The tea party will fail -- unless it fully embraces individualism as a moral ideal
The tea party's aim to restore America's founding ideals is commendable, but it still harbors the same moral impetus that's justified bigger government since the Progressive Era. To deliver on its promise to restore lost freedoms, the tea party must anchor its work in Ayn Rand's understanding that all schemes that sacrifice the individual to society are morally wrong.
Washington
They鈥檙e calling it the tea party Congress, and the new leadership is busy snipping earmarks, targeting Obamacare, and quoting the Constitution. But can they succeed where similar conservative backlashes have failed? Whatever your opinion of the whole tea party movement 鈥� and mine stops far short of blanket approval 鈥� you have to admit it has some interesting qualities that set it apart from conservative approaches of decades past.
By idealistically venerating the founding fathers, the tea party avoids the kind of cynical pragmatism that reigned in Richard Nixon鈥檚 era. By steering clear of religiously divisive 鈥渟ocial issues,鈥� the tea party avoids the kind of attack on the Constitution鈥檚 separation of church and state that characterized Ronald Reagan鈥檚 era. And by stressing that both major political parties are guilty of expanding government power without apparent limit, the tea party breaks with the neoconservative, big-government Republicanism that held sway in George W. Bush鈥檚 era.
Entrenched thinking
All this has generated a refreshing 鈥渃lean sweep鈥� sensibility, consistent with a grass-roots movement of Americans who are sincerely focused on individual freedom 鈥� and frustrated at the futility of past efforts to combat the seemingly unstoppable encroachment by government power. If I close my eyes, I can almost imagine the tea party making good on its promise to permanently restore some of our freedom. But with eyes wide open, I see a movement imperiled by the same entrenched thinking that has driven government鈥檚 growth for more than a century.
One side of the divided tea-party mentality (its 鈥渞ight brain,鈥� so to speak) recoils from the cumulative impact of government programs enacted over more than a century. In the wake of unprecedented 鈥渟timulus鈥� spending, Wall Street bailouts, 鈥淕overnment Motors,鈥� and Obamacare鈥檚 takeover of health insurance, the movement foresees economic ruin and diminished freedom for all Americans. To combat these evils, the tea party invokes America鈥檚 founding ideals of individual rights and limited government, and talks about cutting big government down to size.
Meanwhile, however, the tea party鈥檚 鈥渓eft brain鈥� harbors the same moral impetus that has justified bigger and bigger government since the Progressive Era. The basic idea is that some people鈥檚 needs constitute a moral claim on the lives and wealth of others. The list of needs is endless: economic stability, job security, housing, health care, retirement funds. To satisfy those needs, government concocts regulatory and wealth transfer schemes that coercively subject the individual to society. Over the years, each new program 鈥� from the Federal Reserve to Social Security, Medicare, and beyond 鈥� acquires an aura of moral dignity that renders it politically untouchable by later generations. The needs of others permanently displace the freedom of the individual.
Based on this conflict, my prognosis has the tea party headed for the political equivalent of an epileptic seizure.
Consider that the movement鈥檚 once-unanimous rallying cry of 鈥淩epeal Obamacare!鈥� has already morphed into 鈥渞epeal and replace,鈥� so as to 鈥渞etain some of its more popular provisions.鈥� Indeed, even as House Republicans this week engineered a symbolic vote for repeal (which will be dead on arrival in the Senate), those same members of Congress are setting the stage to make many of Obamacare鈥檚 onerous provisions permanent.
And then consider what programs would have to be dismantled just to return to that conservative nirvana, the Reagan era: the Americans with Disabilities Act (enacted under Bush I), State Health Insurance for Children (enacted under Clinton), as well as prescription drugs for seniors and Sarbanes-Oxley regulations penalizing all businessmen (both enacted under Bush II). Can you imagine the tea party seeking to eradicate any of these programs?
They can鈥檛 imagine it either, because the scenario for failure is too obvious. The tea party鈥檚 adherents know that any attempted repeal would be attacked as 鈥渕ean-spirited, heartless, and selfish.鈥� And they know that, according to conventional moral standards, they would stand guilty as charged. Paralyzed by this moral conflict, they will simply refrain from starting battles they can鈥檛 win.
A difficult moral battle
And winning this kind of moral battle, though possible, would be difficult. The tea party鈥檚 adherents would need to discover the moral principle underlying the often quoted but little understood ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They would need to argue that all schemes that sacrifice the individual to society are morally wrong. And they would need to argue that this country鈥檚 most rational and industrious citizens 鈥� including business leaders, doctors, health insurers, and taxpayers and productive individuals in all walks of life 鈥� are oppressed victims who deserve to be liberated, by permanent repeal of laws and regulations that invade their rights.
In short, the tea party would need to fully embrace individualism as a moral ideal. Although the odds against this are exceedingly large, I think there鈥檚 some cause for optimism. For the first time, a resistance movement is looking for answers in Ayn Rand鈥檚 writings. From the original public rant that inspired the tea party idea (when CNBC reporter Rick Santelli said 鈥渁t the end of the day, I鈥檓 an Ayn Rander鈥�) to last fall鈥檚 US Senate victory by Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson (who calls "Atlas Shrugged" his 鈥渇oundational book鈥�), Rand鈥檚 uncompromising defense of individualism has become a part of the tea-party mix.
Can the tea party deliver on its promise to cut back big government? Yes it can, but not unless its supporters awaken to the need for moral intransigency in pursuing individual liberty.
Thomas A. Bowden is a legal analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of 鈥淎tlas Shrugged鈥� and 鈥淭he Fountainhead.鈥