60 online
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 13 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

The Tea Party Shtick

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   No comments
Message Sam Pizzigati
Become a Fan
  (2 fans)

Our founders wouldn't be amused.

Crossposted at IPS

Not long ago, Americans only dressed up in George Washington wigs and tri-corner hats on the Fourth of July. But then the tea party came along. Colonial garb started turning up at rallies all year around.

In quick order, the legacy of 1776 started "belonging" to the tea party crowd. The Founding Fathers, the tea partisans claimed, wouldn't abide government interference in their lives. And neither should we. If we today just stayed true to 1776, the United States would remain forever "exceptional."

M.V. Jantzen/Flickr
M.V. Jantzen/Flickr
And how do we stay true? The tea party -- and like-minded GOP conservatives in Congress -- had a ready answer: No new taxes. Ever. Not even on the super rich. Forget all that fussing about inequality. Starve the beast. Keep government small.

This basic line quickly became the reigning mantra within conservative circles. But this dogma jumbles the historical record. The patriots of 1776 didn't stage a revolution to keep government small. They revolted to keep America relatively equal.

As new archival research by economists Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson documents, those colonists lived in a society that sported far more equality than mother England. In 1774, on the Revolution's eve, the colonies probably enjoyed "a more egalitarian income distribution" than "any other place on the planet," Lindert and Williamson write.

Our colonial top 1 percent took in just 8.9 percent of colonial household income. Back in England, the richest 1 percent raked in 17.5 percent, nearly twice that share.

Free American colonists -- from average families -- had significantly higher incomes than their English counterparts. And the rich in the colonies had significantly smaller incomes than England's richest.

What explained the difference? In mother England, American patriots noted, wealthy aristocrats were manipulating the levers of government to enrich themselves and deny average people the "fruits of their labor."

Our generation of 1776 considered aristocracy a direct threat. They would struggle to free themselves -- but not their slaves -- from it. Their new nation, they pledged, would be a republic.

The founders had read their history. Previous attempts to establish republican rule -- in Athens, Rome, Venice, and Florence -- had all failed. Inequality had wrecked them.

Our founders wouldn't repeat that mistake. They would celebrate the relative equality of their young nation as a bulwark of republican liberty.

"We have no paupers," Thomas Jefferson wrote. "The great mass of our population is of laborers; our rich, who can live without labor, either manual or professional, being few, and of moderate wealth."

Added Jefferson: "Can any condition of society be more desirable than this?"

To Jefferson and his generation, equity seemed nature's way. Most colonials lived on small farms. The earth they farmed could yield only so much wealth. If government just let the economy alone, no one would ever become fabulously wealthy.

This advocacy for "limited government" seemed to make sense in an agrarian nation. But the United States didn't remain agrarian. A century after 1776, giant corporations lorded over America's economic landscape, and new industrial elites were enriching themselves at the expense of working Americans.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Sam Pizzigati Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Sam Pizzigati is an  Associate Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies

Editor,  Too Much ,  an online weekly on excess and inequality

Author, The Rich Don't Always (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Presenting America's Ten Greediest of 2013

A Daring Bid to Stomp Out CEO Pay Excess

Are Heartless People Simply Born That Way?

The Evolution of "Davos Man" into . . . Trump Fan!

In an unequal America, empathy, not just housing, has become too pricey

Counting Dollars the Rich Want Uncounted

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend