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

[foolsguinea]

Two videos. They're short.

Click to view

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

Comments

[underlankers]

Sigh, it's at this point that I feel it's worth bringing up that the GOP only exists as a national party at all for the reason of a minor set of skirmishes conducted in 1861-5. The idea that a political party that arose out of civil war, and which produced guys like Barry "Aw Hell Yeah global nuclear war" Goldwater and Ronald "Nun rapers are the moral equivalent of our founding fathers and Saddam Hussein is not a Terrorist" Reagan is more extremist now than it used to be is a rather sharp nostalgia filter on the old movement. American conservatism has tended to produce chickenhawks who loudly agitate primarily illegal means of conducting a war and shy at actually paying for the means to run a war as that would mean taxes since Abraham Lincoln won the election of 1860. Thanks to the Information Age, we just know about all these chuckleheads mouthing off, like Paul Ryan's statement that rape is just another means of conception....

[foolsguinea]

Well, yeah, this isn't that new. Wm. F. Buckley was in favor of Francisco Franco, and even in the 1990's his magazine pushed the idea that the French use of torture in Algeria was good and necessary (though of course it failed).

Wm. McKinley, T. Roosevelt and W. H. Taft moved into overseas imperialism once continental Manifest Destiny hit a wall.

But the fact that many powerful people are and have been violent and follow their evil inclinations doesn't mean there isn't a difference here. It does seem like Reagan was worse about trying to wish away science facts than Nixon, and the present party is worse than Reagan--and the fault is in how the expectations of the people are managed. We are being brought down by populism in the service of stupidity, and craven pols who bow to that. This show attempts to use the weapon of popular opinion against that stupidity. It may fail, but it's a noble effort.
_
I fixed the embeds, added a paragraph, and found comments!

[underlankers]

It seems like that, but it's not the case. The GOP has always had a strong anti-intellectual streak and a powerful anti-immigrant streak. The whole Know-Nothing movement was enfolded into the GOP as one of its fundamental constituencies in the Lincoln era. American populism has always relied on the idea that stupid people are good. Science and messing with it is certainly harmful (and I might repeat not limited to the post-WWII era, the old USA did things like injecting people with STDs and refusing them treatment as "science"), but then there's deliberately prolonging a war and being as incapable of winning it as the other guys. There's organizing witch-hunts against faux Communists and offering a potential but never used dolchstosslegende for the people fighting and bleeding against the real Communists in Korean hills, attacking the guy who won WWII as a filthy Bolshie Traitor. There is of course the Southern Strategy and the endless GOP obsession with legislating marriage, and even in some cases still fussing about interracial

[a_new_machine]

That show is even preachier than I thought it would be. I'm impressed they managed to reach that level.

[telemann]

Yeah, I guess we can always watch The Simpson's for less preachy.

[sandwichwarrior]

Or south park

[meus_ovatio]

Yes, Aaron Sorkin is insufferable.

[rimpala]

I wouldn't go as far as to call the tea party the Taliban, as for the hippie thing, it's probably awkward because the hippy movement has become ancient history by now.

[underlankers]

Yeah, it's worth noting here that a Talib in Arabic is a University Student. If anything the Taliban are the College Students From the Malebolge. The Muslim world's GOP equivalent is the Ba'ath Party.

[telemann]

That first clip is great because of the history lesson comparing today's Republican Party with someone just as radical on the left. A lot of the viewers I'd bet never even heard of some of those names mentioned). It's beautifully articulated.

[a_new_machine]

To me, that robs it of its value. Unless you studied the period or were alive then, you have no idea who these people are. The entire scene was robbed of its comparative value because he was comparing modern situations to people I've never heard of. Godwin's law is a good thing, but there's a reason it exists -- everybody knows who Hitler was.

[telemann]

Really? I'm a wee bit surprised a law student and a political junkie would have never ever heard of Abbie Hoffman. But to be fair, I shouldn't be baffled because I never heard of Saul Alinsky until extreme righties on Livejournal Fox News were citing his work.

All that aside, I disagree, I think it was apparent even by the context and his analogy; and he did use the word hippies and yippies. And *if* a lot of the audience didn't get those references, maybe it was a good educational moment. Drama that motivates someone to learn more is the best kind of TV I think.

But YMMV.

[a_new_machine]

From an explanatory standpoint, the meaning of the scene was obscured by unnecessarily dated references. From a dramatic standpoint, it reinforced the view I had of all the characters - needlessly hidebound people fighting wars from forty years ago.

The thing about the Taliban just reaffirmed that the entire show is Sorkin's mary-sue fantasy world. I tried watching the first episode, and his writing couldn't save the terrible concept.

[sophia_sadek]

I like the Little Shop of Horrors analogy.

[foolsguinea]

Yeah, that was cute.