August 4, 2011
You know me. Never one to give a blog post a provocative headline unless I absolutely have to. And here I am doing no more than faithfully report on an important debate currently raging between two of my favourite Fox news stalwarts Bill O’Reilly and Charles Krauthammer.
In the aftermath of the debt ceiling deal struck between congressional Republicans, congressional Democrats and the White House, concessions made by Democrats have caused some on the left to lash out at the Tea Party. But where is this show of anger — with epithets like “hostage takers,” “terrorists” and “thugs” flying around — coming from?
On Tuesday’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” Bill O’Reilly suggested it was a concerted effort, organized by the left with the intention of marginalizing the Tea Party. But Washington Post columnist and Fox News Channel regular Charles Krauthammer said the situation is far simpler. He said instead it was a show of their “lack of intelligence” and “lack of originality.”
Dearly though I’d love to agree with both of them I think Krauthammer’s argument has the edge. Most people on the liberal-Left think and act the way they do not because they want to destroy the world but because they want to make it better. What they’re too stupid to understand is that their entire philosophy is cast iron guaranteed to make everything worse instead.
Let’s consider the Left’s response to the current global economic crisis. Here, exhibit A, is a woman named Polly. Over the years Polly has made a very comfortable living (second home in Italy, private education for her step-children, etc) explaining to readers of her Left-wing newspaper why the world will be a better place if only the government steals more money from the productive sector of the economy and spends it on lesbian outreach workers, black rage collectives and disabled whale workshop groupuscules. With the benefit of these insights, our Pol has absolutely no doubt who is to blame for the fact that more and more of us have less and less money to spend on trivia like food, our children’s education, housing and other filthy bourgeois capitalist running dog luxuries.
Yes, that’s right. It’s the fault of Right-wingers. The Tea Party, especially:
Tea Party madness has brought the US to the brink of economic mayhem, risking taking much of the world with it.
She goes on:
In the face of obdurate unreason, the president of hyper-reasonableness was forced to surrender. The economic credibility of the country that holds the global reserve currency has wobbled. The political credibility of the world’s beacon of democracy has failed in the face of an insurgency of unreason. Facts, evidence, probability, possibility – none of that matters to a movement founded on ferocious fantasy.
The rise of the Tea Party owes a great deal to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox TV, the foghorn of extremism that changed the nature of political discourse. Trouncing the competition, its propagandising for Tea Party views misinforms the electorate on just about everything: it is rivetingly frightening viewing.
In vain do you wait for the bit in Polly’s “will this do?” screed where she explains why it is that the Tea Party’s principled determination to reduce America’s $14 trillion debt is such a dangerous and wrongheaded thing.
Is it because Polly thinks that being $14 trillion in the red is good for the soul because it teaches the virtues of thrift and smiling-through-hardship and will tackle America’s obesity problem?
Is it because Polly has a brilliant growth plan which will enable the US economy to pay off that debt in no time, without any need whatsoever for Obama to slash his extravagant spending?
Is it because Polly’s birth family (the High Tory, hunting, shooting Ponsonby-Smythes of Leicestershire who originally christened her Petronella; Polly famously changed her name in the 1970s in honour of a Cambodian communist leader she admired at the time) – were all wiped out in a bizarre Darjeeling-drinking incident giving poor “Pol” a lifelong aversion to any concept beginning with “T” and ending “-ea.”
Any one of these arguments would make a warped kind of sense. You might disagree with them – no, you’d definitely disagree with them – but at least you would concede that the girl was trying hard and that at least her line of “reasoning” followed a vague internal logic. But you definitely couldn’t say that about the piece I’ve quoted above. Not once, not at any stage, does she produce even a semblance of a smidgen of a soupçon of a morsel of evidence to support her contention that the Tea Party are mad, dangerous, extremist and against the principles of the Founding Fathers.
And the reason she can’t demonstrate this is because her claims are palpably untrue. No – contra Pol – the founding fathers would not be shocked by Glenn Beck or Michelle Bachmann because they would recognise their ideological position as being far more in tune with the values expressed in the original US Constitution (and its various amendments) than anything Barack Obama’s administration has to offer. No, it is not an extremist position wishing to restore your country’s economic fortunes by cutting its national debt and reducing government waste. No it is not mad – given the weight of historical evidence – to argue that the very last thing a declining economy needs to get itself back on its feet is higher taxes and more government spending.
So why, then, does Pol feel able to cast these aspersions at the Tea Party as if they held any kind of truth?
I’m afraid, for the answer to this – and to the title of this post – you’re going to have to wait till Are Lefties Incredibly Stupid Or Just Plain Evil (pt II) which I hope to write later on today, or tomorrow, depending on the weather and stuff.