Valerie Elverton Dixon
Founder of JustPeaceTheory.com

Valerie Elverton Dixon

Founder JustPeaceTheory.com; former teacher of Christian Ethics at Andover Newton (Mass.) Theological School and United Theological Seminary in Ohio.

 ALL POSTS

Tea Party reactionary; on the wrong side of history

What is the Tea Party? Is it "a recession-era version of the religious right? " Is it something else? And if the Tea Party is not a religious movement, why is it raising up candidates like O'Donnell who has a strong background of religious activism?

There is a time and place for every purpose under heaven. There is a time for conservatism in the body politic, especially when that conservative impulse conserves the "blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." There is a time for progressivism in the body politic, especially when that progressivism extends the blessings of liberty to more people. Conservatism helps the national body to retain its nutrients. Progressivism helps the national body to expel its toxins.

The Tea Party is not a recession era version of the religious right. The religious conservatism of figures such as Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and others notwithstanding, it is not a religious movement. It is an angry faction of conservative Republicans who think that America is changing in ways that they do not like. And they are correct. The nation is changing, and they may not like the changes.

According to a New York Times/CBS poll conducted in April of this year, Tea Party activists tend to be Republican, European American, male, married and over 45-years-old. They oppose healthcare reform and the economic recovery legislation. About 92 per cent think that President Obama is moving the nation toward socialism. They want less government spending, even if that means that domestic programs are cut. Laissez-faire capitalism, low taxes, and small government are traditional themes of Republican Party politics. There is nothing new here. That they claim the mantle of patriotism and strict adherence to the United States Constitution is also nothing new. The question before the nation: Is this the right time for such principles?

First, the facts. Anyone who says that President Obama is a socialist or that he is moving the country toward socialism is ignorant of what socialism is. President Obama does not advocate that government owns the means of production. He did not nationalize banks in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis. The money that the government gave to Wall Street bankers to avoid a complete financial collapse of the world economy has been paid back. The government intervention regarding the auto industry saved thousands of jobs and the industry is stronger. The healthcare reforms he passed are basically proposals that were advocated by moderate Republicans, and the provision that mandates everyone buy health insurance was proposed by President Richard Nixon. For those of us who are to the left of President Obama, myself included, the accusation that he is a socialist is utterly preposterous.

The Tea Party people want a smaller federal government, but they want to keep Social Security and Medicare. They want a smaller federal deficit, but I have not heard much of a call for reduced military spending. (Ron Paul's libertarianism is consistent in that he calls for an end to American Empire and the global deployment of the United States' military.)

The Tea Party people are afraid that a large federal government will somehow become a monster intent on stealing what they have in order to give it to someone else who is less deserving. Here is where Tea Party conservatism becomes toxic. It refuses to see the millions of people for whom the political/economy is unjust, including how the political/economy is unjust to them. The middle class is shrinking not because of too much government, but because of stagnant wages and government tax policies that favor the rich. Consider people who work for Wal-Mart and who shop there. They make very low wages while the owners of Wal-Mart are billionaires. These people work hard every day but have a difficult time making ends meet. This is not justice. The people who make the billions are able to make the money because of the stability, security and predictability that government provides. The people who are barely making ends meet need a social safety net. The billionaires ought to pay for the government.

A large and complicated country needs a large and complicated government. Government does for the whole, what other institutions cannot do. Government builds roads, bridges, levees, highways, runways, transit systems, sewer systems, schools, colleges and universities. Government endows arts and humanities, and gives us Centers for Disease Control. It helps to fund vital research that makes life better in all kinds of areas. It is the military, the diplomatic corps, and aide to poor countries. With the various recent scares regarding food safety, who wants to cut funding to the Food and Drug Administration? After the BP Oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, who wants less government involvement in environmental protection? After the tragic death of miners in West Virginia, who wants less workplace safety oversight? When natural disasters happen, we call the federal government for help and we rightly expect it to be timely and effective. In the midst of a recession, who wants the end to unemployment insurance? And with the numbers of people who live without health insurance moving from 30 million to 50 million and growing every day, it is morally correct to have a system of universal health care in this country even if it is a moderate Republican plan not anywhere close to the single-payer system that progressives wanted.

The toxin that progressives want to see pass out of the system is economic disparity that arises because of what and who we value in the society. A hedge fund manager does not work any harder than a police officer, a school teacher, or a fire fighter, government employees all, but they get paid much more. They ought to be taxed more. Warren Buffet, one of the richest people in the world, says that he and the rich ought to pay more taxes because his investment income is taxed at a rate smaller than the payroll taxes of his secretary. (see: Charlie Rose interview)

Economic disparity is inequitable. It is dangerous. It is a kind of violence. It is unjust. It violates the spirit of the United States Constitution that says the nation's first purpose is to establish justice. The way to remedy economic disparity is not through redistribution of wealth, but through just distribution in the first instance. This means higher wages for ordinary workers and higher taxes on the rich.

