Abstract
The Tea Party Movement is a movement marred with a mix of rejoinders and ideologies. Coming from a long history dating back in mid to late 18th century, the movement has stuck its roots deep into the American society. Various writers have taken a keen interest in the Tea Party Movement and trying to grasp its fundamental belief pattern. However, sad to say is, the fact that, with such a complex setting, it is imperative that different factions of the movement hold divergent beliefs that tend to create relative confusion. While one faction believes that the tax burden is overwhelming, others take such opportunities to air their political ambitions and seek mercy votes, not by addressing the underlying cause of the movement but rather airing their notion of what they would like to gain political mileage. No wonder some erudite writers like Etzioni (2011) term the movement as a collection of “racists, know-nothings, lower-class, homophobic, white, gun totting hicks” (p. 197).
Key Words: Tea Party, Tax burden, Mercy Votes, and Relative Confusion
Introduction
According to Boerner (2010), the Tea Party Movement finds its root in Boston back in the 1773 when a singular protest against relatively inhumane taxations sparked a whole range of protest spurred by public opinion, which later aided in setting ablaze a revolution whose flakes became a global phenomenon. It is estimated that, during this protests, 90,000 pounds of imported tea were tossed overboard into the waters leading to a crisis since tea lovers could not find tea leaves to purchase or even trade (Boerner, 2010). This might sound to be quite farfetched, yet two centuries and four decades later, the effect seems to reverberate with increasing intensity albeit shifting goalposts. The conglomeration dabbed the Tea Party Movement whose recent spark in 2009 has roused the government to rethink of the recent taxation laws and the repercussions thereof. Apparently, it seems like the agenda of the arousal was more than taxation.
For example, in the works of Kulesa (2010) and Boerner (2010), it is noted that racial prejudice seems to be the order of the day with reports of the movement being overly white-oriented. Etzioni (2011), while citing notions held by a majority of the Tea Partiers state that most partiers were of the notion that if only the blacks would add more effort and work harder, then they would be equal to their white counterparts. Kulesa (2010) further adds that about 5 % of the protestors held banners that tended to be profane to Obama’s presidency while a considerable margin claiming that they suffer from Obama Fatigue. In this research paper, the learner take a closer look at the moral and economic implications that the movement has had with more emphasis laid on the recent occurrences. Additionally, an analysis through the eyes of apposite theories like utilitarian, Kantian and Aristotelian will be considered.
Moral and economic implications of the tea party movement
Another moral issue that can be highlighted in this respect is the demarcation between individual autonomous thinking and group thinking. While one individual would not be able to command a higher effect on his/her own, a group created the best arena to address the shortfall. However, the complexities of group think, one that can decide to do something without consideration of the rationale behind is one aspect that throws rational thinking out through the window. These groups of people’s actions deprived the society of an essential commodity in the name of need for attention.
In terms of economic challenges, it is clear that the economic corollaries are titanic. Take for example; the cost of the 90,000 pounds tossed into the ocean was enormous. Looking at the situation from another point of view, consider the number of partiers who went on days on no end with the protest. The amount of valuable working hours lost and the economic consequences. Assuming for example, 100,000 take an active role in the protest, never reporting to work all day long. Assume further if these people, each can make at least $ 10 per hour making it $ 80 per day, which translates to $ 400 per five working days a week and $ 1,200 per month per person. On the lower side, the cumulative amount lost is equivalent to $ 120 million per month. Assuming taxation of 30 % would be imposed on the income, this would translate to mean that an estimated $ 36 million is derived from the government’s tax docket. This excludes the innumerable opportunities by other workers to make more money especially during demonstration when shops have to be closed down to avert looting. The economic implications are enormous.
Tea Party Movement and Utilitarianism
According to utilitarianism, the “Greatest happiness principle” argues that an approach is ethical to the extent that it makes the pursuers happy while significantly reducing the implications on others to a great extent (see Zernike, 2010, Madestam, Shoag, Veuger & Yanagizawa-Drott, 2011, Utilitarian, 2012 and Chiarenzelli, 2012). This theory can best be applied to the movement’s economic implications stance. In essence, apart from relatively minor mishaps, there are no recorded cases of looting and thus economic implications are directly on the tea partiers. Additionally, their quest to have an authentic and transparent taxation system that is not overburdening is beneficial to all. There are those, however, who feel that due to the actions of the tea partiers and the subsequent reduction in taxation, there was a significant role in the recently experienced global financial crisis (see Chiarenzelli, 2012).
