UK Guardian: Britain must resist Tea Party thinking; As unreason triumphs in the US,

a similar paranoia and refusal to accept scientific fact threaten to invade British politics

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/01/britain-resist-tea-party-thinking

Tea Party madness has brought the US to the brink of economic mayhem, risking taking much of the world with it. In the face of obdurate unreason, the president of hyper-reasonableness was forced to surrender. The economic credibility of the country that holds the global reserve currency has wobbled. The political credibility of the world's beacon of democracy has failed in the face of an insurgency of unreason. Facts, evidence, probability, possibility – none of that matters to a movement founded on ferocious fantasy.

The founding fathers built a constitution of checks and balances believing reasonable men would agree; how could they foresee Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann or Glenn Beck? To the British eye, America was always dangerously prone to waves of populism and McCarthyite panics. ... Obama believed against all the evidence that his opponents would see reason. That's not who they are.

I worked in Washington during Watergate and the fall of Richard Nixon; even in that national trauma there was not this unbridgeable detestation between the red and the blue. What happened? The rise of the Tea Party owes a great deal to Rupert Murdoch's Fox TV, the foghorn of extremism that changed the nature of political discourse. Trouncing the competition, its propagandising for Tea Party views misinforms the electorate on just about everything...

But American intellectual fashions waft our way: a taste of the Tea Party arrives on these shores in the peculiar paranoia of the climate-change deniers. You may dismiss some as fruitcakes or oil company lobbyists...

What about the credibility of the UK Guardian?

Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

That the Guardian is not credible because it didn't refer to the US as a 'republic' - instead choosing to use the common parlance of 'democracy'? That's something that Americans do every single day when discussing their government.

If you want to say that you reject the criticism because it comes from a non-US source, why not just say so - instead of creating a specious argument?