The Wal-Mart Hippies (David Brooks)
About 40 years ago, a social movement arose to destroy the establishment. The people we loosely call the New Left wanted to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
Today, another social movement has arisen. The people we loosely call the Tea Partiers also want to destroy the establishment. They also want to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.
There are many differences between the New Left and the Tea Partiers. One was on the left, the other is on the right. One was bohemian, the other is bourgeois. One was motivated by war, and the other is motivated by runaway federal spending. One went to Woodstock, the other is more likely to go to Wal-Mart.
But the similarities are more striking than the differences. To start with, the Tea Partiers have adopted the tactics of the New Left. They go in for street theater, mass rallies, marches and extreme statements that are designed to shock polite society out of its stupor. This mimicry is no accident. Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left.
These days the same people who are buying Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” on Amazon.com are, according to the company’s software, also buying books like “Liberal Fascism,” “Rules for Conservative Radicals,” “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left,” and “The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party.” Those last two books were written by David Horowitz, who was a leading New Left polemicist in the 1960s and is now a leading polemicist on the right.
But the core commonality is this: Members of both movements believe in what you might call mass innocence. Both movements are built on the assumption that the people are pure and virtuous and that evil is introduced into society by corrupt elites and rotten authority structures. “Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains,” is how Rousseau put it.
Because of this assumption, members of both movements go in big for conspiracy theories. The ’60s left developed elaborate theories of how world history was being manipulated by shadowy corporatist/imperialist networks — theories that live on in the works of Noam Chomsky. In its short life, the Tea Party movement has developed a dizzying array of conspiracy theories involving the Fed, the F.B.I., the big banks and corporations and black helicopters.
Because of this assumption, members of the Tea Party right, like the members of the New Left, spend a lot of time worrying about being co-opted. They worry that the corrupt forces of the establishment are perpetually trying to infiltrate the purity of their ranks.
Because of this assumption, members of both movements have a problem with authority. Both have a mostly negative agenda: destroy the corrupt structures; defeat the establishment. Like the New Left, the Tea Party movement has no clear set of plans for what to do beyond the golden moment of personal liberation, when the federal leviathan is brought low.
Recently a piece in Salon astutely compared Glenn Beck to Abbie Hoffman. In it, Michael Lind pointed out that the conservatives in the 1960s and 1970s built a counter-establishment — a network of think tanks, activist groups, academic associations and political leaders who would form conservative cadres, promoting conservative ideas and policies.
But the Tea Partiers are closer to the New Left. They don’t seek to form a counter-establishment because they don’t believe in establishments or in authority structures. They believe in the spontaneous uprising of participatory democracy. They believe in mass action and the politics of barricades, not in structure and organization. As one activist put it recently on a Tea Party blog: “We reject the idea that the Tea Party Movement is ‘led’ by anyone other than the millions of average citizens who make it up.”
For this reason, both the New Left and the Tea Party movement are radically anticonservative. Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.
That idea was rejected in the 1960s by people who put their faith in unrestrained passion and zealotry. The New Left then, like the Tea Partiers now, had a legitimate point about the failure of the ruling class. But they ruined it through their own imprudence, self-righteousness and naïve radicalism. The Tea Partiers will not take over the G.O.P., but it seems as though the ’60s political style will always be with us — first on the left, now the right.
why would you read this clown?
Same reason I read Alvin? Yea, the last column I read from him was the most piss-poor analogy using Calvin and Hobbes (the philosophers) you could imagine. But it’s good to see how bad historical analogies are made.
Originally Posted by travy
Anyways, although a lot of the comments have better insights than the columnists, I’d make my initial objections on two points:
1 Well, even before one I think we should distinguish the term “hippie” and “student movement” of the late 60s – hippie being synonymous with faddish, commercial pop culture and so forth and not political engagement. (notice that in blurring the two the historical analysis becomes derogatory)
Now, the student movement was international; the best example being the Sorbonne in which the initial student movement caught enough momentum to attract labor power and almost brought the French government to collapse. Is the Tea Party international?
2 Brooks argues that their tactics are the same. Well are the subscribed tactics that he claims they have in common exclusive only to the two groups he’s analyzing? In other words, aren't these tactics quite common amongst any protesting or political agitating groups? If so, then it doesn’t give any weight to argument.
fuck, you're going to force me to read this.
Originally Posted by Bill Blake
(sorry to piss on your thread but brooks, friedman and the rest of the incestuous beltway nyt columnists--save krugman--will have a special place in hell for all the harm they do as 'liberals'. they are wolves in sheep's clothing and hopefully will be the first to burn when the torches and pitchforks come out. i myself have a running promise to spit on any of them should i encounter them on the street.)
David Brooks is such a Putz and as far as I can tell the Tea Party movement is completely fabricated.
brooks and other washington conservatives never left the 60's and that's the problem. their entire worldview is still colored by chicago 1968, mlk and haight ashbury and all that hippie pussy they missed out on
Originally Posted by Bill Blake