What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism
This revised edition features a new afterword, updated through the 2016 election.
On February 19, 2009, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli delivered a dramatic rant against Obama administration programs to shore up the plunging housing market. Invoking the Founding Fathers and ridiculing "losers" who could not pay their mortgages, Santelli called for "Tea Party" protests. Over the next two years, conservative activists took to the streets and airways, built hundreds of local Tea Party groups, and weighed in with votes and money to help right-wing Republicans win electoral victories in 2010.
In this penetrating new study, Harvard University's Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson go beyond images of protesters in Colonial costumes to provide a nuanced portrait of the Tea Party. What they find is sometimes surprising. Drawing on grassroots interviews and visits to local meetings in several regions, they find that older, middle-class Tea Partiers mostly approve of Social Security, Medicare, and generous benefits for military veterans. Their opposition to "big government" entails reluctance to pay taxes to help people viewed as undeserving "freeloaders" - including immigrants, lower income earners, and the young. At the national level, Tea Party elites and funders leverage grassroots energy to further longstanding goals such as tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of business, and privatization of the very same Social Security and Medicare programs on which many grassroots Tea Partiers depend. Elites and grassroots are nevertheless united in hatred of Barack Obama and determination to push the Republican Party sharply to the right.
The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism combines fine-grained portraits of local Tea Party members and chapters with an overarching analysis of the movement's rise, impact, and likely fate.
On February 19, 2009, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli delivered a dramatic rant against Obama administration programs to shore up the plunging housing market. Invoking the Founding Fathers and ridiculing "losers" who could not pay their mortgages, Santelli called for "Tea Party" protests. Over the next two years, conservative activists took to the streets and airways, built hundreds of local Tea Party groups, and weighed in with votes and money to help right-wing Republicans win electoral victories in 2010.
In this penetrating new study, Harvard University's Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson go beyond images of protesters in Colonial costumes to provide a nuanced portrait of the Tea Party. What they find is sometimes surprising. Drawing on grassroots interviews and visits to local meetings in several regions, they find that older, middle-class Tea Partiers mostly approve of Social Security, Medicare, and generous benefits for military veterans. Their opposition to "big government" entails reluctance to pay taxes to help people viewed as undeserving "freeloaders" - including immigrants, lower income earners, and the young. At the national level, Tea Party elites and funders leverage grassroots energy to further longstanding goals such as tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of business, and privatization of the very same Social Security and Medicare programs on which many grassroots Tea Partiers depend. Elites and grassroots are nevertheless united in hatred of Barack Obama and determination to push the Republican Party sharply to the right.
The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism combines fine-grained portraits of local Tea Party members and chapters with an overarching analysis of the movement's rise, impact, and likely fate.
264 pages, Hardcover
First published December 2, 2011
42 people are currently reading
940 people want to read
About the author
Theda Skocpol
34 books59 followersTheda Skocpol is the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard University and the Director of the Scholars Strategy Network. She is a past president of the American Political Science Association.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
October 2, 2012
First, a true story. I was reading this book a few weekends ago while camping with my family, and the man who was camping one site over approached me as we were packing to go home. "I noticed you were reading a book about the Tea Party", he said. He was very friendly as he said it. "Are you a Tea Party supporter?". "Actually, no." I told him. "I'm just reading the book because I'm interested in the effect they're having on current affairs and politics". He stared at me for a minute, his demeanor noticeably changed, and he walked away from me. I have no idea if he was a Tea Party proponent, sympathizer, Facebook fan, whatever. But it brought home an observation the authors have in the book: outsiders' views don't matter. I'll read almost anything under the premise that if the book sucks, I'll just move on. After this encounter, however, I almost felt like a secret agent for the non-Tea Party population, going undercover to find out whatever sordid secrets they are hiding. Cue the 007 theme song!
It was difficult, when reading this book, to separate out my thoughts about the writing and how the subject is presented and my thoughts about the Tea Party itself. The authors, Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson, try hard to stay neutral and present their research findings in a dispassionate way. But every now and then, a nugget of snark comes through; one of my favorites is on page 48, "...while in Virginia, the emphasis was on the state's capacity to opt out of health care reform. Of course, whatever any Tea Partier wants to do with his or her private property is everywhere justified in exalted Constitutional terms". I suspect, however, that the Tea Party is a difficult subject to write about in a neutral way; their positions are so incredibly polarizing, it is hard not to have a visceral reaction to some of the interviewees' opinions.
If you are interested in current affairs at all, I do recommend this book. Parts of it dovetail neatly with another book I recently finished, "Bad Religion". Both authors describe a reverent nationalism as religion attitude of certain segments of the population. It's unnerving to read how misconceptions inform much of the positions that individual members have taken on issues, and the intolerance that Tea Partiers generally have, according to the authors, towards any segment of the population other than fellow Tea Party members. The authors have done a substantial amount of fieldwork and research on the Tea Party phenomenon.
It was difficult, when reading this book, to separate out my thoughts about the writing and how the subject is presented and my thoughts about the Tea Party itself. The authors, Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson, try hard to stay neutral and present their research findings in a dispassionate way. But every now and then, a nugget of snark comes through; one of my favorites is on page 48, "...while in Virginia, the emphasis was on the state's capacity to opt out of health care reform. Of course, whatever any Tea Partier wants to do with his or her private property is everywhere justified in exalted Constitutional terms". I suspect, however, that the Tea Party is a difficult subject to write about in a neutral way; their positions are so incredibly polarizing, it is hard not to have a visceral reaction to some of the interviewees' opinions.
