Thursday, August 18, 2011

Angry White Voters: The Truth about the Tea Party

I have long thought that the tea party was nothing more than a group of far-right extremists that have long spewed their uninformed, bigoted, and angry opinions toward all things they perceive - with fear and trembling racking their frightened forms - as "liberal," "progressive," "humanistic," and "secular."

The only difference between them now and over the past 50 years is that obscenely rich and self-interested charlatans like Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers - feel free to snicker at the thought of a "Dick" and the couple of "Koch's" funding the "tea-baggers" - have given them odd signs and banners, and bankrolled their crank rallies.

It appears, unsurprisingly, that I was correct. Hard data now demonstrates that the so-called tea-party is, in Joan Walsh's words:
Scholar Robert Putnam, best known for his study of American atomization in "Bowling Alone," has produced new data on the Tea Party and it's being billed as a shocker. Sit down before you read this: They are older, white conservative Christians "who were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born."
Putnam's article is available at the New York Times. According to his research:

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.

What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.

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. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.

In short, the tea-party is nothing but a new name for the same old right-wing bigots who have opposed every socially progressive policy since the Civil Rights act! The same bigots who wanted to make sure black people could not vote, live in their neighborhoods, or attend their schools, now oppose a black president. The same right-wing religious extremists who want Genesis taught in their kids' biology courses and think America should be a nation for Christians only, now want Michelle Bachmann to lead their country.

Enough nonsense! There is no such thing as the tea-party; it's just the same far right cranks and loons we've had to deal with for a very long time. So let's do what you ought to do with such quacks: let them rant and rave like the madmen they are, and ignore their wild chants when we actually sit down as rational people to attempt policy.

It's time to throw the tea-bag in the trash.

Bookmark and Share


  1. Why do you care about pinning down what the historical Jesus actually believed? Do you think he was God? Why think that? You're a philosopher, right? I don't get the idea of stripping away all the myths, except for the BIG one.

  2. Thanks for your comments and quetsions.

    I guess you meant to post this on the "Historical Jesus" post. I care about what the historical Jesus taught because I do identify myself as Christian. I don't think being a philosopher requires a commitment to atheism.

    I think, however, that as a person of such historical interest, his message is worth recovering in its own right. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, what he had to say about justice and compassion is profound and insightful whether we believe in God or not.

    When people claim "Jesus was/is God," I think they are making an assertion that lacks the proper sophistication and nuance. Most professional theologians would not say it that way. I'll tell you what, I'll put up a new statement on "the divinity of Jesus" soon in order to explain my own position fully.

    But here I will say this. Theologians will often refrain from saying that Jesus the historical person is God. But what they will say instead is that "for us Christians he is the clearest expression of God we see," or "we experience the divine must fully and clearly in the person of Jesus," or some variant of that. The position is more subtle and careful than it the blunt expression "he was God."

    As for the idea of God. I don't believe in a supernatural person who made the world. The term God does not have to mean that. I here post a link to my posts on this topic, I refer you to that for my position on God.

  3. Here is the link to my "divinity of Christ" post. I hope it clarifies:


Comments from many different points of view are welcome. But I will not publish any comments that are hateful, insulting, or filled with profanity. I welcome and encourage dialogue and disagreement but will not publish any hate speech.