1. Social Justice Versus Liberty
• Re: The Irony of the Tea Party
• A column dissection of an article by Tim Suttle
• Huffington Post

2. I wrote the following in an email to the author of the
column. I have made a few edits. I did not receive a
response.
You said: “If you are a fan you call them colorful, if not
you call them shrill, but if you cannot at least enjoy the
wacky element — shrink-wrapped and caricature-ready
— then you are taking them too seriously.”
I like to respond in kind. Thank you for providing a
license to treat you with the same “caricature-ready”
demagoguery you include here. It will make writing this
email less ‘dry’ for me.
Read the following and learn well, grasshopper. I am
going to bless you by dismantling your “social justice”

3. gospel right before your very eyes. Neither will I charge
you for my service, nor will the government tax you for
it. I do it solely through that which is called “charity” – in
your case, a sincere compassion for the weak of mind.
You said: “The Tea Party has brought the subject of
personal liberty to the forefront in American politics.”
Good. Liberals are destroying it at every turn,
grasshopper.
You said: “Nearly every attempt to describe Tea Party
demographics will reference anger and frustration with
government infringement upon liberty and personal
freedom as a bedrock principle for most Tea Party
members.”

4. A “bedrock principle” of America too, grasshopper.
You said: “Yet no movement gains this kind of political
traction without hitting on a grain of truth resonating
with a great many people. The Tea Party’s grain of truth
seems to be the size of the federal government.”
In fact, the “size of the federal government” is only a
byproduct of Tea Party objections, grasshopper. The Tea
Party was founded on resistance to the government
bailouts of Wall Street and other industries – corruption
of the marketplace. But, of course, more than just Tea
Partiers object to the bloated growth of government. Only
a very small minority of extremists (hint) think it is not
big enough.

5. You said: “No society can spend all they want on
entitlements, infrastructure and national defense while
simultaneously lowering taxes.”
Well, in fact, it works even less well when raising taxes.
Only extremists desire to “spend all they want”,
grasshopper (hint again). The Tea Party and most
Americans want the government to shrink in size. But is
this sarcasm, grasshopper? If it is meant to be, it does not
work. Sarcasm must have an element of truth to work.
You seem to presume that “lowering taxes” brings in less
revenue than does raising taxes. This is where your
sarcasm fails. After every major tax increase of the last
sixty years government revenue increased at a slower
pace than after every major tax cut. (From #8 The Not So
Surprising History of Tax Cuts) This is because the

6. economy responds better to tax cuts than to tax increases.
For instance, Bush’s 2003 tax cuts produced government
revenue growth over the next four years of 11% per year.
By contrast, Clinton’s tax increases produced government
revenue growth over the next four years of only 9.2% per
year. In both cases the deficits were caused by
government spending above that of the revenue increases.
You said: “Critiquing the size of government is a winning
issue with many of our citizens.”
More than a “winning issue”, it is one of the most
concerning issues of our time, grasshopper.
You said: “However, the size of government is not the
Tea Party’s most essential commitment. Their most

7. essential commitment is to personal liberty as a universal
good.”
Taken in isolation as a topic of discussion this is true.
Good for you, grasshopper. There may yet be hope for
you.
You said: “Personal liberty underwrites the entire Tea
Party agenda.”
Personal liberty is the foundation of the country,
grasshopper.
You said: “Their most fundamental allegiance is to
liberty as an absolute, and herein lies the difficulty.”

8. There is something that smells of a setup here,
grasshopper. There are few absolutes in life.
You said: “Liberty is most certainly a good, but when it
is universalized it destroys itself.”
Ah ha – you are setting up a straw man to smash with
your brilliant wit and reasoning, grasshopper. I see…
You said: “Liberty is only a virtue when held in tandem
with the common good.”
Wrong country, grasshopper. You’re talking about the
propaganda from the Soviet Union or Cuba or North
Korea or some other collectivist utopia.

9. You said: “Societies do not achieve liberty by pursuing
liberty alone.”
And no one has said that society should, grasshopper. But
it is not the common good that sets the limits. It is a civil
society. As well as the wrong country, you’ve gotten the
wrong ideology as well. The common good is a
collectivist, Marxist concern.
[As an interlude, I will explain that grasshopper uses
“justice” in a “just society” as a euphemism for
government enforced equality of outcomes in society –
“common good”. Whereas the justice of a civil society
(equality of opportunity) is the enforcement of law and
morals.]

10. You said: “Liberty is the byproduct of a just society.”
Wrong, grasshopper. That is collectivist utopia talk.
Slavery is the byproduct of a “just society” (equality of
outcomes). See the Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea.
Liberty has nothing to do with utopia. Those who hold to
liberty know that every society is flawed and must be
balanced against a strict adherence to minimal laws and
morals to produce a civil society, not a “just society”. A
civil society preserves liberty. A “just society” is
antithetical to liberty.
You said: “It is the pursuit of justice which ensures
personal liberty, not the other way around.”

