Will MacAvoy on why TEA Party radicals shouldn't even be considered Republicans

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

Two videos. They're short.

I find this interesting, because it makes a strong comparison to the Rush Limbaugh dittohead view of the left as a monolithic mudheap of dirty, dirty hippies.

In fact, the Democrat=hippie/Yippie/pothead meme is an awkward equivalence at best. Of course there are Democrats who've inhaled, just as there are Republicans who've done coke, engaged in open relationships, and the like. But the Democrats have never really been the Yippies, even if they eventually wanted their votes.

An American Taliban? Maybe. I don't know about "tribal." I would think something more like "nationalistic" or "racist"--which are, in an anthropological sense, arguably subsets of tribalist thinking, so maybe.

So is MacAvoy (and Sorkin) right? Will this reputation stick to the GOP over the next generation? Well, it's substantially already how Southron conservatives were seen by liberals who knew them, so yeah, I suppose so. Does it hurt them, though, if their radicalism is what's popular?

Comments

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

This show is starting to feel like apologists for the right.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

But thanks for posting, interesting what HBO is showing.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I ask myself, would Dr. Tiller's widow agree with the American Taliban characterization?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I actually watched my first episode of this program last week. It was the one where MacAvoy is trying to get the Republican debate, and he has all the interns or whatever dress up in sweatshirts with the candidate names.

Here's the problem with the show in a nutshell, and a longer-scale viewing more or less confirmed what I had gotten from the show in the clips that have been shared over and over - MacAvoy is what Sorkin wishes the Republican Party was, while the character of Republicans and conservatives Sorkin puts out there show little resemblance to real world Republicans and conservatives, allowing MacAvoy to be the Republican William Morrow against a tide of perceived lunacy. It's a liberal fever dream put on television because The West Wing did so well. It's the left wing version of An American Carol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_American_Carol), positioned as a serious drama as opposed to a comedic satire.

That the Bob Bennett clip doesn't mention the bailout once says a ton about missing the forest for the trees regarding finding room "to the right" of an otherwise reliably conservative Senator. The Tea Party clip is a ridiculous caricature ripped straight from the Daily Kos (http://www.amazon.com/American-Taliban-Power-Jihadists-Radical/dp/1936227029) and better describes anarchist-libertarians rather than the Tea Party movement itself.

Does it hurt them, though, if their radicalism is what's popular?

The assumption is that the rightward shift of the Republican Party following the rise of the Tea Party is one of radicalism and not realignment. I'm not a Tea Party supporter because I believe populism is a cancer, but I'm constantly finding myself drawn to Peggy Noonan's salient take on the matter (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703440604575496221482123504.html):

I see two central reasons for the tea party's rise. The first is the yardstick, and the second is the clock. First, the yardstick. Imagine that over at the 36-inch end you've got pure liberal thinking—more and larger government programs, a bigger government that costs more in the many ways that cost can be calculated. Over at the other end you've got conservative thinking—a government that is growing smaller and less demanding and is less expensive. You assume that when the two major parties are negotiating bills in Washington, they sort of lay down the yardstick and begin negotiations at the 18-inch line. Each party pulls in the direction it wants, and the dominant party moves the government a few inches in their direction.

But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they're dominant, government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It's always grown! It's as if something inexorable in our political reality—with those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the media, the academy—has always tilted the starting point in negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward the 36-inch point.

Democrats on the Hill or in the White House try to pull it up to 30, Republicans try to pull it back to 25. A deal is struck at 28. Washington Republicans call it victory: "Hey, it coulda been 29!" But regular conservative-minded or Republican voters see yet another loss. They could live with 18. They'd like eight. Instead it's 28.

...

What they want is representatives who'll begin the negotiations at 18 inches and tug the final bill toward five inches. And they believe tea party candidates will do that.

If you don't understand the Tea Party as a reaction to the consistent leftward movement on most issues over the last generation - and perhaps the last few, depending on where you want to start the clock - you don't understand the Tea Party at all, and arguably don't understand the American political climate.

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

Well, any binary portrayal of the political landscape, whether Sorkin's, or yours--or mine--is going to miss some details.

The chief problem with the TEA Party is that, despite its protestations, it still "wants to spend like Lyndon Johnson and tax like Calvin Coolidge." If you really, actually, take away the DOD-subsidized jobs that prop up much of the country as well as Medicare and Social Security, people would freak. We're not really going to go back to federal spending below 20% of GDP.

There are some cuts in a libertarian direction that we could make without an uprising, but their extent is not necessarily as deep as the tax cuts we've already had.

[bonesnapdeez.livejournal.com]

Tea Party wouldn't exist if a black man hadn't been elected president. Let's not bullshit ourselves.