Tea Partyers as Advocates for the Poor and Downtrodden?
June 18, 2010 by Guest
by Philip Clayton
Is the Tea Party a “Social Justice” Movement? Timothy Dalrymple still has two weeks of blogs to post on the Evangelical Portal at Patheos before we’ll know his final answer. But the question is so prime that I really shouldn’t wait a fortnight to respond.
The rhetorical set-up for Dalrymple’s blog is classic. Leaving Harvard Yard for a “Tea Party Express” meeting on the Boston Commons, he reflects on William F. Buckley’s famous quip that “he would rather be governed by the first two thousand people listed in the Boston phone directory than the two thousand who comprise the faculty at Harvard University.” Liberals and progressives, by contrast, are like the elitists at Harvard. We are the ones who “are apt to swoon not over intelligence … but over the appearance of intelligence, advanced degrees and faculty appointments, the trappings of an elite education” (emphasis added).
To our worship of external trappings — we only care for the “fashions of the illuminati” — Dalrymple opposes the good “common sense” of the Tea Party members, who, as if to prove the point, march on Boston Commons. The logic is clear: Good guys, bad guys. “Liberal aristocracy” versus the genuinely intelligent. And by implication, the real movement for social justice versus the selfish, self-serving liberals.
But maybe things aren’t as “white” and “black” as they seem.
● Tim trains down to the Party from … Harvard. “He still teaches at Harvard,” his Patheos bio tells us. Harvard lists a brainy sounding dissertation by Professor Dalrymple deposited in their library last year, devoted to the 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. Maybe those who teach in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones.
● Dalrymple argues that the Tea Party is a “social justice movement” because “Tea Partiers are perfectly willing to accept the need for moderate taxation and social services.” This is certainly not the message that is being broadcast, nor the one that we hear from Tea Party supporters. It is a backlash movement against the federal government. Its supporters want to pay lower taxes out of their pockets. Little is said on behalf of the oppressed and dispossessed — central themes in biblical texts about social justice.
● In fact, Tea Party rhetoric is decidedly hostile to those who are cast-outs in our society. A Gallup poll conducted in late March showed that 87% of Tea Party supporters think that the healthcare reform bill is a “bad thing.” Sarah Palin presumably spoke for much of the movement when she defended Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigration on May 15th with the words, “We’re all Arizonans now.” That, by the way, was the same Sarah Palin who exhorted the Boston “Tea Party Express” rally with the words, “we’ll keep clinging to our Constitution, our guns and our religion and you can keep the change!”
Mr. Dalymple, the standards for passing as a social justice movement are far higher than what we see among the Tea Partyers. And rightly so.
Philip Clayton is Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Claremont Graduate University and Ingraham Professor at Claremont School of Theology.
Deborah Arca Mooney
Jason Derr
Carl Gregg
Blog Admin
Guest
Alyce McKenzie
Kyle Herron
atravelersnote
Steve Matthews
RT @patheos: Tea Partyers as Advocates for the Poor and Downtrodden? #patheos http://bit.ly/cyXAre Philip Clayton offers a rebuttal.
Dig a little deeper, darlin’.
We know that the top 50 percent of taxpayers (by income) pay virtually all individual income taxes. Is that who you see in these demonstrations? I didn’t think so.
Follow the logic then: are we being greedy, wanting “to pay lower taxes out of their pockets.”? Or are we maybe concerned with the deficit spending, the national debt, the empire building, strengthening the entitlement mentality, the road to bankruptcy?
Personally, I make less than 25K/yr, don’t have health insurance, and I, too, think that the healthcare reform bill is a “bad thing.” It is corporate welfare. I don’t use western medicine for health, only for accidents, and I already have accident insurance. Forcing me to buy a ’service’ from a for-profit corporation only serves to make me poorer & the corporation richer. Health insurance does NOT equal health care.
Want real health care reform? End federal farm subsidies, which encourage unsustainable practices & unhealthy conditions.
And yes, I believe that most of us care very much about the oppressed and dispossessed, we simply believe that it’s more productive to give someone a hand up than a hand-out.
Dr Clayton -
Your reply seems shallow and unconvincing. Please come to some of the TEA party events and meet some of the people for yourself. I think some original research will be enlightening to you.
RT @patheos: Tea Partyers as Advocates for the Poor and Downtrodden? #patheos http://bit.ly/cyXAre
Wow, professor, you really need to brush up on your logical fallacies. Start with “begging the question” and move on to “strawman.”
And you are a professor of religion? What does being opposed to Obamacare got to do with caring for the oppressed and downtrodden? Forcing Obamacare on unwilling participants is oppressive and the least compassionate solution to problems with our health care system. Not to mention the total corrupt way it was “legislated.” You really think the motives of those who forced this monstrosity on us were purely for the down-trodden? You are totally deceived and your reasoning is so faulty it is frightening.
Professor Clayton,
This is one of the most disturbing post I have seen in a long time. It is completely devoid of arguments and is nothing more than name-calling, red-herrings and strawman. If you truly want to defend your position, please put up a post that actually argues a point.
Weak… embarrasingly so.
I’ll have to agree with others here that this response is embarassingly weak. I fail to see how opposing healthcare reform means you’re a bad person or not moderate. That healthcare bill circumvented our democratic processes and there are many good arguments showing it will make things worse for all not better. Britain’s NHS and Massachusetts-care both show the bad road we’re heading down. Finally, I’m sure Mr. Dalrymple is one of the few conservatives on staff at Harvard and his blog makes it clear he’s not totally against the university types, simply that they always know everything and have a bad habit to trend towards arrogance. I think we’ve seen that aplenty with this administration and the way it thinks it knows what we need better than we do.
When I read Timothy’s piece and saw there was a response, I was hoping for a thoughtful response to the points he raised. I’m disappointed. This response appears like it took the author about ten minutes to write and like she couldn’t get past the, arguably unfair, generalized characterization that lead of Timothy’s piece.
I was hoping for more.
By the way, the Sam who posted at 8:16 AM is not the same who posted at 12:17 PM (me). I hadn’t read his post or I would have used a different name.
If there was supposed to be an argument given in this post I certainly missed it. Too bad.