If you are interested in current affairs at all, I do recommend this book. Parts of it dovetail neatly with another book I recently finished, "Bad Religion". Both authors describe a reverent nationalism as religion attitude of certain segments of the population. It's unnerving to read how misconceptions inform much of the positions that individual members have taken on issues, and the intolerance that Tea Partiers generally have, according to the authors, towards any segment of the population other than fellow Tea Party members. The authors have done a substantial amount of fieldwork and research on the Tea Party phenomenon.
February 20, 2016
Why? Why do I keep reading books about these people, hoping to understand and maybe even relate to them, or at least be able to discuss things with them?
It is an exercise in futility.
Why do I continue to read about people who say "science has become a religion" in this country? Or people who worry about teachers "converting" their children to environmentalism?
WHY??
The hypocrisy of it all is mind-boggling. Like this:
"...the Tea Party attitude towards government regulation: regulations are GOOD to harass my enemies and reinforce my values, policy preferences, and preferred definitions of American social identity; but regulations are BAD for the kinds of businesses and endeavors me and mine are engaged in."
Or this: "Like earlier rounds of right-wing activism, the activism of Tea Partiers is driven by societal oppositions more than by detailed policy logic."
And this: "...it should be obvious that Tea Partiers have a self-centered understanding of democracy...Little thought is given either by local activists or by national advocacy groups to discussing vital national issues with people outside the Tea Party."
The bottom line is that there are three aspects to this so-called movement: grassroots activists, the millionaires who fund them, and the media that promotes them. We've seen the lessening of this group's influence in recent elections, but they have forced the conversation far to the right, and this influence will be felt for many years to come. The book is pretty fair in the beginning, but by the end, I think the authors were as exhausted by these people as I was, and their liberal views come through. That is reflected in their reviews on Amazon...there are some pretty unhappy teabaggers there! I feel that this is not a long-lasting group. It's just another iteration of hardcore, ultra-right wing conservatives that we've seen in the past with the likes of the John Birch Society or Father Coughlin's followers.
WHY do I keep reading about these people? One guy they interviewed in Arizona keeps a saddle on a sawhorse in his living room and SITS ON IT while watching John Wayne movies. Why? WHY??
[sobbing]
It is an exercise in futility.
Why do I continue to read about people who say "science has become a religion" in this country? Or people who worry about teachers "converting" their children to environmentalism?
WHY??
The hypocrisy of it all is mind-boggling. Like this:
"...the Tea Party attitude towards government regulation: regulations are GOOD to harass my enemies and reinforce my values, policy preferences, and preferred definitions of American social identity; but regulations are BAD for the kinds of businesses and endeavors me and mine are engaged in."
Or this: "Like earlier rounds of right-wing activism, the activism of Tea Partiers is driven by societal oppositions more than by detailed policy logic."
And this: "...it should be obvious that Tea Partiers have a self-centered understanding of democracy...Little thought is given either by local activists or by national advocacy groups to discussing vital national issues with people outside the Tea Party."
The bottom line is that there are three aspects to this so-called movement: grassroots activists, the millionaires who fund them, and the media that promotes them. We've seen the lessening of this group's influence in recent elections, but they have forced the conversation far to the right, and this influence will be felt for many years to come. The book is pretty fair in the beginning, but by the end, I think the authors were as exhausted by these people as I was, and their liberal views come through. That is reflected in their reviews on Amazon...there are some pretty unhappy teabaggers there! I feel that this is not a long-lasting group. It's just another iteration of hardcore, ultra-right wing conservatives that we've seen in the past with the likes of the John Birch Society or Father Coughlin's followers.
WHY do I keep reading about these people? One guy they interviewed in Arizona keeps a saddle on a sawhorse in his living room and SITS ON IT while watching John Wayne movies. Why? WHY??
[sobbing]
December 9, 2017
I think the authors' assessment of the Tea Party's organization and motivations, which comes off as perhaps a bit overly defensive or deferential in parts of this book, has largely become accepted wisdom at this point and is now applied more broadly to many Trump voters, so in some senses most of this book ended up feeling fairly familiar. Tea Partiers were/are primarily older, relatively well-off, white Americans largely reliant on a closed conservative information ecosystem who became strongly aware that they were at risk of relative loss in status and political power following Barack Obama's election and mobilized at the grass roots level to oppose the redistribution of resources to groups that they viewed as undeserving, alien, or in some way "others". The movement was to varying degrees subsequently captured and co-opted by established elite conservative organizations who had sought to back up their de-regulatory and wealth transfer policy preferences with a grassroots movement. A similar phenomenon has also happened between the arguments made during the Trump campaign and the actual staffing and legislative priorities of the administration, and Trump's core nativist message clearly aims to the Tea Party base. Of course, I've-got-mine-and-keep-the-government's-hands-off-my-Medicare have been core themes and elements of the conservative movement for quite some time, which the book acknowledges, but does not belabor the longer history of. One interesting point noted in the book, and something to explore in further reading, was the suggestion the Tea Party emerged in part to fill a void left by the collapsing organizational infrastructure of the Christian right / Moral Majority.
February 9, 2025
I came to The Tea Party hoping for a clear sense of how a movement often described as both grassroots and elite-driven could so quickly influence the Republican Party. Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson have cleverly combined fieldwork, interviews, demographic surveys, and media analysis to give readers an in-depth look at who Tea Party supporters were, how they got organised, and what they believed. Their findings suggest a movement that wasn’t purely bottom-up, nor entirely astroturfed, but rather a blend of genuine local activism, well-funded backing from conservative elites, and ongoing media amplification, particularly from right-wing outlets like Fox News.
