I hate it when David Brooks writes a column on a subject that I have been researching on and planning to write about for weeks. And he did it to me this morning, with a great column about “The Wall Mart Hippies” (http://budurl.com/2r5v).
His central thesis is that tea-party crowd is not really conservative at all. “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.”
I think that is spot-on, but I would also take it a step further.
True conservatives value one thing over any thing else: societal stability.
When so-called conservatives adopt tactics of the left — like Alinsky’s “Rule for Radicals” — they help further the cause of the left, which is social instability.
The dictionary definition of conservative is, “Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.” Russell Kirk, the iconic conservative thinker, considered conservatism “the negation of ideology.” Edmund Burke, considered by many the father of conservative thought because of his condemnation of the French Revolution, put it this way, “custom reconciles us to everything.”
But what do the tea-partiers do?
They march with signs of Barack Obama in a clown face. They spend an inordinate time wondering if Obama was born in America. They attack institutions.
They use Alinsky’s rules against the Left, but by doing so they create anarchy.
Dick Armey, the self-proclaimed father of the Tea Party movement, has been unapologetic in his use of these tactics. James O’Keefe, the right-wing provocateur, seems to enjoy channeling his inner Abby-Hoffman.
Even the leading lights of so-called conservative talk radio, guys like Rush Limbaugh and especially Glen Beck, use many of these tactics to provoke, to entertain, and to shock the public.
But conservatives should think long and hard about by being right-wing left-wingers.
If conservatives decide to adopt the same tactics of the left, if they decide to be every bit as uncivil as the craziest radical, if they choose to be every bit as rude as the rudest hippy, if they choose to use language meant to abuse and destroy their opposition, who really wins and who really loses?
If we have an uncivil society, doesn’t that serve the interests of those who would prefer anarchy? If we treat the left like they treat us, doesn’t that mean that they win, because everybody loses?
Conservatives should be defending, not deriding, the democratic process. They should be insisting on civility in democratic discourse. They should practice basic politeness, and they should show respect for those who hold office.
It is altogether fun to bash the political class, and to make fun of all politicians. It must be therapeutic to call them all crooks and to march and protest, and read from Abby Hoffman’s playbook.
It is even more fun to follow Glen Beck’s conspiracy theories, to connect the dots in ways that were never meant to be connected, to speak darkly of the Trilateral Commission and to talk about succession and nullification.
And it must be a lot of fun for people to talk about how they are going to arm themselves and resist against the terrible federal government.
But, that isn’t what being a conservative is all about. Conservatives don’t look for ways to undermine civil society. Conservatives respect the Constitutional process as designed by our Founders, and modified on occasion by our forefathers. Conservatives appreciate the democratic process, and seek to make society better, not through revolution or radicalism, but through evolution and incrementalism.
Abby Hoffman once said that sacred cows make for a tasty hamburger. He also said that the first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.
A real conservative doesn’t play that game. A real conservative puts a high value on civil society, stability, and a social contract based on mutual respect and equal opportunity.
A real conservative doesn’t try to “get away with it.”
“The Rules For Radicals” was designed as a guide for the left to use to tear down civil society and build up something utopian in its place. It tactics are not applicable to those of us who value a stable, civil, and prosperous nation.
Tags: Abby Hoffman, Barack Obama, Conservatives, David Brooks, democratic process, Dick Armey, Edmund Burke, Glen Beck, James O’Keefe, RUSH LIMBAUGH, Russell Kirk, Tea Party, The New Left
Loading ...
Um… so what are Conservatives supposed to do when those who hold office are actively undermining the civil society? Just lay down and take it? Tea Party protests are peaceful. Are you saying conservatives don’t protest? Are you saying conservatives shouldn’t point out that there’s a Statist agenda in play here?
The reason why Obama is even able to do any of this is because conservatives sat silent for too long. When should we finally speak out and say that our civil society is in jeopardy?
Our civil society has been under attack since the early 1900s. When exactly is it okay to finally stand up and say “Enough!”? When it’s too late? When the very anarchy you are seeking to avoid becomes inevitable because we didn’t speak out soon enough?
