Crashing the Tea Party

**gunnut** · 18 Aug 11,, 01:30

Op-Ed Contributors

Crashing the Tea Party

By DAVID E. CAMPBELL and ROBERT D. PUTNAM
Published: August 16, 2011

GIVEN how much sway the Tea Party has among Republicans in Congress and those seeking the Republican presidential nomination, one might think the Tea Party is redefining mainstream American politics.

But in fact the Tea Party is increasingly swimming against the tide of public opinion: among most Americans, even before the furor over the debt limit, its brand was becoming toxic. To embrace the Tea Party carries great political risk for Republicans, but perhaps not for the reason you might think.

Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.

Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.

The strange thing is that over the last five years, Americans have moved in an economically conservative direction: they are more likely to favor smaller government, to oppose redistribution of income and to favor private charities over government to aid the poor. While none of these opinions are held by a majority of Americans, the trends would seem to favor the Tea Party. So why are its negatives so high? To find out, we need to examine what kinds of people actually support it.

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.

Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose. While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity.

On everything but the size of government, Tea Party supporters are increasingly out of step with most Americans, even many Republicans. Indeed, at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, today’s Tea Party parallels the anti-Vietnam War movement which rallied behind George S. McGovern in 1972. The McGovernite activists brought energy, but also stridency, to the Democratic Party — repelling moderate voters and damaging the Democratic brand for a generation. By embracing the Tea Party, Republicans risk repeating history.

David E. Campbell, an associate professor of political science at Notre Dame, and Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, are the authors of “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/op...arty.html?_r=1

**zraver** · 18 Aug 11,, 04:39

typical ivy league isolated academic. He doesn't like the tea party or the religious right so he assumes everybody else dislikes them too. The only problem is recent elections to bear his views out. Sadly the war on gay marriage continues in too many states. This is one area where the religious right and I depart. However one area where we agree is abortion and increasingly Americans are pro-life. Simple fact is 41% of Americans claim the mantle "born again". The hard right denominations like the Southern Baptist continue to be the largest religious group in the country.

I also find it funny that he thinks the TP wants religious leaders in politics...... Al Sharpton, Jesse jackson, Lewis Farakhan, Dorothy Day........ didn't know they were TP'ers....

**Gun Grape** · 18 Aug 11,, 04:55

The 2010 elections seem to support his position. Only 32% of "tea party" candidates that ran for congress won their election.

**Roosveltrepub** · 18 Aug 11,, 15:08

Originally Posted by zraver

typical ivy league isolated academic. He doesn't like the tea party or the religious right so he assumes everybody else dislikes them too. The only problem is recent elections to bear his views out. Sadly the war on gay marriage continues in too many states. This is one area where the religious right and I depart. However one area where we agree is abortion and increasingly Americans are pro-life. Simple fact is 41% of Americans claim the mantle "born again". The hard right denominations like the Southern Baptist continue to be the largest religious group in the country.

I also find it funny that he thinks the TP wants religious leaders in politics...... Al Sharpton, Jesse jackson, Lewis Farakhan, Dorothy Day........ didn't know they were TP'ers....

I am not sure if referencing polling data counts as a "typical Ivy league assumption". It's not news really the polling has been headed that way all summer. The republican congress is the least popular congress since polling began at this point. if you have some recent polling backing up your claims I'd love to hear it. You are a christian conservative and a tea partier are you not? bachmann, Santorum, Perry all the pols trying to associatte themselves with the tp seem to be christian conservatives. Roment has failed miserably branding himself with them. The Republican party seems to have a tea party wing, a christian conservative wing and a business wing. From where I stand the the most signifigant group overlap is the christian conservativbves and tea partiers. That's not a knock just the way it panned out

**dalem** · 18 Aug 11,, 19:07

Originally Posted by zraver

Sadly the war on gay marriage continues in too many states.

Don't you mean "the war on traditional marriage"?

-dale

**Tarek Morgen** · 18 Aug 11,, 19:11

Originally Posted by dalem

Don't you mean "the war on traditional marriage"?

