How do you spell tendentious? Sociologists Robert Putnam and David Campbell on religion and politics. Without evidence they assert that the Tea Party is controversial not because of its strident fiscal conservatism, but rather because Tea Party activists are religious. 
In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, the duo held forth on the nature, influence, and significance of the Tea Party, which they say has become a toxic brand. In 2010, polling found that 18 percent of Americans viewed the then-new Tea Party movement unfavorably. Today 40 percent have a negative view. Meanwhile, only 20 percent approve of the Tea Party.
Are these statistics surprising? Many Tea Party activists want deep changes to control spending, for example, a constitutional amendment prohibiting deficit spending. This ardent fiscal rigorism, which dovetails with rhetoric about radically reshaping the role of government (Ron Paul has called for eliminating the Federal Reserve), provides a more plausible explanation for why, as the Tea Party has gained influence, more voters have become negative toward or ambivalent about the movement.
Think about it. If you are a liberal of any stripe, then the success of the Tea Party in reshaping the priorities of the Republican Party, and through the Republican Party the debate in Washington, will fill you with horror. In view of the fact that slightly less than a third of Americans self-identify as liberals, is it at all surprising that 40 percent of Americans don’t like the Tea Party? They don’t like the Tea Party because it represents a strident fiscal conservatism that gives the strong impression that it wants to detonate a political bomb that will destroy modern welfare state.
The ambivalence of others is equally understandable. As Putnam and Campbell point out, Joe and Jane Q. Public—the independent, middle-of-the-road voter—favor smaller government. But Joe and Jane Q. Public typically want smaller government without any deep changes to the twentieth-century social contract that revolves around the modern welfare state. They are often small “c” conservative, which means that even in their unhappiness with the way things are going, they remain largely loyal to the status quo and thus tend to be skeptical about big “C” conservative ideas that promise to dramatically reshape the way we do business in Washington.
Thus, liberals and liberal leaning American actively dislike the Tea Party because they are liberals or liberal leaning. Meanwhile, the large center-right plurality in America remains ambivalent because their political commitments are diverse and perhaps contradictory (which I do not regard as necessarily a bad thing), which is to say ambivalent.
But this explanation does not satisfy Putnam and Campbell. Instead, they conclude that the Tea Party is a potent but unpopular movement because of . . . religion. Huh?
Putnam and Campbell admit that their polling data show that Tea Party supporters want what their leaders say they want: smaller government. But the same data show that they want “deeply religious” leaders, and that they, “approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates.”
No doubt this is true. The religious and social conservatism of the Republican Party intermixes with the fiscal and economic conservatism in all sorts of close and complex ways. But it is willful of Putnam and Campbell to conclude that it’s the religious dimension that constitutes the most salient—and most controversial—dimension. This is the fallacy of composition: the presumption that a part amounts to the whole.
For example, they write, “This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.” Call me naive, but I had thought the enthusiasm for Bachmann revolves at least as much around her anti-debt absolutism, her denunciations of government spending, and her refusal to participate in any compromises with Democrats.
And Rick Perry? Last I checked he did not accuse Barack Obama or Ben Bernanke of theological errors. Instead, he threw red meat to the Tea Party folks in Iowa. On Obama: “I think the greatest threat to our country right now is this president trying to spend his way out of this debt.” On the Federal Reserve: “Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous or treasonous in my opinion.”
Apparently I’m mistaken. According to Putnam and Campbell, “Their appeal lies less in what they say about budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops or Mr. Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.”
How do they know this? Are they suggesting that if a moderate Republican opened his speeches with long prayers and speckled his speeches with biblical references, then Tea Party folks would swing behind him? The idea is absurd, which suggests that Putnam and Campbell’s claims about the Tea Party are implausible.
By my reckoning, the two sociologists are led to this specious conclusion by their own political inclinations. They assert that most Americans “increasingly oppose” the “infusion of religion into politics.” True, perhaps, (the authors don’t provide the data), but nonetheless tendentious. Many Americans are uncomfortable with the enthusiasm and directness of American Evangelicalism. But this does not translate, as Putnam and Campbell suggest, into an “opposition to mingling religion and politics.”
Instead, as is always the case in a two-party system, voters divide along complex lines. It is foolish to imagine that Bachmann’s prayers are sole or main source of her controversy as a candidate. The Tea Party evokes the disdain (and anxiety) of nearly all liberals and some moderates because they are opposed the all the main aspects of the American conservative coalition: self-confident religiosity, socially conservative attitudes, unrepentant patriotism, a presumption in favor of free-markets, and a populist dislike of government.
The shibboleth about “not mingling religion and politics”—and that’s what it is, a political slogan suited to our present debates and not a neutral description of social reality—obscures rather than illuminates this essentially ideological opposition. This is what liberals often do. They don’t disagree but instead appeal to a supposed meta-principle. They just want to keep things “fair” and “open” and “inclusive,” they say, while accusing those with whom they disagree of being “divisive” or “extremist” or “failing to give public reasons,” or in this case, of “mingling religion and politics.”
In truth, although many mouth the platitude, few actually are opposed to “mingling religion and politics.” They just oppose mingling certain kinds of religion with certain kinds of politics.
Martin Luther King, Jr. mingled religion with politics in a way the thrilled progressives in his day. More recently, Catholic bishops have defended pro-immigration polices on biblical and theological grounds. I know plenty of liberal friends who are horrified by the Tea Party who are quite happy with this way of mingling religion and politics. And I know plenty of conservatives who regard Jim Wallis, a spokesman for the religious left, as anathema. They think his kind of religion sells out to progressive political fashions, regarding him as a pious shill for socialism.
That’s why it’s foolish to generalize about religion and politics. Most people, even unbelievers, rather like it when public figures pray or preach for the success of what they already believe and support.
R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam, Crashing the Tea Party
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
They went slightly softball on her for studying tax law in submission to her husband and they let her substitute "respect" as a synonymn for "submission" but they will not go softball on that very thing if she advances. That is a religious issue that will flare up should she advance. Are we voting for her or voting for her husband if he dictated her study choices in a post graduate course. Are we voting for her timetable for leaving Afghanistan or does hubby want us there til every poppy flower has been extirpated so as to bring in the kingdom of God. In the long run, I see her as dead in the water because of this religious issue....studying tax law because her husband said to. I admire her submission but it means that she should not run for office because voters will not know who they are voting for....her or him.
If Americans of all stripes cannot embrace fiscal conservatism then, ultimately, America will become just another failed state
But worse is Reno’s didactic lecturing about how liberals must, by their very nature, avoid (because of his lack of prejudice for race Tea Party) Ron Paul. Reno must have forgotten, or else failed to learn, that Paul has promised to bring home the troops immediately: this is a proposal that appeals to liberals. (I confess, I have either forgotten or else failed to learn what Reno’s prescription for the wars is. Anyone have a link to his views?) Also, for the lover of human and civil rights, Ron Paul is their man. And he’s pro-life, to boot. (And this appeals to me, since I still cherish memories of helping to block clinic doors as a 14-yr-old, which effectively closed the clinic for the day.)
And before I sign off, so that I can go give my illegal (bilingual) 22-yr-old worker a raise from $10/hr to $11/hr, I would question why the ink-space is even being given to a facet of American life that only 20% of the people like. What next? a timely teaching on the Green Party or the Communist Party or some other marginal group? Is First Things losing its relevance?
I'm not entirely happy with the Tea Parties either, but here's the problem with what you're saying. The "center-right" cannot give what we want anymore. You may want to open your eyes to the last 30 years of politics, which has shown "center-right" Republicans to be little more than Democrat-lite: mere conservative liberals. Balanced budgets and reduced national debts will not happen apart from the Tea Party. That's the unfortunate reality--and I do think it's unfortunate.
