My article, “The Tea Party Movement and Popular Constitutionalism,” is now available on SSRN. It is part of a recent Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy symposium on the Constitutional Politics of the Tea Party Movement. Here is the abstract:
The rise of the Tea Party movement follows a period during which many scholars have focused on “popular constitutionalism”: the involvement of public opinion and popular movements in influencing constitutional interpretation. Most of the previous scholarship on popular constitutionalism analyzed movements identified with the political left. Although the Tea Party movement is primarily composed of conservatives and libertarians, it has much in common with previous popular constitutional movements.
Part I of this Essay describes some of these similarities, focusing on the ways in which popular constitutional movements have arisen in response to social or economic crises, or major policy initiatives instituted by their opponents. Part II explains how the Tea Party movement shares key strengths and weaknesses of other popular movements. Public opinion on constitutional and policy issues is often influenced by widespread political ignorance and irrationality. The Tea Party is no exception to these trends. The evidence suggests, however, that Tea Party supporters are no more likely to be ignorant than public opinion generally, or their opponents on the political left.
Part III explains two possible advantages of one unusual feature of the Tea Party: the fact that it is the first popular constitutionalist movement in many years whose main focus is the need to limit federal power. The enormous size and scope of modern government undercuts meaningful democratic control over government policy because “rationally ignorant” voters cannot keep track of more than a small fraction of government activity. Strengthening democratic accountability is one of the main objectives of advocates of popular constitutionalism. The imposition of stricter limits on government power might make that goal easier to achieve. The Tea Party’s focus on limiting government also makes it less likely that we will see the emergence of a right-wing populist movement that is primarily focused on intolerance and xenophobia, of the kind that often arose during previous economic downturns.
John Skookum says:
In my experience the Tea Party types and their compatriots are a lot better schooled on Constitutional issues than those on the Left. Look at all the liberal pundits and politicos who for decades laughed at the notion that the Second Amendment was anything more than a meaningless and annoying anachronism, until the Supreme Court delved into the matter and pronounced them wrong.
May 31, 2011, 10:43 amAlast says:
One significant difference I have come to consider important, is that the Tea Party has (for the most part, at least at the core) avoided social issues. Social issues are out of place in a Constitution, which should be limited to mechanics of government, division of authority, and enumeration of rights and responsibilities. If you look at the topics for Article V convention applications, http://www.article5library.org/apptable_by_subject.php only polygamy, abortion, integration, and school prayer are social issues. The only social issue to be ratified (prohibition) was repealed.
May 31, 2011, 10:49 amjanesmith says:
I don’t think the fact that Republicans have appointed a greater proportion of the Supreme Court than the Democrats makes the Tea Party “better schooled” on the Constitution.
May 31, 2011, 11:02 amyankee says:
I can think of some counter-evidence to your thesis that the Tea Party is mostly about economic issues and the scope of government:
1) The Defund Planned Parenthood Act;
2) The Arizona “papers please” law;
3) the Pew typology study that came out a few weeks ago, which found that support for the Tea Party was much higher among the socially conservative “Staunch Conservatives” than among any other group, most notably the less-socially-conservative “Libertarians” (72% vs. 44%).
May 31, 2011, 11:23 amyankee says:
I can think of some counter-evidence to your thesis that the Tea Party is mostly about economic issues and the scope of government:
1) The Defund Planned Parenthood Act;
2) The Arizona “papers please” law;
3) the Pew typology study that came out a few weeks ago, which found that support for the Tea Party was much higher among the socially conservative “Staunch Conservatives” than among any other group, most notably the less-socially-conservative “Libertarians” (72% vs. 44%).
May 31, 2011, 11:23 amzuch says:
The Tea Party seems to make a great deal about reading the Constitution … over and over. Some even carry a copy in their pocket to refresh their memory … you know, like when eating breakfast or maybe cursing out that BMW driver in front of them. Is it too much to ask that one day it starts to sink in?
And when they get past that hurdle, maybe we can talk them into carrying copies of Marbury v. Madison around, eh?
Cheers,
May 31, 2011, 11:27 amgooners says:
Constitutional fetishism.
May 31, 2011, 11:41 amAlast says:
The idea that social conservatives support the Tea Party is irrelevant. A supports B does not mean B supports A. The argument that B supports A is a very basic PR trick to try to cast a false light on A.
