On History and Tea

Craig Fehrman writes about historian Jill Lepore's work documenting the Tea Party's use and abuse of history, something I've brought up many times on here. Lepore has a new book out called The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle Over American History on the same subject that looks quite good. Lepore seems to try to be open and even-handed, if critical. She calls the Tea Party "good, sweet people" who "really are interested in the Revolution". The whole Fehrman article is good, providing details not just on Lepore's criticism but on how she came to be involved in this.

I've talked about the Tea Party and its relationship to history here, here, and here, and probably a few other places too.

And speaking of the Tea Party, the Austrian Economics and Literature blog notes some things that recent Nobel laureate Mario Vargas Llosa had to say about them, that there is "in the core of this movement something healthy, realistic, deeply democratic and libertarian". As I've said in my post on Kevin Rollins's event, I think this view is naive and a little dangerous to indulge. I don't know why some libertarians have such rose-tinted glasses when it comes to the Tea Party. Maybe it's because it's their first real shot at political power? I know they'll protest that they're not interested in political power, but I seriously doubt their interest in power is any different from anyone else's. I'm not interested in political power either, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to be indifferent when a sensible Democrat like Barack Obama appears poised to topple the Bush legacy. That doesn't make me power-hungry, but it does make me involved. I think a lot of libertarians are the same way. They want to be in power, damn it! They can taste it now. It was the vibe that was running through that George Mason meeting on Sunday. Some libertarians think the Tea Party is their ticket in. I'm a little more circumspect.