Meanwhile, in less traumatic topics, I listened today to a podcast of On Point with Tom Ashbrook, an NPR-affiliated radio talkshow. The topic? The Tea Party, the populist, grassroots (some would quibble with that descriptor), diverse, and widespread movement of fiscal and social conservatives agitating for a variety of reforms to US policy and government. Given my research interests in the performance of conservative activism, it's perhaps surprising that I've avoided doing much work on this most visible and powerful of political protest movements on the right.
This show served as a good introduction to some of their beliefs and operations. Ashbrook (the host) devoted most of the show to two guests, themselves leaders of local Tea Party-affiliated groups. Throughout the dual interview/call-in, Ashbrook maintained a pretty fair tone throughout, pushing gently when a guest or a caller made an unclear or contradictory statement but never becoming cable-talk-showy (i.e., aggressive, interrupting, belittling, etc.).
For all the conversation, though I remain in the dark about the Tea Party's core ideals. Certainly "less government spending" and "less taxation" appear to be common themes. But the rationales underlying these slogans, as well as the related political/cultural philosophies linked with them, remain inchoate. Both guests tended to speak in rather vague terms about personal liberties or the values of the founding fathers. Beyond such language, however, their worldviews seemed to diverge sharply.
One guest, Lorie Medina from the Dallas Tea Party, cited some relatively specific grievances, instances in which she feels the government has overstepped its bounds by, for example, dictating the leadership of this or that corporation. She was careful to keep her arguments restricted to economic policy, advocating a Reganesque "no big government" libertarianism (though she did not use that latter term). The other guest, Jeffrey McQueen, founded a group (or, perhaps, a website) called "USRevolution2." Its main offering at present appears to be a modified flag available for purchase:
Asked by Ashbrook about the flag's design, McQueen explained that the thirteen stars reference (of course) both the original thirteen colonies of the original American Revolution and the thirteen guests at the Lord's Supper. The second revolution the flag alludes to implies a coming reform of government along general lines of fair tax, fair trade, limited government, and the right to bear arms.
McQueen's rhetoric ranged more widely than Medina's did. The show's more extreme comments came from him, as he at one point drew comparisons between the health care reform bill and the Holocaust (solemnly referring to Jewish relatives of his who died in Nazi camps) and openly described the President as a socialist. Toward the end of his time, he said something to the effect that Americans have "four boxes" to use in order to express themselves: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box--and the "bullet box." Ashbrook stopped him, asking him to elaborate. Did he really mean an armed revolution? "Just look at ammunition sales," McQueen answered. "They're way up."
Medina tactfully distanced herself from that particular line. She also strained to distance herself from overtly racist images that a caller reported were being sent to him and defended by Dallas-based Tea Party people. Both Medina and McQueen vehemently denied that either they or their fellow Tea Partiers were racist simply because they disagreed with Obama, castigating what they saw as critics' easy recourse to "the race card." As for the racist images and alarming/violent slogans circulated at Tea Party rallies, Medina fell back on the fact that the Tea Party is a leaderless grassroots movement that does not police its members. (Oddly, she coupled this argument with firm assurances that her Tea Party group would never allow such images in its communications).
One caller picked up McQueen's reference to the Last Supper, challenging McQueen to explain how the passionately anti-socialist Tea Party could reconcile its pro-capitalism with the practice of the early church as described in Acts (I think he referenced Acts 4: 32-35--"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. . . . There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.").
Here my ears perked up. Pace Max Weber, the collusion between capitalism and Christianity baffles me since passages like the one above seem utterly at odds with the profit/property/individualism values of the "free market." Is not the sharing all things with everyone and giving the needy everything they need more socialist? Medina swooped into rescue McQueen, claiming authority as the daughter of a Baptist pastor. The Acts passage, she explained, described the believers' actions toward each other. They did not, she argued, give their money "to Ceasar" and then ask Ceasar to redistribute it. That would be socialism. Christians give their possessions on their own, not via government.
I've heard this interpretation before, and, forgive my bluntness, but what self-serving tripe! It's the height of hypocrisy for a Christian-right political conservative to hide behind separation of church and state when the bulk of their agenda blatantly pushes US government to mirror supposedly Christian values. Would it be socialism for the US government to adopt and enforce strictly Christian notions of, say, marriage? Would it be socialism for the government to adopt Christianity as its official religion? The Christian right (broadly speaking) consistently holds that the US is a Christian nation. Shouldn't a Christian nation adopt Christian values--not just culturally but economically?
Moreover, Medina's exegesis conveniently dodges the caller's main criticism. Even if the example in Acts 4 doesn't advocate a socialist economic system, no stretching can possibly distort that passage into a Christian case for supporting capitalism, particularly the corporate-freedom capitalism Medina praises. Where exactly does Jesus or the early church throw their support behind trickle-down economics?
But I digress...
Clearly the Tea Party is a diverse movement in the throes of defining itself. Certainly its members have a great deal of passion, but (as Elinor Clift mentioned in a subsequent show segment) passion isn't enough to create meaningful political change. At some point they will need to cohere around a leader who articulates their passion in terms of a distinct platform of policy proposals. And the tricky thing about articulation: it dissolves the illusion of unity conjured by hurrah-words like "freedom" and "values" and "normalcy."
I wait to see how and if the Tea Party confronts and navigates its own internal differences.
More tomorrow,
JF
No comments:
Post a Comment