As a U.S. political columnist, the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum ("Britain's Spot of Tea Party," 4/27/10) might be excused for calling the Liberal Democratic Party "Britain's historically insignificant third party"; historically speaking, it was actually one of Britain's two major parties in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It's Applebaum's misunderstanding of the politics of her own country that's harder to forgive.

Applebaum's column asks, "What would the Tea Party movement look like if it were British"--and the answer is, like the Liberal Democrats, as embodied by candidate Nick Clegg. Presumably it's not his support for immigration or his mixed ethnic background--two things the Tea Parties are not notably enthusiastic about--that makes her see a resemblance.

So apparently the similarity she's talking about is in Clegg's third-party message: "Instead of ideology, he offers an option: If you are sick of Labor, if you can't bring yourself to vote Conservative, if you are bored of the two-party system itself--then vote for me." Applebaum concludes her column by saying that the ordinary British voter, "like his Tea-Partying colleagues across the Atlantic, is perfectly happy to vote for the end of politics as we know it. The faster the better, please."

But Tea Party activists are not particularly interested in third parties, nor are they equally disenchanted with each of the two major ones.  According to a New York Times/CBS News survey (4/5-12/10),  Tea Party supporters are 6 percentage points less likely than all respondents to support a new third party (40 percent vs. 46 percent).  Sixty-six percent of Tea Partiers usually or always vote Republican; 6 percent usually or always vote Democratic. Applebaum seems, like many journalists, to believe that the Tea Party protesters are pretty much like Perot voters; as political scientist Ron Rapoport told the FiveThirtyEight blog (4/19/10), "The major difference is that Perot movement was a total rejection of both parties, while the tea party movement is a total rejection of only one party--the Democrats."

Applebaum also claims that "Britain, like the United States, has 'first past the post' voting: a two-party system and, usually, a one-party government--albeit Britain's has far fewer checks and balances than that of the United States." Actually, since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, divided government has been more the rule than the exception in the U.S.--with different parties controlling the White House and at least one house of Congress in 30 of the last 42 years.

Amy Wilentz has a strong critique of the media in her column in the new issue of the Nation (2/8/10).  Starting with the New York Times' David Brooks (1/15/10; see FAIR Blog, 1/15/10), she demolishes his facile comparison of Haiti and Barbados ("Why is Haiti so poor? Well, it has a history of oppression, slavery and colonialism. But so does Barbados, and Barbados is doing pretty well") and then moves on:

Brooks goes on to discuss the Haitian family, seemingly basing his argument on a book by Lawrence Harrison, a conservative cultural critic who also knows nothing about Haiti. "Child-rearing practices" in Haiti, Brooks writes, "often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10." I don't know where this assertion comes from, but it reminds me of nothing so much as Daniel Patrick Moynihan's controversial and misguided report on the black family in the 1960s. I've never seen either of these child-rearing practices in my two decades of living in and covering Haiti. In fact, I see more parents carrying small children around in Haiti's markets than I do at the farmers' markets in Los Angeles. You can't write these kinds of things about people whose culture and nation you respect. Nor would an editor permit you to say such things blithely about people who are considered our equals or are able to respond in equally august publications. Right now, the Haitians cannot--they're too busy getting water for their neglected children.

Wilentz then turns to the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum (1/18/10):

She opens her piece (as she so often does) by telling us about herself; her reactions are important to her: "For the past several days, I have found myself unable to look at the photographs from Haiti. I have also found that when I start an article datelined Port-au-Prince, I have to force myself to read to the end." Although she doesn't like to read about it, she knows what's at the heart of her reluctance: "I have no illusions about anyone's ability to help, for this...is a man-made disaster first and foremost, and so it will remain." She goes on to fault the weakness of Haiti's public institutions for the physical collapse of buildings, including the Presidential Palace (constructed by the Marines during the 1915-34 U.S. occupation of Haiti) and many other public edifices built by perfectly well-educated architects using the best practices of their day. It's a stunningly heartless argument.

I'm tempted to quote much more, but that's what links are for.