WASHINGTON WATCH Bruce Wydick
An RSVP to a Tea Party Invitation Recently I received a flyer in the mail with an invitation to join the Tea Party, a dynamic new force in American politics. Not an official political party, the Tea Party can be best described as a movement of people — mostly older, white, male people — with similar gripes about the functioning of our government and the direction of the country. Different polls have shown that between 18 and 31 percent of American adults are either Tea Party members or supporters. These are large numbers, and it is worth examining the philosophy of the movement and what it seeks to accomplish. It is impossible to understand the Tea Party movement without understanding its philosophical roots.The nominal founder of the movement is Dale Robertson, a retired Marine. But its intellectual roots draw deep into the libertarian philosophy of Ayn Rand and thinkers with ties to the Austrian school of economics,such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek. Rand, a Russian-American immigrant whose father’s small business was confiscated by the Bolsheviks in 1914, articulated a philosophy known as objectivism, which stemmed from the Austrian school. Her philosophy fervently condemned statebased altruism and instead promoted the virtues of egoism, self-interest, and a pure form of capitalism nested within the framework of a spartan government functioning principally to uphold private property rights. Rand was an ardent atheist who wrote that Christianity was “the best kindergarten of communism possible.” Libertarian philosophy has always gained traction with a segment of the American public. It — especially Rand’s version of it — has served as the basis for an intellectual refutation of communism
and socialism. It laid the underpinnings for Margaret Thatcher’s market-based reforms of British socialism and for the Reagan revolution in America. As a philosophy, it has created an intellectual foundation to buttress and justify an American ethos of independence, individual creativity, and self-reliance, distinguishing characteristics of our culture since Alexis de Tocqueville observed them in the early 19th century. Indeed, this ethos is so pervasive in our culture that most Americans share many libertarian ideals without even being aware of it. The Tea Party holds 17 core beliefs, a few of which are entirely commendable. It wants more average citizens to hold political office (whatever “average” means — but it sounds good). It seeks to promote responsible fiscal spending and balanced budgets. Rather than lifting the poor from poverty through the income transfers of the welfare state, the Tea Party favors the creation of prosperity through entrepreneurialism.These are all good things. But alongside some of its more worthwhile admonishments, theTea Party’s vision for American life contains a number of disturbing elements. First, alongside patches of good economics, the Tea Party philosophy — and libertarian philosophy in general — advocates for some frighteningly bad economics. Its economic philosophy seems to be based on free-market sloganeering rather than a serious analysis of complex economic policy issues. Extolling the virtues of unfettered free-market capitalism, it ignores the need for correcting problems with free markets that are now well understood by mainstream economists. These include issues of collective action (needed to address critical problems such as climate change and the depletion of forests and fisheries), the proper regulation of markets plagued by issues of asymmetric information (which lie at the root of our crises in our health insurance and financial systems), and the problem of negative PRISM 2 0 1 0
34
externalities (in which the “freedom” of one individual imposes a cost on others, such as with noise, traffic, or pollution). Second, the pure form of libertarianism advocated by the Tea Party would seem to have little or no relation to biblical Christianity. We see the radical individualism of the libertarian philosophy commended nowhere in scripture. (Where do we find the biblical basis for private ownership of handguns?) Efforts to politically wed libertarian ideology and American patriotism to Christianity have resulted in a tragic syncretism that has sadly hoodwinked many American evangelicals. Third, while most biblical conservatives advocate respect for our political leaders (based on Romans 13), a culture of slander and disrespect for our current government pervades the Tea Party, its publications, and its website postings. A recent posting on its homepage, entitled “Tea Party Stands With Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson,” quotes (and affirms) Peterson’s statements that “Obama is a ‘racist president’ who ‘hates white people and Jews,’ as he promotes big government to the detriment of Americans. Moreover, ‘He doesn’t mind lying to get what he wants.’” American politics is comprised of a complex network of coalitions. To the extent that we view politics as an appropriate vehicle for change,American evangelicals need to ask ourselves who our coalition partners should be. Do evangelicals truly share less in common with, for example, people whose views on certain issues lie somewhat to the left of our own than we do with people whose top priorities are the abolition of any kind of government healthcare intervention, the legalization of assault rifles, and low corporate tax rates? It may be time for American evangelicals to reconsider our political allegiances and our friendships. Unfortunately, I had to RSVP “No” to the Tea Party. ★ Bruce Wydick is a professor of economics at the University of San Francisco.