To the Editor:
David Brooks, in “The Tea Party Teens” (column, Jan. 5), describes the tea party movement as “a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against.”
Like Mr. Brooks, I am not a fan of this movement. It starts from a position of negation.
In these troubled times, when our economic and security status quos register very low on the scale, and our confidence in government to help remedy these ills is off the scale completely, we are in dire need not of negation but of the quintessential American values of optimism and fortitude.
If we don’t like the status quo, we should stop saying no and instead say yes to change.
We should demand of our politicians that they, too, say yes to change by working with one another to craft meaningful legislation that addresses our problems related to energy, climate change, entitlement spending and campaign financing.
By scoring our politicians on their willingness to tackle these issues head on rather than retreating to the safety of the naysaying special-interest fringes, we will be sending the most powerful message we can—with our votes.
Kevin Abel
Alpharetta, Ga., Jan. 5, 2010
To the Editor:
David Brooks raises an important issue: rejection of the so-called educated class. Rather than blaming the left or the right, Republican or Democrat, we should all be concerned.
What the tea party movement is calling for could lead our country into greater economic, political and social stagnation.
In a peculiar way, the world that Mr. Brooks is describing reminds me of “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand.
Without taxes and without government, there will be little or no investment in infrastructure, transit, education, science, national parks and so on.
As the educated elites are banished and the lights go out across the country and the final bridge across the Mississippi River collapses, disrupting the food supply, whither the America we once knew?
Rand blamed socialist ideology. In this case, we can blame only ourselves.
Pamela S. Chasek
New York, Jan. 5, 2010
The writer is an associate professor of political science at Manhattan College.
To the Editor:
I think that David Brooks is missing something here.
I am a 50-year-old husband and father of two. My wife and I vote and are not affiliated with any political party. We are not activists by any stretch of the imagination. Our idea of a good night is a good movie or a book and a comfortable chair.
We are both displeased with our government of late and are concerned about our nation’s future. Our Depression-era parents taught us to live within our means. And to keep our house in order. This is a lesson lost in Washington.
When the next tea party rally comes to our area, we plan on attending. If the tea party can get middle-aged people like us to brave the cold to make our voices heard, it is time for the Democrats and the Republicans to worry.
Robert G. Stewart
Tewksbury, Mass., Jan. 5, 2010
To the Editor:
I think that David Brooks allows the tea party too much consideration in his analysis of today’s political scene. The party is not organized around any single idea other than the thought that its members don’t like our president.
They get their inspiration and justification from the right-wing extremists who hang on the fringes of the Republican Party, and who continue to incite the groups but take no responsibility for the tea party activists’ actions.
Thus, when tea party members shout down members of Congress, or shout racist slogans, or hold racist signs, or openly carry firearms, or defend anarchy, Republican Party leaders opt to look the other way, or feign moral outrage.
The tea partiers are reactionary, and shrill out of fear. They are the bully on the playground. We just need to hold steady to show them up for what they are.
Patrick A. Stevens
Moose Lake, Minn., Jan. 5, 2010
Note from KBJ: (1) I don't understand why the first letter writer thinks "negation" is bad. The correct answer to a harebrained idea, whether in or out of government, is "No." After all, change can be for the worse as well as for the better. As every parent knows, sometimes "Yes" is appropriate and sometimes "No" is appropriate. Sometimes change is good and sometimes change is bad. (2) I don't understand the second letter. Do you? If an academic can't write comprehensible prose, there is no hope for academia. But then, we knew that, didn't we? (3) Amen to the third letter. (4) The fourth letter writer mistakes opposition to President Obama's policies for "dislike" of President Obama. It's a classic mistake, but one that progressives are fond of making. It allows them to dismiss substantive criticism as bigotry or hatred. As for the "tea partiers" being reactionary, why yes, they are. They are reacting to abominable policies being foisted on them by aloof, condescending politicians. I wonder whether the letter writer complained about reactionaries when George W. Bush was president. I seem to recall a great deal of knee-jerk opposition to the president's policies, both domestic and foreign. Either both sides are reactionary or neither is.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 