Home > Philosophy, Political Correctness > Weak Tea or Strong Tea?

Weak Tea or Strong Tea?

Social critic Lee Harris scores great points in his analysis of the Tea Party movement. Though his analysis is indirect: he is critiquing David Brooks’ analysis. But, Harris leaves no doubt where he stands.

Here we come to the most puzzling aspect of David Brooks’s column. Why did he feel the need to make his derisive and gratuitous reference to Wal-Mart shoppers? The answer appears to be that Brooks is engaged in a sly argumentum ad hominem. He is attacking the Tea Party movement by pointing out that those who sympathize with it are likely to shop at Wal-Mart. Now, as a sociological observation, there may be an element of truth in this contention. But it is also possible to take the remark as a not terribly subtle appeal to his reader’s latent (or not so latent) snobbery. After all, what could be more déclassé than shopping at Wal-Mart? It is a bit as if David Brooks had winked at his sophisticated audience and said, “We know what kind of people shop at Wal-Mart. And you certainly don’t want to be caught dead holding the same ideas as these people, do you? That would almost be as gauche as buying your clothes at Wal-Mart.”

It is easy to feel sympathy with the blind men in the fable. Yes, they are all groping in the dark, but each of them is sincerely trying to discover the nature of the beast by the best methods available with his limited resources. But too many of those currently involved in “analyzing” the Tea Party movement seem to have no genuine interest in grappling with its potential historical significance. They are content to ridicule and scoff at it. They are delighted to draw analogies between the Tea Partiers and various inconsequential fringe movements of the past, such as hippies or the New Left. But no approach could possibly be more counterproductive than a policy of conspicuous disdain. There is no surer way of convincing the Wal-Mart crowd that America really has fallen into the hands of arrogant elitists than to show contempt for working people like themselves. It is one thing to preach to the choir. It is another thing to spit at the congregation.

I have been to a couple of Tea Party events here in San Diego. Great people. Salt of the Earth. Harris is right on.

Spread the word:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • NewsVine
  1. March 10th, 2010 at 21:07 | #1

    This isn’t the first time that Brooks has been linked with snobbery. It’s the beltway media thing. Cocktail parties, etc.

    See:
    The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

    The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.

    Source:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/opinion/05brooks.html?ref=opinion

    All the Tea Party people are uneducated, according to Brooks. What a loser. You know whose showing some conservatism these days? George Will.

  1. No trackbacks yet.