The NYT Shows Unbridled Anger over The Very Angry Tea Party and Other Propagandistic Elements.

 Abstract: The NYT recruits some propagandist to fill in the fluff lines in one of their mandated political articles. Beginning from a lofty perch in philosophy, the article launches off with ethereal authority against the Tea Party and then progressively degenerates into wild name-calling, false statements and pedestrian-grade nattering. Every identifiable element of the Tea Party is overblown with soaring negativity and many key elements are even fabricated in this pitiful attempt at informing the public of some impending doom. The author either lost control of his emotions or foamed over his keyboard in frustration as he drew to a close or perhaps the monitors at the NYT fell asleep or just glossed over this screed. This rant is classic leftist propaganda. It has no academic merit.

As masters of propaganda agree, it is important to construct some obvious tenets, grant them some mystical or supreme powers, and then proceed to analyze the targeted opposition [Tea Party in this case] using these same very synthetic elements to destroy or mortify them. This is classic circular logic in motion. Pure truth is never a necessity for a good low punch, but the invocation of some apparent truth, a limited concession or two to feign objectivity or even something that strokes the inner souls of frustrated onlookers are all helpful. There is no better source of propaganda outside Pravda than the near-bankrupt New York Times—aka the Walter Duranty Papers.[1][2]  Wisdom resides there we are told by liberals and their lackeys and here they will find hope if not the truth.

Today we are treated to an elegant exercise in propaganda that seems to manipulate all the usual levers and we must conclude, based upon some brief meditations at the end of this tome, that the Evil Ones have been identified, tried and convicted upon the Anvil of Leftist Reason hence condemned. Frequently, the surgical point of much of such an article is directed toward the members of the opposing political community so as to shame them into recoiling from their own group. They are thus being tempted to seek enlightenment in the propaganda spheres of the far left and after conversion to remain loyal level pullers at the ballot box.  So, we are to be pummeled if our political perch is shaded by right-wing politics and we must scurry off with a short list of complaints including but not limited to anger, dependency, Hegel, individual liberty, metaphysics, politics, rage, tea party and violence inter alia to defend. This episode is categorically phony and is hereby exposed as a mere chum-chucking exercise in elementary leftist harangue bleating, so, in our analysis today, I am essentially unchucking[3] the chum so to speak. This piece is a disgrace, but there is plenty to laugh at.

How to best read my blogs:

[I offer extensive quotes in this blog so that the reader can view the exact language and can be confident that nothing was taken out of context or that nobody was misquoted. The easiest way to take in the salient points is to read the emphatic points in the quotes and then peruse my comments. Comments on my comments are always welcome: ryckki@gmail.com.]

We begin our session on abuse:

“Sometimes it is hard to know where politics ends and metaphysics begins: when, that is, the stakes of a political dispute concern not simply a clash of competing ideas and values but a clash about what is real and what is not, what can be said to exist on its own and what owes its existence to an other.

The seething anger that seems to be an indigenous aspect of the Tea Party movement arises, I think, at the very place where politics and metaphysics meet, where metaphysical sentiment becomes political belief.  More than their political ideas, it is the anger of Tea Party members that is already reshaping our political landscape.”[4]— NYT Opinionator: The Very Angry Tea Party By J.M. Bernstein June 13, 2010, 5:15 PM

This opening covers a lot of territory and spans two or three centuries and thusly brings up some interesting [and probably nonexistent] cornerstones of leftist political thought. Here we are brought into the tent, Coney Island style, for a demonstration of what is real and what is not. The  delineative process used here is, of course, political and  is derived  from this writer’s own common-place unconscious mental filters[5] that reflexively oppose any challenge to the left [in his case] and our good Dr. Bernstein ought to be keenly aware of  this trap as he purports to  teach Immanuel Kant. His little corner of philosophy has not been acclaimed as the Seat of Reason. If Kant is correct, our writer is as blind as the next guy. Thus, we may expect our writer to artificially transport us across the boundaries of simulated reason as he circles the rim of the metaphysical abyss picking up ideas while polemically hacking away at ‘untruths’ as he flies along. This peremptory nonsense is grounded in the practice of rudimentary philosophy, a crude intimidation mechanism invented by the Greeks to ‘explain’ the world and its ‘truths’ to the ignoranti, particularly if they vote.  This is the very basis of politics and its only utility is piercing persuasion. Let us be very clear that the arena of philosophy had many strong players, but there is no consensus on whose view is rigidly correct and, strangely, any new advance in philosophy begins with an attack on one or more giants in the field if we can imagine that form of organizational chaos.[6] Rodents ‘plan’ impromptu banquets by a similar process. Thus, nothing is actually known except the fact that the quest for the definitive version of philosophy is so far lacking, but that does not hinder the propaganda process in the least. So, the modern polemicist scrapes off as much scale as he can from an assortment of tangled philosophies and tosses them into his works. Today’s piece is a hurried collage peeled from the massive remnants of illogic, a word that more properly defines philosophy. Sophistry and delusion are perhaps better words.