Immigration reform is not a social issue in the sense of abortion or prohibition. Functional borders are a system issue, albeit influenced and related to some social issue components. Indeed, you can be for open, unlimited, and unrestricted immigration, while at the same time support an impenetrable, militarized border— in order to ensure that the unlimited immigration passes through he proper examination checkpoints. A library that is open to all comers still expects people to come through the front door, and not climb in through the window, and to come during regular business hours.
De-funding Planned Parenthood is a mixed bag…. while some abortion opponents support the de-funding, pro-choice proponents can support de-funding too, if their constitutional and fiscal influences lead to the conclusion that it is an improper role of government to fund it.
You also have to distinguish, as I mentioned, the core Tea Party platform from the groups who support the Tea Party, and sound like the Tea Party, but are really not the Tea Party but rather a parallel group that has en-grafted its own (usually social) issues on to those of the Tea Party. While this is complicated by the non-centralized nature of the Tea Party movement, it isn’t impossible. Indeed, in the interviews I have experience with, there is a large component of Tea Party adherents that express the sentiment that if the Tea Party was to adopt and push for a social issue like abortion, that many would abandon it. This sentiment actually fuels the desire for those opposed to the Tea Party core platform to use the invalid “B supports A” argument above to try to splinter the group.
May 31, 2011, 11:49 amzuch says:
The “where are the jobs” Republicans stripped off their Nixon masks and revealed themselves as “kill the unions, disenfranchise any potential Democratic voters, and ban abortion … and if there’s job loss or even tax increases [because of the abortion provisions], ‘so be it’” screaming social conservatives.
And the Tea Party was leading the charge the whole way. The Tea Party is nothing other than the extreme right wing of the Republican Party rebranded … in the hopes that we don’t remember just what it was we got when the Republicans ran the gummint (including getting supposedly “job-producing” tax cuts for the filthy rich, and running the debt into the stratosphere) this last decade…. They really can’t fairly run on their purported “economic” concerns, so they’re going petal-to-the-metal on trying to fire up the social conservatives.
Cheers,
May 31, 2011, 11:53 amloki13 says:
Alast,
Was that a very long-winded way of saying that the True Tea Partiers stand for things I believe in, and when people point out the large numbers (even, dare I say, the majority) of Tea Partiers have other interests, I can exclude those interests as not being the True Tea Party?
I’ve heard of this before.
Kind of like how it was once stated that the Tea Party was a bi-partisan group? But now exists within the GOP? But is still bi-partisan, because, I guess, of all the Democrats they’ve supported?
May 31, 2011, 11:57 amDSDan says:
No article about the Tea Party and the Constitution is complete without using the phrase “Constitution of Independence” as observed in this Economist piece:
May 31, 2011, 11:57 amSteve says:
This reminds me of lots of analysis I’ve seen previously. First, you begin by imagining that the Tea Party movement is narrowly focused on limiting federal power. Then, you marvel at the Tea Party’s narrow focus on limiting federal power! Analysis complete.
May 31, 2011, 12:08 pmyankee says:
Actually, the fact that it’s de-centralized is exactly what makes it so difficult to decide what the “core Tea Party platform” is. The Tea Party seems to be a genuinely grassroots movement that crystallized around opposition to Obama in early 2009. Since then different groups have tried to claim the Tea Party label for themselves and their favored policies.
In my experience, Tea Party supporters tend to see the Tea Party as a mirror of their own personal values.
May 31, 2011, 12:11 pmArthur Kirkland says:
When the Tea Partiers and their candidates (1) push to defund the drug warriors (rather than proprietors of certain health clinics for women) and (2) distance themselves from nanny-state social conservatism, I will take them more seriously than the conservatives who masquerade as libertarians.
Until then, they’re just right-wing fringers tailoring their message to the times.
May 31, 2011, 12:14 pmgooners says:
It was interesting in the recent NY-26 special election that the independent Jack Davis was accused all over the internet of being a “fake” Tea Party candidate, and the main evidence of his fakeness was that he was a Democrat.
So much for non-partisan.
