I'm not someone you'd probably like. Unless you like people like that...then you'd love me.
things i like. mostly ridiculous.
In American history, populism has a specific meaning: It’s our non-Marxist way of talking about class. Being a populist means standing up for the little guy against ruling elites. Hating Washington isn’t enough, or else J.P. Morgan would have been a populist when he fumed that Theodore Roosevelt was busting his trusts. You have to be angry on behalf of the underdog.
The Tea Partiers aren’t standing up for the little guy; they’re standing up to the little guy.
Which is why we now have scientific proof that Tea Partiers don’t deserve the label. According to a survey in Thursday’s New York Times, Tea Partiers are wealthier and better-educated than average Americans. They’re not today’s version of the Nebraska dirt farmers who rose up against the railroads and the banks more than a century ago. They’re today’s version of the California suburbanites who rose up against their property tax bills in the late 1970s rather than pay for decent schools for the Golden State’s black and Hispanic kids. They’re the second coming of what Robert Kuttner called “the revolt of the haves.”
Another piece delineating what irks me about the Tea Party - they are not being bigs kids who care about the little kids.
I'm not someone you'd probably like. Unless you like people like that...then you'd love me.
I'm not someone you'd probably like. Unless you like people like that...then you'd love me.
Theme created for Posterous by Obox
