Columnists are both intelligent and articulate by their very nature. To me, the two key factors distinguishing them are tone and position. David Brooks (NY Times) is one of my favorite columnists because he is not angry or condescending and his moderate positions are more in line with mine. Thus the very reasons many to the right and left do not care for Mr. Brooks.
Brooks’ recent column on the Tea Party movement surprised me – well, in a timing sense. I am not a tea party supporter for various reasons. First, they are simply too angry for me; thus I have a difficult time giving them the time of day. Their propensity for vicious name-calling is unnecessary, obnoxious, and disrespectful.
Secondly, I find them hypocritical. Now I can understand their opposition government involvement in the current health-insurance debate; but they do not argue to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Whereas they tend to be more economic isolationists and promote American-made, their purchasing behaviors are counter to their words.
I’m confident that most Tea Party members have a strong distaste for anything associated with Michael Moore. On the other hand, don’t they support polar-opposite movies/documentaries (and I loosely use those nouns)?
Now here is the kicker. Brooks writes, “They believe big government, big business, big media, and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes, and intrusive regulation.”
Since this seems correct from my perspective, I ask this question – Why are these people supporting the Republican Party? Do they not realize that the GOP is simply a different group of affluent professionals supported by a different group of special interests who favor their self-serving needs above the needs of the country and its people?
Since the Libertarian Party contains the ideals of the Tea Party movement, instead of being a slice of the Republican Party, why not join and support the Libertarian Party! After all, America can use viable alternatives to the big, dominant parties. Oh, that’s right – it is about money, self-serving special interests, and the media.
A Frank Angle 
There is a lot of cynicism in your post. You seem to have skipped over the lead sentence in the paragraph that you quoted, “The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans”. How can you paint a “fractious confederation” with such a broad brush?
In my experience, there is a lot of variation of opinion among Tea Party enthusiasts. The generalization you make may be true of the few people that you have been in contact with but it is unfair to paint the entire movement with your opinion.
Why do tea party followers tend to support Republicans? It is because as bad as they are, Republican political practice and professed opinion is closer to what tea party followers want.
People realize that Republicans are against big government only when it suits their purpose. They realize that Republicans go to the pork trough as much or more than Democrats. But they also realize that they have a far greater chance of influencing an ascendant Republican party than they have of electing Libertarians to office.
I would think that a professed pragmatist would see this as an obvious fact.
LikeLike
Thersites,
At least I appreciate your honesty when realizing that Republican political practice is contrary to what they say. That is the reason why I believe that the Tea Party energy would boost the Libertarian voice and war chest … thus bring a new voice into the system.
Thanks for commenting.
LikeLike