11. Wrong, grasshopper. It is the pursuit of a “just society”
(government enforced equality) that removes liberty and
replaces it with slavery. Again, see the Soviet Union,
Cuba and North Korea.
You said: “The pursuit of liberty without an equal
commitment to the common good has a trajectory and
momentum which is not trained toward democracy, but
fascism.”
Wrong, grasshopper. You obviously have no clue what
fascism is, grasshopper. Fascism is an ideology where a
governing elite manipulate society toward utopia. As with
a “just society”, fascism is antithetical to liberty.

12. You said: “In a world of laissez-faire capitalism and
absolute individual liberty, might is the only right —
that’s fascism.”
ROTFL! On which planet, in which galaxy, in whose
creation, grasshopper? Certainly not on lil’ ole planet
earth. No fascist dares leave the marketplace open to
laissez-faire capitalism and individual liberty. Hitler and
Mussolini had no respect for either a free market or
individual liberty. They would have laughed at your
naiveté. In fact, it was Herbert Hoover who adopted
Euro-fascist policies. FDR loved the idea and doubled
down on it, almost destroying the country with his
progressivism mixed with fascism, pushing the threat of
the Great Depression right through to the end of the
Second World War. (This is all explained in #11

13. Austerity Versus Stimulus - What Is the History? ) There
was a recession at the end of WWII that was threatening
to turn back into the Great Depression. Truman wanted to
implement FDR’s suicidal Second Bill of Rights (more
fascism), but a Democrat Congress was terrified of a
resumption of the depression with the war industries
closing and millions of troops coming home looking for
jobs. So what do you think Congress did? They cut taxes!
Yup, they turned to what are termed today as
conservative policies of liberty and cutting taxes, and
refused to go back to FDR’s New Deal policies that had
been abandoned in 1942.
You said: “A strong commitment to the common good is
the necessary counter-weight to personal liberty.”

14. I thought you were a Christian, grasshopper. You don’t
know that man is sinful? You can have all of the good
intentions you can muster, but it will not stop sin’s work,
or its results. The only way to tame sin and lawlessness in
a society is through civil enforcement of laws and morals,
or with brute force as with your collectivist “common
good” utopias of the Soviet Union, Cuba and North
Korea, which is no more than substituting some sins for
others.
You said: “The common good forces personal freedoms
to be held in tension with the values of community and
justice.”
Finally (and inadvertently, no doubt) you make a correct
statement, grasshopper. The key verb in this statement is

15. “forces”. That is what the “common good” means – force
by government. The “common good” of collectivism is
antithetical to “personal freedoms” (liberty), grasshopper.
You said: “No one can enjoy absolute liberty without
undermining the fabric of a just society.”
There’s that “absolute” again. Smash that straw man!
Beat him well…
You said: “Liberty is not an absolute. It must always be
held in balance with the common good and the pursuit of
social justice.”
You are the only one talking about absolute liberty,
grasshopper (your straw man argument). And again, back
to the communist propaganda. The balance for liberty is

16. not the forced equality of outcomes of the common good
or social justice (same thing). The balance for liberty is
two-pronged – adherence to the rule of law (and morals)
to contain sin’s rotten fruit, and charity to alleviate sin’s
damaged fruit.
You said: “Justice is a non-starter with Tea Party folk.
Glen Beck, a big fan of the movement, famously decried
social justice as a Christian heresy.”
Social justice has nothing to do with Christianity,
grasshopper. Social justice (forced equality) is Marxism,
which is antithetical to Christianity. The justice of liberty
is the rule of law.

17. You said: “The “justice” Bellamy had in mind was not
trial by jury justice, but social justice: a commitment to
the common good, social equality, and the solidarity of
all humankind. Shouldn’t we all be fans of that?”
America stands for equal opportunity in a civil society
that provides the liberty to take advantage of opportunity
as one sees fit under the rule of law. A collective
commitment to common good with social equality
(forced equality of outcomes) is Marxism, grasshopper.
“Solidarity” is a Marxist euphemism for groupthink.
You said: “I don’t expect the plea for justice to be a big
hit with the Tea Party patriots.”

18. Pay attention, grasshopper. I have already explained that
it was the governmental corruption of (legal) justice that
initiated the gathering of the Tea Party in the first place.
The free market cleanses itself through failure of the
weak, absorption of their remaining assets back into the
market, and through rule of law. The government
corrupted this efficiency of the marketplace, and by so
doing has prolonged what should have been a recession,
with effects lasting only a year or two, into the Obama
Malaise with no end in sight. It is your “common good”
philosophy of “too big to fail” that is to blame.
You said: “Yet to ignore it, they must first jettison the
closing line of the pledge of allegiance: “… with liberty
and justice for all.”

19. Funny how he didn’t say “social justice for all”,
grasshopper. And funny that it was never changed to say
such, in any of its four modifications throughout the
years. It is obviously refers to the legal justice of
“liberty” (equality of opportunity), not the social justice
of Marxism (forced equality of outcomes). Was it
deception because Bellamy could see it would not be
stomached in America? Or did he actually mean rule of
law for all? If it was the first, it did not work to change
the minds of Americans to his cause. If it was the second,
then maybe he wasn’t as much of a socialist as has been
thought. Or maybe he just did not understand the
concepts – just like you.

