A must-read: Christopher Hitchens' superb analysis of the "Tea Party"

[Marokai Backbeat]

The post calling the author a "moron" pretty much proves the point of his article. The Tea Party stands for everything that is negative about politics.

Which is why the author spends most of the article calling his political opponents anything from racists to terrorists for daring to hold differing views on the role of government in society.

The Author is just another self-righteous loudmouth of the left who buys into the Liberal's version of the sort of paranoia he's trying to project onto the Tea Party.  These guys are a dime a dozen these days.

You don't know much about Hitchens, do you?

[King]

Before I read this thread, lemme make a prediction:

StatesRights or cinyc bashes the article outright, perhaps without even reading it
Marokai or Lief project their support, perhaps arguing with the above two posters
jmfcst references the bible
Morgan, Libertas (if he were here), or Zarn call author an idiot; probably have never heard of Hitchens prior to this moment
Random Brit defends Hitchens
Stealth anti-Liberal one liner by JJ or RowanBrandon
And um... nkpolitics1279 ignorable post?

Let's see how I did...

[patrick1]

Before I read this thread, lemme make a prediction:

StatesRights or cinyc bashes the article outright, perhaps without even reading it
Marokai or Lief project their support, perhaps arguing with the above two posters
jmfcst references the bible
Morgan, Libertas (if he were here), or Zarn call author an idiot; probably have never heard of Hitchens prior to this moment
Random Brit defends Hitchens
Stealth anti-Liberal one liner by JJ or RowanBrandon
And um... nkpolitics1279 ignorable post?

Let's see how I did...

Haha, pretty good.

[King]

Before I read this thread, lemme make a prediction:

StatesRights or cinyc bashes the article outright, perhaps without even reading it
Marokai or Lief project their support, perhaps arguing with the above two posters
jmfcst references the bible
Morgan, Libertas (if he were here), or Zarn call author an idiot; probably have never heard of Hitchens prior to this moment
Random Brit defends Hitchens
Stealth anti-Liberal one liner by JJ or RowanBrandon
And um... nkpolitics1279 ignorable post?

Let's see how I did...

Haha, pretty good.

Yes.  I should've known to take the htmldon/bullmoose/Torie voice of approval bet instead of the nk/pbrower troll bet.  Otherwise, a decent outing.

[memphis]

I'm not so convinced that opposition to Obama is a racial thing.

A major reason why I defend the Tea Party.

Doesn't mean they warrant a defense. They're still horrible people advocating for all that is wrong with America.

[Torie]

I look forward to reading Hitchens' article.  In the meantime, I highly recommend his book, Hitch 22. It is such a joy to read, and made me think. I like that. He finished it right about the time he got sick. Thank heavens he took the project on when he did.

Hitch will probably be dead in a few months, unless modern medicine can cope with a disease that in the case of the Dad, circa 1991, was 100% fatal - within a year of diagnosis. Back then, if you had esophageal cancer that was symptomatic when detected, you're going to die within that time frame. There are just too many lymph nodes in the vicinity, that metastasize the cancer prior to detection.  You can imagine my feelings when I read this in the medical journals after my Dad was diagnosed. It broke my heart.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hitchens is still right-wing traitor trash, even if the article is basically correct.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm not so convinced that opposition to Obama is a racial thing.

A major reason why I defend the Tea Party.

Why defend the same morons who lost you three Senate seats (Delaware, Nevada and Colorado) and make your side look a bit ridiculous with the Birther nonsense? If I were a Republican I'd probably hate the teabaggers as much as I do now.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm not so convinced that opposition to Obama is a racial thing.

A major reason why I defend the Tea Party.

Doesn't mean they warrant a defense. They're still horrible people advocating for all that is wrong with America.

I disagree with your last sentence though.

I'm not so convinced that opposition to Obama is a racial thing.

A major reason why I defend the Tea Party.

