What the Tea Partiers Really Want (Best Essay on American Values I've ever read)

Wall Street Journal ^ | 16 Oct 2010 | JONATHAN HAIDT

[11th_VA]

The passion behind the populist insurgency is less about liberty than a particularly American idea of karma.

-snip-

...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.

-snip-

...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.

[NTHockey]

>>Social Conservatives will be the downfall of the Tea Party Movement.<<

So, according to your statement, Social Conservatives are diametrically opposed to Fiscal Conservatives. Huh, bold statement, but wrong on many levels.

I am sure that I am one of many Conservatives - both Social AND Fiscal. Limited government means exactly that - LIMITED. Constitutional law MUST prevail. The “Commerce Clause” is NOT the entire Constitution, nor does it allow government to wield total control.

Abortion is murder; as much so as all the borrowing and spending.

Same sex “marriage” is as destructive as the redistribution of wealth.

“Immigration Reform” will destroy America as surely as appeasing Mohammedans.

[Deagle]

No, RINOs would be the downfall of the Tea Party - and we plan to remove them one by one if necessary. Don’t forget that the majority of Americans are still Conservative - and yes that means even those horrible Social Conservatives that you seem to despise. You are the one in the minority here...

[Neil E. Wright]

self-BUMP for later.

America! It's about

★ FREEDOM! ★

★ Estimated Value – PRICELESS! ★

[gusopol3]

I thought the idea of explaining an American phenomenon by stretching it over an eastern concept like karma was bizarre; I thought the essay was subtly snarky and condescending and ultimately misleading. David Hackett Fischer's intro to his book Liberty and Freedom explores the thought that it is in Western culture that words for liberty and freedom are found, not in eastern,; that there are shades of meaning that distinguish the two terms, and that they are very different in their origins. Liberty comes from the Latin, and primarily defines a state of separation. It seems to me that the "libertarian" ideal is heavily reliant on that side of the dichotomy. "Freedom," as in "freedom from" is synonymous in usage to a degree, but has its origin among northern European tribes, from Germanic words like "frei" and "freiheit." These terms actually imply connectedness to the people. Perhaps that's why Haidt's survey uncovered that concept among the conservatives. Fischer points out that Tocqueville said liberty and freedom were habits of the heart, moeurs libres , "customs, beliefs, traditions and folkways of a free people.". So, interestingly, "the original meanings of freedom and liberty were not merely different but opposed. Liberty meant separation. Freedom implied connection."

Summarizing (badly) what Fischer goes on to say, in Roman culture, "people were born into a condition of prior restraint, to which liberty came as a specific exemption or release " (a privilege); in contrast, the Norse, Icelandic concept was " this prior condition of freedom was a birthright" meaning "the rule of law, the freedom to choose one's own chief, and the right to be governed by a local assembly."

He presents a table, which format I can only approximate:

general idea:Mediterranean World (MW): liberty, libertas(separation/release).....North European(NE): freedom, Freiheit ( kinship to free people)

legal possessions (MW): privileges, privilegium(that which may be given)....(NE) right, folcricht(that which must be given)

religious belief (MW) liberty of conscience(released from restraints)...(NE)soul freedom(becoming one with God)

social obligations: (MW)to use one's independence responsibly, i.e. not as a libertine...(NE)to serve and support a free folk, and to respect the rights of others who are free

[Attributing Armey's or any tea party member's construct of liberty or freedom to Mill is snarky and reveals a real lack of knowledge, the concepts are much older.] Fischer cites a number of examples of the interplay of liberty and freedom in the forging of America, but I'm done.

[caseinpoint]

Good post. The author distills a lot of inchoate feelings floating around these days. I depart a bit in what seems to be his implication that Tea Partiers mostly want revenge.

