ONTD Political

What the Tea Partiers Really Want

4:07 pm - 11/24/2010
The passion behind the populist insurgency is less about liberty than a particularly American idea of karma.

What do the tea partiers really want? The title of a recent book by two of the movement's leaders offers an answer: "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto." The authors, Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, write that "We just want to be free. Free to lead our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe on the same freedom of others."

This claim should cause liberals to do a double-take. Isn't it straight out of John Stuart Mill, the patron saint of liberalism? Last year my colleagues and I placed a nearly identical statement on our research site, YourMorals.org: "Everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others." Responses from 3,600 Americans showed that self-described libertarians agreed with the statement most strongly, but liberals were right behind them. Social conservatives, who, according to national polls, make up the bulk of the tea party, were more tepid in their endorsement.

Because a generalized love of liberty doesn't distinguish tea partiers from other Americans, liberals have been free to speculate on the "real" motives behind the movement. Explanations so far have spanned a rather narrow range, from racism (they're all white!) to greed (they just don't want to pay taxes!) to gullibility (Glenn Beck has hypnotized them!). Such explanations allow liberals to disregard the moral claims of tea partiers. But the passion of the tea-party movement is, in fact, a moral passion. It can be summarized in one word: not liberty, but karma.

The notion of karma comes with lots of new-age baggage, but it is an old and very conservative idea. It is the Sanskrit word for "deed" or "action," and the law of karma says that for every action, there is an equal and morally commensurate reaction. Kindness, honesty and hard work will (eventually) bring good fortune; cruelty, deceit and laziness will (eventually) bring suffering. No divine intervention is required; it's just a law of the universe, like gravity.

Karma is not an exclusively Hindu idea. It combines the universal human desire that moral accounts should be balanced with a belief that, somehow or other, they will be balanced. In 1932, the great developmental psychologist Jean Piaget found that by the age of 6, children begin to believe that bad things that happen to them are punishments for bad things they have done.

To understand the anger of the tea-party movement, just imagine how you would feel if you learned that government physicists were building a particle accelerator that might, as a side effect of its experiments, nullify the law of gravity. Everything around us would float away, and the Earth itself would break apart. Now, instead of that scenario, suppose you learned that politicians were devising policies that might, as a side effect of their enactment, nullify the law of karma. Bad deeds would no longer lead to bad outcomes, and the fragile moral order of our nation would break apart. For tea partiers, this scenario is not science fiction. It is the last 80 years of American history.

In the tea partiers' scheme of things, the federal government got into the business of protecting the American people—from market fluctuations as well as from their own bad decisions—under Franklin D. Roosevelt. During the Great Depression, most Americans recognized that capitalism required safety nets here and there. But Lyndon Johnson's effort to build the Great Society, and particularly welfare programs that reduced the incentives for work and marriage among the poor, went much further.




Liberals in the 1960s and 1970s seemed intent on protecting people from the punitive side of karma. Premarital sex was separated from its consequences (by birth control, abortion and more permissive norms); bearing children out of wedlock was made affordable (by passing costs on to taxpayers); even violent crime was partially shielded from punishment (by liberal reforms that aimed to protect defendants and limit the powers of the police).

Now jump ahead to today's ongoing financial and economic crisis. Again, those guilty of corruption and irresponsibility have escaped the consequences of their wrongdoing, rescued first by President Bush and then by President Obama. Bailouts and bonuses sent unimaginable sums of the taxpayers' money to the very people who brought calamity upon the rest of us. Where is punishment for the wicked?

As the tea partiers see it, the positive side of karma has been weakened, too. The Protestant work ethic (karma's Christian cousin) holds that hard work is a duty and will bring commensurate rewards. Yet here, too, liberals have long been uncomfortable with karma, because even when you create equal opportunity, differences in talent and effort result in unequal outcomes. These inequalities must then be reduced by progressive taxation, affirmative action and other heavy-handed government intervention. Such social engineering violates our liberty, but most of us accept limitations on our liberty when we agree with the goals and motives behind the rules, such as during air travel. For the tea partiers, federal activism has become a moral insult. They believe that, over time, the government has made a concerted effort to subvert the law of karma.

