The authors nod at this notion, writing that the Tea Partiers’ “anger evinces a determination to restore that remembered America.” And that anger leads to something deeper and darker than a partisan reaction. In a movement riven with paradoxes, perhaps the most alarming is how a vibrant manifestation of democracy can itself hold such anti-democratic views. Skocpol and Williamson report that in all their interviews, they “never heard anyone acknowledge the need for two-way dialogue with other Americans who think differently from Tea Partiers.” Non-Tea Partiers who don’t hold the same views just need to be “educated.” And Democrats? Engaging them would be “a waste of time,” and compromise would “verge on the illegitimate.”
The irony for American politics is that the Tea Party arrived just as a fervent believer in civic virtue assumed the presidency. Intellectual historian James Kloppenberg traces Obama’s political thought to William James’s philosophical pragmatism and James Madison’s belief in democratic deliberation. Obama’s governing ethic is premised on the very act of dialogue. As Obama himself wrote in The Audacity of Hope, our democracy is “not a house to be built, but a conversation to be had.” That conversation, especially between people who disagree, is the soul of the American experiment.
Obama’s democratic faith has proven poignant, even tragic, in the face of an adversary that sees democracy less as a conversation than a scorched-earth battle. Indeed, Obama himself has lately abandoned those principles, shifting from conciliation to confrontation, to the relief of supporters who blanched at his repeated overtures to an immovable opposition.
The next year will be ugly. But the years after that will likely be ugly, too, and our hopes lie in that very thing the Tea Party hates the most—America’s capacity for change. In the meantime, this is the dolorous legacy that the Tea Party has left us: an ever-more radical GOP, yes; a hobbled presidency, sure; but, most important, the interment of good-faith deliberation as a central tenet of the democratic creed.
So a self-described Progressive reviews the Tea Party and disapproves? (And tosses in a few gratuitous smears to boot - no evidence cited) What a surprise.
Why, those nasty Tea Partiers even issued death threats and caused property damage in Wisconsin, surrounding legislators' homes!
Oh sorry - that was the Democratic unions. You know, the guys that like to have dialogue and compromise? Nothing like "good-faith deliberation"...
#1 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 11 Jan 2012 at 09:10 AM
The usual. CJR is more predictable than Fox News. Or the Tea Party.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Obama Administration's lawyer in the 'Citizens United' case conceded that under his argument, the government would have the right to ban any article, any book, any pamphlet, any communications medium that it decided had violated 'campaign finance reform'. I still find it incredible that there is support for this view, mostly on the political Left, and that CJR has chastely averted its eyes from this event. Far more of a threat to democracy - see CJR's own motto - than anything the Tea Party represents. But your career doesn't advance in the lamestream media by challenging the smelly orthodoxies of the Left with the same passion and resources devoted to slagging the Right.
#2 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 12 Jan 2012 at 01:06 PM
The ocmmentors above are engaging in a time-honored Republican rhetorical parry: Unable to refute the argument, they change the subject. The political and social positions of the Tea Party adherents are somehow justified simply because some Democrat - somewhere - did...something.
#3 Posted by jp1954, CJR on Thu 12 Jan 2012 at 01:33 PM
CJR couldn't find anyone to review Skocpol's book besides someone who works for her?
#4 Posted by Tom T., CJR on Fri 13 Jan 2012 at 12:14 AM
And this review by a relates to the practice of journalism in what way?
#5 Posted by Newspaperman, CJR on Mon 16 Jan 2012 at 04:41 PM
To jp, I can't comment on stories that don't run, and CJR's credibility suffers from its reluctance to run or highlight 'analysis' that might challenge what Orwell called the 'smelly little orthodoxies' of the 'Left'. So I have to point out the problem where it is glaring, such as the above story, which is just the sort of 'product' that academia generates, and the lamestream media broadcasts, on a regular basis.
Hey, where's that CJR piece on the Groseclose study of the press, arguing forcefully that the urban/bourgeois politics of most journalists has a distorting effect on our politics? At least there is a 'journalistic' hook there, unlike the above product. CJR is a 'journalism' review, right?
#6 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 17 Jan 2012 at 12:51 PM