There's a kind of infantile "Anything I don't like is a violation of my freedom when the government's involved" combined with a servile identification with and kowtowing to the rich. I think that identification with the rich is dependent on American exceptionalism.
________________________________ Joseph Catron on Thu, April 29, 2010 3:15:21 PM wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
Just what's so sensible about this? Sounds like an attempt to recuperate the
> Lost Cause to me. States' rights, man!
>
Did you miss the first sentence of the excerpt you quoted?
As I read them, his points boil down to two claims: "The Tea Parties are about neither race nor the federal debt, but about the militant defense of 'American exceptionalism', that is, the empire"; and "the morality tale of the virtuous North is indispensable to the perpetuation of the American Empire".
I also think that a substantial number, if decided minority, of the Tea Partiers fall into a Constitutionalist/pro-Ron Paul camp that eludes his analysis here. In general, though, I think he's right that a majority of the Tea Party's liberal/left opponents actually have more in common with it, than it does with the "states' rights" caricature they draw of it.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað." ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk