The New York Times on the Growling Fringe

If the rise of the Tea Party Movement has illustrated anything, it is the utter contempt that the Left in America has for, well, a whole lot of Americans. Here (hat tip to James Taranto at the WSJ) is a bit from a New York Times editorial from three days ago.

Democratic operatives are ablaze with excitement over the victory of two particularly dubious Tea Party candidates in Tuesday's Republican primaries, envisioning smoother paths to victory in the races for governor in New York and United States senator in Delaware. But for voters of all stripes, Tuesday's primaries should illuminate the growling face of a new fringe in American politics — and provide the incentive for level-headed voters to become enthusiastic about the midterm election.

Now I understand that the Democrats in general and the Times in particular are happy that Christine O'Donnell won the Senate Republican primary in Delaware. Republican voters in Delaware had to choose between a candidate who stood a very good chance of winning and one who seemed to more genuinely represent their own principles. I would have voted for Castle. This being a republic, Delaware Republicans got to vote as they chose. That looks to me like the kind of decision that reasonable people often have to make, and such people aren't less reasonable because they don't vote the way I would have preferred.

The New York Times doesn't see it that way. Delaware Republicans are "the growling face of a new fringe in American politics". The growling face? That's a bit dehumanizing, isn't it? As Taranto puts it, using the President's own language, "America, they talk about you like a dog!"

Let us be clear about this, again using the President's favorite turn of phrase. The Tea Party people are not, in fact, a "fringe". They are the vanguard of public dismay. Behind them are almost all Republicans and about two thirds of independents. That adds up to more than half of America. That has been demonstrated in elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts. It has been further demonstrated in voting patterns across the nation. For the first time since the 1930's, more Republicans than Democrats voted in this year's primaries.

When the New York Times says "level-headed voters", they mean voters who agree with the New York Times. Everyone else is a growling beast, unfit to participate in democracy. I am pretty sure this is how the President thinks, and how Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid think. Most Americans are too feral and unbalanced to know what's good for them. The Left wonders why their heroes aren't sufficiently popular.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

Contempt is fear with a snarling mask.

[Mike Cooper]

I wonder if polling underestimates the tea party's strength? The MSM so consistently attacks tea partiers that some voters may not tell pollsters they actually support the tea party. I wonder if the Democrats are really looking at the loss of 80-100 seats in the House and 10-12 in the Senate? No matter what, I am looking forward to Election Day, and following the results.

[Bill Fleming]

In your post above, KB you argue that the Repubs suspect that we Dems are advocating for an overthrow of the Republic. Here you seem to be criticizing us for not being over enamored with an ill defined, incoherent, rabble rousing, rag-tag populist mob devoid of any ideas of substance and ginned up on corporate propaganda and right-wing Christian Supremacist xenophobia.

So which is it? Are you advocating for direct democracy and the accompanying mob rule via the Tea Party, or the ordered Republic outlined in our Constitution?

I don't see how you can have it both ways.

[KB]

Bill: I hardly see what any of this has to do with direct democracy. The Tea Party is exercising its power through good old fashioned Madison institutions.

I am criticizing the left because, apparently, it thinks that anyone who disagrees in the slightest degree with its agenda is "an ill defined, incoherent, rabble rousing, rag-tag populist mob devoid of any ideas of substance and ginned up on corporate propaganda and right-wing Christian Supremacist xenophobia". This is what you, apparently, think of a lot of Americans. How, I wonder, has your side become so unpopular?

[Bill Fleming]

By, design, KB. An all out, big bucks, last ditch attack in a generations-old culture war they are bound to lose.

I'll give them this though... at least it's not a whimper.

[Bill Fleming]

p.s. KW, I wouldn't call these numbers especially unpopular, especially when compared to the GOP leadership, and considering that NO ONE is going to be very happy with ANYBODY until we get done digesting the sh*t sandwich the last
administration forced us all to choke down.