The authors spend a good deal of time examining who actually joined the Tea Party, and what emerges is a group of older, white, middle-class, and largely Protestant conservatives who, contrary to popular assumptions, weren’t the worst hit by the 2008 financial crisis. They may have lost some home equity and retirement savings, but they still had Social Security or Medicare to fall back on, which raises the question of why they were so aggrieved. Skocpol and Williamson turn to notions of status anxiety for explanation, suggesting that these Tea Party supporters felt culturally and politically “left behind” in an America that was changing under President Obama.
Another strength of the book is its attention to how the Tea Party’s public image was constructed. Media coverage didn’t simply reflect the movement; it shaped and amplified it, granting the Tea Party a level of attention that turned local protests into a national force. In examining various websites, social media channels, and televised rallies, the authors show how public perception of a movement’s size, demands, and legitimacy often depends on whether certain networks choose to boost or ignore it. Skocpol and Williamson also highlight the gender dynamics at play: men largely served as the Tea Party’s public face, while women carried much of the organisational burden, from booking venues and maintaining mailing lists to arranging car pools and even encouraging younger recruits. This gendered division of labour, though familiar from other social movements, remains under-discussed in mainstream accounts.
However, despite the clear merits of the research itself, I found the book lacking a cohesive narrative that would tie all of these observations into a strong, overarching argument. Rather than propelling readers towards a definitive conclusion about the Tea Party’s true impact or significance, the chapters sometimes feel more like thorough field notes than a consistent story. Whenever I anticipated a major revelation or deeper interrogation, the text seemed to veer off into the next topic. It felt a bit like watching a Mubi documentary that provides a wealth of interview footage but leaves viewers to piece together its ultimate meaning.
There’s also the issue that the book is now showing its age. Written in the early phase of the Tea Party’s evolution, (published in 2012) it doesn’t address the longer-term consequences we witnessed in subsequent election cycles or the rise of Donald Trump, whose brand of populist conservatism arguably drew on much of the Tea Party’s energy and resentment. Had the authors revisited their analysis in light of Trump’s presidency, readers might see a more direct line from status anxiety and media-driven fervour to the political upheavals of 2016 and beyond. That said, it’s still a solid snapshot of a pivotal moment in American conservatism.
Overall, Skocpol and Williamson have produced an impressive study filled with rich anecdotes, methodological rigour, and valuable insights about how movements form, gain traction, and are framed by media. It’s especially relevant for political science readers interested in conservative populism and for those curious about how and why people with relative privilege can still feel threatened by social change.
I just wish the book had either drawn sharper conclusions or updated itself to address what came after, as the Tea Party’s legacy is an ongoing story that shaped (and continues to shape) the Republican Party today.
The authors spend a good deal of time examining who actually joined the Tea Party, and what emerges is a group of older, white, middle-class, and largely Protestant conservatives who, contrary to popular assumptions, weren’t the worst hit by the 2008 financial crisis. They may have lost some home equity and retirement savings, but they still had Social Security or Medicare to fall back on, which raises the question of why they were so aggrieved. Skocpol and Williamson turn to notions of status anxiety for explanation, suggesting that these Tea Party supporters felt culturally and politically “left behind” in an America that was changing under President Obama.
Another strength of the book is its attention to how the Tea Party’s public image was constructed. Media coverage didn’t simply reflect the movement; it shaped and amplified it, granting the Tea Party a level of attention that turned local protests into a national force. In examining various websites, social media channels, and televised rallies, the authors show how public perception of a movement’s size, demands, and legitimacy often depends on whether certain networks choose to boost or ignore it. Skocpol and Williamson also highlight the gender dynamics at play: men largely served as the Tea Party’s public face, while women carried much of the organisational burden, from booking venues and maintaining mailing lists to arranging car pools and even encouraging younger recruits. This gendered division of labour, though familiar from other social movements, remains under-discussed in mainstream accounts.
However, despite the clear merits of the research itself, I found the book lacking a cohesive narrative that would tie all of these observations into a strong, overarching argument. Rather than propelling readers towards a definitive conclusion about the Tea Party’s true impact or significance, the chapters sometimes feel more like thorough field notes than a consistent story. Whenever I anticipated a major revelation or deeper interrogation, the text seemed to veer off into the next topic. It felt a bit like watching a Mubi documentary that provides a wealth of interview footage but leaves viewers to piece together its ultimate meaning.
There’s also the issue that the book is now showing its age. Written in the early phase of the Tea Party’s evolution, (published in 2012) it doesn’t address the longer-term consequences we witnessed in subsequent election cycles or the rise of Donald Trump, whose brand of populist conservatism arguably drew on much of the Tea Party’s energy and resentment. Had the authors revisited their analysis in light of Trump’s presidency, readers might see a more direct line from status anxiety and media-driven fervour to the political upheavals of 2016 and beyond. That said, it’s still a solid snapshot of a pivotal moment in American conservatism.
Overall, Skocpol and Williamson have produced an impressive study filled with rich anecdotes, methodological rigour, and valuable insights about how movements form, gain traction, and are framed by media. It’s especially relevant for political science readers interested in conservative populism and for those curious about how and why people with relative privilege can still feel threatened by social change.
