Birute Regine, writing in the Huffington Post:

When morality is defined only by individual rights then we create conditions for a culture that’s all about “me, me, me,” a dog-eat-dog world where everyone is out for themselves. Who cares about the other guy? Why should we care about the less fortunate when I had to struggle? Why should we restrain ourselves and take into account the feelings of grieving parents at a funeral, when we have the right of free speech? Why should we think twice about avaricious and inhumane business practices when we have the right to make money? It’s my right to do whatever I want as long I contort myself like Cirque de Soleil gymnast to stay within the limits of the law.

No wonder 30 percent of teens in the US are involved in bullying, either as bully or target of a bully. Look at their role models of posturing in politics, business, and religion. It’s my right to say whatever I want and never have to consider how my words or actions might impact others. Apologies, shame, admission of harm—these words are not in the self-righteous vocabulary.

Without a counterbalance to individual rights, we promulgate a care-less, careless culture that cares less about others and carelessly squanders or hoards resources because they think only of themselves.

Much, much more here.

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

I sympathize with Birute Regine’s argument that people have a stunted sense of morality if it reaches no further than individual rights. I think she harms her case, however, by referring to the Tea Party movement by its scabrous nickname, and still more in her guilt-by-association tactic of dragging in Westboro Baptist Church.

If she honestly can see little difference between a riled-up electorate and the followers of Fred Phelps, Regine is no champion of compassion or nuance.

Douglas LeBlanc - 25 October 2010 01:26 PM

I sympathize with Birute Regine’s argument that people have a stunted sense of morality if it reaches no further than individual rights. I think she harms her case, however, by referring to the Tea Party movement by its scabrous nickname, and still more in her guilt-by-association tactic of dragging in Westboro Baptist Church.

If she honestly can see little difference between a riled-up electorate and the followers of Fred Phelps, Regine is no champion of compassion or nuance.

I would guess that Ms. Regine can see the difference, but the question still remains: can we see the similarity?

I recommend the paper that Arbp Williams delivered at Trinity Institute in January. Although the focus was on economics, Williams places economics in the broader context of activities through which we build our common life. The paper is in the current issue of The Anglican Theological Review. One might also read a book to which Williams alluded, Rabbi Sacks’ To Heal a Fractured World.

One of my problems with the Tea Party movement is that, in spite of my habit of referring to groups by the names they choose for themselves, I find that choice of name entirely inappropriate. The very tenuous connection to the Boston Tea Party should not blind us to the facts. There was no “taxation without representation,” only a lack of success by conservatives in past elections. “Taking our country back,” from whom? Other Americans who happened to be more politically successful in the past? Or, and this is the undercurrent that I sense may be there, from people who aren’t “real Americans.” (I have written about this on my blog, The Thin Tradition: Real Americans and Taking Back Our Country?

Dear Father Daniel,

I hope you know that Birute Regine’s alternative name for the Tea Party is scatological slang. Consult UrbanDictionary.com if you doubt this. Surely pundits can be more imaginative in dismissing their political opponents.

No, I cannot see the similarity between a riled-up electorate and a sect that delivers its message of “God Hates Fags” at General Convention and “God Hates America” at the funerals of Americans killed in military service. One movement is taking its case to the polls on Nov. 2. The other movement announces almost daily its hope that America will be destroyed.

I have never attended a Tea Party rally, and my conservatism is not driven by anger. But I no more see these fellow citizens as comparable to the Phelps family than I see minor-party progressives as comparable to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I think a footnote to Godwin’s Law should extend to the Phelps family. Such a comparison is a way of shutting down real conversation, in favor of caricature.

The similarity that I see laid out in the article is a libertarian philosophy. While the Phelps family is in a category of its own, their defense of their actions is libertarian. I agree that the adding of the Phelps family to the list weakens the argument, an argument with which I agree. In addition to being, perhaps, the undoing of the Republican Party, members the Tea Party movement, including some candidates, are proposing reduction of federal programs that I think would be disastrous, especially for our most vulnerable neighbors. While the Democratic agenda is not perfect, the obstructionist tactics of Republicans in Congress have not helped. “Just say no” was an inadequate response to drug use, and it is an inadequate political philosophy.

Thanks for that very helpful elaboration, Fr. Daniel. I think a great deal of libertarian huffing and puffing will not knock down the structures of Washington, where campaigners must learn to govern together. I’m glad that tomorrow gives us all—Democrats, Republicans and even the occasional Libertarian—some voice in the matter.

Fr. Dan, I am glad you mention libertarian philosophy. The purpose of my earlier quote of Ayn Rand was to suggest the presence of such.

I am dismayed by the strong streak of libertaianism in much of North American conservative Christianity.