Where Did They Come From? The Rise of the Tea Party
(a book review)
<snip>
One of the most pressing questions regarding the Tea Party phenomenon is why many working-class people have expressed support for it. During 2010 the group grew in popularity among most sectors of the population, not just among the affluent. By August 2010 over half the US public expressed sympathy with the Tea Party. DiMaggio is careful to distinguish between the motives of the Tea Partys elite leadership and those of the ordinary working people who have been attracted to it. The Tea Party may be a false populist force, but the group would be nowhere near as successful if it were not for the legitimate grievances and anger of a general public (p. 31). Falling real wages, rising inequality, and unresponsive government have all fueled the Tea Partys popularity, even if its false solutions would intentionally exacerbate such problems. Moreover, many of the people who have expressed support for the Tea Party in fact hold progressive values. One explanation DiMaggio offers for this paradox is that factual ignorance (largely created by media coverage) results in disjunctions between peoples values and attitudes toward specific policies, on one hand, and their opinions of politicians, institutions, and abstract ideas like healthcare reform, on the other. For example, individuals may strongly support welfare programs like Medicare or Social Securityas most of the public doesbut oppose welfare due to the racist and classist propaganda offensive mounted against the idea since the 1970s.
A similar pattern seems to apply to public opinion on a wide range of issues. Most of the public thinks workers should have more income and power, but is more ambivalent toward the idea of unions. The public supports a binding treaty to combat climate change, but over half of Bush voters in 2004 were under the erroneous impression that Bush supported the Kyoto Protocol. To take a recent example, the public overwhelmingly agrees with the Occupy Wall Street movements goals of reducing inequality, taxing the rich to fund social programs, and ending corporate domination of government, but stated support for the Occupy movement itself is lower (though still substantial). DiMaggios argument about how elites and media coverage manufacture dissent against policies that might otherwise enjoy widespread support helps to explain such paradoxes, although further researchparticularly at the ethnographic levelwill be necessary to more fully understand the reasons for working-class support for the Tea Party and other right-wing forces (working-class racism, sexism, and nationalism are surely important here).
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/29/the-rise-of-the-tea-party-2/
More at the link.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)
underpants
(197,139 posts)and it is biting them square in the *ss now
unblock
(56,256 posts)though fauxsnooze gets credit perhaps as midwife.
WingDinger
(3,690 posts)The reason it went viral is: everyone wants to say that the unfortunate brought it upon themselves. this is a defense mechanism. Thos not yet pathetic, wnat to believe they are immune to tragedy.
Also, the TP is a movement to capitalize on the stuff that they think should be theirs at firesale prices. They were moral and superior. So, as the rich believe they should get back all that stuff they temporarily gave to wage earners, so should the TPers.
Capitalism in its naked sociopathy.
donco
(1,548 posts)Martin Eden
(15,866 posts)a.k.a the Fox News effect