I just wish the book had either drawn sharper conclusions or updated itself to address what came after, as the Tea Party’s legacy is an ongoing story that shaped (and continues to shape) the Republican Party today.
November 1, 2014
It's astounding to me how kind and generous Skocpol and Williamson are to the Tea Party activists. I'm not sure that I could maintain that kind of generosity for approximately 250 pages. One thing that I find a bit troubling with this book is that Skocpol and Williamson really downplay the extent to which lobbying groups are influencing the views and activities of the "grassroots" activists. They go to great pains to show that the elite advocacy groups and the grassroots groups are separate and have separate policy preferences. However, what they don't pay adequate attention to (in my view) is the way in which Tea Party projects pre-dated the 2009 emergence of the grassroots organizations and the role that advocacy groups played in training people to become "grassroots" organizers. Essentially, tea party activists act like corporate America's "street team" which is a much more intimate connection than Sokcpol and Williamson describe. But a fantastic book either way.
November 11, 2024
Although dated (2012) and analyzing the Tea Party, this book is still very relevant. The views of the Tea Party have infiltrated the Republican Party fairly quickly, effectively putting an end to the era of "moderate Republicans." A whole host of people and entities - retirees who want government assistance "for me not for thee" and saw the Obama administration as an affront to U.S. values and the racial order, to billionaires who pour money into the right-wing apparatus and media (which very successfully turned Republican attitudes to the far right). This book shows the motivations and hypocrisies of the far-right and their infiltration into American policies - which seek to obliterate the existing order.
July 2, 2016
Here is an honest attempt by two liberal academics to understand the emergence of that conservative political movement known as the Tea Party. It contains some high level analysis of the organization, but its strength comes from the in depth personal conversations with ordinary Tea Party members. The book explores how the opinions of individual members are often different than those of the lobby groups that seek to influence and control them. In fact, one could say this entire work is a study of contradictions.
The book examines the connection between conservative lobby groups, Fox News and the Tea Party. The usual conspiracy crowd will make much of this and see little else. But the authors make it clear that the Tea Party is a genuine grassroots movement, not simply a fabrication by Big Money. On the other hand, it is easier to sustain a movement with lots of money available and a TV network dedicated to your cause.
The demographic of Tea Party members can be described as older, whiter, more affluent, better educated (please lose the ignorant red-neck image) and more religious than other Americans. For a movement based on self-reliance and small government, is it surprising how many members depend on their social security payments. This is symbolized by the slogan, “Keep the governments hands off my Medicare,” but they actually do know where the money comes from. They distinguish between programs whose recipients (people like them) have earned the benefits from handouts to freeloaders (people not like them).
Tea Party is about preserving what they see as the greatness of America’s past. Its members have great reverence for the U.S. Constitution, giving it almost the same status as the Bible. They have transferred their Bible study techniques directly to the constitution. And like the Bible, they interpret it liberally (if you forgive the irony of using this word) according to their pre-conceptions, for example ignoring the separation between church and state. The authors point out that the Founding Fathers were mainly Deists, far from being fundamentalists, and Tea Party positions resemble those who fought against the constitution, and secessionists during the Civil War.
As individuals, Tea Party members are kind and considerate with those whom they personally encounter. But everyone else is subjected to crude stereotyping, including their own children who are seen as lazy and entitled. Unfortunately the Revealed Truth of their religion leads to absolute certainty about everything else, so they see no need to reach out and understand other viewpoints. Thus the people who do not trust government spend all their time trying to influence that same government, often to coerce the people they disagree with.
The Tea Party phenomenon strikes me as a right wing version of the 1960’s. There is the same insular self-righteousness attitude, while it is really our interests (as we pretend to care about the greater good) attitude, and even some of the same tactics. The authors report, “Indeed, some Tea Party members are explicit about borrowing from the left. A number of our interviewees cited the work of Saul Alinsky, the famed community organizer and author of Rules for Radicals.” The difference is the hippies believed in a fantasy future, while the Tea Party longs for an idealized past.
Read this book to understand the people who make up the Tea Party movement as decent, intelligent, well-motivated individuals. It is very difficult to shift the thinking of a group of people with mutually reinforcing beliefs. But the information in this book suggests that people can be reached on a personal basis, if approached with respect and a genuine attempt to understand where they are coming from.
The book examines the connection between conservative lobby groups, Fox News and the Tea Party. The usual conspiracy crowd will make much of this and see little else. But the authors make it clear that the Tea Party is a genuine grassroots movement, not simply a fabrication by Big Money. On the other hand, it is easier to sustain a movement with lots of money available and a TV network dedicated to your cause.
The demographic of Tea Party members can be described as older, whiter, more affluent, better educated (please lose the ignorant red-neck image) and more religious than other Americans. For a movement based on self-reliance and small government, is it surprising how many members depend on their social security payments. This is symbolized by the slogan, “Keep the governments hands off my Medicare,” but they actually do know where the money comes from. They distinguish between programs whose recipients (people like them) have earned the benefits from handouts to freeloaders (people not like them).
Tea Party is about preserving what they see as the greatness of America’s past. Its members have great reverence for the U.S. Constitution, giving it almost the same status as the Bible. They have transferred their Bible study techniques directly to the constitution. And like the Bible, they interpret it liberally (if you forgive the irony of using this word) according to their pre-conceptions, for example ignoring the separation between church and state. The authors point out that the Founding Fathers were mainly Deists, far from being fundamentalists, and Tea Party positions resemble those who fought against the constitution, and secessionists during the Civil War.