The country is changing in ways Tea Party people do not like. The nation is becoming more diverse; groups once marginalized are demanding equal protection under the law. And if the Tea Party people are right and the policies of the Obama administration favor the less well off in the society, it is good. It is morally justified. It is a righteous thing to do because a country cannot be strong if it does not care for the weak.

The Tea Party is a reactionary force on the wrong side of history.

By Valerie Elverton Dixon  |  September 23, 2010; 5:48 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: A natural, if complicated, alliance | Next: Why I'm praying for Christopher Hitchens

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



The tea party knows that if this nation continues on it's course of compiling debt, eventually the bottom is going to fall out.

It is like a box where the content is too heavy. It is only a matter of time before the bottom falls out.

As for why most believe Obama is moving this nation to socialism, prove them wrong. If you examine the direction Obama has led this nation, this nation is adopting many of the same failed programs instituted in many failing European nations. It is not hard to see the move toward world socialism. The only one's who deny the U.S. is moving toward socialism are those who welcome it.

As for the size of our government, I suggest you read what the Founders had to say on the subject. After all, they did establish the foundation on which this goverment stands. It is just a shame how so many are seeking to destroy all that they build.

Just remember one thing, when the roots of the tree dies, the tree will fall at the first strong wind.

That is why you have people upset and joining the tea party movement. They can see the direction this nation is headed.

Posted by: no1steeler1 | September 28, 2010 1:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The Tea Party! Nothing like the original. This modern knock-off is nothing more than a bunch of selfish hypocrites who have benefited from what our country has to offer, and don't want anyone else to have any. They say they are the religious right. What religion is that? The religion of-I got mine, forget you. It is wrong to fly the American flag, and not even know what it stands for. The original and true Tea Party were immigrants who came to America to seek a better life and justice for all. One nation,(and yes, under God)... with liberty, and justice, FOR ALL". (From "The Pledge Of Allegiance").

Posted by: Bronxlady1 | September 26, 2010 8:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Our concept of poverty in this country is somewhat skewed. I was once hosting a visiting Romanian. His comment was, "America is the only country where the poor people are fat."

How many "poor" people have cell phones? Big screen TVs? Nice cars?

We don't have a poverty problem in this country. If we did, poor people would be starving, not fat. We have a stupidity problem in this country. We have a priorities problem in this country. Money can't fix stupid.

Posted by: member8 | September 26, 2010 8:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"The middle class is shrinking not because of too much government, but because of stagnant wages and government tax policies that favor the rich."

Baloney!!

The middle class has been shrinking for decades due to massive unending immigration that has stolen jobs and depressed wages for decades.

The middle class has shrunk due to the shipping our factories overseas by the thousands along with the middle class jobs.

The only people that favor immigration are those that pocket the profits and pass all social,economic and environmemtal costs onto the communities.

The author says the country is changing and we can do nothing about it and we best shut up

Read her article again and see where she mentions the effects of immigration or fraudulent visa worker programs stealing our jobs ONE TIME in her article.

she is as much a tool for the billionaires that eap the rewards of massive unending immigration as the Tea party!!

Posted by: Delmarghb | September 26, 2010 8:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Economic disparity is inequitable. It is dangerous. It is a kind of violence."

You are indeed far to the left of President Obama in stating that the CEO of Walmart earning more than a checkout clerk is "a kind of violence".

My son works at Walmart at checkout. The idea that he deserves the same pay as the CEO because "he works just as hard" assumes all work has equal value. It doesn't, and your failure to grasp that critical fact makes your economic theory a prescription for disaster.

Your idea that enforcing equal outcomes via government legislation will lead to economic prosperity to all blithely ignores history - but Alexus0203 made that point far more eloquently than I ever could.

Posted by: ricegf | September 26, 2010 7:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The Black community in America, which is really, as a whole much more "conservative" than the white liberals who dominate the academy and the media, bought into the idea of a benevolent federal government during Dr. King's. He more or less had to, because his reform movement was making little headway among northern urban blacks who listed to Malcolm X and his fascist ilk. Trillions of dollars have been spent on something called the War on Poverty, and to what end? Most of the black middle class works for some government agency while a huge number are on the dole, and millions of black guys are in jail because they grew up without fathers or even the old uncles
who kept order in the old days. So we have black bourgeoisie and a black proletariat. Should have listened to the likes of Booker T. Washington, whose plain but true message was: economic power and then political power. Just like the Jews and the Irish, raise yourself by your bootstraps. And--ironically--that WAS how the Civil Rights Movement worked. Then they bought into paternalism.