Listen, for example, to Rick Santelli's "rant heard 'round the world" on CNBC last year and its most famous lines: "The government is promoting bad behavior," and "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbors' mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" It's a rant about karma, not liberty.

Or look at the political issue that most enraged the early tea partiers. Messrs. Armey and Kibbe state categorically that it was not Mr. Obama's stimulus bill that turned millions into activists; it was Mr. Bush's bank bailout. "Many of us knew instinctually that the bailout was wrong," they write. "We understood that in order for capitalism to work we need to be able to not only keep the potential gains from the risks we take but also accept the losses that may come." This is capitalist karma in a nutshell.

One of the biggest disagreements between the political left and right is their conflicting notions of fairness. Across many surveys and experiments, we find that liberals think about fairness in terms of equality, whereas conservatives think of it in terms of karma. In our survey for YourMorals.org, we asked Americans how much they agreed with a variety of statements about fairness and liberty, including this one: "Ideally, everyone in society would end up with roughly the same amount of money." Liberals were evenly divided on it, but conservatives and libertarians firmly rejected it.

On more karmic notions of fairness, however, conservatives and libertarians begin to split apart. Here's a statement about the positive side of karma: "Employees who work the hardest should be paid the most." Everyone agrees, but conservatives agree more enthusiastically than liberals and libertarians, whose responses were identical.

And here's a statement about the negative side of karma: "Whenever possible, a criminal should be made to suffer in the same way that his victim suffered." Liberals reject this harsh notion, and libertarians mildly reject it. But conservatives are slightly positive about it.

The tea party is often said to be a mixture of conservative and libertarian ideals. But in a study of 152,000 people who filled out surveys at YourMorals.org, led by my colleague Ravi Iyer of the University of Southern California, we found that libertarians are morally a bit more similar to liberals than to conservatives.

Libertarians are closer to conservatives on two of the five main psychological "foundations" of morality that we study—concerns about care and fairness (as described above). But on the other three psychological foundations—group loyalty, respect for authority and spiritual sanctity—libertarians are indistinguishable from liberals and far apart from conservatives. We call these the three "binding" foundations because they are the psychological systems used by groups—including religious groups, the military and even college fraternities—to bind people together into tight communities of trust, cooperation and shared identity. When you think about morality as a way of binding individuals together, it's no wonder that libertarians (who prize individual liberty above all else) part company with conservatives.

To see this divergence in action, ask yourself how much somebody would have to pay you (in secret) to get you to do things that violate one of the three group-oriented moral foundations—that is, those based on loyalty, authority and sanctity. We asked people, for example, to name their price to "Say something bad about your nation (which you don't believe to be true) while calling in, anonymously, to a talk-radio show in a foreign nation."

As shown in the graph, conservatives were far more horrified than the other groups by this act of petty treason. The same goes for this minor act of disrespect toward authority: "Slap your father in the face (with his permission) as part of a comedy skit," and for this harmless desecration of the body: "Get a blood transfusion of 1 pint of disease-free, compatible blood from a convicted child molester." (Sanctity refers to the belief that things have invisible spiritual essences—the body is a temple, the flag is far more than a piece of cloth, etc.)

To see the full spectrum of tea party morality in a single case, consider (or better still, Google) a transcript on Glenn Beck's website titled "Best caller ever?," which relates one man's moment of enlightenment. The exchange, which aired live in late September, starts with karmic outrage. A father in Indiana, proud of his daughter's work ethic and high grades, learned that she would have to retake a social studies test because most of the students—who, he says, run around after school instead of studying—had failed it. The teacher confirmed that yes, the whole class would have to take the test several more times because "we have to wait for the other children to catch up." The father asked if his daughter could work on new material while the other kids retook the test. The teacher said no, it would "make the other children in the class feel not as equal." That was the last straw. At that moment, the father says, he rejected "the system" and decided to home-school his daughter.