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm#Gallup
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm

Can you show us any Republican numbers that are better?

[Bill Fleming]

p.s. KW, I wouldn't call these numbers especially unpopular, especially when compared to the GOP leadership, and considering that NO ONE is going to be very happy with ANYBODY until we get done digesting the sh*t sandwich the last
administration forced us all to choke down.

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm#Gallup
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm

Can you show us any Republican numbers that are better?

[Bill Fleming]

sorry about the double post, KB. There was a software hang up, I guess. Maybe you want to delete one of them (or both, for that matter ;^)

[Bill Fleming]

Just to save you a little time, KB:

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

The long and short of it is, there's not much future in your trying to claim that the Republicans or the Tea Party are somehow more popular than the Democrats are right now, other than to try to comfort yourself and your party menbers in some kind of mentally unbalanced schadenfreude.

[KB]

Bill: I am sure the sun is a lovely color your world, but on this planet you may have noticed that voting behavior has not been going in the Democrats favor. Remember Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia? Did you notice that, for the first time since the 1930's, more people voted in Republican primaries than in Democratic primaries? Where people could choose, participation in Republican events has dwarfed that of Democratic participation. These are real numbers, not projections from samples. Polls are estimates of public opinion. Voting IS public opinion.

I would cling to the Gallup poll if I were you, but its been going up and down like an accordion. I would ignore the Rasmussen poll, if I were you. Yeah, I know its been very accurate all year long, but he's a Republican so that doesn't count.

At any rate I did not say or imply that the Tea Party or the Republicans are more popular than the Democrats. The latter is a demonstrable fact, as I demonstrate above, but that wasn't my point. My point was that your view of a popular movement that includes almost all Republicans and about two thirds of independents might be a clue to why the Senate Majority leader is neck and neck with a very weak candidate, and why Russ Feingold has fallen into a whole. Your use of the word "rabble" is telling. Like a lot of Democrats, you think that the Tea Party people have no business holding an opinion, let alone expressing it. As you see it, they should shut up and do what their betters tell them. That's okay with me.

I sorta admire a little noblesse oblige now and then, as I possess no noblesse myself. But in a republic, it might not be good strategy for you nobles to tell the rabble what you really think of them.

ps. no problem about the double post. For some reason that has been happening a lot lately. And thanks for posting. Don't let my spirited reply mislead you: I appreciate your posts.

[Bill Fleming]

Thanks, Ken. I enjoy comparing notes with you. Please understand that by "rabble" I mean "a disorganized or disorderly crowd" and "a disorganized or confused collection of things" as opposed to a designation of low social class. And in that context, I stand by my remarks although I'll admit to perhaps overgeneralizing a little.

But not nearly so much as you do in your attempt to paint all Democrats with one broad brush. I mean come on, KB, talk about rabble! We are the very party of rabble. Read your Will Rogers.

[Bill Fleming]

That said, KB, I challenge you to explain to me how NeoCon Newt Gingrich is anything but an elitist, intellectual, fear-mongering rabble rouser. The man has gone off the deep end. My guess is, that he's figured out that that's where he has to go to be an effective Republican leader these days. Like Bill Clinton says, "he knows better, he's a smart man."

[Miranda]

I don't think it just has to do with the big bucks, Bill. You don't have to pay someone to be offended when someone refers to their family and friends as a "incoherent, rabble rousing, rag-tag populist mob devoid of any ideas of substance and ginned up on corporate propaganda and right-wing Christian Supremacist xenophobia."

[Bill Fleming]

Miranda, you should check into the composition of Carl Roves donor list.

He's getting ready to pump $55 million into GOP campaigns.

91% of that money came from 3 billionaire donors.

I'm only referring to the people who ARE the incoherent, rabble rousing, rag-tag populist mob devoid of any ideas of substance and ginned up on corporate propaganda and right-wing Christian Supremacist xenophobia.

If you are not one of them, you should take no offense.

But to deny what I am saying is true would be delusional.