This reader has a stronger view:

Jonah, You are too kind. Brooks’ biggest problem is that a lot of us were alive when the New Left took over the democratic party. They were &*&*ing communists! As you know they openly rooted for America’s enemies to win, not only in Vietnam but overall vis a vis the Soviet Union, and they didn’t stop at just rooting they actively colluded with the Soviet Union, Cuba and Communist China. They didn’t engage in “Street Theater” they engaged in widespread violence. Remember, the “New” Left got its name because it broke, not with some mythical conservative establishment, but the actual New Deal/Great Society liberal establishment that was based on loyal non-communist progressive liberalism. The New left rejected all of that in favor of a radical transformation of the United States along socialist, communist lines. They certainly didn’t have any theory of “innocence” other than the a head nod to the boilerplate of “false consciousness”. But, like their historian laureate Howard Zinn, Amerika and hence Amerikans were irremediably evil. That justified the criminal behavior of the left. They only “salvation” was to join the “vanguard of the proletariat” in it’s then current manifestation. In doing so you became, by definition, moral and “wise”. This modern Gnosticism continues to this day and is the exact opposite of what the Tea Party movement stands for. The reason why the Tea Party loves to mock “the One” so much is they recognize the eschatalogical and gnostic rhetoric and attitudes and they reject it. They reject it precisely because they know damn well that human beings are flawed and therefore we are not going to be “saved” by the government or any political party and they rightly distrust anyone who gives themselves those airs or who is gullible enough (David Brooks?) to ascribe those powers to someone else.

This longtime reader makes an interesting point:

Jonah,
The thought is probably a little due to my having just read Gordon Wood’s Empire of Liberty, but it seems to me that a better historical reference point for the Tea Party movement is the split that emerged between the Republicans (Tea Party) and the Federalists (political elites). That is it’s an argument that goes back to the founding.
For what it’s worth I don’t consider myself a tea partier

Update: This reader corrects the first above, and he’s right:

Jonah, your reader with the strong view is incorrect.
The “New Left” was named because it explicitly rejected the “Old Left,” which in America was the Stalinist Communist Party of the USA and similar organizations.
The New Left of course despised and opposed traditional New Deal/Great Society “liberals,” but didn’t consider them to be on the Left at all.