One month ago, it looked as if the U.S. Tea Party movement begun in 2007 by disillusioned political conservatives and quasi-libertarians was fading from mainstream national and Catholic consciousness. Tea Party-backed Congressional candidates were defeated by “establishment” Republicans in Idaho, Kentucky, and South Carolina primaries. Tea Party candidates in Georgia did not advance to the summer GOP runoff. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Thad Cochran (R-MS) were expected to easily defeat their Tea Party challengers.
Then, on Tuesday, June 10, Tea Party-backed Dave Brat—an economics professor who “currently attends a Catholic church” and claims that his Christian faith “shape[s] his Tea Party politics,” as Time Magazine put it—defeated Eric Cantor (R-VA), current Majority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, in a Virginia GOP House primary (for more on Brat, see Elizabeth Stoker’s recent Political Theology Today piece “Christo-Capitalism or Capitalanity? David Brat’s Political Theology”). Given this significant political development, and in light of both a recent Catholic University of America conference and Commonweal Magazine book review, some people are likely to question whether the Tea Party movement and proposals inspired by its libertarian-leaning ideology are compatible with Catholic Social Teaching (CST).
In the last few years, several Catholics have attempted to answer this question (e.g., Paul Ryan, Samuel Gregg, Catholic theologians, Gerald J. Beyer, Robert Christian in OnFaith and Millennial Journal, Charles M.A. Clark, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops). While these reflections all utilize post-conciliar CST resources, none directly engages what is widely regarded as the conciliar document most important to post-conciliar Catholic theological ethics: Gaudium et spes (GS). As such, this essay seeks to contribute to the lacuna in Catholic discussions about the Tea Party by offering reflections on the movement in light of GS.
THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT
In order to assess the Tea Party movement in light of GS, it is first necessary to identify key characteristics of the movement’s philosophy. Although the Tea Party’s relatively unstructured nature makes its worldview somewhat of a moving target, it is nevertheless possible to identify in the movement six key ideological principles:
Radical Individualism: The Tea Party movement generally refutes the notion of non-familial, non-voluntary social obligations. The movement also believes that individual success is largely achieved independent of social structures. Such individualism is particularly inspired by what Aaron Barlow and David Hackett Fischer call “borderer” or “borderlander” individualism (see Jane Smiley’s short article for a summary), as well as the selfish, Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Negative Individual Rights: The Tea Party disproportionately embraces the concept of “negative” rights which ensure that individuals are unharmed and otherwise generally unbothered. Additionally, the movement generally resists the existence of “positive” human rights to those things constitutive of human flourishing. This is best illustrated by the movement’s adaptation of the Gadsden Flag’s “Don’t Tread on Me” mantra.
Limited Government: Often with reference to the Constitution, one of the clarion calls of the Tea Party movement is for limited government in the face of a federal government perceived to be “too big” in size, scope, and influence.
Fiscal Responsibility: In concert with its advocacy for limited government, the Tea Party movement is generally characterized by fiscal responsibility. According to the Greenville Tea Party, this generally “means not overspending, and not burdening our children and grandchildren with our bills.”
Low Taxes: The Philadelphia Tea Party Patriots asserts that “a more fiscally responsible government will take fewer taxes from our paychecks.” This sentiment is paradigmatic of the movement in general, and although the Tea Party recognizes the need for some taxes it consistently advocates for lower taxes under the acrostic “Taxed Enough Already.”
Laissez-Faire Capitalism: Concurrent with—and perhaps due to—the abovementioned Tea Party characteristics, the movement advocates for unfettered free market capitalism. Although this absolute faith in the free market is most often manifest in resistance to governmental economic interventions, adherence to this principle also causes many Tea Party members to resist labor unionization and ignore ethical dimensions of human work.
THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT VIS-À-VIS GAUDIUM ET SPES
Given this outline of the Tea Party movement, it is now possible to consider its key ideological pillars in light of GS.
Radical Individualism: GS affirms the dignity of each individual person (12). At the same time, GS insists that individual and social welfare are inexorably connected (25). Moreover, GS recognizes that all persons have “social obligations” to one another and the common good (30, 32). As such, GS does not support the Tea Party’s abovementioned sense of individualism.
Negative Individual Rights: GS declares that persons have both negative and positive “rights and duties [which] are universal and inviolable” (26). As such, the Tea Party’s imbalanced emphasis on negative rights is inconsistent with GS.
Limited Government: GS condemns unnecessary government involvement in the lives of individuals and other groups. Concomitantly, however, the text affirms the legitimacy of government intervention when individual rights or the common good are compromised. Thus while GS seems to affirm part of the Tea Party’s political philosophy, the document’s nascent formulation of subsidiarity—explicated in art. 86—conflicts with the Tea Party’s categorical call for limited government.
Fiscal Responsibility: GS calls for prudence with respect to public spending (52). In theory, then, GS might be generally said to support the Tea Party’s call for fiscal responsibility. Given disparate prudential assessments of what constitutes fiscal responsibility, however, it seems unlikely that theological ethicists guided by GS will often agree with many Tea Party determinations of fiscal responsibility (Cf. above links to Paul Ryan and Catholic theologians).