The question is, of course, what happens to conservatism if there's nothing left to conserve? Is it "conservative" to seek small reductions in, for example, mass war? At what point is it "conservative" to simply say: just stop it?
What passes for center-right these days is simply not conservative. The Tea Partiers, despite having significant flaws in their conservatism, is more conservative than the center-right today or the approach you've suggested. Conservatism isn't merely about a non-strident and undramatic "approach" (though it is that) but of conserving good parts of culture and building better culture on the foundation of what we've conserved.
And I don't see "center-right" proponents like yourself mentioning the other half of what it means to be conservative. Apart from that, a just disgust with the style of Tea Partiers becomes mere snobbishness useful to the perpetuation of the status quo.
All true, but there's more. Whatever the varied personal beliefs of the individual "leaves" of the Tea Party, especially its younger members, the movement's roots are in a world view that fears God and dreads naught. Modern liberalism is a veneer of sophistication over a wicked heart of rebellion towards God and a complete disregard of the responsibility to provide for tomorrow. Spending all of tomorrow's money and other capital today is, in computer lingo, not a bug but a feature of their philosophy. The apostles of abortion (President Barack Obama), homosexuality and deficit spending (John Maynard Keynes and Congressman Barney Frank), neglect of the common defense to spend for today (again Congressman Frank) all view the Tea Party as the first ripple of the wave of God's judgment they know deep down is coming for them. They react viscerally, emotionally and irrationally, because everything they worship is at stake. But they also react entirely predictably, because the darkness has always hated the light, and always will.
If some fellow Tea Partiers adopt only, say, 7 commandments instead of all 10, that makes them much more my ally than the Democratic Party that hates, rejects and suppresses them all.
"I would question why the ink-space is even being given to a facet of American life that only 20% of the people like. What next? a timely teaching on the Green Party or the Communist Party or some other marginal group? Is First Things losing its relevance?"
Ben, we just got finished with the Iowa Straw Poll, attended by all contenders for the Republican nomination, plus Palin, plus the President himself in the area - the real start of the campaign! There's been plenty of media coverage, which Jon Stewart gleefully mocked on the Daily Show. And all the Reoublicans are playing for the Tea Party vote. I mean, the whole budget fight - remember that? - was very much influenced by freshman Reps with Tea Party backing.
Is this column relevant? You may question if it has enduring value or is well-written, or many other things. But relevant is the one thing it obviously is.
My point with the question of relevance was to point out that, even as the majority of the media tries to diminish the import of the Tea Party, they continually comment on its minority status. I mean, the wholesale media and Republican dismissal of the tea party from two years ago- remember that?- did not achieve its purpose of dampening the interest in low taxes. When Big Republican saw that this was the case, they tried to co-opt the tea party. The same Republicans that caved in to Obama's bail-out nonsense are now pretending to be fiscal conservatives. Why? Because they don't want to be the next to join the unemployment lines. Now, the only man who is not an empty suit is being down-played just like the whole tea party movement was being treated two years ago. For instance, Reno here tells liberals to dismiss Ron Paul because Paul is, in every way, contrary to the liberal view. Then Reno tells the Republicans that someone like Paul or some other person cast as a tea partier is negligible- even quoting polls and statistics. So, TD Roy, if the tea party is indeed relevant, as you suggest, you might tell Reno that publishing articles conveying its irrelevance is irrelevant. I may have missed a major point of the article, too. Let's not rule out that possibility. Particularly this line: "the Tea Party has gained influence[...] more voters have become negative toward or ambivalent about the movement" Gained influence? How does something simultaneously gain influence AND have more voters becoming negative toward it?
My dad would explain that because America, all of Europe and the rest of the world supported Britain's hold on Ireland, they all joined in in propagating the false notion that the problem in Ireland was a religious conflict between local Catholics and Protestants. And dad never failed to remind us that the person who most accurately represented the conflict historically was Cromwell, and poll after poll in Britain, even recently, shows that Cromwell is the favorite historical personality for most British, the same as Lincoln is the favorite for most Americans.
