Key Takeaways
1. The Tea Party: A Reactionary Movement, Not Just Conservative
We believe that people are driven to support the Tea Party from the anxiety they feel as they perceive the America they know, the country they love, slipping away, threatened by the rapidly changing face of what they believe is the “real” America: a heterosexual, Christian, middle-class, (mostly) male, white country.
Beyond mainstream conservatism. The Tea Party, while claiming adherence to conservative principles like small government and fiscal responsibility, is fundamentally a reactionary movement. Its supporters are motivated by a deep-seated anxiety that the America they cherish is being undermined by rapid social change. This distinguishes them from conventional conservatives who, while not embracing rapid change, accept incremental evolution to maintain social order.
Desire to turn back the clock. Reactionary conservatives, unlike their mainstream counterparts, do not merely wish to halt change; they actively seek to reverse it. They long for a bygone era before significant shifts in American leadership and demographics. This impulse is rooted in a perceived threat to their way of life and everything they hold dear, leading them to resist any progress that challenges their established cultural dominance.
Pseudoconservatism in action. The book argues that the Tea Party's rhetoric, while sounding conservative, often serves nonconservative ends. This "pseudoconservatism" uses traditional language to pursue goals that are at odds with timeless conservative principles such as order and stability. Their actions, such as risking economic stability during debt ceiling debates, demonstrate a willingness to disrupt the very order conservatives typically seek to preserve.
2. Historical Parallels: Echoes of Past Right-Wing Movements
Indeed, we argue that its emergence is simply the latest in a series of national right-wing social movements that have cropped up in America since the nineteenth century.
A recurring pattern. The Tea Party is not an isolated phenomenon but rather the latest iteration in a long history of right-wing social movements in America. These movements emerge during periods of immense social change, driven by anxieties over perceived threats to the social prestige of dominant groups. Historical examples include:
- Know-Nothing Party (1850s): Feared immigrants and Catholicism as political and moral threats.
- Ku Klux Klan (1920s): Concerned with the "New Negro," Jews, Catholics, and increasing independence of women, viewing them as subverting white supremacy.
- John Birch Society (1950s-60s): Believed the federal government was infiltrated by communists aiming to subvert American freedom and traditional values.
Shared demographics and motivations. These movements, including the Tea Party, consistently appeal to a similar demographic: predominantly white, middle-class, middle-aged, evangelical Protestant men. Their core motivation is a "preservatist" impulse, seeking to maintain or restore their group's power and privilege against perceived threats from "Others." This often involves defining and policing what counts as "American."
Conspiracy and subversion. A common thread across these movements is the reliance on conspiratorial discourse, where perceived social change is framed as a "vast and sinister conspiracy" to undermine their way of life. For the KKK, it was ethnocultural threats; for the JBS, it was ideological subversion by communists. The Tea Party, similarly, perceives President Obama and associated groups as agents of subversion.
3. Obamaphobia: The Core Catalyst of Tea Party Support
We believe that President Obama, by virtue of his position as president, and the fact that he’s the first nonwhite person to hold the office of president, represents to some an assault upon a specific ethnocultural conception of American identity and everything for which it stands.
A symbolic threat. For many Tea Party supporters, Barack Obama's presidency is not merely a political disagreement but a profound symbolic assault on their vision of American identity. As the first nonwhite president, he embodies a significant shift in the "face of the country," challenging a long-held ethnocultural ideal of America as white, middle-class, Christian, heterosexual, and male. This perceived displacement triggers deep anxiety and fear.
Beyond policy disputes. While Tea Party supporters often articulate their opposition in terms of fiscal responsibility and limited government, their animosity towards Obama extends beyond policy. The book highlights how Tea Party discourse frequently questions Obama's patriotism, American citizenship, and religious affiliation, portraying him as an "alien" with a "socialist" agenda. This personal animosity suggests a deeper, emotionally charged "Obamaphobia."
Loss of social prestige. The rise of Obama, coupled with the increasing visibility of other marginalized groups, is interpreted by Tea Party sympathizers as a decline in their own social prestige. This sense of "dispossession" fuels a reactionary impulse, where the president becomes the focal point for their fears that "their" America is slipping away. This emotional response is a key, independent driver of Tea Party support.
4. Conspiratorial Thinking: A Hallmark of Reactionary Conservatism
At the crux of the paranoid style, according to Hofstadter, is the perception of a “vast and sinister conspiracy . . . set in motion to undermine and destroy a way of life.”
Paranoia as social cognition. Reactionary conservatism, as embodied by the Tea Party, is characterized by a "paranoid style" of social cognition. This isn't a clinical diagnosis but a way of describing how dominant groups perceive social change as a deliberate attempt to subvert their status. This leads to the belief in "vast and sinister conspiracies" aimed at destroying their way of life.
Obama as the conspirator. Tea Party discourse, particularly on their websites, heavily features conspiratorial claims about President Obama. Examples include:
- Portraying Obama as a "socialist" or "communist."
- Accusing him of having a secret agenda to "ruin our country."
- Questioning his American birth certificate and Christian faith.
- Suggesting he is an "enemy of the state."
This conspiratorial content significantly outweighs discussions of core conservative principles on Tea Party platforms.
Distinguishing from mainstream conservatives. A key finding is that Tea Party conservatives are far more prone to these conspiratorial beliefs than non-Tea Party conservatives. For instance, 71% of Tea Party conservatives believe Obama will "destroy the country," compared to only 6% of other conservatives. This stark difference underscores the reactionary, rather than merely conservative, nature of the Tea Party's worldview.
5. Selective Freedom: Prioritizing Security Over Civil Liberties
The Tea Party often claims it wishes to limit the reach of government, yet its supporters are okay with racial profiling?
Inconsistent commitment to liberty. Despite the Tea Party's frequent rhetoric about individual freedom and limiting government, their commitment to civil liberties is often selective and conditional. When forced to choose between freedom and security, particularly concerning out-groups, Tea Party sympathizers tend to prioritize security. This is evident in their views on:
- Racial profiling: 47% of believers favor racial profiling, compared to 9% of skeptics.
- Indefinite detainment: 52% of believers support indefinite detainment of suspected terrorists, versus 33% of skeptics.
Freedom for the in-group. The one exception where Tea Party supporters champion freedom is free speech, especially when their own group is implicated. After the Tucson shootings, 42% of believers supported unrestricted media speech, compared to 19% of skeptics. This suggests that their defense of freedom is often a defensive posture to protect their in-group from criticism, rather than an unconditional commitment to universal civil liberties.
Reactionary, not principled. This selective application of freedom highlights the reactionary nature of Tea Party conservatism. Their willingness to expand government power (e.g., through racial profiling) when it targets perceived threats to "real Americans" contradicts their stated principle of limited government. This suggests that their underlying motivation is the protection of their perceived social order, rather than a consistent adherence to libertarian ideals.
6. Conditional Patriotism: Self-Interest Over Collective Good
If patriotism is about individualism and self-interested behavior, the Tea Party may rightly celebrate its patriotism. If, however, patriotism is about self-sacrifice, placing the common good (as it applies to all, minorities included) and therefore the good of the country before self-interest, the Tea Party cannot be considered patriotic.
Patriotism defined by self-interest. While Tea Party supporters display outward signs of patriotism, their interpretation often leans towards an individualistic, self-interested version rather than a classical, civic-minded one. Classical patriotism emphasizes civic virtue, self-sacrifice for the common good, and a willingness to criticize the nation to help it live up to its ideals. Tea Party patriotism, however, often prioritizes individual freedom and economic self-interest over collective welfare.
Rejecting egalitarian and economic sacrifice. When patriotism is framed as a choice between individual gain and national interest (e.g., subsidizing education for the less fortunate to strengthen the country), Tea Party sympathizers consistently choose self-interest.
- Economic patriotism: Only 33% of believers support subsidizing education for national strength, compared to 78% of skeptics.
- Egalitarian patriotism: Only 26% of believers endorse enacting new laws to ensure equal treatment for all, versus 65% of skeptics.
This reluctance to support policies that benefit the broader community, especially if it involves perceived personal cost, reveals a conditional form of patriotism.
Uncritical national attachment. Tea Party supporters are also more likely to exhibit "blind patriotism," believing America is beyond criticism. While 84% of believers agree that criticism is necessary when the country falls short of its values, a more rigorous analysis shows they are still more likely than skeptics to subscribe to the idea that America is beyond criticism. This uncritical stance, coupled with their resistance to egalitarian policies, suggests a patriotism rooted in maintaining a specific, idealized vision of America rather than striving for a more inclusive one.
7. Out-Group Hostility: Resisting Equality for Minorities
The data indicates quite clearly that as a whole, Tea Party supporters are far more likely to report anti-immigrant and anti-gay sentiments than those who dismiss the movement.
Widespread antipathy. Tea Party sympathizers exhibit significant negative attitudes towards various minority groups, including Latino immigrants and the LGBTQ+ community. This hostility is not merely anecdotal but is consistently demonstrated across a range of survey questions and is evident in official Tea Party online discourse. This suggests a broad resistance to extending equal treatment to groups perceived as "Others."
Anti-immigrant sentiment. Tea Party supporters are notably more anti-immigrant than the general public and even mainstream conservatives.
- DREAM Act: Only 46% of believers support the DREAM Act, compared to 83% of skeptics.
- Birthright citizenship: 56% of believers support repealing birthright citizenship, versus 38% of skeptics.
- Perceived criminality: 55% of believers think new immigrants increase crime, compared to 32% of skeptics.
This opposition extends beyond illegal immigration to a general distrust of immigrants, often framed as a threat to American culture and political power.
Homophobia and traditionalism. Negative attitudes towards sexual minorities are also prevalent among Tea Party sympathizers. They are less likely to support gay rights and prefer that LGBTQ+ individuals keep their sexual orientation private.
- Open military service: Only 48% of believers support open service for gays, versus 76% of skeptics.
- Public discussion: Only 28% of believers favor public discussion of sexuality, compared to 63% of opponents.
This hostility is often rooted in cultural disapproval and a desire to maintain traditional social norms, rather than purely economic or political concerns.
8. Beyond Politics: Obamaphobia Transcends Traditional Explanations
Still, the issue is whether or not the association between support for the Tea Party and anti-Obama sentiment may be explained in terms of conservative principles and politics or out-group hostility of any kind. On this count, they’re both wrong, because Tea Party sympathy remains tethered to anti-Obama attitudes, even after accounting for these other important alternative explanations.
A unique animosity. The intense anti-Obama sentiment among Tea Party sympathizers, termed "Obamaphobia," cannot be fully explained by traditional political factors (partisanship, ideology) or even by general out-group hostility (racism, social dominance orientation). Even after controlling for these powerful predispositions, support for the Tea Party independently predicts significantly more negative views of the president.
Disputing Obama's legitimacy and character. Tea Party supporters consistently hold far more negative views of Obama's personal traits and biography than any other group, including non-Tea Party conservatives.
- Knowledgeable: Only 56% of believers agree Obama is knowledgeable, versus 97% of skeptics.
- Moral: Only 55% of believers agree Obama is moral, versus 95% of skeptics.
- Christianity/Nativity: Only 29% of believers think Obama is Christian, and 41% believe he was born in the U.S., despite evidence.
This suggests a deep-seated rejection of his very legitimacy and character, not just his policies.
Desire for presidential failure. The depth of this animosity is starkly revealed in the desire for his policy failure. A striking 66% of Tea Party supporters hope Obama's policies fail, compared to just 9% of skeptics. This goes beyond typical partisan opposition, indicating a profound personal and ideological rejection of the president, driven by the perceived threat he represents to "their" America.
9. Mobilized Anger: Converting Disaffection into Political Action
In other words, despite their political disaffection, political engagement represents expressive political behavior, activism that goes beyond the material benefits that may accrue to taking the time to participate.
Anger as a mobilizing force. While political disaffection can lead to withdrawal, for Tea Party supporters, it has fueled intense political engagement. Their anger and anxiety over the perceived illegitimacy of Obama's presidency and the threat to "their" country have transformed into active participation. This is a form of "expressive political behavior," where participation is driven by a desire to confront perceived threats and "take back their country."
Higher rates of participation. Tea Party sympathizers are significantly more engaged in both nonelectoral and electoral political activities than the general public and even other conservatives.
- Political interest: 74% of believers report high political interest, versus 67% of skeptics.
- Attending meetings: 32% of believers attended a political meeting, compared to 25% of skeptics.
- Voting in 2010: 88% of believers voted, versus 79% of skeptics.
This high level of mobilization, particularly in midterm elections, demonstrates their commitment to influencing the political system.
Electoral impact. The Tea Party's mobilization translated directly into electoral success for Republicans in 2010, with 70% of Tea Party sympathizers voting Republican. This influence extends beyond Election Day, as Tea Party-aligned representatives have consistently resisted the president's legislative agenda. Their ability to convert anger into sustained political action is a key reason why the Republican Party listens to them.
10. Shaping the GOP: Pulling Republicans Further Right
As the Republican Party moves forward from its national defeat in 2012, the Tea Party and its sympathizers may become more relevant than ever, not less.
Increased polarization. The Tea Party's emergence has significantly contributed to the partisan polarization observed in American politics, particularly within the Republican Party. Their extreme viewpoints and uncompromising stance have pulled the GOP further to the right, making political compromise and effective governance more challenging. This is evident in legislative stalemates, such as those over the Affordable Care Act and the debt ceiling.
Influence on policy and rhetoric. The Tea Party has successfully pushed its agenda into the mainstream Republican platform, influencing debates on immigration, healthcare, and government spending. Their rhetoric, often conspiratorial and anti-minority, has become more prominent within the party. This shift is not merely about policy but about a fundamental redefinition of what it means to be a Republican.
Enduring relevance. Despite predictions of its decline, the Tea Party continues to be a potent force. Its growing membership, robust fundraising (often from small donors), and sustained influence on Republican candidates and elected officials ensure its ongoing relevance. The book concludes that as long as the perception of "their" America slipping away persists, reactionary conservatives will continue to shape the political landscape, particularly within the GOP.