Low Taxes: Like even some of the Tea Party’s most fiscally conservative members, GS recognizes the existence of “just taxes” (30). However, GS does not make an unconditional call for low taxes. Moreover, the aforementioned disparities between what GS and the Tea Party understand to be due others makes it seem unlikely that the Tea Party and Catholic theological ethicists guided by GS will often agree about what amounts to just taxation.
Laissez-Faire Capitalism: GS denounces the type of unqualified free-market capitalism generally espoused by the Tea Party movement (65). Additionally, GS affirms both workers’ rights to unionize and ethical dimensions of human work (67-8)—positions that often conflict with many Tea Party members’ economic sensibilities.
CONCLUSION
The Tea Party movement’s understandings of and firm commitments to radical individualism, negative rights, limited government, and laissez-faire capitalism have been shown to be at odds with GS. Additionally, although GS might be said to theoretically support the movement’s general understanding of fiscal responsibility it seems unlikely that Tea Party members and Catholic theological ethicists guided by GS will often agree about what particularly constitutes fiscal responsibility. Similarly, although the Tea Party and GS generally recognize the legitimacy of just taxation, it seems improbable that persons inspired by the latter will concur with members of the former about what level of taxation is in fact just.
In sum, then, the ideology of the Tea Party movement is generally inconsistent with—and very often directly opposes—the seminal conciliar document on Catholic theological ethics. Unfortunately, I fear that some Catholics who support Brat and identify with the Tea Party movement will ignore this reality and (continue to) try and justify an a priori political ideology with selective appeals to disjointed elements of post-conciliar CST. As the saying goes, however, I suppose only time will tell.
Daniel R. DiLeo is a Flatley Fellow and Ph.D. student in theological ethics at Boston College. He writes regularly for Millennial Journal.
In regards to “Limited Government: GS condemns unnecessary government
involvement in the lives of individuals and other groups. Concomitantly,
however, the text affirms the legitimacy of government intervention
when individual rights or the common good are compromised. Thus while GS
seems to affirm part of the Tea Party’s political philosophy,
the document’s nascent formulation of subsidiarity—explicated in art.
86—conflicts with the Tea Party’s categorical call for limited
government.” Article 86 deals with how nations interact, not on the notion of how big or intrusive a nation’s government should be per item c of article 86: “c) It is the role of the international community to coordinate and promote
development, but in such a way that the resources earmarked for this purpose
will be allocated as effectively as possible, and with complete equity. It is
likewise this community’s duty, with due regard for the principle of
subsidiarity, so to regulate economic relations throughout the world that these
will be carried out in accordance with the norms of justice.” How does a bigger government fulfill item d caution against trampling man’s spiritual advancement and nature: “d) In many cases there is an urgent need to revamp economic and social
structures. But one must guard against proposals of technical solutions that are
untimely. This is particularly true of those solutions providing man with
material conveniences, but nevertheless contrary to man’s spiritual nature and
advancement. For “not by bread alone does man live, but by every word which
proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). Every sector of the family of man
carries within itself and in its best traditions some portion of the spiritual
treasure entrusted by God to humanity, even though many may not be aware of the
source from which it comes.” Article 86 is under SECTION II Setting Up An International Community of Chapter V which is entitled: THE FOSTERING OF PEACE AND THE PROMOTION OF A COMMUNITY OF NATIONS and therefore is not germane to an individual nation’s government structure or size. Article 74 states in part: “Yet the people who come together in the political community are many and
diverse, and they have every right to prefer divergent solutions. If the
political community is not to be torn apart while everyone follows his own
opinion, there must be an authority to direct the energies of all citizens
toward the common good, not in a mechanical or despotic fashion, but by acting
above all as a moral force which appeals to each one’s freedom and sense of
responsibility.
It is clear, therefore, that the political community and public authority are
founded on human nature and hence belong to the order designed by God, even
though the choice of a political regime and the appointment of rulers are left
to the free will of citizens.(3)
It follows also that political authority, both in the community as such and
in the representative bodies of the state, must always be exercised within the
limits of the moral order and directed toward the common good—with a dynamic
concept of that good—according to the juridical order legitimately established
or due to be established. When authority is so exercised, citizens are bound in
conscience to obey.(4) Accordingly, the responsibility, dignity and importance
of leaders are indeed clear.
But where citizens are oppressed by a public authority overstepping its
competence, they should not protest against those things which are objectively
required for the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own
rights and the rights of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this
authority, while keeping within those limits drawn by the natural law and the
Gospels.
According to the character of different peoples and their historic
development, the political community can, however, adopt a variety of concrete
solutions in its structures and the organization of public authority. For the
benefit of the whole human family, these solutions must always contribute to the
formation of a type of man who will be cultivated, peace-loving and
well-disposed towards all his fellow men.” This article is from Chapter 4, The Life of the Political Community. What is missing is the proper context for understanding Gaudium et spes which I believe is its Chapter 1 entitled Fostering the Nobility of Marriage and the Family.
Based on this chapter, the Tea Party may be closer to a true understanding of Gaudium et spes than you think especially with the rulings against Traditional Marriage and the government’s mandating contraceptive coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s implementation.