-dale

That would imply that "traditional marriage" is facing bans, and as far as I am awar that has not been the case.

**Roosveltrepub** · 18 Aug 11,, 19:21

Originally Posted by dalem

Don't you mean "the war on traditional marriage"?

-dale

You do understand despite proclamations to the contrary our understanding and definitions of the rights with in marriage are a century old? You think a woman in a marriage in 1890 had the standing she does now? 200 years ago you dont think plural marriage was relatively common in the world? hell it was common out west till 100 yrs ago. You know in Rome our cultural ancestors a woman was basically property. She surrendurred all rights to her husband and that was the understanding of marriage till recently? If it is a civil institution and secular that the state authorizes how do you justify denieing it to same sex couples under the constitution?

**dalem** · 18 Aug 11,, 20:14

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

That would imply that "traditional marriage" is facing bans, and as far as I am awar that has not been the case.

How can you ban something that doesn't exist?

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

You do understand despite proclamations to the contrary our understanding and definitions of the rights with in marriage are a century old? You think a woman in a marriage in 1890 had the standing she does now? 200 years ago you dont think plural marriage was relatively common in the world? hell it was common out west till 100 yrs ago. You know in Rome our cultural ancestors a woman was basically property. She surrendurred all rights to her husband and that was the understanding of marriage till recently? If it is a civil institution and secular that the state authorizes how do you justify denieing it to same sex couples under the constitution?

I never mentioned the Constitution. When I feel like weighing in on the topic I usually need nothing more weighty than a good old-fashioned dictionary.

-dale

**omon** · 18 Aug 11,, 20:22

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

You do understand despite proclamations to the contrary our understanding and definitions of the rights with in marriage are a century old? You think a woman in a marriage in 1890 had the standing she does now? 200 years ago you dont think plural marriage was relatively common in the world? hell it was common out west till 100 yrs ago. You know in Rome our cultural ancestors a woman was basically property. She surrendurred all rights to her husband and that was the understanding of marriage till recently? If it is a civil institution and secular that the state authorizes how do you justify denieing it to same sex couples under the constitution?

who cares, 10, 500, 1000 or more years ago, marrige was a union between a man and a woman, no matter how bad woman was treated, try being relavant, mkay.

**Mihais** · 18 Aug 11,, 20:33

Funny thing is that even if by law women weren't empowered,what happened outside the law was a different matter.Women wielded tremendous power.It really wasn't as black and white as some try to present today the history of marriage.

**Roosveltrepub** · 18 Aug 11,, 22:07

Originally Posted by Mihais

Funny thing is that even if by law women weren't empowered,what happened outside the law was a different matter.Women wielded tremendous power.It really wasn't as black and white as some try to present today the history of marriage.

this is based on what? it's a claim w/o verification making it your asumption

**Roosveltrepub** · 18 Aug 11,, 22:08

Originally Posted by omon

who cares, 10, 500, 1000 or more years ago, marrige was a union between a man and a woman, no matter how bad woman was treated, try being relavant, mkay.

The idea was somehoiw we have a long history of our idea of what marriage is and we don't. our idea is an equal union a relatively modern construct.

**Mihais** · 18 Aug 11,, 22:14

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

this is based on what? it's a claim w/o verification making it your asumption

The asumption is of course that one actually reads history.

**omon** · 18 Aug 11,, 23:31

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

The idea was somehoiw we have a long history of our idea of what marriage is and we don't. our idea is an equal union a relatively modern construct.

i don't care what your idea is, we aren't talking about history of traditional marriage, it is relevant.
we talk about union between man and man\woman and woman vs man and woman.
like i said, try to be relevant.
at no time until now same sex union were called legit marriage, yes or no?

**Gun Grape** · 19 Aug 11,, 00:16

Yes. Written about as far back as the Ming Dynasty in asia. And Nero married one of his male slaves. Homosexual marriage was banned in 342 AD in the Codex Theodosianus. Cannot ban something that had not been present before.