Chris Matthews and the New American Right

For those interested, Chris Matthews' special on the rise of the "New Right" (i.e. Tea Parties) is coming on MSNBC in a few.  Now, I am not too sympathetic to the Tea Partiers, but I am interested in this because I predict in this special Matthews will attempt to paint this "New Right" group as crazed militia patriot-types and call them all libertarians.

I think Rand Paul's recent primary victory has scared some folks (again, not that I am a Rand Paul fan, particularly).  Anyway, I am guessing that Matthews, scared to death freedom-lovers, is going to portray a potential Holocaust in the making because of sum gun-toting Obama haters.

And how ironic that he's calling this the "New Right" as if the "Old Right" is good ol' neoconservatism.  Should be interesting. 

The 'Tea Partiers' are just a populist movement, and ultimately lacking in any credible social theory.

If you want to see a real New Right, check out the Post-Paleo movement.

It's not very ironic considering his preferences define his perception of reality; in his and many others of the mainstream eyes, neoconsevatism was/is a valid strain of The Right.  

Liberte:

The 'Tea Partiers' are just a populist movement, and ultimately lacking in any credible social theory.

If you want to see a real New Right, check out the Post-Paleo movement.

Was also going to suggest the New Right sub-reddit, Amerika.org, AlternativeRight, etc, as this is what comes to mind when I see the term "New Right".  

Post-Paleo is probably more accurate of a label, & I wouldn't be surprised if it was eventually resorted to as a means of stepping ahead of inevitable mainstream co-opting of terms (in this case, New Right).   

The 'Tea Partiers' are just a populist movement, and ultimately lacking in any credible social theory.

 

They are useful in seeing them within the context of our leftist culture and the reactions of the left (particularly the more Upper West Side Liberal left).

Did you read this article from the LRC blog:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?sr

I can see nothing in particular that recommends Rand Paul. His knowledge of philosophy, economics, history and political theory are mediocre. The very fact that he believes the American Republic is salvageable (or, indeed, that saving it would be desirable to begin with) pretty much makes him irrelevant.

I can see nothing in particular that recommends Rand Paul.

Once again, I think reactions and responses can be interesting.

So far as expected: anti-government sentiment + support the right to bear arms = terrorism (with racism thrown in).  Just waiting to see if he tries to mix in libertarian ideology with his caricature as well.

And, of course, he's referencing and talking to the SPLC.  No suprise.

that was just really poorly done.  I was at least hoping for a 'so bad it funny' type of thing, but I didn't really get that.  It was totally uninformative, even if your a mainstream person.  How much do you think it costs to buy some of those half hour paid programs on late night cable news channels?  Would be awesome if the dude from Econ Stories (or someone else with both an Austrian and film/tv background) could put some 1/2 hour intro piece together and then try to raise money to get it played on national tv.  Maybe if the platform was also used to sell books from the Mises bookstore, it would pay for itself.  A lot of times there is paid programming on right after the reruns of Stossel or Freedom Watch.

I think it's funny that the Republicrats immediately scream 'racism' any time someone suggests hereditable differences.