Why defend the same morons who lost you three Senate seats (Delaware, Nevada and Colorado) and make your side look a bit ridiculous with the Birther nonsense? If I were a Republican I'd probably hate the teabaggers as much as I do now.

Because there is plenty more on which I can agree with them. You know my feelings on the above three Senate primary defeats and especially with the Birther issue but it's not enough for me to hate them.

[DrScholl]

Which is why the author spends most of the article calling his political opponents anything from racists to terrorists for daring to hold differing views on the role of government in society.

The Author is just another self-righteous loudmouth of the left who buys into the Liberal's version of the sort of paranoia he's trying to project onto the Tea Party.  These guys are a dime a dozen these days.

It's not like the Tea Party didn't earn the criticisms that the authored leveled at them. You can throw out all the right-wing cliches about left-wing this and that, but it doesn't change a thing. Whatever makes you feel better, though.

[??????????]

Which is why the author spends most of the article calling his political opponents anything from racists to terrorists for daring to hold differing views on the role of government in society.

The Author is just another self-righteous loudmouth of the left who buys into the Liberal's version of the sort of paranoia he's trying to project onto the Tea Party.  These guys are a dime a dozen these days.

It's not like the Tea Party didn't earn the criticisms that the authored leveled at them. You can throw out all the right-wing cliches about left-wing this and that, but it doesn't change a thing. Whatever makes you feel better, though.

Please, I stopped reading his trash once he started calling the tea party "racist". That red flag is enough to let me know what the REAL motivation of the author is. Nothing worth seeing there really.

[DrScholl]

Please, I stopped reading his trash once he started calling the tea party "racist". That red flag is enough to let me know what the REAL motivation of the author is. Nothing worth seeing there really.

Various signs carried by Tea Partiers demonstrated very blatant racism. You really have to question what the motivation is. None of these people protested when Bush was running up a huge deficit and making all sorts of bad policy decisions. It's not all about racism, for some it's about bitterness over losing. The Tea Party is a mix of racism and bitterness.

[dead0man]

Please, I stopped reading his trash once he started calling the tea party "racist". That red flag is enough to let me know what the REAL motivation of the author is. Nothing worth seeing there really.

Various signs carried by Tea Partiers demonstrated very blatant racism. You really have to question what the motivation is. None of these people protested when Bush was running up a huge deficit and making all sorts of bad policy decisions. It's not all about racism, for some it's about bitterness over losing. The Tea Party is a mix of racism and bitterness.

Did the various racist signs at peace rallies (back when Bush was in office and there were wars going on...unlike now) mean peace activists were/are racists?  Of course not.  It wasn't all about racism, for some it was about bitterness over losing.  Peace rallies were a mix of racism and bitterness.



edit-also note that I"m in no way a fan of the current Tea Party, nor do I think peace rallies were just about bitterness and racism.  I'm just pointing out the obvious flaw in your logic.

[??????????]

Please, I stopped reading his trash once he started calling the tea party "racist". That red flag is enough to let me know what the REAL motivation of the author is. Nothing worth seeing there really.

Various signs carried by Tea Partiers demonstrated very blatant racism. You really have to question what the motivation is. None of these people protested when Bush was running up a huge deficit and making all sorts of bad policy decisions. It's not all about racism, for some it's about bitterness over losing. The Tea Party is a mix of racism and bitterness.

Well, this right wing source disagrees with you.

Another source.

[Phony Moderate]

Hitchens is a clueless moron, clearly.

Please, stop projecting.

You first.

Only after you at least a semi-intelligent response to this article.

How do I a semi-intelligent response to the article?

You win. Not really, but since you have the mentality and debating skills of a 6-year old....

[cannonia]

The column is not really enlightening.  To treat the Tea Party as a single entity is a mistake.  Hitchens goes further and conflates the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, and a number of conspiracy theorists.  I also think think his criticism of mainstream conservatives is odd; it seems to amount to guilt-by-association-by-association.  Finally, the gist of the article is that the Tea Party is prejudicial and inexact in its criticism.  Honestly, the same argument could be made about Hitchens' column.

