Same Tired Old Story: The Political Dynamics of the Tea Party Movement

[Time for change]

About three years ago I posted an article on DU titled “The Five Pillars of George W. Bush’s Republican Party”. In that article I described the five pillars of the Republican Party as “Economic Royalists”, militarists, propagandists, crooks, and the gullible. The first four of these pillars, which are characterized by a great deal of overlap, apply mainly to the leaders of the Republican Party, while the last one (the gullible) applies to the rank and file.

I believe that the term “Economic Royalists” was first coined by Franklin Delano Roosevelt to refer to people who are not only wealthy, but who believe that it is their God-given right to have more wealth than other people, and that it is the main purpose of government to protect and enhance that God-given right. FDR explained this concept in his 1934 Democratic Convention speech, as part of his rationale for the New Deal, which lifted tens of millions of Americans out of poverty following the Great Depression. The following excerpt is representative of the spirit and content of the whole speech:

The privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The other three pillars that characterize the Republican leaders are all related to this. The purpose of their militarism is to obtain the resources of foreign countries, expand their power, and shower wealth upon the military industrial complex. The purpose their propaganda is to hide their motives, thereby making their actions more palatable to their gullible voter base. And the purpose of the crooks is… well, that needs no explanation.

Though George W. Bush and the Republican Party were removed from power by the 2008 national elections, the same five pillars are very much in evidence today in the effort to revive their power. The Tea Party Movement is perhaps the most extreme manifestation of that effort.


Today’s Economic Royalists

Al Gore hit the nail on the head with his modern-day explanation of these dynamics in his book, “The Assault on Reason”, released about two years prior to the onset of the Tea Party movement. He describes “Economic Royalists” as those

who are primarily interested in eliminating as much of their own taxation as possible and removing all inconvenient regulatory obstacles. Their ideology – which they and Bush believe with almost religious fervor – is based on several key elements:

First, there is no such thing as “the public interest”; that phrase represents a dangerous fiction created as an excuse to impose unfair burdens on the wealthy and powerful.

Second, laws and regulations are also bad – except when they can be used on behalf of this group, which turns out to be often. It follows, therefore, that whenever laws must be enforced and regulations administered, it is important to assign those responsibilities to individuals who… reliably serve the narrow and specific interests of this small group…

What members of this coalition seem to spend much of their time and energy worrying about is the impact of government policy on the behavior of poor people. They are deeply concerned, for example, that government programs to provide health care, housing, social insurance, and other financial support will adversely affect work incentives….

Gore spoke a lot in his book about the hypocrisy of the radical right. He described the radical right (referring mostly to its leaders) as a “political faction disguised as a religious sect”. He said that they use the language of religion

to disguise the most radical effort in American history to take what belongs to the American people and give as much of it as possible to the already wealthy and privileged… Make no mistake: It is the president’s reactionary ideology, not his religious faith, that is the source of his troubling inflexibility…

Important and tragic results of the efforts of these people have been a wealth gap in our country that has expanded to levels unprecedented since the 19th Century, and a substantial increase in the poverty rate in our country.


The Tea Party Movement

The Tea Party Movement represents a continuation of these efforts by the Economic Royalists, except that the methods are a little different. Instead of religion, the Economic Royalists, in their inciting of the movement, appeal to what they claim to be the economic interests of the typical (white) American. And with a black Democratic President in office, they rely on the underlying racism and xenophobia that characterizes much of their base to ensure that virtually everything they say will be believed by them on faith, with little or no effort to evaluate the facts.

The onset of the movement is widely believed to date from February 2009 (though the term “Tea Party” was not yet coined at this time), with the so-called “Porkulus” protest directed against the Obama stimulus package. The word “porkulus”, coined by Rush Limbaugh, was meant to imply that the rationale for the protest was the pork in the stimulus package. In reality, the cause of the reaction against the stimulus package was similar to Economic Royalist reaction against any effort by government to help people in need: Social programs tend to lead to taxes on the wealthy. But by disguising this as a reaction against pork they influenced their radical right wing base to begin a protest movement.