Here is some more:

“It would be comforting if a clear political diagnosis of the Tea Party movement were available — if we knew precisely what political events had inspired the fierce anger that pervades its meetings and rallies, what policy proposals its backers advocate, and, most obviously, what political ideals and values are orienting its members.”—NYT Opinionator: The Very Angry Tea Party By J.M. Bernstein

This caveat expands the argument whereby the writer can skirt the outer corners of this arena since he operates in a self-designed philosophical vacuum without the need of some firm truths on his side. He can just make up things since a clear rebuttal of his charges cannot be substantiated. This is the usual case for those who would be philosophers, but here he also plays the character of a keen political translator and content edifier and can broaden his mighty sword because the edges of his target are a bit fuzzy. Translated, this means he can rant and mumble at will. The applause machines at the NYT will then answer his every word.

We have yet to read some content as he emerges from his cave:

“When it comes to the Tea Party’s concrete policy proposals, things get fuzzier and more contradictory: keep the government out of health care, but leave Medicare alone; balance the budget, but don’t raise taxes; let individuals take care of themselves, but leave Social Security alone; and, of course, the paradoxical demand not to support Wall Street, to let the hard-working producers of wealth get on with it without regulation and government stimulus, but also to make sure the banks can lend to small businesses and responsible homeowners in a stable but growing economy.”— NYT Opinionator: The Very Angry Tea Party By J.M. Bernstein

This is a reasonable list but each item in his string seems to have its own double standard tethered beforehand. On balancing the budget without raising taxes the task is obviously doable if government cuts personnel, spending and lowers taxes for corporations who hire people who can contribute to the economy. Government people are all too often malicious intimidators [and liberals with a foundation] with some narrow political views such as the myopic zombies in the drug-crazed environmental groups. Social Security was a Ponzi Scam from the beginning, is going broke and will default and should be phased out gradually so that it doesn’t experience a bubbly burst. Nobody in the Tea Party advocates just trashing this entitlement—they want to fix it up. A new retirement program is obviously required and we need one that is NOT run by our parasitic government and overrun with micromanagers. But, such failed and costly programs are the unholy grail of the socialists. Social Security will continue to rot down to its underpinnings and all the forces of the far left will be mustered to counter any private options that might skirt around Social Security. SS is merely a leprotic attachment to the polis. The nostrum that the Tea Party does not support Wall Street is folly.

Our hero cites a book[7] and parrots some interesting conclusions by that author:

It is common to enlist the correlating notions of the topic at hand with an input of some advice of ‘experts’ so as to give a heavy weight to the argument:

“It is not for the sake of acquiring political power that Tea Party activists demonstrate, rally and organize; rather, Lilla [the disgruntled author e.d.] argues, the appeal is to “individual opinion, individual autonomy, and individual choice, all in the service of neutralizing, not using, political power.”  He calls Tea Party activists a “libertarian mob” since they proclaim the belief “that they can do everything themselves if they are only left alone.”  Lilla cites as examples the growth in home schooling, and, amidst a mounting distrust in doctors and conventional medicine, growing numbers of parents refusing to have their children vaccinated, not to mention our resurgent passion for self-diagnosis, self-medication and home therapies.”—NYT Opinionator: The Very Angry Tea Party By J.M. Bernstein

Here, the author solicits similar conclusions that merely dovetail with his own political notions.