May 31, 2011, 12:19 pmNick056 says:
Alast,
I like your analysis. You see, I’m a pretty mainline conservative. Don’t be surprised if I advocate a 45% marginal tax rate, though. I’m personally for top-earners keeping they’re pay, but in the present moment, I think government needs to raise the income tax. Special circumstances.
I hate it mire than anything when people say I’m a secret liberal.
May 31, 2011, 12:25 pmmark says:
I am glad someone pointed out how well Tea Party embodies the “popular Constitutionalism” idea – now we’ll see the idea’s advocates inevitably become more elitist.
May 31, 2011, 1:06 pmMike P Wagner says:
I find it interesting that the Tea Partiers in general appear to be following the model by which a number of Protestant sects developed. I think that I first came across this model in a history of the development of the Disciples of Christ:
1) Initially founders do not want to start a new sect – they want to reform “institutional Christianity” based on a simple, clear reading of the early Christian texts. In fact “sects” and “denominations” are inherently evil.
2) The claim is made that man made institutions have corrupted common understanding of the text. No institutional interpretation is necessary – the original text is clear and straight forward. If people just read the text and stuck to it, all would be well.
2) The 1st generation of the sect’s scholars find that they have to interpret the text – the text turns out not to have been so simple.
But the 1st generation is adamant that their interpretations are either not interpretations, or that their interpretations are obvious and clear compared to the convoluted interpretations of the institution they are trying to replace.
3) The 2nd generation of the sect’s scholars continue working, and find that their interpretations – though correct – get to be less and less simple, and are not convincing anyone who’s not a member of the emerging sect.
4) The 3rd generation of the sects scholars accept that they are not going to reform “institutional Christianity”, and set up their own institutions promulgate their interpretations.
This similarity between the progression of the development of a Christian sect and what I take to be the development of a “popular constitutionalism” in the Tea Party is interesting – to me – because I suspect that the demographics of the Tea Party and Protestant sects intersect.
I that I first encountered the model I described in this book:
Disciples and the Bible: A History of Disciples Biblical Interpretation in North America
May 31, 2011, 1:55 pmNunzio says:
The Tea Party is against Obamacare and TARP. They don’t appear to be against Medicare Part D, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, if this poll is accurate. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/04/tea-partiers-dont-like-medicaid-medicare-cuts
They want to roll the federal government back to late 2007.
May 31, 2011, 2:33 pmAlast says:
If you and I are in agreement and in favor of mechanisms to limit government, but we differ vociferously on abortion, we can join together in a unified effort to limit the government. Modern politics is all about wedge issues, like abortion, splitting us up when in fact, large majorities agree on many issues such as limiting Congress.
Nick, I don’t have a problem with your opinion. We can discuss the pros and cons– I prefer lower rates and no exemptions or no income ax at all and reolace it with a prebated national sales tax— increasing revenue temporarily (which can be done with lower marginal rates) should be on the table. But if you are an favor of limited constitutional government, then I’ll stand right beside you to achieve that goal FIRST, rather than fight with you over taxes.
May 31, 2011, 2:38 pmAlast says:
Not against them, per se, but they do have problems with implementations. TARP, as a form of bridge loan is not so offensive to those who understand it. But too many idiot reporters, helped along by special interests, make it sound like the government gave away a trillion dollars to banks. In reality, it was loans that have, or will be, paid back. Total out of pocket losses are negligible, compared to the disaster that was avoided. Banks make similar bridge loans to smaller banks and businesses all the time… a large balance sheet lets you do that to someone with a smaller balance sheet. the US Government is simply the one with the largest balance sheet.
Medicare and Social Security are insolvent. No matter how good something is as a concept, if it is financially unsupportable it has to be changed. Few people want to eliminate retirement insurance or medical insurance, but they want it put on sound financial footing and privatized so that contracts mean something. If a private company was to offer Medicare or Social Security as it now exists, there would be immediate criminal charges.
May 31, 2011, 2:49 pmyankee says:
Pew found that Tea Party supporters are whiter, richer, maler, and older than the population as a whole, and a different Pew survey found that white evangelical Protestants are much more supportive than any other religious group. In other words, the Tea Party’s demographics mirror those of the GOP base. Not too surprising, since Tea Party supporters and the GOP base tend to be the same people anyway.
May 31, 2011, 2:55 pmNunzio says:
Alast,
I don’t disagree that Medicare and Social Security are insolvent (or close).
I think it’s odd that those identifying themselves as Tea Partiers want to roll back the government four years. Why not to 2002, 1964, 1934, etc. If all the other entitlements don’t bother them, why did Obamacare get them off the couches?
May 31, 2011, 2:56 pmAlast says:
Again, that is different than the platform. The majority of followers may be milk drinkers, but that doesn’t mean the platform states a preference for supporting milk.
Try this: Tea Party Avoids Divisive Social Issues – NYTimes.com, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/us/politics/13tea.html (last visited May 31, 2011).
May 31, 2011, 3:05 pmPassing By says:
Professor Somin –
Maybe the Tea Party people really do advocate “stricter limits on government power” as a way of improving democratic accountability. Or maybe they’ve seized upon democratic accountability as a handy weapon for attacking government activities they don’t like.
Well, here are two simple tests;
(a) Are the Tea Party people also campaigning to cut back or break up our society’s other large, complex institutions … corporations, banks, universities, religious denominatons, labor unions, foundations, professional associations, etc. After all, size and complexity weaken control over these too, due to “rational ignorance”.
(b) Do the Tea party people support shrinking government across-the-board? Or do they pick and choose, favoring a smaller government here but a larger government role there?
And the answers seeem clear:
(a) No
(b) They favor tighter immigration controls, abortion restrictions, etc.
Conclusion– You got taken. “Democratic accountability” is an ideological smokescreen.
May 31, 2011, 3:13 pmJozxyqk says:
Mike Wagner: Interesting post, thanks.
May 31, 2011, 3:19 pmyankee says:
Fair enough. But note all the stuff in the middle about how social-issues advocates work themselves in to the center of the movement despite other self-appointed tea party leaders’ attempts to keep them out. Now try this:
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/. The front page is full of links to ordinary conservative and Republican sites, not sites that focus on economic issues.
Since the Tea Party is a decentralized grassroots movement, there’s no entity with the power to define what the movement is about.
May 31, 2011, 3:20 pmJmaie says:
(a) Are the Tea Party people also campaigning to cut back or break up our society’s other large, complex institutions … corporations, banks, universities, religious denominatons, labor unions, foundations, professional associations, etc. After all, size and complexity weaken control over these too, due to “rational ignorance”.
Well, given that none of these institutions have taxing power or legislative control over the citizenry…
May 31, 2011, 3:46 pmdht says:
It wasn’t Obamacare, it was Obama that got them off their couches. Remember before the 2008 election both parties agreed that something had to be done about the spiraling costs of health care. The individual mandate, a creation of the Heritage Foundation as a buffer against the single payer Hillary care plan, would likely have been adopted by Pres. McCain, with far less controversy.
May 31, 2011, 3:48 pmJon Roland says:
As one who is regularly asked to speak to tea party rallies, introduced as “Mr. Constitution”, and who gets thunderous applause, and who knows is is known by most of the leading organizers, and who mingles with the crowds and recognizes many from years of such protests, I think I can offer some assessment here.
The tea party movement is basically a continuation of the same movement we saw supporting John Anderson and Ross Perot for president, and opposed the policies of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, before it was Obama’s turn. It is the same people who populate the Ron Paul Revolution. Although there are plenty of social conservatives involved, they downplay their agenda in favor of the more libertarian constitutionalist agenda we see on their websites, blogs, and forums.
Are they knowledgeable about the Constitution? Much more so than the average citizen, and they are willing to learn more, which further distinguishes them. When I point out that strict construction of the Constitution does not really support their social positions, they seem to accept that and acknowledge those are policy issues for a later time.
So if you want to get a sense of their views on the Constitution, hang out at constitution.org, which it seems most of them do, at least to the extent they hang out anywhere that has constitutional content.
_____________________________________
On another subject, since this seems to be as good a place as any:
I just got off the phone with Gov. Perry. I asked him about congressional redistricting. He replied that he can (and apparently intends) to add redistricting to the special session call, but that it will happen only after he gets buy-in for a map, presumably from all major factions. In my question I pointed out that if left to the court, the court may decline to draw a new map, saying it can make minor adjustments but not draw a new map with four new districts, leaving Texas with only 32 members of the U.S. House, until the legislature adopts a map for 36 members. His words were, “stay tuned”, which one can take to mean he has hopes of reaching an agreement outside formal session. We’ll see how that works out.
I sent him my proposal for redistricting, and I also asked him about my proposal for the TSA groping issue. He said it went to the policy office and will be considered. But he also said that the special session was only for matters for which general agreement had been reached during the regular session, so we can’t look for the special session to take up any major new proposals.
May 31, 2011, 4:13 pmjeannebodine says:
Nothing, absolutely nothing can be discussed on this blog anymore without the discussion descending into partisan hackery. How sad.
May 31, 2011, 4:24 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
Arthur, I am not sure where a requirement that the Tea Party specifically distance itself from certain ideas (and please, no more calling Planned Parenthood “women’s health care clinics.” They offer some specific types of health care related to reproduction, but that is a crucial distinction which it is deceitful to omit) is necessary or their claim of de-emphasis is hollow. It’s rather like insisting that Linda must be my wife because I didn’t try to shoot her.
In its earliest incarnations, the Tea Party was a “government too big, corruption too prevalent” organisation that did attract Democrats. Those attracted to the movement were various, and movements seek tighter definition. Many social conservatives were quite convinced at the beginning that the whole bunch of Tea Partiers were hankering for the same issues that they were. Over time, there is some resolution of this, and I think it is true that the movement is largely Republican, tending but not insisting on social conservatism. At the beginning, war expenses were more often mentioned, and a less-vigorous military stance was still in play for the Tea Party. “Corporate welfare” was more often mentioned as well. One can still find Tea Party supporters who rank those high, but the group as a whole is settling into a more traditional “anti-entitlement, anti-bureaucratic” sentiment.
To conclude from that, as several here have, that this was what the Tea Party always was and now the mask is off, is simply silly. It is seeing what you expected, with no reference to the data.
For myself, I regret especially the decreased focus on corruption by the Tea Party. It has morphed into opposition to politicians who are “part of the establishment,” a group that has some overlap, but is not the same. We in NH have long noted that figures like Judd Gregg and John Sununu have been part of the establishment but not corrupt.
May 31, 2011, 4:24 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Great! (You will agree, of course, that the candidate(s) we support must be reliable votes my way on abortion, right?)
May 31, 2011, 4:29 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Was that intended to be a factual statement, or a joke? If you’re not sure, Stephen Colbert could explain the situation.
May 31, 2011, 4:31 pmyankee says:
QFT. They do health care for men too!
May 31, 2011, 4:45 pmkarrde says:
What is strange to my eyes is that the Tea Party appears to be an attempt by members of the GOP base to capture the GOP, or (barring that) to replace it.
If the GOP base is attempting to capture the GOP power structure, then something is very wrong with the current power structure of at least one political party in the U.S.
Again, these are my impressions, your mileage may vary.
But with the idea of capturing/changing the internal power structure and focus of a major political party in the U.S. in the field of discussion, I ask a question.
How is the Tea Party movement much different from the internal changes in the national Democratic Party during the years 1968-1972? I believe that Prof. Somin’s article tries to make this comparison, but uses a broader rubric than I use.
May 31, 2011, 4:51 pmNunzio says:
What does the Tea Party think is unconstitutional besides Obamacare? We could end up with Medicare for everyone (single payer).
Maybe they are in hibernation because Obama extended Bush tax cuts and cut Social Security payroll tax?
Why aren’t they out in the streets defending Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, which passed the House? Do they not believe in the voucherization of Medicare?
I’m sure most of the people who identify themselves as Tea Partiers mean well, but what is it they want? Honestly, I can’t tell.
May 31, 2011, 5:57 pmAlast says:
I don’t’ give a rat’s pajamas about abortion, as long as a runaway federal government and Congress in particular, has not yet been neutered.
May 31, 2011, 6:35 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
Yeah, this is why lots of Tea Party state legislators are trying to introduce bills to have the states mint their own gold coins. Because the Constitution totally allows every state to create its own money.
May 31, 2011, 6:48 pmSteve says:
Maybe things are different elsewhere, but where I come from the local Tea Party activists are the exact same people who oppose taxes, regulation, and government intrusiveness at the state and local levels too. Saying they are focused on limiting federal power, as though they simply favor a different allocation of power among the federal and state governments, is a strained characterization.
May 31, 2011, 7:01 pmMark Field says:
States can’t create money, but they can decide how debts are to be paid: “No state shall … coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts….”
May 31, 2011, 7:08 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I’m sure there is deep Constitutional understanding in “Get your government hands off my Medicare“, and I am just too ignorant to see it.
May 31, 2011, 7:22 pmRobert says:
But the more direct way to read that evidence is that they are bipartisan, because they ran a Democrat, and that the accusation of nonauthenticity is actually a misplaced external partisan concern.
May 31, 2011, 7:34 pmSteve says:
Who is the “they” that ran him, in your interpretation of the evidence? There is no state or national “Tea Party” that blessed him as a candidate.
May 31, 2011, 7:47 pmRobert says:
He accepted the label (by accepting the nomination), and the people who signed his nominating petition — of which you need quite a few in NY — approved. Legally those signers constituted an “independent body” by that name making the nomination.
May 31, 2011, 7:52 pmgooners says:
So Redstate, Fox Nation, Pajamas Media, Free Republic, Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit, National Review, etc etc – all fake Tea Party?
May 31, 2011, 7:59 pmSteve says:
The random people who signed his nominating petition, on the other hand – they are the TRUE Tea Party, and demonstrate the movement’s bipartisan credentials!
I haven’t seen such an awesome argument since JakeD argued a woman can’t become President because the Constitution uses the male pronoun.
May 31, 2011, 8:19 pmWayne Lusvardi says:
Mr. Somin:
I would suggest you read my article “Why California Doesn’t Like Tea” – Link: http://pasadenasubrosa.typepad.com/pasadena_sub_rosa/2011/01/why-california-doesnt-drink-tea.html
The roots of the Tea Party are more reflective of the “Goldbugs” and the Free Silver Movement of the late 1800′s and early 1900′s that did not want the dollar devalued than it is with the Boston Tea Party. And the apparent leader of the “Goldbugs” in California was Jewish — busting all modern day stereotypes about the Tea Party. Local surveys conducted here in San Gabriel Valley tend to confirm that the Tea Party by and large are the “Creditor Class” that does not want its assets plundered by the “Debtor Class.”
May 31, 2011, 9:19 pmAlast says:
The Tea Party name comes from “Taxed Enough Already”… not from the Boston tea party.
May 31, 2011, 9:28 pmChrisTS says:
It does? Then, what was with all the tea bags on hats, etc.?
More to the point, how can ‘it’ have a ‘platform’ – core or otherwise – when ‘it’ is just lots of folks with somewhat overlapping ideas?
May 31, 2011, 9:33 pmAlast says:
Because while it is an acronym, it *does* still spell “tea.”
May 31, 2011, 9:42 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
Arthur and yankee – by selectively quoting, removing the rest of my statement, you rather prove my point, don’t you? And anytime you have to appeal to a comedian who specialises in pretending that the joke is already made because he finds something faintly ridiculous…hmm. “They jeer, but do not refute.”*
In a more general way, perhaps no more germane here than on any other thread, it is an example of the adversarial discussion. I don’t know if it is a lawyer-thing, but the practical necessity of arguing at the law in a refuse-to-acknowledge-anything, take-no-prisoners attitude does not in the least imply that it is a morally proper stance for discussion in an attempt to arrive at truth. I know that others speak approvingly of those who argue with bulldog tenacity – James Carville comes to mind – with only partisan advantage in mind, but it seems to me to violate the social contract of human exchange at a deep level. It seems essentially immoral – as well as plain silly – to discuss ideas with the idea of winning by any means rather than arriving at greater understanding.
Clearly, I am referring to many more people than arthur and yankee here, including many who agree with me on most points.
Perhaps attorneys see things differently, being trained, and indeed expected, to be indefatigable in defending a single side. But that is, as I said, an artificial situation for practical necessity, an accommodation to human frailty. To persist in that attitude in standard discussion seems…hmm…coy? dishonest? aloof? Something.
*Oxford History of English Literature; E.L. in the Sixteenth Century, Excluding Drama – fascinating history I won’t go into here.
