Tea Party Movement



Tea Party Movement

Moral and Economic Implications Involved In Tea Party Movement

The Tea Party movement began in 2009 as a protest against the economic stimulus package. The main goal of this party is to decrease the government's power in America by cutting taxes and spending. The majority of the Tea Party supporters are conservative, white, male, married, and over 45; they are wealthier and better-educated than the general public. Considering the movement began only 2 short years ago, the Tea Party has been successful in helping increase conservative views throughout the country (Stein, 2009).

A moral economic policy would create a climate for wages and benefits that would strengthen family life by raising wages, providing benefits for stay-at-home parents and encouraging family life. But, this value may interfere with the economic principle of efficiency of production which states that a society is efficient only when the marginal utility, or satisfaction from the next unit of a good obtained, of all consumers is maximized and any consumer cannot increase his or her utility by acquiring a different set of goods (Saslow, 2009). The amoral economic policy used today includes only goods that are exchanged for money - a moral economic policy will include values that are not part of the exchange system.

Analysis of Implication

Some of the existing research on Tea Party supporters suggests their social psychology has unique characteristics. In particular, Jonathan Haidt (2010) uses the term morality rather than social psychology to explain Tea Partiers heighted sense of proportionality as part of their moral foundation (Haidt 2010). Proportionality is similar to the Hindu notion of Karma that basically concludes that actions and consequences should be associated. More conventional phrases reflecting this view include “let the punishment fit the crime,” “reap what you sow,” or “wouldn't take a dime if I ain't earned it”. Haidt argues that for Tea Partiers if “bad deeds would no longer lead to bad outcomes…the fragile moral order of our nation would break apart” (Stein, 2009). To Tea Partiers, providing bailouts to troubled financial firms and car companies is the epitome of rewarding companies who made bad decisions—thereby violating proportionality.

According to Tea Partiers, providing financial assistance to those facing foreclosures also violates proportionality. During my interviews with local Tea Party leaders throughout New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, Washington DC, and Utah, most used the words “morally wrong” to describe government action in response to the financial crisis. This view of proportionality is explained when probing Tea Partiers' assumptions about work, effort, and luck. At the VA Tea Party Convention, when asked if Tea Partiers believed if wealth and success is more the result of hard work or lucky breaks, 97% believed hard work was most important, this is in contrast to 76% who agreed in the ANES 2008-2009 panel study and 66% in the WashPo6 survey (Rosen, 2010). If individuals believe that America is a place where work and rewards are correlated and all one has to do is work hard to succeed, ...