As individuals, Tea Party members are kind and considerate with those whom they personally encounter. But everyone else is subjected to crude stereotyping, including their own children who are seen as lazy and entitled. Unfortunately the Revealed Truth of their religion leads to absolute certainty about everything else, so they see no need to reach out and understand other viewpoints. Thus the people who do not trust government spend all their time trying to influence that same government, often to coerce the people they disagree with.
The Tea Party phenomenon strikes me as a right wing version of the 1960’s. There is the same insular self-righteousness attitude, while it is really our interests (as we pretend to care about the greater good) attitude, and even some of the same tactics. The authors report, “Indeed, some Tea Party members are explicit about borrowing from the left. A number of our interviewees cited the work of Saul Alinsky, the famed community organizer and author of Rules for Radicals.” The difference is the hippies believed in a fantasy future, while the Tea Party longs for an idealized past.
Read this book to understand the people who make up the Tea Party movement as decent, intelligent, well-motivated individuals. It is very difficult to shift the thinking of a group of people with mutually reinforcing beliefs. But the information in this book suggests that people can be reached on a personal basis, if approached with respect and a genuine attempt to understand where they are coming from.
October 29, 2014
An excellent, scholarly work on the history of the Tea Party and their influence on GOP. Through first hand interviews the authors detailed the the nature and composition the of Tea Party groups across the country, and their fears and beliefs.
They proved what I suspected all along: Tea Party folks are not really opposed to socialism; they do strongly support large socialist programs that benefit themselves like Medicare, government healthcare for veterans, Social Security, Medicare Part D, etc. But they are viscerally opposed to socialism that benefits others, esp. "out groups" like racially and ethnically diverse younger cohorts.
The authors also explore the generational divide that currently exists in the US and how ultra-right wing groups like Freedom Works, Heritage Foundation etc. are trying to exploit this divide to dismantle the social safety net built for the middle class in the 20th century.
They proved what I suspected all along: Tea Party folks are not really opposed to socialism; they do strongly support large socialist programs that benefit themselves like Medicare, government healthcare for veterans, Social Security, Medicare Part D, etc. But they are viscerally opposed to socialism that benefits others, esp. "out groups" like racially and ethnically diverse younger cohorts.
The authors also explore the generational divide that currently exists in the US and how ultra-right wing groups like Freedom Works, Heritage Foundation etc. are trying to exploit this divide to dismantle the social safety net built for the middle class in the 20th century.
December 28, 2014
Very clearly biased, but an interesting, in-depth exploration nonetheless. The methods are reminiscent of Fenno's work and offer a refreshing detour from the tech-heavy books that dominate political science these days. Though I am a quantitative scholar, these types of studies are necessary and among the most illuminating in our discipline.
October 14, 2024
A very well-written book on the subject of the tea party, although it is a bit dated since a lot has happened since 2012. The characterization of the tea party movement is insightful and accurate. As the author put it, The tea party is the latest conservative activism followed the tradition of such activism since 1960s. It is based on "society opposition rather than nuanced policy logic".
The book covers the tea party in a comprehensive way. It shed lights on the grass roots, political elites and media, three branches of the movement through the analysis of survey data and live interviews. Thanks to the book, we have a full picture of the tea party in term of its demographic,
Ironically, given tea party's reverence or even worship of the constitution and founding fathers, this group is actually the typical "fraction" that founding fathers detested and tried to avoid in their initial design in the American political system. The tea party movement is the epitome of political "them vs us" mentality and a zero sum game world view. They refuse to sympathize with the social groups they oppose: low-income, ethnic minority, immigrants, and muslin, and deem the conflict between tea partiers and those groups as irreconcilable, or unsolvable through political compromises. It explains their hard line attitude towards issues such as welfare and immigration.
On the other hand, most of tea partiers' moral judgement on those "undeserving" social groups are derived from their pursuit of self-interests and built on their sense of entitlement. Those judgement are also subject to the double standard, irrational fears and distorted "facts" received from right-wing media or propaganda.
The book covers the tea party in a comprehensive way. It shed lights on the grass roots, political elites and media, three branches of the movement through the analysis of survey data and live interviews. Thanks to the book, we have a full picture of the tea party in term of its demographic,
Ironically, given tea party's reverence or even worship of the constitution and founding fathers, this group is actually the typical "fraction" that founding fathers detested and tried to avoid in their initial design in the American political system. The tea party movement is the epitome of political "them vs us" mentality and a zero sum game world view. They refuse to sympathize with the social groups they oppose: low-income, ethnic minority, immigrants, and muslin, and deem the conflict between tea partiers and those groups as irreconcilable, or unsolvable through political compromises. It explains their hard line attitude towards issues such as welfare and immigration.
On the other hand, most of tea partiers' moral judgement on those "undeserving" social groups are derived from their pursuit of self-interests and built on their sense of entitlement. Those judgement are also subject to the double standard, irrational fears and distorted "facts" received from right-wing media or propaganda.
