That's because the inchoate and irrational anger of the Tea Baggers produces conflict. And conflict is what the media thrives on. If it bleeds it leads!
But the media is not the only culprit here. We, the electorate, deserve a substantial part of the blame. Because most of us don't pay serious attention to much of anything that's going on in the world or in our country. If something piques our fancy, chances are it's because we've seen it on TV.
Which may account for our interest in the Tea Baggers.
The Tea Baggers have surely been on TV. They have virtually monopolized cable news for weeks. This band of bloviators may have no policy prescriptions, not even any rational analysis of what they're railing against, nor any coherent message beyond anger, but anger is apparently enough -- that's what seems to be resonating with so many Americans. The delicious irony is that most of them are too uninformed to understand that the people they're railing against are the very people who are trying to help them!
It was fascinating to watch the leaders of the Republican Party going through their ritual gyrations at CPAC - the annual conservative jamboree - last week to woo the support of the Tea Baggers. The party that spent us into historic deficits now attempting to join hands with the newest proponents of fiscal restraint!
But then I learned that the darling of the Tea Baggers, Glenn Beck, was to deliver CPAC's keynote speech. This is the same crazy-like-a-fox money-machine who said of Obama, "This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture...I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."
The same guy who said, after Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to the Supreme Court, "I think she is a racist. I think she decided things based on race. I think she says that a Hispanic woman, with the experience of being a Hispanic woman can make decisions that a white man can't make. I can't imagine saying that. That's like saying Hispanics can't make money decisions like them Jews."
As I thought of Glenn Beck keynoting CPAC, my mind wandered back to the days of Bill Buckley. How he would have loathed Glenn Beck! Agree with Buckley or not, he was a man of the mind. One could not but respect - nay, admire - his grasp of history, his no-nonsense rhetoric, his reason and logic. If Buckley were with us today, it's arguable that the demagogues who are now hijacking the American Conservative movement might never have reached their current pinnacles.
As some wise observer wrote, "Today's trumpeters of Buckley's fusionism are angry, loud, and shrill. They'll betray their positions and their principles to score short-term televised victories. They're driven by ratings and by vanity. They want to make it to the top by securing notoriety instead of respect. They've abandoned meaningful persuasion and have instead opted to fulfill the Postman prophecy that we'll amuse ourselves to death--and that's not funny."
Yet those who now rail against government are too ill-informed and too self-centered to recognize that there are wider issues to be railed against - and confusing suicide and murder is one of them.
So where is the outrage?
It isn't.
For the moment, I have to console myself with the knowledge that "Movements" like the Tea Baggers are not new in American history. Witness the Know Nothing movement in the mid-19th century. Like the Tea Baggers, the Know Nothings were nativists empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to U.S. values and controlled by the Pope in Rome. The Know-Nothings tried to curb immigration and naturalization; like the Tea Baggers they had few prominent leaders. Most ended up joining the Republican Party by the time of the 1860 presidential election. And the "movement" just vanished into the dustbin of history.
(The origin of the term "Know Nothing?" When a member was asked about
its activities, he or she was supposed to reply, "I know nothing.")
As for CPAC, I like the words of Mickey Edwards, who was a Republican congressman who chaired CPAC for five years as head of the American Conservative movement. He explained why he wasn't going to CPAC this year:
He wrote, "I'm not at CPAC because I believe in America. I believe in liberty. I believe that governments should be held in check. I believe people matter. I believe in the flag not because of its shape or color but because of the principles it stands for--the principles in the Constitution, the principles repeated and underlined and highlighted and boldfaced and italicized in the Bill of Rights. The George W. whose presidency and precedents I admire was the first president, not the 43d. It is James Madison I admire, not John Yoo. Thomas Paine, not Glenn Beck. Jefferson, not Limbaugh. Ronald Reagan would not have been welcome at today's CPAC or a tea party rally, but he would not have wanted to be there, either. Neither do I."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
