This is a wonderful interview, and like most of the Washington Journal good stuff, it was buried in the early morning segment when only we hard core @cspanWJ watchers even saw it.
You really need to spend some time with this segment. He covers a lot of ground, and he knows his subject(s) really well. He's got a gift for casually, but concsisely discussing the practical and hypothetical issues raised by this Bizarro-world remix of modern conservatism, Republican cronyism, and all the Batshit crazy that we've been calling the Tea Party, lately.
Watching this segment, I thought about how much I really dislike the term "Tea Party," because it romanticizes a contrived and entirely wrong conception of what the real Tea Party was. But it also fails to describe what is happening in this "movement," or who and what it really represents, or where's it's going. And it's just too fucking informal for a trend that might ultimately take down the entire American experiment.
So, as is my wont, I set about to define it. It seemed to me that what is happening is a perfect astroturfed storm consisting of:
- Generally Republican crony corporate capitalism,
- Fox-news-fed "big government" protesting under the guise of fiscal conservatism.
- Resurgence of the John Birch Society and other fringe social conservative groups.
The triple-threat might neatly be termed, Trio-conservatism."
So I liked it so much, I just submitted it to Urban Dictionary as:
Trio-conservatism A more formal designation for the socio-economic blending of corporate, fiscal and social conservatism that now typifies the so-called "Tea Party" movement in the United States.
Love it? Like it? Hate it? Think I should burn this post and never bring it up again?
If UD approves it, it should be published sometime tomorrow. I can improve the definition after they do. It's too annoying to spend time making the perfect definition, only to have some UrbanTard editor reject it for totally random reasons. There is no appeal.