January 2, 2020
I bought this book out of necessity as it was on a required reading list during college some years ago. I never finished the book until now. Aside from the authors’ obsession with CNBC reporter Rick Santelli’s “Tea Party” rant during the height of bailout and stimulus talk, this wasn’t a terrible read. I enjoyed that the authors made note of their own potential bias being from liberal academia, but they seemed to genuinely want to get to the heart of who the Tea Party is/was and really provide the reader valuable insight into this not-so grassroots grassroots organization. I thought some aspects of the book were overgeneralized, but I believe that was done out of merely making the book more readable and shorter in length. However, some of those generalizations ended up being flat out wrong. For example, on page 168, the authors referred to then-Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan as a “hard-edged GOP governor.” It turns out that Governor Snyder was actually much more moderate than the authors would lead the reader to believe. One has to consider, though, that this book was written right after the Tea Party surge in 2008-2012 so my point is in hindsight. I do feel, though, that the authors employ a Chicken Little mentality that the sky is falling and use fear to drive their point home at times. Maybe not so ironically, the same tactics they occasionally accuse the GOP and Tea Partiers of employing to advance their cause.
I would recommend this book to any political junkie, and to purchase it used or as a rental. Overall, the book is not worth purchasing brand new.
I would recommend this book to any political junkie, and to purchase it used or as a rental. Overall, the book is not worth purchasing brand new.
August 12, 2017
In depth history and analysis of the Tea Party by 2 Harvard women political scientists with liberal leanings. Major focus is on the independent, local, "grassroots" organizations but networked aspects, overarching national and statewide organizations, self-appointed spokespersons, & major donors are also investigated. Tea Partiers are found to be largely white, comfortably retired working class, with above average educational attainment. Members are found to be remarkably knowledgable and well-informed about the mechanics & processes of government including how bills are introduced, promoted & ultimately passed, how individuals can enter into & gain a foothold in politics & how influence may be exerted. At the same time & curiously these same people are found to be remarkably misinformed and/or uninformed about the actual intended effects of bills, issues & candidates. In other words, they are subject to egregious manipulation. This work was largely completed prior to the elections of 2012 & therefore its significant lacking is currency but it still is a great source for knowledge of the Tea Party & its activism.
December 7, 2017
The Tea Party is unreasonable. This book did not change my mind on that point. But are they good for democracy? I guess the answer is mostly yes. How can it not be good to have engaged citizens (even if the quantity of said citizens is a LOT less than what one might think. The coverage the Tea Party received makes one think they are an ocean, when they are more like a pond--albeit a very noisy, angry pond). At the same time, this complete unwillingness to compromise does a lot to increase partisan gridlock not just in Washington but at every level of politics. Maybe this doesn’t matter to the engaged citizen, but for the majority whom look at politics with indifference, all it does is increase their cynicism and unwillingness to enter the fray. The Tea Party also is not very fact-friendly.
December 5, 2018
My ongoing quest to find out how, politically, the United States wound up in its current odious state, with so much divisiveness, an ineffectual Senate that refuses to stand up to the horror show in the White House, etc., led me to this book. Based on a lot of interviews, this book offers at least a partial explanation, particularly regarding how adamant Tea Partyers were that they push their party to the far right. Yes, well, hope you are all happy with the morally bankrupt man running the show now. For anyone interested in politics, I would recommend this.
November 27, 2024
Don’t really have anything bad to say, excellent and far more balanced study of the tea party than most others around the time. Maybe a bit naive in its conclusion at certain points but hindsight is a luxury.
June 19, 2019
A bit disappointing from someone who has written really good books in the past...
Read
May 14, 2024Look away this is for work 😂
July 25, 2019
A quick, good read for all writers. You will feel buoyed and validated in Goldberg’s hands.
Read
February 27, 2017I did not finish this. It was written alright, but it wasn't holding my attention they way it should have. I may pick it pagan later.
September 9, 2016
The authors try very hard to give a dispassionate, neutral overview of the formation of the Tea party.
It is difficult not to "read in" various implications, e.g., the numerous Birchers and "Oath-Keepers" populating the Tea Party seems to support the hypothesis that racism, not economic concerns, spurred the creation of the Tea Party. But at other times, the authors use cold, hard data to support alternate hypotheses.
For example, the Tea Party consisted of mostly middle-aged and older, middle- to upper-class White people living comfortably but not in luxury. People in this economic class would be concerned when there is a huge recession (c.f., the Great Recession) as it drained their retirement accounts and made their homes (another investment) less valuable. Economic pressure is undeniably one of the factors in its creation.
But on the flip side to this point, where were the Tea Partiers when President Bush started 2 wars and (in a historically unprecedented maneuver) had tax cuts throughout his presidency?
A solid point they raise, that I think needs more historical context, is the outcome of the 2008 presidential election left the GOP "leaderless" -- or in their words, "Outgoing Republican President George W. Bush was extremely unpopular, and the failed presidential campaign of John McCain left the GOP without a clear leader". It would have been nice for the authors to compare this to 1996, when Dole lost to Clinton, or 1976 when Ford lost to Carter. Why was there no Tea Party then? Again, I have a hard time believing this doesn't lend support to the Racism hypothesis.
Racial beliefs are discussed in a couple pages (pp. 68--77 are dedicated to the Tea Party's social beliefs, with the first couple pages dedicated to Racism in particular).
Even supposing racism had no part in the Tea Party formation, the narrative is fairly pitiful (if true): the Tea Party was formed out of fear. Fear of losing what comfort middle-aged Whites had, fear of losing what they associate with "America", fear plain and simple. I suppose this is the real explanation the book gives, fear created the Tea Party --- and this fear stems from multiple causes.
The dynamics after the Tea Party was created is, I think, undeniable...even among Tea Partiers. The movement was "hijacked" by rogue billionaires, and like any James Bond movie we know it cannot end well.
