Wednesday, February 17, 2010
What should Catholic legal theory say to the "Tea Party" movement?
What does Catholic legal theory have to say, if anything, to the "Tea Party" phenomenon? I realize that the New York Times is pretty quick to attribute ominous motives to any political movements that find considerable traction outside the 212 area code, but the destructive anger that seems to be building -- and the enthusiastic embrace of that anger by leaders of the movement -- is troubling. I can think of a couple of lessons that Catholic legal theory could bring to the table: 1) blanket attributions of bad faith to our political leaders is a recipe for disaster; we are called to work together toward the common good, and a reflexive demonization of office-holders is not in keeping with our obligations as citizens; 2) references to the need for violence or revolution should not be made casually or except as a last resort; in this regard, does the rhetoric of Tea Party leaders reflect an awareness of the ideal toward which we, including our elected leaders, should be oriented -- i.e., a "civilization of love?" This is not to ignore the potential value that the movement can bring, particularly with its focus on fiscal responsibility and its potential to cast a critical light on the corrupting potential of power. But the substantive ends are not all that matters -- the tone of the conversation also matters if we are to promote, as the Church teaches, a "social life based on civil friendship." Thoughts?
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/02/what-should-catholic-legal-theory-say-to-the-tea-party-movement.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
I agree entirely with point 1-I just question whether the movement as a whole is guilty of this kind of rhetoric. Certainly some leaders of it are but the coverage of the movement in the media, conservative and liberal, focuses mostly on these leaders because it grabs readers. The Michelle Bachman's, Glen Beck's and Joseph Farah's, to the degree they are in any way leaders of the movement, are more fun to report and read about than the more level-headed.
With respect to #2, references to the need for violence have no place, but again I'm not sure they are invoked by the movement generally. But I think the use of rhetoric invoking the need for revolution in the context used by the movement (peaceful transformation of government, democracy, etc.) can reflect an awareness of that goal. I think like any movement, the Tea Party movement has its common-sense and level-headed members, and its paranoid, sinister members. The rhetoric of its actual leaders (the locals starting their own local movement) I think should be the focus, not that of the famous people who happen to speak at a rally, etc. I have no idea what their rhetoric is.