Another primary component of the Tea Party movement was the reaction against the federal government bailout of banks and homeowners – that is, the part signed by President Obama, not the part signed the year before by George W. Bush. It should be mentioned that many liberals were also against this bailout. But unlike the Tea Party crowd, liberals were against the bank bailout component, but not the help given to homeowners. Indeed, most liberals felt that much more should have been done for distressed homeowners and less for the banks. But the Tea Partiers appeared to be at least equally against the help given to distressed homeowners – in line with their antipathy to “big government”.

Kate Zernike, in a New York Times article, describes the general attitudes of Tea Partiers that purportedly explain their targets:

Asked what they are angry about, Tea Party supporters offered three main concerns: the recent health care overhaul, government spending, and a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington. When talking about the Tea Party movement, the largest number of respondents said that the goal should be reducing the size of government, more than cutting the budget deficit, or lowering taxes.

A poll undertaken by the Christopher Parker at the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality, sheds some light on the anti-civil rights and anti-equal opportunity mind set of supporters of the Tea Party movement. That poll showed that Tea Party supporters are much more accepting of U.S government indefinite detention without trial (only 54% are against that, compared to 90% of Tea Party opponents), warrantless phone tapping by government (33% of Tea Party supporters against, compared to 72% of Tea Party opponents), and racial profiling (33% of Tea Party supporters against, compared to 74% of Tea Party opponents.) The same poll showed that only 23% of Tea Party supporters believe that “We don’t give everyone an equal chance in this country”, compared to 72% of Tea Party opponents.


The role of racism, xenophobia and homophobia

As I noted above, the right wing elites rely on intolerance against their fellow human beings to divide and conquer and ensure that their highly gullible base will believe almost everything they say without much if any effort to check out the facts for themselves. Evidence of this intolerance can be seen from two more polls conducted by Christopher Parker, in which various attitudes were compared between those who “strongly approve” of the Tea Party Movement vs. those who “strongly disapprove” of it. Some examples from these polls are as follows:

Indirect measures of racism against black people
Irish, Italian, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same (strongly agree).
Tea Party supporters: 68%
Tea Party opponents: 35%

Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class (strongly disagree):
Tea Party supporters: 43%
Tea Party opponents: 20%

It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites (strongly agree):
Tea Party supporters: 42%
Tea Party opponents: 18%

Blacks are hard-working (agree):
Tea Party supporters: 35%
Tea Party opponents: 55%

Indirect measures of xenophobia and homophobia
All undocumented immigrants in the U.S. should be deported immediately (agree):
Tea Party supporters: 45%
Tea Party opponents: 11%

Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children (agree):
Tea Party supporters: 36%
Tea Party opponents: 87%

Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to get married with equal rights (agree):
Tea Party supporters: 17%
Tea Party opponents: 52%

Thus it is that on all these indirect measures of tolerance towards their fellow humans, about twice the percent Tea Party supporters as Tea Party opponents were indicated to be intolerant.

Attitudes towards President Obama
The racist attitudes translate into absurdly deviant views that the Tea Party opponents hold towards President Obama, as described in Kate Zernike article:

Nearly 9 in 10 disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing overall, and about the same percentage fault his handling on the specifics, too: health care, the economy, and the federal budget deficit. More than 8 in 10 hold an unfavorable view of him personally, and 92 percent believe he is moving the country toward socialism – an opinion shared by about half the general public. Tea Party supporters are also more likely than most Americans to believe, mistakenly, that the president has increased taxes for most Americans.

Zernike also provides this typical quote from a Tea Party Supporter:

He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth I think he’s a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don’t care what he says. He’s been in office over a year and can’t find a church to go to. That doesn’t say much for him.”

Parker’s poll demonstrates additional evidence on this subject. Only 38% of Tea Party supporters think that President Obama is knowledgeable, only 37% think he’s intelligent, and only 32% think he’s moral, compared to 79%, 74%, and 86%, respectively, of Tea Party opponents.


