×
- John Judis debunks four myths about the Tea Parties, but the first one is a bit suspect. "The Tea Party is not a movement" is mythical, according to Judis, because movements are difficult to define (my words, not his). But if we're going to call the Tea Parties a movement, then we really need a working definition for "movement." Off the top of my head I'd say "organized political pressure concentrated on some area of public policy." If that's the case, then I'd say maybe the Tea Parties are devoted to some vague idea of "limited government." But opinion would vary greatly on this, which makes this issue of "movement" difficult to address as a "myth."
- I don't want to give too much authority to arch-conservative Tom Tancredo, but insofar as his ability to avoid political dodges makes him a good source of unfiltered conservative beliefs, I'd like to highlight his insistence that it's "elitist" for "people who get elected" to think that their purpose is to "make laws." In reality, he actually means "laws I do not like" but that's beside the point. The "elitist" bit emerges from the assumption that "people are wiser than their leaders" which is quite convenient for the conservative politician because he can claim he is acting in the will of the people regardless of what he is actually doing.
- I know, I know, I need to read the book to learn how Barack Obama's "stealth socialism" is going to manifest itself in America. But I'm dying to know -- how does this agenda get through Congress? Is it accomplished via extra-legal means? If so, why hasn't it happened yet? Why didn't it happen when there were 60 Democratic votes in the Senate? So many questions. Which is why I keep coming back to the conclusion that the definition of "socialism" is this linchpin of Kurtz's book. If the Affordable Care Act, for instance, is socialist (I don't know if Kurtz thinks it is), then practically anything can be described as socialist, and that's why I have a hard time taking this line of argument seriously.
- Remainders: "[Y]our typical survey respondent thinks that almost 1 in 5 families in America earn that kind of money [over $250,000], when the answer is closer to 1 in 50!"; Ari Kohen correctly notes that Michael Savage is "precisely the sort of person who would have been publicly humiliated by Socrates in the agora"; and finally, we're getting some details on how the Democrats are going to pull off the greatest electoral fraud in American history.
--Mori Dinauer
