tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867698817451909183.post6922689799726430010..comments2023-10-17T02:00:59.655-07:00Comments on Insightful Pontificator: BOIL THE KETTLE AND WE’LL HAVE SEVERAL POTS OF TEAMighty Quinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14729122987480118332noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867698817451909183.post-11015826921868511292010-09-16T09:16:41.952-07:002010-09-16T09:16:41.952-07:00You bring up some great points, especially about t...You bring up some great points, especially about the relative merits of Christine O'Donnell and Ross Perot. Perot was kind of a crank, but he was an accomplished person who made some points that we would have been well served to heed. Moreover, he had a substantial impact on the course of the 1992 election, and maybe history, by effectively winning the election for Bill Clinton, who won that year (and in 1996) with less than a majority of the vote. O’Donnell is a flake.<br /><br />I do think, though, that while the Tea Party has most of the elements you cite, it is more ideologically driven than most historical populist movements. It is certainly more ideologically based than Perot’s “movement;” Perot was operating in the center while the Tea Party is clearly on the right, broadly defined. And to call the Tea Party a “proletarian uprising” is probably stretching the point on a number of fronts.<br /><br />Great observations; it’s good to have you as a reader and commenter.Mighty Quinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14729122987480118332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6867698817451909183.post-6399609899590899792010-09-16T06:48:33.833-07:002010-09-16T06:48:33.833-07:00Citizen involvement and passion is good for the mo...Citizen involvement and passion is good for the most part, but you've identified the fundamental flaw of the Tea Party movement: its tendency to "equate a dearth of grey matter with a surfeit of virtue and leadership ability."<br />The discontent of the "average American" has long history, and it frequently has eruptions that shake the political scene--have we forgotten Ross Perot's 1992 movement already? But for a few critical (and probably inevitable) screwups, he could have been a contender. But it turned out then, as it turning out now, that these proletarian uprisings aren't based on ideology, but personality, anti-intellectual class warfare and emotion. At least Perot was ostensibly an impressive businessman who built a billion-dollar fortune, not a nitwit cutie pie who lucked into national prominence without an ounce of substance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com