Efforts by the right wing elite to support and make the Tea Party movement appear main stream

Right wing elites, today’s Economic Royalists, have provided much rhetorical and other support for the movement. Indeed, it appears clear that these right wing elites are the driving force behind the movement. By making it appear to be main stream, they hope to add to its credibility and thereby convince more Americans to adopt its beliefs and attitudes.

Media Matters has described the role of FOX News, for example, in supporting the Tea Party movement while attempting to make it seem main stream:

Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with "tea party" protests across the country, which the channel has described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies. Specifically, Fox News has in dozens of instances provided attendance and organizing information for future protests, such as protest dates, locations and website URLs. Fox News websites have also posted information and publicity material for protests…

Right Wing elite support for the movement can also be seen in the way that right wing rags like the American Spectator characterize the movement:

They recognize that the more resources the government takes out of the private sector, through taxes, borrowing and spending, the less freedom that average working people have left for the pursuit of happiness. Taxes as a percent of GDP, government spending as a percent of GDP, should be taken as reverse indicators of economic freedom…. In other words, the more the government takes your money to spend on what it wants, the less freedom you have to choose to spend…

Heather Horn wrote a recent article titled “Tea Partiers Not Fringe, Not Racist, Not Republican?”, in which she tried to make the movement appear main stream. Horn quotes Ed Morrissey in a portion of her article titled “Myth of Tea Partiers as Racist, Reactionary Debunked!” Morrissey, quoting a Gallup Poll, says:

Gallup’s demos of the Tea Party look very close to that of the overall American demos on ethnicity ... The educational background of Tea Party followers almost exactly matches that of the general population ... Low-income earners make up 19% of the Tea Party, as compared to 25% of the general population, and those making more than $50K are 55% of the Tea Party rather than the 50% of the general population, but that’s not much of a difference.

What the Gallup poll showed in reality was merely that Tea Partiers were very similar to the U.S. general population with respect to age, income and education. Morrissey does not misquote the Gallup poll in that regard. But his and Horn’s interpretation of that poll to conclude that therefore the poll debunks the idea that Tea Partiers tend to be racist is absurd. The Gallup poll did not look at attitudes on race. How to get from the fact that Tea Partiers are similar to the general population in income, education and age, to conclude that that debunks the belief that Tea Partiers are racist is not explained.


The gullibility of Tea Partiers

I’ve already noted their absurd beliefs about President Obama, including their belief that he increased taxes on most Americans, when in reality a substantial tax decrease was a part of his stimulus bill that the Tea Partiers have so strenuously protested against. In other words, they don’t even understand the most basic facts relating to what they think they’re protesting against. Zernike’s article delves further into the self-contradiction and extreme gullibility that characterizes so much of the movement:

Nearly three quarters said they would prefer smaller government even if it means spending on domestic programs would be cut. But in follow up interviews, people said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security – the biggest domestic programs – suggesting instead a focus on “waste.” …

Others defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying they had paid into the system, so deserved the benefits. Others could not explain the contradiction.

“I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security,” said Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

Well, at least one Tea Partier had enough common sense to see the light when it shined right in her face.


Summation of the Tea Party movement

Thus it is that the same right wing elites in our country who supported all the obscenities of the Bush administration have instigated an angry protest movement among their highly gullible followers to resist every effort of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress to help the American people out of their current economic plight.

No lie goes unused in the service of their cause. They lead their followers to believe that taxes have been raised when in fact they have been lowered. They lead them to believe that Democratic efforts to reign in the power of big banks are in fact designed to give the banks more power. And they lead them to believe that the act of government making health insurance affordable to those who lack it is a form of tyranny.

The racism and extreme gullibility of the right wing base greatly facilitates the task of the Economic Royalists of the right wing elite to fool them and to fuel their anger. The racism that characterizes much of the movement facilitates the belief that President Obama is the devil incarnate, and that it is therefore the duty of patriotic Americans to resist everything he tries to do, no matter what it is.

There is nothing new in this movement, except that it is facilitated and intensified by virtue of the fact that we elected a black president. Other than that, it is the same tired old story of economic elites manipulating the masses to suit their own purposes.