Could we call the union movement a Marxist mob or perhaps some Fascist group? How about the old Black Panthers, SEIU, ACORN or the New Black Panthers? We wonder if they were criminals or threatening or just shouting nothings at raucous rallies.  The home schooling actions arise as a viable alternative to having their children taught leftist politics and blaming the US for every evil in the known world. American Exceptionalism is denied and despised by the left. It is important to teach our kids that many ‘teachers’ are just hack political slobs with cushy jobs. The distrust of doctors is interesting, and false in my view, and appears to be a gloss to cover over the anger about the Health Care mess we just created.

After plodding through this bundle of fluff our author finally gives his expert opinion on the composition and beliefs of the Tea Partiers:

“Tea Party anger is, at bottom, metaphysical, not political: what has been undone by the economic crisis is the belief that each individual is metaphysically self-sufficient, that  one’s very standing and being as a rational agent owes nothing to other individuals or institutions. The opposing metaphysical claim, the one I take to be true, is that the very idea of the autonomous subject is an institution, an artifact created by the practices of modern life: the intimate family, the market economy, the liberal state.  Each of these social arrangements articulate and express the value and the authority of the individual; they give to the individual a standing she would not have without them.”— NYT Opinionator: The Very Angry Tea Party By J.M. Bernstein

This tortured explanation is apparently designed to cement in place the idea that a ‘liberal state’ or any other ‘government’ actually gives the angry partiers what they believe is intrinsically important.  This is ignorance on the part of the Tea Party. Big government somehow now empowers individualism [or the individual] in more particular terms. Bernstein fashions an essential fulcrum in the form of an economic and financial event like the current financial crash[8] as some kind of prime mover that sets these people off in the wrong direction [that means anywhere away from the goals of big government]. He then drags out the most elliptical view of big government and turns it inside out with this nostrum: “these social arrangements articulate and express the value and the authority of the individual; they give to the individual a standing she would not have without them.” This is the hammer blow and conclusion of this piece. Liberalism is intrinsically good for all. Here we find that the individual, who errantly wants to make his own decisions, is better off [or has more standing] with mobs of government overseers dictating his ‘rights’ down to the very last electron or drop of gas. Control is the essence of socialism.

Here is the clincher:

“The great and inspiring metaphysical fantasy of independence and freedom is simply a fantasy of destruction.”— NYT Opinionator: The Very Angry Tea Party

Well, here you have it. We need the gentle guidance of big government so we can avoid destruction! I wonder how many big left-leaning governments participated in World War 1 and 2? Were they successful in guiding their respective citizenry through a stable lifetime? Where was the individualism--in the wet trenches? If you look for some consideration for the unit citizen in all the banter and pomp during the summer of 1914[9] it is difficult to pick out any reflection about the citizens who would soon give their lives [51, 000,000 or so did] for war and the utter destruction of several nations.[10] And, we are expected to learn and believe in the socialism of the Europeans? Their society is crashing in debt.[11][12]

Bernstein now conjures up a domestic scene of two lovers about to sever their relationship:

“This is the rage and anger I hear in the Tea Party movement; it is the sound of jilted lovers furious that the other — the anonymous blob called simply “government” — has suddenly let them down, suddenly made clear that they are dependent and limited beings, suddenly revealed them as vulnerable.  And just as in love, the one-sided reminder of dependence is experienced as an injury.  All the rhetoric of self-sufficiency, all the grand talk of wanting to be left alone is just the hollow insistence of the bereft lover that she can and will survive without her beloved.  However, in political life, unlike love, there are no second marriages; we have only the one partner, and although we can rework our relationship, nothing can remove the actuality of dependence.  That is permanent.”—NYT Opinionator: The Very Angry Tea Party

He hears things that are not there like little voices. Maureen Dowd, the Old Red Lady [13][14][15]of the Old Gray Lady, has conveniently provided us with her ‘Unspoken Words Theorem.’ She has the supernatural but politically stimulated facility to hear what is not spoken and provide us with an analysis. Apparently, our author has acquired this rare gift.

