Andrew Breitbart Declares Jihad on the Liberal Advocacy Media (LAME) at Tea Party Convention
…Well that’s not his quote, but I can’t wait to see if people pick up my post to try to discredit him.
I have been watching the Tea Party Convention on Pajamas TV, and Andrew just completed the best speech of the convention thus far.
OK, I’m really stupid because I didn’t take notes, but I watched the entire thing and it was not only inspiring, but a call to arms to the Tea Party Nation. In the speech, Breitbart described how the LAME distorts the news through an ideological agenda. He explained how the LAME intentionally looked the other way at the ACORN story that was broken by his colleagues, James O’keefe and Hannah Giles, and how they further rushed in to distort O’Keefe’s recent arrest in Louisiana, publishing a number of false stories before O’Keefe himself was even given an attorney.
Breitbart’s speech was a frontal asssault on the LAME’s posturing and its elitism. Because I don’t have exact quotes, let me paraphrase and say that Breitbart’s speech was filled with references to the LAME’s mischaracterization of the Tea Party Movement and the condescension it has shown for it. He also repeatedly referred to their skewed world-view and the type of perspective that makes them see the world the way they do.
For instance, Breitbart said that the media has two templates that are wearing thin on the American people: racism and Watergate.
Near the end of his speech, Breitbart threatened (half-jokingly) that if the New York-based media continued to discredit the Tea Party and conservative ideas in general, he will lead a protest that will so snarl Manhattan traffic, that it will deprive them of “their weekend in the Hamptons.”
I have no doubt that Breitbart will be attacked by the LAME for this speech. He will probably be met with charges that he exhibits what the Left calls the politics of “ressentiment,” the fancy philosophical concept originated by Kirkegaard and modified by Nietzsche, that they now use to explain the resistance of “faux” (conservative) intellectuals to Marxism, leftist reform, and global governance.
But they never actually credit conservative intellectuals or political figures for creating a viable politcal movement based on intelligent criticism and organized resistance to the Left. Rather, they prefer to to see the rebellion of non-leftist elements of society as some irrational, amorphous uprising of people, misdirected by opportunistic agitators or shadowy cabals of powerful interests. In an essay by Daniel Yankelovich from 1975,the main themes of this approach to conservative resistance to leftist politics is explained. He wrote:
The seriousness of the rising tide of disaffection in America suggests as a point of reference the concept of ressentiment as derived from Max Scheler. In Scheler’s usage, ressentiment refers not only to an intensity of negative feelings in relationship to authority but—and this is of the essence—feelings that are bottled up, suppressed, prevented from overt expression. It is precisely this latter characteristic that makes ressentiment a dangerous political emotion.
The individual possessed by ressentiment silently nurses his grievances against authority, building up in himself an evermounting intensity of rage and resentment that serves as fodder for the demagogue. According to Scheler, ressentiment is never reformist in any constructive sense. An explosion of ressentiment will maim or destroy institutions without creating fundamental ideological changes.
In contrast to reform, rebellion, or revolution, ressentiment does not create new values or directions for the society. Because it is generated by frustration and resentment, it merely signals waste and destructive rage. European experience teaches us that social instability is most often caused by defeat in war, by the presence of some insoluble problem such as severe and continuing inflation, or by scandals that challenge institutional legitimacy—or by some combination of all three. In the United States in the mid-seventies, we find elements of all these precipitating factors of instability,plus a decline in public support of institutions unprecedented in its scope.
So, there you go. If they manage to define the Tea Party Movement and conservative resistance to Obama’s “reform” as ressentiment, then they have an intellectual template that allows them to discredit and ignore them altogther. According to the Left, conservative resistance is neither reform or even revolution- events of popular violence which somehow lead to positive historical outcomes (“the right side of history “)- it is irrational rage that will only “maim or destroy” institutions. Thus, the logic goes, it is the LAME’s job to suppress such a phenomenon and target the dangerous “demagogues” that lead it for destruction.
So, Breitbart, you have been warned. In this template you are the “demagogue,” and have no doubt, you now have a target on your back.
However, I have no doubt that Breitbart’s speech will resonate as a call to arms for conservatives and the Tea Party Movement. If you haven’t seen it, hopefully it will be put up on one of his sites, like Big Journalism.com and eventually make its way to you tube.
And speaking of You Tube, here is a classic exposition of the logic we’re all up against-it’s really funny: