By John Brummett
New national polling information released by political scientists at the University of Arkansas reveals interesting and perhaps mildly counterintuitive findings about the tea party.
This survey, conducted under the joint aegis of the UA’s Blair Center and Winthrop Rockefeller Institute, shows that devotees of the tea party are better-educated than the rest of the population as well as possessed of higher incomes.
That is the perhaps mildly counterintuitive part, if, like me, you factored a higher yahoo quotient than is apparently so.
What is merely interesting, meaning not surprising, is that a greater percentage of tea party people believe in the inerrancy of the Bible than is the case with the rest of the population, including regular Republicans.
Also interesting is that tea party people are less supportive than the general population, again including regular Republicans, of the supposed ideals of equal opportunity and equal rights for all, specifically minorities.
Tea party people are significantly less supportive of gay rights and significantly more hostile to illegal immigration than garden-variety Republicans.
But what I find most interesting on this subject is not anything contained in this data compiled from more than 3,000 survey calls nationwide last November. Instead, it is in the candid analysis provided me by Dr. Angie Maxwell, assistant professor of political science at the UA.
She said the poll suggests that the common denominator in the tea party’s emergence is President Obama.
“He represents a world they can’t function in,” she said.
First things first, to get it out of the way: Maxwell is not saying that all tea partiers are racists and that their movement is based on a racial bigotry toward this historic president.
She is saying the tea party arises from much more than that — from, as she describes, a coincidence of varying cultural and economic fears all falling under the general heading of a dreaded new world. People with these fears have come to “put all of them,” to “project them,” on Obama, she said, often without basis in fact or fairness.
For example:
If you fear a changing America in which white people become a minority because of the black population as combined with other new ethnic groups and with the Hispanic influx, then Obama, being of mixed race and with a foreign father, personifies that fear for you.
If you fear a changing America in which traditionally conservative Christian church values are being eroded by new forms of spiritual thinking and by cultural changes such as the growing acceptance of homosexuality, then Obama, with a Muslim parent and a former pastor who once screamed “God damn America,” personifies that fear for you.
If your relatively high household income is drawn from the medical profession, from doctoring or as a drug rep, perhaps, and if you fear that health care reform will transform America into something more like a European country and lower your standard of living, then Obama personifies that fear for you. You don’t call it Pelosicare or Reidcare. You call it Obamacare.
Maxwell compared this to the way the Whigs sprang to prominence for a couple of decades solely from resentment of Andrew Jackson.
If she is right, then the Republicans have a short-term window and long-term problem.
The tea party is vital to Republicans at the moment, representing maybe a tenth of the electorate. Republican victories in the next elections will hinge on appeasing this far-right bloc.
But if the glue that holds the tea party together is fear of Obama, then the tea party goes away after Obama goes away.
That would leave the Republicans burdened with a deadly combination — a weak reality, meaning a sort of nondescriptly soft conservatism, and a reputation for a harder conservatism that would have caused an alienation from the more pragmatic, and usually decisive, center.
For immediate purposes though, the tea party lives, and garden-variety Republicans must oblige it, so long as Obama is its bogeyman-in-chief.
——-
John Brummett is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com; his telephone number is (501) 374-0699.
June 23rd, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Yes, but the Left also had an irrational fear (hatred?) of George W. Bush based in large part on cultural differences (hostility?). You just know that many bi-coastal Left-wingers hated W. because of his belt buckle and cowboy boots.
And it seems that “W” was the glue that held the Leftwing protesters together: Funny how the anti-War protest movement evaporated the minute Obama got sworn in – - – despite the fact that Obama basically adopted W’s foreign policy . . .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There are two glues that hold the tea party together: Obama, and the fiscal insolvency of the nation.
Obama could have nullified the Tea Party had he pursued a Clinton-esque policy of fiscal sanity. The Left would have howled – but so what?
If Obama had done this, he would have solidified his support among independents, and set the Democrat party on a 40 year path to domination.
And he might have gone down in history as a near-great President.
But it just wasn’t in him.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
I actually think of the W and Obama administrations as one in the same, save for stylistic differences. Neither man had accomplished much before becoming President- – -and both were spendthrifts who seem to be rather incompetent on the job. . . .
I think we need a return to normalcy with our next President. Maybe science will figure a way to clone Eisenhower. Or maybe we could give Slick Willie a 3rd term?
June 24th, 2011 at 12:15 am
Brummett- Can’t you come up with something more original to smear the Tea Party with than the cliched accusations of Racism, Bigotry and Provincialism?
You Leftwingers are more predictable than Houston Nutt’s playbook.
Nowhere in this column did you address the Tea Party’s stated raison d’etre: THE COUNTRY IS BANKRUPT.
Even if every slur hurled by the Left against the Tea Party were 100% accurate – - -it still wouldn’t change the fact that the COUNTRY IS BROKE.
But the Left can’t effectively engage The Tea Party on this issue – - -so it has to resort to its standard smear campaign.
June 24th, 2011 at 10:55 am
The Left counts on the right to do what is proper and decent and maintain a respectful silence while they are filled with conspiracy theories and outrageous accusations.
June 24th, 2011 at 10:55 am
The Left counts on the right to do what is proper and decent and maintain a respectful silence while they are filled with conspiracy theories and outrageous accusations.
June 24th, 2011 at 11:30 am
Captain, I have seen too many pictures of racist signs held by tea party members and heard too few protestations of this behavior not to believe there is a broad, but not universal racist element in the tea party movement. Because I am aware that the media is generally lazy and looks for sensationalism, I will accept that not everyone in the movement is racist. Mr. Brummett’s article supports my belief.
I am not aware of any fear of W by the left, just a conviction that he lied to us about the reasons to invade Iraq, obscured the costs by funding it off the books, allowed big business to profit at our expense, and used fear to get us to give up our liberties.
The anti-war movement slowed before Obama took office as W started the troop withdrawal from Iraq. It continues and is growing again as we too slowly (IMO) leave Afghanistan and increase involvement in Libya. Obama made it clear that we were in Afghanistan to remove bin Laden, a goal W abandoned.
At what point did our nation become bankrupt? Our country’s debt has been increasing steadily over the last few decades, excluding a reversal under Clinton. W reversed that with tax cuts, one of the least effective ways to stimulate the economy, and put us into a depression. Obama is trying to use a proven, far more effective way to stimulate the economy and is running into the same resistance that FDR experienced bringing us out of the great depression.
Where was the tea party movement when W put the economy into the toilet?
June 24th, 2011 at 11:36 am
drscherrey – if you would care to have a discussion, please provide a few examples from which we can work.
June 24th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Excellent analysis captain. Roald, I would argue that waterboarding KSM repeatedly wasn’t exactly abandoning the hunt for OBL. I believe that part of both administrations’ public policy was to act as if OBL was not a high priority any longer and eventually he would get a little careless, which he did.
June 24th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Roald- I’ll take your comments point by point.
“I am not aware of any fear of W by the left”
Unbelievable that you could say this. For 8 years we lived with “Bush is Hitler” “Bush is a fascist” etc. etc. Go and watch video from the protests at the 2004 Repblican Convention for just a sampling.
“just a conviction that he lied to us about the reasons to invade Iraq”
I think the Bush Administration puffed a lot about WMD’s in order to galvanize the country behind a policy he sincerely believed was in the best interest of the country.
“obscured the costs by funding it off the books”
True.
“allowed big business to profit at our expense”
True. And False. The same as most administrations.
“W reversed that with tax cuts”
Partially true. But increased spending on defense and entitlements accounted for most of the deficits.
“one of the least effective ways to stimulate the economy”
Not over the long term.
“and put us into a depression”
Not sure about that. The Left was just as responsible for this- by forcing crdit to be extended to people who could not pay for their mortgages. But this is a very complicated set of issues.
“Obama is trying to use a proven, far more effective way to stimulate the economy and is running into the same resistance that FDR experienced bringing us out of the great depression.”
This is total horsehit. FDR never brought us out of the depression. I argue that the depression lasted until at least 1946. The depression ended primarily thanks to pent up consumer demand, coupled with America having the only intact industrial base after WW2.
” Where was the tea party movement when W put the economy into the toilet?”
Awol. But not me – I was actively engaged in fighting exploding deficits under G.W. Bush.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Roald: The left, continues to “speak” fantasy about everything. It does no good for the left to continue ranting, cursing (on TV) in saying things that have NO basis in truth. Of course, when one believes in relativism, one can select their truth and twist as they please and we know that. However, if the country should fall, it will not be us that will suffer since we are the working people. It will be the leftist that the new order will know they cannot trust. I have attended many tea party ralies and there has been NO pictures in Little Rock or elsewhere where signs were racist. Now, in the digital age one can doctor and insert all they want, but I have not even seen that on TV or in print. Again, truth does not fit a leftist and we have seen that demonstrated over and over. Also, we have atttended two tea parties in Florida where NO racists signs were there…only patriotic signs. Again, we realize you are relativist and one may change their bent over and over. In other words, there is no core values based on truth in the leftist rants. In fact, the one who commenced one of the tea parties, told us in Florida, “Well, the [formerly main stream] media said the tea parties are racist. However, I am black, my treasurer is black, and the one who opened in prayer is black. So much for racism in the tea party.” And yes, his key note speaker was a black lady. You see. This man went to a real university that educated, versus indoctrinated. If you attained your college degree, I suggest that you should consider suing your former university for not providing an education that is sorely lacking based upon what I have read in your post. Indoctrination is not education. Paying $50,000 for indoctrination is lunacy! I have learned that it is a philosophy based on “junk” thinking–not education. Truth will rule out for truth is on the side of the tea parties.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:57 am
Jmclean – Let me point you to some articles –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/02/bin_laden_unimportant.html.
http://www.rand.org/commentary/2008/02/27/WT.html
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/09/14/7472/barnes-osama/
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html
http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/bush-closed-unit-to-hunt-down-bin-laden-in-2005/1498/
on bin Laden’s perceived importance.
Captain, nice to hear from you.
I will repeat “no fear”. When W first took office, we saw him as ineffectual and likely harmless. Some made fun, such as the cartoon series. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, most rallied around him. More people started asking questions when we invaded Iraq. As evidence mounted more and more people questioned whether Iraq was “just”. We were disgusted that we allowed fear and racism to divide us and allow the government to take away our freedoms We were disgusted that we allowed war profiteering and our service people to be used as pawns. We took it out on the symbol of that change. Fear? No.
There is a growing movement on both sides that our current president has failed us by not correcting the situation faster.
We can agree to disagree on the reasons why we went to war with Iraq. We will likely never know. “Puffed” is mild term for “misrepresented intelligence information, lied, and put people in harm’s way”
That every administration has rewarded its supporters so it is OK that W did the same sounds like my father trying to justify Nixon’s recordings and break-ins. The line was crossed when service people were put in harm’s way by our own government.
Much of the increase in military spending came from an unjust war. Much of the increase in entitlements ended up in drug company profits. Who opposed the unfunded mandates? What happened to the patriotism our parents and grand-parents showed through their sacrifices in WWII? We were told to go shopping.
Again, we can agree to disagree on the relative effectiveness of tax cuts, especially to the rich, in both the short and long-term. I cannot (re)find what I thought was a decent analysis of the relative effectiveness of different methods and, in a recent search, have found people making claims on both sides with little hard data behind their claims. If you have something real, I would appreciate seeing it.
I agree that the forces that moved us from surplus to recession are complex. Repaying the Chinese for funding the war is just one piece. The mortgage crisis is another. The laws you mentioned did not force lenders to lend to people who could not pay. It forced lenders to be color blind. Removal of many sets of regulations was another factor, allowing the greedy among us to take advantage of the system. Who pushed all the deregulation?
Argue all you want. Greed and lack of regulation put us into the Great Depression. Government spending brought us out by providing the jobs that gave people the money to create the pent-up demand during WWII. Conservatives almost sank FDR’s program by convincing him to cut back too soon.
Thank you for trying to stop W’s run-away spending. Too bad there weren’t more like you.
chickasaw1 – you are projecting. That you did not observe evidence of racism in one rally, does not mean it does not exist. That you claim it is possible to doctor photographs does not mean it happened. Where was the Tea Party when we moved from a budget surplus to a huge deficit?
Where did I claim that the Tea Party is racist? I said there are many racists in the movement and the movement, itself, is willing to tolerate them. Why, I have no idea.
My major in college was engineering. The key thing they taught us was how to analyze.
June 29th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Roald, Captain, this is the kind of discussion that I wished I could see more of on TV and elsewhere in the media. Disagreement followed by explanation, point-by-point reasoning, respectful give and take…very refreshing. I don’t consistently agree with one of you over the other on any given day, but I do learn something from both of you. Keep it coming.
June 29th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Roald, I don’t believe the War in Iraq was a prudent course of action. And had I been President, I would not have spent America’s blood and treasure to topple the regime.
But I don’t like the term “unjust war” as applied to Iraq, because, if anything, toppling a murderous dictator and giving the Iraqi people a chance at freedom was absolutely JUST.
I just don’t believe it was in America’s interest to do so.
I sincerely believe the Bush administrations long term strategy was to create a liberal democracy in Iraq- and this in turn would lead to a democraticization and liberalization throughout the region. And this liberaliztion would eventually lead to healthier socieities that would be antithetical to terrorism.
If so, maybe Bush was right. Maybe the revolutions currently underway in the Middle East would never have happened but for our invasion of Iraq.
Bush just used the WMD scare to galvanize public opinion to support his long term strategic objectives.
* * * * * * ** * * *
It’s funny how liberals always love “stimulus spending” . . unless that spending is on Defense. If anything, it seems as if Defense spending would have more of a stimulative effect than anything. . .
Nevertheless, I’d probably be in favor of cutting the DoD budget by 40%.
* * * * * * * * *
Pent up demand after WW II was the result of rationing – - – consumer goods such as cars were not produced for 4 years due to the war effort – - – so naturally, consumers after WW2 were most eager to start buying things that had been unavailable to them for so long . . .
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Think about this. For the first half of our nations history, we generally had no income tax, no welfare state, and no major military establishment (except during time of war). And during this time we went from a distant, colonial backwater to the strongest nation on earth – economically and eventually militarily.
During the 2nd half of our history (approximately) we enacted heavy income taxes, a gigantic welfare state, and an enormous military-industrial complex. And anyone with have a brain cell working can see where the trajectory of our country is now headed . . .