Off topic - Esophageal cancer is a terrible way to go.  I have seen a loved one waste away and essentially die of starvation as a result of this cancer.  My heart goes out to Hitchens, and I hope for a full and speedy recovery, though I know that is incredibly unlikely.

[Free Palestine]

Hitchens is a clueless moron, clearly.

Please, stop projecting.

You first.

Only after you at least a semi-intelligent response to this article.

How do I a semi-intelligent response to the article?

You win. Not really, but since you have the mentality and debating skills of a 6-year old....

Says the troll.

[bullmoose88]

Before I read this thread, lemme make a prediction:

StatesRights or cinyc bashes the article outright, perhaps without even reading it
Marokai or Lief project their support, perhaps arguing with the above two posters
jmfcst references the bible
Morgan, Libertas (if he were here), or Zarn call author an idiot; probably have never heard of Hitchens prior to this moment
Random Brit defends Hitchens
Stealth anti-Liberal one liner by JJ or RowanBrandon
And um... nkpolitics1279 ignorable post?

Let's see how I did...

Haha, pretty good.

Yes.  I should've known to take the htmldon/bullmoose/Torie voice of approval bet instead of the nk/pbrower troll bet.  Otherwise, a decent outing.

The Ice...is...GONNA BREAK

[LBJ Revivalist]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/tea-party-jacobins/?pagination=false

A better article, which shows how the Tea Party is a very Jacobin movement which has been developing for decades due to two revolutions: The individualist revolution of the 1960s, and the greed/Let government leave me alone movement/feeling of the 1980s/Reagan Era.

[opebo]

the central tenents of Liberalism are:  1) biblical Christian morality is bad, 2) capitalism is bad, and 3) American exceptionalism is bad.

No, we're moral relativists, aren't we, jmfcst?  We don't say anything is 'bad' in an objective sense.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the central tenents of Liberalism are:  1) biblical Christian morality is bad, 2) capitalism is bad, and 3) American exceptionalism is bad.

No, we're moral relativists, aren't we, jmfcst?  We don't say anything is 'bad' in an objective sense.

in other words, there's some of opebo in every liberal

[Torie]

You can be right of center and a moral relativist. I suggest myself as Exhibit A.    Yes, just because conservatives have given the term a noisome aspect is not going to intimidate me.

[DrScholl]

Various signs carried by Tea Partiers demonstrated very blatant racism. You really have to question what the motivation is. None of these people protested when Bush was running up a huge deficit and making all sorts of bad policy decisions. It's not all about racism, for some it's about bitterness over losing. The Tea Party is a mix of racism and bitterness.

Did the various racist signs at peace rallies (back when Bush was in office and there were wars going on...unlike now) mean peace activists were/are racists?  Of course not.  It wasn't all about racism, for some it was about bitterness over losing.  Peace rallies were a mix of racism and bitterness.



edit-also note that I"m in no way a fan of the current Tea Party, nor do I think peace rallies were just about bitterness and racism.  I'm just pointing out the obvious flaw in your logic.
[/quote]

Your point is? There's really no denying that there is an element of both racism and bitterness in the Tea Party, not all of the members are protesting for legitimate reasons.

Well, this right wing source disagrees with you.

Another source.

Opinion pieces don't change anything, of course certain people are going to defend the Tea Party.

[dead0man]

Your point is? There's really no denying that there is an element of both racism and bitterness in the Tea Party, not all of the members are protesting for legitimate reasons.

Agreed.  Just like the peace rallies.  Which was my point.  You can't paint an entire group of people because of the actions of some.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Your point is? There's really no denying that there is an element of both racism and bitterness in the Tea Party, not all of the members are protesting for legitimate reasons.

Agreed.  Just like the peace rallies.  Which was my point.  You can't paint an entire group of people because of the actions of some.

Actually I'm kind of curious. What kind of racism was directed by peace protesters against Bush?
That they called him stupid?