Tea Party Movement and Kantian Ethics
Kantian ethical framework posits that an act is termed ethical on condition that the act and practice can be acceptable on a universal front (Chiarenzelli, 2012). Kantian morality framework continues to posit that the essence of morality is no so much in making one happy but rather in making one worthy of being happy (Madestam, Shoag, Veuger & Yanagizawa-Drott, 2011). According to this case study, the tea partiers’ actions can be perceived as being self-centered especially upon looking closer to the driving force. For example, in the works of Rasmussen and Schoen (2010; Madestam, Shoag, Veuger & Yanagizawa-Drott, 2011) there is a clear evidence that what the movement claims to be fighting for is diluted by corporate agendas. For a movement sponsored by billionaires and large corporations like FreedomWorks, for-profit Tea Party Nation, non-profits Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express and Americans for Prosperity, to mention but a few, is a clear evidence that these corporates are pushing their agendas forward in disguise of fighting for equity and moderation in taxation responsibilities. These behaviors may not be as acceptable on the international front and thus negating Kantian definition of ethics and morality. The approach that these corporates are using to push forward their agenda is not worth the recognition and for being happy; thus Kantian posits are grossly challenged in this respect.
Kant further posits that each individual can make rational decisions autonomously (Madestam, Shoag, Veuger & Yanagizawa-Drott, 2011). However, most of the tea partiers are following the party blindly, not being able to make their individual decision on the subject matter but rather relying on what others perceive as misalignment of the administrative activities that oppress lower class persons. However, their decisions and support is not based on autonomous decision-making, but other people’s perceptions. From another point of view, the tea party movement has a lot of support from corporate sponsorship, and is boosted by regular and unfailing media coverage especially by the Fox TV, which is perceived to be biased in its coverage (see Etzioni, 2010).
Tea Party Movement and Aristotelian Ethics
According to Chiarenzelli (2012), Aristotelian ethics is fashioned into three fundamental categories that include one that lays emphasis on virtue, another on practical/ moral wisdom and the other on human flourishing. With respect to virtue, the act of tossing the 90,000 pound of tea in the sea is disgusting, a sign of lack of guiding virtue. This can be attributed to mob psychology where people tend to think and act irrationally while trying to drive a point home. As it seems, despite these actions, their points are yet to be heard and thus their actions unnecessarily deprived a majority of the community a vital commodity used on a daily basis by most, if not all, Americans. Moreover, as if this is not all, to endorse their action, they name the party after their heinous act.
In as far as practical or moral wisdom is concerned, it is clear that there is yet to be fathomed the complexity of individual’s contribution in a party (Chiarenzelli, 2012). For example, it has been noted on various occasions that the parties’ agendas seem to be shifting based on the leader and region, in addition to, the evidential lack of a common national leader except some self-appointed local leaders who chose what to air and what not to air. This, therefore, dilutes the practicality of the party, standing as if it is a house divided in the midst of a ranging storm. While one faction is airing its displeasure with the Obama administration and some corrupt dealings, others are talking of the hospital bill, others talk of the contribution of persons from various races to the economy and shun their bickering in the name of working harder for success.
Lastly, on human flourishing, the main aim for the tea party movement was to ensure that hard-earned money was not overtaxed but left with the person so that they can be able to make investments based on their savings (Chiarenzelli, 2012). However, as it sounds, there is little that is aired concerning the initial reason for the formation of the party and thus the meaning and rationale for making people flourish seems simmered down and disintegrated into diverse factions that address other issues, some not quite relevant to the initial reason for setting up of the party.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear to note that the Tea Party Movement has come a long way, finding its roots back in 1773 yet its influence still persists. The ethical and economic implications are enormous as seen on the small sample taken. Of the three ethical frameworks, that is, the utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and Aristotelian ethics, the framework that best fits this analysis and one that comprehensively covers the situation in entirety is the Aristotelian ethics albeit Kantian being perceivably close to addressing the issue.
References
Boerner, H. (2010). Sustainable and responsible investment: The revolution is on. Corporate Finance Review, 14(6), 39-41. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/751644795?accountid=45049
Chiarenzelli, J. (2012). Clarifying cosmetic psychopharmacology part 4: What ethical framework should we use? The Gadfly Press. Retrieved from http://www.thegadflypress.com/2012/04/clarifying-cosmetic-psychopharmacology.html
Etzioni, A. (2011). The tea party is half-right. Society, 48(3), 197-202. doi: 10.1007/s12115-011-9416-9
Kulesa, L. (2010). Rocznik strategiczny 2009/2010 (strategic yearbook 2009/2010). The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 19(4), 81-85. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1022699704?accountid=45049
Madestam, A., Shoag, D., Veuger, S., & Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2011). Do political protests matter? Evidence from the tea party movement. Harvard Kennedy School: Cambridge. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/dyanagi/Research/TeaParty_Protests.pdf
Rasmussen, S., & Doug S. (2010). Mad as hell: How the Tea Party Movement is fundamentally remaking our two-party system. Harper: New York.
Utilitarianism, Autonomy And Beneficence. Anti Essays. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/175708.html
Zernike, K. (2010). Boiling mad: Inside tea party America. Times Books: New York.