I think there is a strong notion that a lot of Baby Boomers were confronted by stark choices in the 60s and 70s and beyond and they were warned that good or bad consequences would follow those choices. Parents, teachers, mentors and pastors all reinforced the idea that your choices then would largely determine your future happiness. Drop out of school or slack off on studies and a drudge job was your future. Loosen your morals and no one would respect you. Get pregnant and you ended up married to someone you didn’t even really like with a houseful of kids at age 25. Gamble or make risky investments you really couldn’t afford and you might lose everything.

Today those warnings have, as this author has noted, been turned completely upside-down. Drop out of school and the government would pay you to go back. Your drudge union job was more protected than any other career. Abortion changed the pregnancy warning. Loose morals are not considered enlightened but respectable. And, probably the straw that broke the camel’s back, the bailouts and stimulus was being funneled to extreme risktakers and the politically-connected in addition to, and perhaps even in priority to, those who really deserved some help.

There is plenty to make a kid of that time angry that now he or she is being demonized for having stayed in school, built a stable family and invested prudently in a home, which were supposed to be a solid investment, as a primary nonliquid asset. But, I can add that, to me anyway, it is less karma against the kids who made fun of the “nerds” or “sweebs” or “brownnosers” than it is a real concern that morality can no longer be taught effectively to the coming generations because of the topsy-turvy incentives these days. The story of the ant and grasshopper has been totally flipped and today it is the ant who is considered foolish.

That has consequences far beyond the idea of individual hopes of karma for those we know or suffered today. With religion either discredited or seriously watered down for a large majority of Americans, our society is grasping for ways to teach principles and morals inherent in maintaining a long-term viable community. Destroy the notion of social physics: action engenders predictable reaction and the world does fly apart, if not now then in the very near future.

[trebb]

Social Conservatives will be the downfall of the Tea Party Movement.

You probably need more info to make that statement. It is a blanket statement that you should be able to do ANYTHING if it doesn't infringe on others.

That might be construed to say that homosexual marriage/use of heroin and other socially immoral (at least until liberalism became so prominent) and repugnant behavior.

That's the trouble with polls and other statements - there is no discussion to determine WHY folks chose as they did.

The statement judged sounds more like a liberal mantra of "tolerance" only with no rules to define what is allowable.

[screaminsunshine]

The philosophy of ‘Let the buyer beware’ also comes to my mind. Consumer ‘protection’ is also a Socialist ploy for bigger government and a ‘risk free’ society.

[listenhillary]

It is easy to think the State has a lot of different objects — military, political, economic, and what not. But in a way things are much simpler than that. The State exists simply to promote and to protect the ordinary happiness of human beings in this life. A husband and wife chatting over a fire, a couple of friends having a game of darts in a pub, a man reading a book in his own room or digging in his own garden — that is what the State is there for.

And unless they are helping to increase and prolong and protect such moments, all the laws, parliaments, armies, courts, police, economics, etc., are simply a waste of time.

C. S. Lewis

A very good distillation of what I feel government should be. Listenhillary

[wintertime]

Ping

[11th_VA]

The thrust of this article seems to be that 'Tea Partiers just want their freedom'.

My bad on the context I posted, it seems to have confused some. That's not the thrust of the article, that's the idea being pushed by some people like Dick Armey. The author looks at the movement from a more philosophical perspective and asserts, "The passion behind the populist insurgency is less about liberty than a particularly American idea of karma."

He then goes on to summarize this American Karma as, "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. "

He then asserts, "... 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. "

[Prospero]

The article is essentially "liberal" in outlook, from a presumed but wholly imagined objectivity. Alas, the author and his colleagues never fully get beyond a failed attempt to define the terms of their thesis. That being the case, my reading into their Pig Latin definitions for terms as I have learned them is a waste of time.

It does not say very much for the Wall Street Journal that this twaddle was accepted for publication.

[The Duke]

Thanks for amplifying that for me. I fully agree with those perspectives. :)

[diamond6]

bttt

[Titan Magroyne]

For the simmer bin...

[prairiebreeze]

read later