May 31, 2011, 10:25 pmArthur Kirkland says:
What is your point? That we should ignore the distinct Sarah Palin-Carl Paladino-Michele Bachman-Glenn Beck-Jim DeMint-Tom Coburn flavor of the Tea Party and pretend it is something other than a group of intensely conservative Republicans that seems most comfortable with social conservatives whose aims conflict with the Tea Partiers’ ostensible principles?
May 31, 2011, 10:42 pmrpt says:
Sure it does; just look how taxes have gone up since January 2009.
May 31, 2011, 11:18 pmrpt says:
Here’s your “small government” Tea Partier via Think Progress:
“PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.”
May 31, 2011, 11:21 pmRicardo says:
That doesn’t address the issues with the Arizona law, though. People who advocate a de facto requirement for U.S. citizens to carry proof of citizenship with them wherever they go in Arizona may be described as many things but not “small government advocates.”
May 31, 2011, 11:26 pmNCFoot says:
I have read your paper and believe several points are inaccurate or not supported.
You have generalized the Tea Party to be Popular Constitutionalism, however your other examples are for additive groups not subtractive groups. Meaning that they wanted to add powers to themselves in order to control others in a fashion that they deemed best. (The anti-federalist might be a better comparison, but I’m pretty sure calling them constitutionalist would be an insult)
If one is to attempt to find Tea Party principles, then you have to try and find patterns that lay across many groups not just the ones that one may like to pick. My personal description is : 1) Limited government 2) Fiscal responsibility and 3) Liberty.
If you think about it though, it is all about liberty. The first two are restrictions on Government where it now inhibits the liberty of its citizens. Many Tea Party types (myself included) believe the government has assumed powers that were not granted. And these assumed powers should be subtracted or removed.
There is a large difference between wanting the power to make others do what YOU want, and wanting the freedom to control your OWN life. Desiring more power is not limited to popular constitutionalists, it is a common human ailment. Sure both are based on views of the Constitution, but the perspectives are divergent enough to make aggregation suspect.
A second point: you seem to assume that Tea Party types are intolerant. I find this quite amusing since I live in a conservative southern state and work a great deal in a liberal west coast state. I encounter intolerance and racism/bigotry in both places, but easily the most virulent is on the west coast. By a country mile. And nearly always by folks who Haaaaate the Tea Party. Since their intolerance is SOooooo very acceptable and their racism is in a context they are not even expecting.. it is invisible to themselves. I think the intolerance and bigotry you ascribe to Tea Partiers seems to be compared to that invisible value. Which is nothing obviously.
A last point (but not the last inaccuracy), is your choice of wording … ideology. This is defined as an restrictive set of beliefs and myths that are not rationally supported. Really? Tea Party principles (myths?) are not rationally supported? Well, I guess that depends on what one thinks the Tea Party beliefs are. Which seems to be in quite a bit of debate.
June 1, 2011, 1:52 amOwen H. says:
That’s what’s called, “folk etymology”. The Boston Tea Party has long been used as a symbol of tax protest, the “taxed enough already” acronym was made up to fit “tea”, not the other way around.
June 1, 2011, 6:53 amI find it odd that so many are complaining of high taxes, when tax rates are at historic lows.
Owen H. says:
So, the gist of it seems to be, popular Constitutionalism is bad, except this time because they agree with the interpretation.
June 1, 2011, 7:01 amzuch says:
Charlie Pierce has the Tea Party and their mutation of “popularism” covered pretty well (or at least explains the phenomenon) here.
Cheers,
June 1, 2011, 10:14 amzuch says:
“… I am obviously an authority.”
Thunderous applause is the surest sign of correctness. See Pierce’s book in my post above.
Cheers,
June 1, 2011, 10:17 amAssistant Village Idiot says:
Arthur, I suggest that confirmation bias influences you to see some data points in high relief while downplaying others. It is a very natural human tendency, but it isn’t always helpful.
June 1, 2011, 11:00 amOwen H. says:
And don’t forget the statement from Tea Party Founding Fathers chairman William Temple that he and his group would accept increasing the debt ceiling if DADT were reinstated and measures to keep women out of combat roles were enacted.
June 1, 2011, 8:18 pmhttp://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/tea-party-leader-well-take-the-debt-ceiling-hike-if-you-bring-back-dadt.php