What makes this call so revealing is the caller's diagnosis of how America became the land that karma forgot: "It's time for America to get right, and it all starts in the home. It comes from yes, sir, no, ma'am, thank you, get on your knees and pray to God." He continues by telling Mr. Beck how, when his daughter's friends sleep over at his house, he asks them to help with chores. When their parents object, he tells them: "Well, they wanted a meal. See, we've all got to row our boat. We've all got to be in the boat. We've all got to row as one. And if you are not going to row, get the hell out of the way or stop getting in mine." It's the perfect fusion of karmic thinking and conservative binding.

The tea-party movement is a blend of libertarians and conservatives, but it is far from an equal blend, and it's not clear how long it can stay blended. The movement is partially funded and trained by libertarian and pro-business groups—such as FreedomWorks, the organization run by Messrs. Armey and Kibbe—whose main concern is increasing economic liberty. They may indeed "just want to be free," particularly from regulation and taxes, but the social conservatives who make up the great bulk of the movement have much broader aims.

The rank-and-file tea partiers think that liberals turned America upside down in the 1960s and 1970s, and they want to reverse many of those changes. They are patriotic and religious, and they want to see those values woven into their children's education. Above all, they want to live in a country in which hard work and personal responsibility pay off and laziness, cheating and irresponsibility bring people to ruin. Give them liberty, sure, but more than that: Give them karma.

Wall Street Journal
layweed 25th-Nov-2010 12:57 am (UTC)
"We just want to be free. Free to lead our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe on the same freedom of others."

Wow, couldn't even make it past the first paragraph there.
adequategirl 25th-Nov-2010 01:23 am (UTC)
Tea Partiers are hidebound traditionalists operating a nostalgic and incorrect understanding of history, wish to police the morality of others, and are not especially concerned with the dictates of logic. Revelatory.
adequategirl 25th-Nov-2010 01:35 am (UTC)
*under a nostalgic, etc.
intrikate88 25th-Nov-2010 01:29 am (UTC)
Really decent analysis, I think; I grew up in a fairly conservative household and this reflects a lot of the kind of philosophy I heard stated in our social circles, even if it was not always lived out- my father, for instance, will talk till he's blue in the face how basically people should get what they earn, whether that's from good decisions or bad (like this article is about), but doesn't seem to see any cognitive dissonance between saying that and being the first to help someone if they need it, even if they got themselves into needing help. I think it's just that when conservatives who think this way are afraid, as many people are now, they cling more consciously to this karmic ideology until it becomes an obsession with cosmic justice... but unfortunately, they're the only ones in society who learned they could ever imagine they could expect some cosmic justice in the first place. :/
aviv_b 25th-Nov-2010 01:49 am (UTC)
"We just want to be free. Free to lead our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe on the same freedom of others."

BULLSHIT! Because from the Tea Party's point of view, everything that isn't in lock step with their beliefs DOES infringe on their freedoms.

Gay marriage - its not granting the same freedom to marry to couples of the same sex, no its granting some magic EXTRA freedom in their view. Or its impinging in their marriage rights and destroying the sacred sparkly institution of marriage.

Equal pay for equal work for women- its not granting the same freedom to be paid equally for performing the same work, its 'infringing on the free market.'

Reproductive rights - its not protecting the freedom of individuals to control the integrity of their bodies, no its 'protecting the unborn' even if this consists of 4 undifferentiated cells. Because those cells have as the same, if not more rights than women.

Religion - its not 'I'll worship as I want and you do (or not do) the same. Its 'we're a Christian nation and all you heathens (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Atheists, etc) can deal with it or get the fuck out. It's you heathens are ruining my Christmas by wishing me a happy holiday, and not letting me put the 10 Commandments up in school rooms.

The Tea Party is the abolute antithesis of 'live and let live.'

aaronfreed 25th-Nov-2010 03:51 am (UTC)
this sfm. Granted there are probably a few tea partiers who don't share all these atrocious beliefs but the movement as a whole, just ugh.
oohasparklie 25th-Nov-2010 01:51 am (UTC)
"We just want to be free. Free to lead our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe on the same freedom of others."