Now, we wander off into theater. Apparently, the polis is not to be upset when their idiot governments make colossal blunders and deplete the treasuries. Such a proposal of leftist governmental permanency is a hallmark of the dedicated sophist; there is only one answer to all social problems. Given the numerous examples of failed governments on our planet [almost 150 Marxist dictators in Africa since 1950?], numbering almost a dozen so far in contemporary Europe, a bastion of socialism, we must cast away our independence and meld our groups into some solidarity of dependence. The government always knows best paraphrasing a famous but excoriated TV show of the 50s.

Bernstein concludes:

“In truth, there is nothing that the Tea Party movement wants; terrifyingly, it wants nothing.  Lilla calls the Tea Party “Jacobins[16]”; I would urge that they are nihilists.  To date, the Tea Party has committed only the minor, almost atmospheric violences of propagating falsehoods, calumny and the disruption of the occasions for political speech — the last already to great and distorting effect.  But if their nihilistic rage is deprived of interrupting political meetings as an outlet, where might it now go? With such rage driving the Tea Party, might we anticipate this atmospheric violence becoming actual violence, becoming what Hegel called, referring to the original Jacobins’ fantasy of total freedom, “a fury of destruction”? There is indeed something not just disturbing, but frightening, in the anger of the Tea Party.”— NYT Opinionator: The Very Angry Tea Party

This is a bald lie and typical of the left. He deliberately paints the perceived identity of the Tea Party group as nihilist,[17] an improper and implausible description of this group that seeks a firm moral grounding for government. It appears that he deliberately distorts the group’s identity with this selective and offensive pejorative since he ought to know all about nihilism as he teaches all about it. This is a vicious rant typical of some warped[18] intellectual who sees a direct threat to his political beliefs. They make their little points along the tattered pathway strewn with clichés and platitudes and then jump off the bridge into the all-consuming flames of some final predetermined conclusion. The Tea Party movement simply wants liberals and radicals to get out of government. The liberals have sunk us in debt.  You don’t have to be steeped in the tea to know that our economy is crumbling, our debt is insurmountable and our borders are being overrun with illegal aliens and terrorists. And we all know who structured and support this mess. It is the liberal establishment that caused the housing bubble[19] with the phony CRA act[20] that mandated subprime loans to people with no job or credit as a sop for their votes. We want an end to this insane spending[21] on the part of the radical left[22] and some way to protect our currency from utter debasement from inflation.[23]

If Bernstein was really in favor of big liberal government and could offer us some example of good big government [he does no such thing in this little propaganda piece], then he might show us how wonderful entities like California[24][25][26] New York, New Jersey and Michigan are doing lately. They are all bastions of liberalism and rapidly going broke in more than the mere financial meaning of this word. All these places carry the salient degenerative elements he barks about that will ensure that the citizens will have good and plenty and be carefully guided by their government leaders. The opposite is true. Theses places are going bankrupt from excessive spending and political power excursions. The liberals have ruined these places.

Bernie seems to focus too much on interrupting political meetings as an outlet as if he has not listened to common examples recorded for Parliament in the U.K. or perhaps Code Pink as they try to get into everybody’s face on street corners. Being English or sorts he must not be aware of the imams that daily call for the destruction of England in the streets of London. I wonder if he realizes that he is the infidel. That same Islamic group would put to death most of the members of the governing bodies of San Francisco for their obscene acts as barbarians. We see this essay rotting from the base as the intended rigid carriage of an objective intellectual is corrupted in a progressive manner similar to leprosy as the ramblings proceed to his predetermined conclusion.

He concludes with the teary-eyed plea for safety and liberal justice usually stated as “I am scared” with his terminal sentence:  indeed something not just disturbing, but frightening, in the anger of the Tea Party. This is similar to the older winky squeak speak, the unhygienic common language of the marijuana-crazed San Francisco street urchin and ex ‘students’ now rewarded with a high chair in the Social Sciences at Berkeley and a classroom full of adoring groupies. Their first reflexive reflex was to sob and bawl.

This is typical propaganda of the crudest sort. We see nothing but left-liberal canned prattle and wheezing. The noisy whooping and carnival atmosphere accompanying this prattle are not the least bit novel or even inspiring. What this article tells us, if anything, is the new power of the Tea Party is frightening to the left and will make some major impact in the next election and all hands must appear on deck to fight this menace and that means philosophers as well.

rycK [a 5^th generation Californian in exile]

Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com