20. You said: “The Christian’s first commitment is always to
follow the teachings of Jesus, who was certainly
concerned about the common good.”
Wrong, grasshopper. If that had been the case, an earthly
kingdom would have been set up then. Christ was
concerned with the righteousness of each individual.
Common good has no value in individual salvation.
Christ only paid the tax to fulfill the law (that civil society
thingy), not because he had some overwhelming concern
to support the common good.
You said: “The folks he identifies with are those willing
to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, welcome the alien,
care for the sick and all manner of behaviors which will

21. not come anywhere close to making the Tea Party
platform.”
Who are you to judge the hearts or actions of men you
don’t know, grasshopper? You have substituted the
individual’s actions with government actions. If you think
that this is the path to heaven, good luck to you. In fact,
studies show that conservatives are much more charitable
with their money than liberals, also in giving more blood
and volunteering more time. And liberals tend to donate
to political causes, environmental groups, the arts and
elite educational foundations, whereas conservatives tend
to donate to organizations providing for the needy.
Indeed, in the generosity index, of the top 25 states where
people give an above average percent of their income, 24
were red states in the last presidential election (2008). In

22. other studies it has been found that conservatives are
more likely to give strangers directions, and give food or
money to a homeless person. But in a cash transaction
liberals are more likely to steal an accidental excess in
change. It has also been found that in instances
where government programs replace private charity,
value to the needy goes down, called the “crowding out
effect”. So, in fact, it is the Tea Partiers’ private charity
that helps the needy much more so than liberals like you,
passing off your charity to the government and operas
and art galleries. (All of this is explained and sourced in
#9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones - Really?)
You said: “While many Christians seem to have joined
with the Tea Party movement, the rhetoric of absolute

23. personal liberty seems to be at odds with the gospel Jesus
taught.”
And once again we get back to your straw man argument
of absolutes, grasshopper. Bash him! Smash him! Beat
him with a stick!
You said: “The Christian can wholeheartedly support the
cause of personal liberty, but only while supporting the
cause of the common good with equal measure.”
This statement is a contradiction, grasshopper. Personal
liberty is antithetical to “common good with equal
measure”, which is slavery to the state, not Christianity.
Trotsky thought as you do. He contemplated an equal
society where everyone worked for the common good.

24. The only problem is that it would only work in heaven
where there is no sin. Back here on earth evil people,
captivated by sin, overruled Trotsky’s good intentions of
a utopia and instead, we had Stalin, who created perhaps
the worst dystopia in history. This is where your good
intentions of “common good” and “social justice” meet
reality – the complete absence of liberty.
You said: “They never say, “Let our churches and
communities take on poverty, racism, pay inequality and
violence.” They only say, “No more big government.”
Without the next ten words what they are really saying is
that poverty, racism and the lot can fix itself.”
I have already explained that conservatives do charity at a
much higher level than do liberals, and to much greater

25. effect than government – so they have no need to call for
them to be created, grasshopper. They’re already doing it.
You said: “Second, the patent anti-intellectual “plain-
folks” mentality which covers the flank of the movement
leaves the Tea Party devoid of rich theological self-
awareness.”
Well, if it is your level of intellectuality that they should
be striving for, I say let them stay where they are and not
step backwards, grasshopper.
(You should know what an intellectual is, grasshopper:
intellectual – Liberal who uses a title or degree as a
license to play stupid in their particular specialty. That’s
referring to you, grasshopper.)

26. You said: “The irony of the Tea Party is that their
attitude about liberty has become so overly
individualistic that it actually threatens democracy
instead of protecting it. By elevating individual liberties
so far above the common good — without reference to
justice — those who absolutize these virtues unwittingly
undermine democracy instead of shoring it up. If you
want to ensure personal liberty, pursue justice.”
Wrong, grasshopper. You don’t win the argument by
beating down men made of straw. You are the only one
talking about absolute liberty. Tea Partiers know there is
no such thing. Liberty must be preserved against anarchy
and libertinism with strict adherence to law and morality.
Your straw man simply does not work. In fact, it is your
covert Marxism cleverly cloaked in a perversion of

27. Christianity that is a threat to the American republic (and
if you really knew what you were talking about you
would know that America is not a democracy, but a
republic – big difference).
You said: “If you want to undermine personal liberty,
join the movement to abstract individual liberties and
freedoms from their essential roots of social obligation
and the common good.”
And there’s that straw man popping up again. It’s like
Whack-A-Mole – sheesh!
Individual liberties (equality of opportunity) tempered by
law and morals are what make America free. Your social
justice (forced equality of outcomes) is what is destroying

28. freedom in America, instead making everyone slaves to
the state – think Obamacare.
So there you have it, grasshopper. Learn well – and
welcome to the true understanding of liberty, charity and
justice…

29. • A presentation by deprogrammingliberalism.com
• Deprogramming Liberalism Slideshow Series © 2013