It is difficult not to "read in" various implications, e.g., the numerous Birchers and "Oath-Keepers" populating the Tea Party seems to support the hypothesis that racism, not economic concerns, spurred the creation of the Tea Party. But at other times, the authors use cold, hard data to support alternate hypotheses.
For example, the Tea Party consisted of mostly middle-aged and older, middle- to upper-class White people living comfortably but not in luxury. People in this economic class would be concerned when there is a huge recession (c.f., the Great Recession) as it drained their retirement accounts and made their homes (another investment) less valuable. Economic pressure is undeniably one of the factors in its creation.
But on the flip side to this point, where were the Tea Partiers when President Bush started 2 wars and (in a historically unprecedented maneuver) had tax cuts throughout his presidency?
A solid point they raise, that I think needs more historical context, is the outcome of the 2008 presidential election left the GOP "leaderless" -- or in their words, "Outgoing Republican President George W. Bush was extremely unpopular, and the failed presidential campaign of John McCain left the GOP without a clear leader". It would have been nice for the authors to compare this to 1996, when Dole lost to Clinton, or 1976 when Ford lost to Carter. Why was there no Tea Party then? Again, I have a hard time believing this doesn't lend support to the Racism hypothesis.
Racial beliefs are discussed in a couple pages (pp. 68--77 are dedicated to the Tea Party's social beliefs, with the first couple pages dedicated to Racism in particular).
Even supposing racism had no part in the Tea Party formation, the narrative is fairly pitiful (if true): the Tea Party was formed out of fear. Fear of losing what comfort middle-aged Whites had, fear of losing what they associate with "America", fear plain and simple. I suppose this is the real explanation the book gives, fear created the Tea Party --- and this fear stems from multiple causes.
The dynamics after the Tea Party was created is, I think, undeniable...even among Tea Partiers. The movement was "hijacked" by rogue billionaires, and like any James Bond movie we know it cannot end well.
November 21, 2013
The book, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, written by Theda Skocpol, accurately and analytically describes the Tea Party movement and its uncertain position in history. The book covers the efforts of grassroots Tea Party supporters coupled with the contributions of unknown organizations and their effect on the Republican Party as a whole. This book also provides both positive and negative aspects of this movement, making the whole idea of the Tea Party extremely transparent and truly open to the public.
The greatness of this non-fiction work lies with its unbiased theme. The author of this book truly presented both sides of the argument when it came to the Tea Party, and this sort of attitude really allows the book to flourish as a source of information. The personal accounts and interviews presented in the book served to bring a personal feeling and identity to the Tea Party, only helping to buttress the eccentricity of this work of literature.
The only large weakness that can be found in this work is its repetition. In an effort to push across the main points of the book, the author, in many instances, repeated many key phrases and ideas. This resulted in very long and boring chapters, chapters which could have been shortened and infused with much more rigorous and diverse information.
My affinity for politically-based books drew me to read this book, and I'm pleased to say that it's one of the best political books I've ever read. If you're looking to brush up on some modern day history, this book is the exact work you're looking for!
The greatness of this non-fiction work lies with its unbiased theme. The author of this book truly presented both sides of the argument when it came to the Tea Party, and this sort of attitude really allows the book to flourish as a source of information. The personal accounts and interviews presented in the book served to bring a personal feeling and identity to the Tea Party, only helping to buttress the eccentricity of this work of literature.
The only large weakness that can be found in this work is its repetition. In an effort to push across the main points of the book, the author, in many instances, repeated many key phrases and ideas. This resulted in very long and boring chapters, chapters which could have been shortened and infused with much more rigorous and diverse information.
My affinity for politically-based books drew me to read this book, and I'm pleased to say that it's one of the best political books I've ever read. If you're looking to brush up on some modern day history, this book is the exact work you're looking for!
January 11, 2017
"...the two authors have attended many meetings of highly educated liberals in and around academic communities. In those meetings, detailed knowledge of public policies is common. People know exactly what is in Obama's health reform law, exactly how all kinds of taxes work, and can tell you who pays for and benefits from government expenditures. They can debate the intricacies of cap and trade versus carbon taxes. But even liberal PhDs are often extremely vague about how U.S. politics actually works. People will proclaim in meetings that President Obama should just give a speech on a particular priority - and act as if that would get it done, forgetting the complexities of Congressional rules and alliance-building. Opinionated, educated liberals often have no idea what happens in state legislatures, local government boards, or political party committees. Grassroots Tea Partiers, by contrast, know the rules and procedures for passing bills and advancing regulations in detail - for local, state, and national government. But at the same time, they hold wildly inaccurate views of what is in, or not in, public policies or legislative proposals. They know process, but flub content - the exact opposite of the academic liberals."
Written between the elections of 2010 and 2012 so fairly early in the Tea Party's history. There is more about the interaction between grassroots groups, activist billionaires, and conservative media, and less about the actual views and activities of the grassroots groups than I was looking for. Still worth reading.
Written between the elections of 2010 and 2012 so fairly early in the Tea Party's history. There is more about the interaction between grassroots groups, activist billionaires, and conservative media, and less about the actual views and activities of the grassroots groups than I was looking for. Still worth reading.
