The very idea of the growing “tea party” phenomenon must be disconcerting to the myth-makers in the mainstream media and the Obama Administration.Â According to their narrative, when people are agitating, they’re supposed to be upset about social inequality and corporate greed.Â The very notion that they’d be protesting the ever-increasing size of the state upsets the worldview of these would-be opinion-makers.
No wonder big media is paying scant attention to the “tea party” protests.Â So far the Administration seems only to follow the MSM as it’s “increasingly concerned” that “populist backlash against banks and Wall Street, worried that anger at financial institutions could also end up being directed at Congress and the White House and could complicate [the president’s] agenda.“Â (Italics added.)
End up?Â End up?
If they’d be following conservative and libertarian blogs and/or paying attention to local media (particularly in the town where I was born), they’d realize that there already is a populist backlash directed against Congress and the White House–and not just for the bailouts of banks and Wall Street.Â People are upset at the rapid increase in the size of the federal government that the president is proposing.
At the same time, this grassroots rebellion is brewing, we get a real sense of what the president’s “community organizing” really means.Â As opposed to these tea parties, his is a top-down affair, with his new national outfit, Organizing for America, directing local groups to agitate for his agenda.
It’s even launching a “Pledge Project,” asking Americans to:
- I support President Obama’s bold approach for renewing America’s economy.
- I will ask friends, family, and neighbors to pledge their support for this plan
Over at Best of the Web, James Taranto, who like yours truly, finds this “creepy,” asks his readers for any examples ofÂ “a Republican president, say during the past 30 years, asking people to take a similar ‘pledge’.”
I wonder if it’s beginning to dawn on many of Obama’s erstwhile acolytes that the enthusiasm his candidacy generated has less to do with any concrete vision of American than it did with his powerful presence.Â It was more about a man than his ideas.
The media was fascinated by a movement built around a man, yet seems much less interested in a movement, like the American Revolution, built on an idea.Â I wonder why that is.