Huh. Yet they want to tell other people how to live their lives, especially if it's related to the bedroom. How does that work, exactly?
cyranothe2nd 25th-Nov-2010 02:07 am (UTC)
"We just want to be free. Free to lead our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe on the same freedom of others."

Except for when it comes to abortion. Or gay rights. Or addressing social injustices...then it's "Fuck your freedom; our way is the only way."
homasse 25th-Nov-2010 02:12 am (UTC)
...because even when you create equal opportunity, differences in talent and effort result in unequal outcomes. These inequalities must then be reduced by progressive taxation, affirmative action and other heavy-handed government intervention.

Fuck you, it's not "equal opportunity" to say that "Hey! Everyone's starting the race at the same time, so it's fair and equal!" when some people are starting halfway to the finish line and everyone else is at the starting line and carrying a backpack full of bricks.
jetaimerai 25th-Nov-2010 02:52 am (UTC)
This, seriously. Equal opportunity is a myth, and believing that it exists only shows how privileged you are.
dreadfulpenny81 25th-Nov-2010 02:53 am (UTC)
I consider myself a Tea Party supporter, but it's funny that if I'm not in lock-step with their way of thinking (like worshiping Sarah Palin), I'm immediately called a "Liberal scum". Then again, if I'm not in lock-step with the Liberal way of thinking, I'm considered a "Neo-Con". So where exactly do I fall politically?
adequategirl 25th-Nov-2010 03:04 am (UTC)
You've internalized the two party system. There are a variety of political identities outside of 'Tea Partier' and 'Liberal.'
jetaimerai 25th-Nov-2010 02:57 am (UTC)
Am I the only one COMPLETELY BOGGLED as to how accepting disease-free blood from a child molester is a bad thing? I don't see how the identity of the blood donor is in any way relevant if it can heal you/save your life. Its explanation of sanctity just confuses me even more. Does that mean people think that part of their spirit would enter their body or something? Is that what's so objectionable?? I seriously don't understand, at all. Can someone explain?

I am the epitome of a typical liberal though - I really don't give a shit about (political) loyalty, authority and sanctity. So that's probably why I don't get it...
adequategirl 25th-Nov-2010 02:59 am (UTC)
No, you're right, its totally irrational.
wrestlingdog 25th-Nov-2010 03:12 am (UTC)
Photobucket
evelynwordsmyth 25th-Nov-2010 04:10 am (UTC)
That's an awesome gif! What movie is that?
nyychick23513 25th-Nov-2010 03:28 am (UTC)
"We just want to be free. Free to lead our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe on the same freedom of others."

...

DOES NOT COMPUTE.
jiaren_shadow 25th-Nov-2010 03:31 am (UTC)
I love how they want to reverse the changes the 60s and 70s brought. Because it would be TOTES AWESUMZ to live in a time when women were still basically baby vending machines, minorities were treated even shittier than today, the poor had few places to turn to, LGBT people were shunned by society, and people with disabilities were shipped off to institutions where no one had to think about them. But it was a TOTES AWESUMZ time for straight white rich men, so clearly we should bring back the 50s.

OK, maybe we can bring back the clothes. The clothes were great.
antiotter 25th-Nov-2010 04:03 am (UTC)
And there was a Draft that did an awesome job of killing the poor and minorities, while the wealthy families could pay the family doctor to render their precious sons 4F with a nasty case of Polo Player's Knees.
romp 25th-Nov-2010 04:29 am (UTC)
The one thing I got out of this was the word "punitive." 'Cause, yeah, that's the bottom line in my opinion for the right. It was make economic sense to support teen mothers and their kids but, no, it's more important to make sure they suffer. It would benefit everyone if we were to help struggling, addicted, and mentally ill parents. Or we could wait 20 years until their traumatized kids are in prison.