Posted by: RobbyS | September 25, 2010 1:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Valerie,

I meant to comment on your earlier thread, but busy with work, I did not get around to it.

I would be interested in your views of the 150,000 Ethiopian Jews in Israel, many of them tortured in Sudan, where they were rescued by Israels. These were the Ethiopian Jews who had WALKED from Ethiopia since by that time it was impossible for Israel to airlift them to their country (Israel).

I'm sure you know the tragic history of the Ethiopian Jews, the endless efforts to save them. I'm sure you know that they are far to the "right" of Netanyahu and strongly object to the "peace" talks. I'm sure you know that they serve in parliament, as police, etc., but need help, a great deal of help.

White and brown Jews from all over the world are sending what they can, in some cases, pennies, to help them, but oddly enough they are ignored by African Americans, with whom, the Ethiopian Israeli Jews see no commonality, for obvious reasons. Are those reasons obvious to you, Valerie?

We have no money--my family--yet we work very hard to assist an Ethiopian Israeli family, and I have been to Israel to teach this population. I have taught them about African Americans who are not anti-semitic and, in fact, fight antisemitism.

I have taught them that many Christians are trying to purge the NT (sic) of its Jew hatred.

I wonder, Valerie, that you do not comment on the upwards of 100,000 Ismaelii Shiite Muslims, Israeli, who have demonstrated against the "peace" talks. Explain, please.

Valerie, what do you make of the fact that both in print and on the radio IN ISRAEL, Biden stated that the primary goal of the "peace process" was not peace.

Oh, and Valerie? What are you currently doing on behalf of this nations indigenous peoples? Those would be the peoples whose Apartheid status was recognized by the United Nations two years ago. Those would be the people who earn 2400 per annum, per our President, Mr. Obama.

They go to be hungry. They die before they reach 60. The Gazans, imprisoned by Hamas do not die before they reach sixty. DOD is above seventy. They do not go to bed hungry.

Awaiting your replies on the Ethiopian Israeli Jews, Israeli Shiite Muslims, Indigenous peoples.

Will then move on to children shot in the head at point-blank range, busloads of children blown up--JEWISH children, Val.

Jews. Say the word over and over and over to yourself. (WE exist--the Jewish problem. Say the word Jew over and over and over. It gets easier with time. Like the words "ethics" or "morality.")

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | September 24, 2010 1:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The tea party has no answers to our problems, the tea party IS our problem. The tea party is just a sad group of old, white, racist bigots who are all going to die naturally very soon so they have NOTHING to say about our future. They can't stand the fact that we have a black president and when they howl "TAKE BACK AMERICA!!!" they mean to take it back from the minorities. They represent only the top 3% richest Americans so they are our cultural enemies. Barrack, don't dignify those low lifes by asking them for suggestions. Mark Montgomery boboberg@nyc.rr.com

Posted by: boboberg | September 24, 2010 3:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Anyone who says that President Obama is a socialist or that he is moving the country toward socialism is ignorant of what socialism is"
I have grown up in socialistic country (USSR) for 23 years. USSR was an abbreviation for Union of Socialistic republic. I successfully completed 15 years of continuos political and practical education on the topic.
The author as well as many Americans simply do not understand what socialism is.
It is a simple belief in a social justice. While sounding beautiful in practice it fails to work. For one plane reason that eventually elected people use the power for their own good.
Capitalism, on the other hand does not try to present itself as justice for all. Therefore it is a hard sell to the public. However in practice it works much better than socialism. Human nature of grid and survival builds wells and prosperity for yourself and everyone else... .
Labeling Obama as socialist is too simplistic. There is a part of socialist in every human being. However it is very clear to everyone by now that Obama is the most socialistic president in a history of United States.


Posted by: alexus203 | September 23, 2010 10:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Anyone who says that President Obama is a socialist or that he is moving the country toward socialism is ignorant of what socialism is"
I have grown up in socialistic country (USSR) for 23 years. USSR was an abbreviation for Union of Socialistic republic. I successfully completed 15 years of continuos political and practical education on the topic.
The author as well as many Americans simply do not understand what socialism is.
It is a simple belief in a social justice. While sounding beautiful in practice it fails to work. For one plane reason that eventually elected people use the power for their own good.
Capitalism, on the other hand does not try to present itself as justice for all. Therefore it is a hard sell to the public. However in practice it works much better than socialism. Human nature of grid and survival builds wells and prosperity for yourself and everyone else... .
Labeling Obama as socialist is too simplistic. There is a part of socialist in every human being. However it is very clear to everyone by now that Obama is the most socialistic president in a history of United States.


Posted by: alexus203 | September 23, 2010 10:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment




characters remaining

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company