It is people like you and David Brooks who need to snap out of it and start calling out, in non-pussy terms, that our civil society is being destroyed by Progressives. Or are you saying you believe in big government Statism? Why can’t we “attack” institutions if they are actively undermining the civil society? If the institutions were created by Progressives, do they become immune from criticism because they exist?
You’re not making any sense at all.
I’d add things like ‘a real conservative would insist on following the rule of law AT ALL TIMES’ and ‘a real conservative wouldn’t rally behind a government spying on it’s citizens’ and ‘a real conservative would respect the institutions of government such as the Fed and the IRS and our Justice Dept.’ and ‘a real conservative would not have supported changes in tax code and laws affecting unionization as a way to destroy the middle-class that sustains us’ and ‘a real conservative would not have supported war for oil’. There are very few real conservatives left, in my opinion.
Thanks to both Laura and Ralph for visiting the Feehery Theory. I appreciate the comments. To Ralph, let me say that that we have a Constitution and a process to fight back in a civil and respectful way. It is called the ballot box. We don’t need to use Abby Hoffman’s tactics. We don’t need to stoop to their level. We don’t need to parade around with offensive signs. We don’t need to further destroy our civil society so that we can save it. Conservatives organize and then vote. That is what they should do. I don’t believe in Big Government statism. I believe in civil society and democracy. And Laura, let me say that you make some good points. I believe that conservatives should and do believe in the rule of law at all times. No certain about the union stuff (I think pubic employee unions are organized way to rip off the taxpayers), but I hear what you are saying on the other stuff.
Did you watch or attend any of the protests? The “offensive” signs were vastly outnumbered by perfectly respectable ones. Or do you consider any sign offensive?
Secondly, the protests were peaceful. You keep acting like people were rioting. They were not. And they leave the locations clean.
Our civil society was created by the Constitution correct? Then why on earth do you think the framers put this in there?:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
You see the “the right of the people to peaceably assemble” part? That’s what the Tea Parties do. Our framers SPECIFICALLY protected the right to assemble and air our grievances and I don’t see anywhere where they required it only be at the ballot box.
The Tea Party movement, in general, is a Conservative movement no matter how much Progressive-lite David Brooks doesn’t like it and no matter what aversion you have to protests.
The more I think about this column the less sense it makes. You and Brooks are implying that the Tea Partiers aren’t conservatives because they protest? That’s what you’re saying here.
Using Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is not becoming of the conservative movement. Being Conservative is not only about taking positions on issues. It is also about having a respect for civil society and tradition. Getting inspiration from Abby Hoffman is not conservative. Protesting is not really what conservatives do. Organizing is what conservatives do. Sure, the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and I am all for it. But The Tea Party doesn’t organize. It just loudly complains. We need action, not endless bitching. We need rational ideas. Not dark conspiracies. We need forward movement to get the government out of our lives, in a civil and rational way.
David Brooks is a traitor to the Conservative Cause and makes money by going on MSLSD and CNN as their “token conservative” and then bashes the Teaparty and grassroots conservatives. However, with that said, you, Mr. Feehery, may have some legitimate points regarding the NeoCons who use vulgarity & cheap shots to argue their points.
I would postulate that Conservatives should 1)stick to the Constitution, for better or worse; 2)use Logic and Persuasion rather than Vulgarity and Intimidation; 3)live what you preach-no one likes a hypocrite; 4)acknowledge that Self Government is the cornerstone of our Constitution-without personal responsibility, a statist government steps in to provide the Civil Society that conservatives want; 5)promote and practice private charity-we then can take the moral highroad when we insist that Charity is NOT the proper role of Government.
That’s all for now – keep up the good work, and thanks for the Twitter Follow!
http://www.twitter/JonFromWestbury.com
Okay, John. I understand where you’re coming from. I get that you don’t like protests. But I just don’t see a correlation between protesting and a person’s “conservativeness” like you do.
You are basically saying that if I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, Federalism, that the Federal Government should be limited to the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8, in a strong national defense, and fiscal restraint BUT if I take part in a protest I’m not a true conservative. That is a steaming pile of horse crap, John.
Are there some over the top people at the Tea Parties? Yes. Are there even some phony conservatives? Probably. But you and Brooks are slamming the entire movement based on the fringe elements of a movement that is still getting its bearings.
You guys have already written it off before truly understanding it. And THAT is not what conservatives do.