They're just mean.
nothingmuch 25th-Nov-2010 08:34 pm (UTC)
seriously
ladyanneboleyn 25th-Nov-2010 04:39 am (UTC)
Love that everyone is responding reactively to that one quote instead of, I don't know, discussing the analysis here. Based on my experience, this is a very accurate explanation of the conservative perspective, and it needs to be better understood if we are to have any hope of overcoming it.
haruhiko 25th-Nov-2010 08:50 am (UTC)
Lol as if that one quote is the only thing wrong with this piece of shit article.
escherichiacola 25th-Nov-2010 05:30 am (UTC)
Hard work brings success. Except with stagnant wages and social mobility it really doesn't. Unless it's karma that with healthcare the way it is an illness drives families to poverty.
beoweasel 25th-Nov-2010 08:49 am (UTC)
"We just want to be free. Free to lead our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe on the same freedom of others."

Yeah, they believe in freedom! The Freedom to prevent women from getting an abortion (Even in the case of Rape or Incest) or birth control! The Freedom to deny Gays the right to Marriage! And the Freedom to deny assistance to the poor!

They're all about freedom!
haruhiko 25th-Nov-2010 08:49 am (UTC)
Lol aaaaaaand what respect I had for Haidt goes straight down the tubes. He uses his study and his body of work to confirmation-bias his way into saying a whole lot of problematic, and stupid shit:

Premarital sex was separated from its consequences (by birth control, abortion and more permissive norms);

What Haidt described as "permissive norms" a liberal or progressive would describe as "egalitarian" and "humane."

bearing children out of wedlock was made affordable (by passing costs on to taxpayers)

Bullshit. Our tax system incentivizes having children, out of wedlock or not.

even violent crime was partially shielded from punishment (by liberal reforms that aimed to protect defendants and limit the powers of the police).

Liberal reforms were not about ~shielding violent criminals from punishment, you dumbass. They were about PROTECTING THE POOR, POC, AND OFTEN-TIMES INNOCENT PEOPLE FROM OUR UNEQUAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

liberals have long been uncomfortable with karma, because even when you create equal opportunity, differences in talent and effort result in unequal outcomes.

Lol, fuck off white dude.
adequategirl 25th-Nov-2010 06:22 pm (UTC)
liberals have long been uncomfortable with karma, because even when you create equal opportunity, differences in talent and effort result in unequal outcomes.

Wait, when did that happen?

beoweasel 25th-Nov-2010 09:12 am (UTC)
Premarital sex was separated from its consequences (by birth control, abortion and more permissive norms)

Oh don't give me that bullshit. You know who bore the burden of consequence for premarital sex? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the man. Women were often mistreated, abused and ostracized for getting pregnant out of wedlock, and chances were, the infants were abandoned at birth. OR perhaps the woman got an illegal and highly dangerous back-alley abortion that could easily see her injured or killed. But hey that's ~karma~ amirite?

Get off your fucking high-horse.

nothingmuch 25th-Nov-2010 07:43 pm (UTC)
Not to mention the children who suffer completely undeservedly when women are forced to have babies they aren't ready for and then all of society shames and shuns them for it. Punishing children for the actions of their parents with poverty and ostracism is not fucking karma; it's sadistic.

Edited at 2010-11-25 07:44 pm (UTC)
castalianspring 25th-Nov-2010 03:09 pm (UTC)
He continues by telling Mr. Beck how, when his daughter's friends sleep over at his house, he asks them to help with chores. When their parents object, he tells them: "Well, they wanted a meal. See, we've all got to row our boat. We've all got to be in the boat. We've all got to row as one. And if you are not going to row, get the hell out of the way or stop getting in mine."

Wow, what a charming host he is. I'll bet no one ever wanted to sleep over at his house more than once.
beoweasel 26th-Nov-2010 12:27 am (UTC)
Yeeeah, that's just being a rude host. If your guest helps you with something, you should be grateful. You don't FORCE your guests to do chores
nothingmuch 25th-Nov-2010 07:39 pm (UTC)
So basically, "teabaggers are bitter and resentful towards all the unworthy single women and blacks they now have to share their neighborhoods and grocery stores with, when these people ought to be standing in a bread line somewhere with the rest of their kind?"
romp 25th-Nov-2010 08:55 pm (UTC)
pretty much, yeah--losing power BURNS LIKE FIRE
This page was loaded Jun 3rd 2015, 5:54 pm GMT.