Nightmare on Tea Street 3

It was in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords attack that a “new tone” was called for by the Left and their echo chamber of the main stream media. Giffords, a Democratic representative from Arizona, was at a supermarket meeting constituents, when Jared Loughner opened fire, killing six and critically wounding the congresswoman.

The Left was quick top jump on the tragedy for political fodder by labeling Loughner a “rightwing extremist.” After all, he had a copy of Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf in his personal library. Never mind that he also had The Communist Manifesto, Animal Farm, Plato’s Republic and other books across the political spectrum. Not to mention, he was a long time abuser of alcohol, marijuana, LSD, the hallucinogenic salvia and was diagnosed as a schizophrenic. All of that was irrelevant because it was beneficial for the Left that the narrative be that Loughner was driven to act by his right wing political beliefs. In memoriam of the Oklahoma City bombings that were blamed on Rush Limbaugh, the Left point accusatory fingers at Fox News, Sarah Palin and, again Rush Limbaugh and talk radio.  

So, in the spirit of healing, the Left called for a “new tone” after the shootings. A new era of civility, toned down rhetoric and bipartisan camaraderie. But, what they actually pushed for was censorship of the Right. The Fairness Doctrine reared its ugly head again in an attempt to get more programs spouting less commercially viable liberal viewpoints on the air and, in doing so, drive conservatives off the air. Phrases like “get them in our sights” or the use of a crosshair graphic was deemed as being too insensitive. But, of course, these restrictions were only placed on the Right because, after all, aren’t they the one’s to blame here?

Flash forward to 2011 and to liberal journalist Maureen Dowd. Mrs. Dowd doesn’t like the Tea Party and she doesn’t like the fact that they held to their principles in the debate over raising the debt ceiling. Fair enough. She is a liberal and an Obama supporter, that’s her team. But her language in a New York Times piece entitled, “Washington Chainsaw Massacre” has to put her at odds with the new era of civility, doesn’t it?

She calls the Tea Party a bunch of “budget-slashers.” No problem there. They do, after all, REALLY want to reduce federal expenditures. She talks about their “feral attack” on Washington. Feral: wild or untamed. OK, a little melodramatic but she likes hyperbole. Then she hits us with this:

They were like cannibals, eating their own party and leaders alive. They were like vampires, draining the country’s reputation, credit rating and compassion. They were like zombies, relentlessly and mindlessly coming back again and again to assault their unnerved victims.

Cannibals? Vampires? Zombies? Draining the country’s reputation and compassion? Mindless? Surely this has got to be against the rules in this New Tone era! Certainly you can’t justify talking about a political opponent in this manner, dehumanizing them, turning them into monstrous caricatures! But wait, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir comes to Dowd’s rescue. How? By showing that the Right, in general, and the Tea Party specifically, are insane! So, it’s okay to talk about them as monsters.

How did Bashir prove this? By having psychologist and addiction specialist Stanton Peele psychoanalyze the movement. Bashir reads part of Dowd’s article to his audience and then uses Peele as a “voice of reason” to try to justify rhetoric like Dowd’s, to justifying the dehumanizing of a large swathe of the American public. Peele’s verdict? The Tea Party folks are infantile. They are pursuing goals that can’t be reached, idyllic fantasies. Neither Peele nor Bashir bother to explain exactly which Tea Party goal, that of lower taxes, smaller government, more liberty, is most delusional.

Peele goes on to compare the Tea Party to addicts who think that more of something will finally make them happy. Again, more of what? More freedom, more privacy, more choice, being able to keep your own money? Which one of these “delusional” goals makes the members of the Tea Party psychotic?

Then he goes on to really show just how unstable the Tea Party is by comparing it to the Norway shooter. The shooter, Peele claims, is an example of someone who was thwarted in their desires. “When a child,” Peele says, and remember, you Tea Party crazies are infantile, “is thwarted in attaining something that can’t be had, they often strike out, and I think Norway is one example of one kind of reaction to that kind of frustration.” And, even if you Tea Party loonies do achieve your goals, you will find out that lower taxes won’t make you happy. And your disillusionment will lead to some sort of existential despair which will also cause you to lash out. So, no success, you go on a killing spree; success, you still go on a killing spree.

All of this to say that a) if you’re a Tea Party member you must be a lunatic and b) since you are such a crazy, its okay that Maureen Down calls you a “metallic beast” who is running through the halls of power, slashing the civilized Left with your “mouths of teeth inside other mouths of teeth.”