Kos, are honest in their beliefs that we need bigger and more powerful government programs to solve our problems.

I strongly disagree with this, and think many of our problems can be solved by "light and lethal" regulation, policies encouraging more distribution of both political and economic power, and strict adherence to the same principles of free speech, religion, and commerce that made our country great. If this is what the Tea Party wants also, then I support the Tea Party. But if the Tea Party wants a country that sees Islamic Civilization as an enemy towards the destruction of which we must direct our full civilizational capacity, that wants to abolish the ACLU, that believes radical conspiracy theories, that would replace free speech and a diversity of beliefs and cultural practices with a conformist movement conservatism that excludes gays and immigrants and non-Christians, then I want nothing to do with that Tea Party.

[Joseph Cox]

Jessica,

Great to hear from you as always.

One thing that always bothers me about your responses- and as an aside I'll note that our tone is often more entertaining or passionate than diplomatic so we no doubt deserve it- is that you frame our disagreements as though there is some moral struggle for America. I don't believe that your substantive disagreements with me are signs that you are a bad person or dangerously naive. I think you and I value different things, but I admire that you care about America enough to want to defend it from things you see as real threats.

Here's my fundamental belief: America is too resilient to succumb to minor things like Islamic terrorism, gay marriage, health care reform or Glenn Beck. I like fiscal discipline and civil liberties so I don't mind the Tea Party- except that I'm bothered by their apocalyptic rhetoric about pretty benign developments in public policy. I care about this country and I want people to be free to live happy, productive and fulfilled lives, I just think that health care reform helps people do that. Feel free to disagree, but don't call me a communist, collectivist or enemy of freedom. When you say I am "so self righteously arrogant that you have completely underestimated the real "folks" of this country" it bothers me. I'm a real person with real concerns for this country and I don't look down on people who disagree with me. It seems to me that you are as guilty of that as anyone. The "elites" that read and care about this stuff on a granular level aren't doing it because they hate America! They/we are obsessed with making a better America, and maybe you'd like them/us to just butt out, but you could at least appreciate the difference between politics and moral struggles. Here's my test: if someone else's opinions seem easy to refute go back and wonder if perhaps you just aren't trying hard enough to understand them.

PS I will state again that we do plenty of spittle flicked posts, so we are as guilty of this as anyone. But I really do try not to write things that will make my mom upset. That's my other test.

[Jessica]

Joe

I'm glad you are a respectful son! and i do not abhor your obsession with reform in this country. In fact, i am well aware that if not for the constant opposition and factions, this country would not be the jewel in the world that it is. However, i am also obsessed with change in this great nation but as you stated we have very different values. It seems to me that you do not value a moral system that challenges humans to self evaluate their own souls on an individual level, but instead hide behind these political and social causes that generalize who we actual are as people. The purpose of the government should only be protection not provision. People should have rights that promote the ideological well being of the nation, not rights simply because they want to exercise an action that is ultimately destructive to the overall security. The reality of Islamic radicalism is not a right-wing conspiracy on the rise to genocide, on the contrary most people in the country are so caught up in low-brow culture they cannot even fathom how much American power has shrunk in the global community. Thus, I do not think that America at this point is resilient enough to prevail against such issues as abortion, gay-marriage, and even cultural pluralism as an engine of dominance. The problem is that when a country gorged with civil liberties and civil rights does not maintain a check and balance system that challenges these groups and ideas to live at the highest level of morality; it will fall over on its side and become trampled by all other nations. This country has a living constitution, and I sincerely believe that. However, I do not believe that it needs to be updated as cultural hegemony transforms. In fact, the constitution’s core value is to sustain the foundations of liberty in this country when the “progressive” agendas aim to destroy or redefine the fundamentalism of America.

Also, you’re right, maybe I do not try and understand because I am too busy falling over with disbelief when I read what you guys value! However, I’m addicted to reading liberal guides to a better America…it is my fuel.

[theotherjimmyolson]

Jessica, do not concern yourself with the leftist Islamic radical sympathizers in this country. I know both of them personally, and neither of them is the least bit politically active. They pose no threat to the Murka you know and love so well.

[Jessica]

Tank you for that, and i really wish they weren't active...but building a victory mosque on ground zero says otherwise!

[Joseph Cox]

Jessica,

Thanks for your response. I do like my mom, she's pretty great.

You write: "It seems to me that you do not value a moral system that challenges humans to self evaluate their own souls on an individual level, but instead hide behind these political and social causes that generalize who we actual are as people. The purpose of the government should only be protection not provision."

Protection and provision overlap and become difficult to separate in so many cases. Is public education a provision, or just protecting defenseless citizens against a unequal opportunity? How about medical care for children? Or old people? We are the richest country in the world- by a long shot despite all the hype about China as the second largest economy in the world- surely we can put a floor underneath our most vulnerable citizens. I doubt you want the whole sale abolition of all public assistance- food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, public libraries, schools and roads- so we are just arguing about where provision stops ensuring equality of opportunity and becomes redistribution. That's a fine discussion, but it isn't productively discussed in the frame of "souls on an individual level" versus "social causes."

Meanwhile, I am surprised at how many Christians, who will point to anecdotal, minor examples of anti-Christian bias as proof of a coordinated attack on Christianity (I watched a movie in Sunday School the last time I was home that made me visibly angry because I didn't think it had any place in a church), but then will think nothing of not allowing other citizens larger rights like free assembly or marriage. Can you imagine America banning Pentecostal marriage or church construction near organizations (abortion clinics, gay clubs, porn or alcohol stores) that felt uncomfortable with churches in their neighborhood? The Bill of Rights isn't to guarantee the rights of popular organizations, its for the unpopular ones. That's why the ACLU is such a wonderful organization- even and especially when they are defending Nazis and the people who protest at soldier's funerals- because the US is weakened far more by not allowing disreputable or unpopular speech, press, religion and assembly. Now I don't think gay marriage is disreputable and I don't see the danger of the "Ground Zero Mosque," but even if you do that doesn't mean you should support bans. When did praying fall out of vogue in favor of legislation to change hearts?

Thanks for writing, and I apologize for Jimmy Olsen above. I bet its one of my friends who woke up from a TV and Cheeto coma just long enough to one handedly type that. Go watch the Jersey Shore, "Jimmy" (no really, its great!).

[theotherjimmyolson]

Have it your way ,Mr. cox. It's your blog and you can hurl gratuitous insults at whomever you please. For the record, It's Olson, not Olsen, Swenska not Norweger. At 70 y/o I also have hypertension, so no added salt and certainly no "Cheetos" As to the T.V. coma, I kept my television long enough to have the pleasure of watching Nixon resign in disgrace, then threw it out. Googling it you will find that was c.1974. You are batting .000 so far, but cheer up, your last guess was correct! Why you would want to ridicule an old man who mangled his left hand fifteen years ago in a 16" jointer is something you might want to ask yourself.