"Son...they'll always paint a picture of a religious war to hide the reality of England holding onto at least one possession to save face after its decline as the largest empire in history."
Liberals can no longer make a reasonable argument against those, including Tea Party members, who know the failure of large government, the Welfare State and amoral self-aggrandizement, so they have no recourse but to turn it into a religious issue, and the only kernel of truth to their argument is that the majority of the Christian right rejects moral relativism, which is a cute term meaning amorality, and the modern liberal state does strive to resolve problems without in-depth moral reasoning (thus abortion and the hyper-sexualization of children), simply because true moral reasoning would clearly show the error of their ways.
Is the recent poll you mention from the NYTimes? If so, I would not trust it. I no longer read the NYTimes because it is not trustworthy on most issues.
A comment:
The Tea Party is not a political party in the customary sense. The movement is made up of local groups of different political persuasions who believe that we are on the road to fiscal ruin. The movement started with the so-called stimulus package, but I think the seed was sown with Bush's so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform (i. .e., turning a blind eye to ILLEGAL ALIENS), which would have ignored the rule of law. Indeed, the rule of law is very important to most Conservatives I know.
Granted, it's unfair to say that all Tea Party people are like this, but the dimmest and most hypocritical voices are unfortunately the loudest.
To them, religion is the foundation of all society and morality; it alone enfranchises people by making them obedient, harmonizing all intelligences and wills. Thus the Church, as the supreme authority, became the principle of order, the centre of political as well as religious stability.
Every thinker on the Right has recognized this, whether personally believers, like De Maistre, Boland and Chateaubriand, or not, like Charles Maurras and the Straussians. Whether the Tea Party supporters and their leaders fall into the first category or the second is immaterial to their argument.
Libertarians usually embrace the ideas of Ayn Rand, but few Tea Partiers in my experience are Libertarians. The most conspicuous so-called "birther" is Donald Trump, who does not associate himself with the Tea Party movement.
The Left fears the Tea Party, partly because it is so amorphous and therefore difficult to coherently vilify and demonize. But they should be careful; their best friends might be Tea Partiers, even if they have no religion.
I have not had the opportunity to read the article to which R R Reno responds, but I can say that in the past I have respected his right to his opinions and I will continue to do so. I don't always agree with him, but I enjoy his thoughtfulness and reasoning. As for the authors of the other article, they, too, have their right to opinion. I wonder, however, Reno's need to respond in such an inflammatory and, as far as I am concerned, unchristian manner?
Much of the fiscal conservatism they espouse I agree with. However, as you noted, the Tea Party is not a movement as it has no centralized driving body or even a unifying mandate. The simple rallying cry or common ideal is around smaller government and fiscal conservatism based upon individual responsibility. These sound like great ideals. However, without a unifying statement on what these mean and how they are to be met, each politician in the 'Tea Party' is left to interpret how those goals are to be met for themselves. This is a little too 'Protestant' for me.
What happens is some politicians take the ideal and assume a mandate to use any means necessary to achieve them. When deceit and thuggery are used in pursuit of a goal, however noble, it tarnishes the pursuit and possibly even the achieved goal. It seems that if they are calling people to take a higher degree of personal moral responsibility for their society, then they should be better examples themselves.
Of course this is not just a Tea Party problem, but more of one associated with a culture of moral relativism. Regardless, it is not good and one of the reasons I have been hesitant to join the rallying cry of the Party - they talk the talk, but not all walk a very nice walk. At least with a centralized message/teaching, if one of them strays in the implementation, it does not call the entire group into question. This is one of the reasons I left Evangelical Protestantism and came into the Church. So, when I see so many Evangelicals rallying around the Tea Party, I get a tad nervous when they have no way of pulling in the reins of some of their loose cannons.
As far as mixing religion and politics, Alan Jacob's takedown of the nefarious Andrew Sullivan is delicious.