July 7, 2013
This book has a lot of valuable information about the tea party, but it suffers from a couple of things. First, it's an academic account, which means that it's written in an incredibly dry way. It's easy to imagine them retelling some of the interviews or tea party meetings they attended around the country in a much more compelling way. Second, this book suffers from the first draft of history problem. It's a bit too early to tell if the tea party movement will continue to have a lasting impact on American politics. At least for now, it appears to be on the wane in influence among national politics. Some of its biggest stars, Bachman and Palin, have departed from public life, and it's clear that the national Republican Party finds its tea party caucus more and more difficult to control. (The researchers also wrongly predict the GOP would retake the Senate in 2012, a move that clearly overestimated the tea party's influence in a presidential election year.) Also because the events described are so recent, I didn't learn that much new information. The 2010 midterms are still fresh in my mind.
Still, I'm sure this book provides a foundation for further research and it's an area of study worthy of attention.
Still, I'm sure this book provides a foundation for further research and it's an area of study worthy of attention.
June 3, 2014
This is a well written intelligent book with an academic bent. It does give a rather clear view of who makes up the Tea Party groups, what they want and what effect they have had. It also looks at those who have manipulated the groups and given them often unwanted leadership. The authors were also able to see many of the limitations of the Tea Party movement into the future. I enjoyed reading the book for the most part.
Drawbacks are: 1) the book is dated. Much has changed in the past few years and some of the predictions did not materialize. This is not a fault of the book nor the authors. Time brings change and the social sciences, including political science, have never had a crystal ball. 2) Although I praise the book for being somewhat academic, while respecting the fact that it was written for a non-academic audience, I often found myself skipping the last half of paragraphs. There was a great deal of unnecessary information which dragged the book out. I simply knew where the paragraphs were going and did not feel the need to bury myself in them. Maybe just my issue.
Rather a good book but I should probably be looking for something more up to date. Perhaps the authors could come out with a second edition.
Drawbacks are: 1) the book is dated. Much has changed in the past few years and some of the predictions did not materialize. This is not a fault of the book nor the authors. Time brings change and the social sciences, including political science, have never had a crystal ball. 2) Although I praise the book for being somewhat academic, while respecting the fact that it was written for a non-academic audience, I often found myself skipping the last half of paragraphs. There was a great deal of unnecessary information which dragged the book out. I simply knew where the paragraphs were going and did not feel the need to bury myself in them. Maybe just my issue.
Rather a good book but I should probably be looking for something more up to date. Perhaps the authors could come out with a second edition.
October 12, 2024
Scholarly examination of the Tea Party movement of the early 2000s based on extensive interviews and participant observation. Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson look at the Tea Party movement with the eyes of political scientists, considering the origin of the movement, its ideology, and rhetoric. Through scores of interviews, they ask Tea Partiers themselves what motivated them to join and how they feel about politics and society in general terms. They then carefully unravel the various organizations from their professional political leadership and their mass membership. While Skocpol and Williamson take the Tea Party seriously, and offer a respectful presentation of what they are told, they do not refrain from critiquing contradictions in Tea Party rhetoric, or frankly acknowledging when Tea Party beliefs contradict reality, or when politicians promoted (in the name of the Tea Party) policies that the rank and file expressly opposed or were unlikely to benefit from. This book should be useful for anyone seeking to understand the complexities of modern American politics and nature of mass political movements. It belongs on the shelf next to C. Wright Mills’ The Power Elite, Robert Dahl's Who Governs? and Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone.
April 9, 2012
This was an accessible and nuanced academic look at the Tea Party. The book spends a long time getting at the demographics of the Tea Party, and adds color to the data by attending a bunch of local meetings. The most surprising thing to me was that the Tea Party is very much a generational thing. It's overwhelming older, white people with a long history of voting Republican (and certainly not centrist political newcomers).
Race is obviously in the background - but it's not really racism, and more that race informs their general sense that the America they know is being lost. And Obama perfectly captures all these anxieties - which is why he's so hated. But a lot of the Tea Party's specific grievances can be understood as a function of age/generational anxiety.
It also did a good job deconstructing the idea that there is a single "Tea Party." What you really have is a bunch of loosely connected groups: (1) grassroots conservatives; (2) rich donors/organizations; and (3) conservative media. They intersect in interesting ways -- they often work together, but they also have some schisms. Great book - very easy to read in a day
Race is obviously in the background - but it's not really racism, and more that race informs their general sense that the America they know is being lost. And Obama perfectly captures all these anxieties - which is why he's so hated. But a lot of the Tea Party's specific grievances can be understood as a function of age/generational anxiety.
It also did a good job deconstructing the idea that there is a single "Tea Party." What you really have is a bunch of loosely connected groups: (1) grassroots conservatives; (2) rich donors/organizations; and (3) conservative media. They intersect in interesting ways -- they often work together, but they also have some schisms. Great book - very easy to read in a day
February 21, 2013
Comprehensive and exhaustive (in every sense of the word) study of the Tea Party movement and it's influence on American politics. The discussion of the demographics, positions, and motivations of the grass-root movements and their members is particularly commendable, if a bit repetitive.
The authors do their best to portray the regular activists as amicable, pleasant though misguided citizens, who are almost a model of an actively participating citizen. What I find most questionable, is the authors' decision to make them out to be some sort of dupes, who have been taken for a ride by the 'extreme' ideologues, billionaires, think-tankers and media pundits, who 'exploit' them for their own agendas, unconnected with the regular-tea-partisans main concerns. If this were something they agreed with, they'd probably call it leadership. Since it's not, it's only abhorrent elite manipulation.
Finally, the insistence to add the prefix 'ultra-' to every description of a position or idea the authors dislike (as in ultra-free market, ultra-conservative) does not make it sound more scary or less agreeable, it only makes the authors look more inane.
The authors do their best to portray the regular activists as amicable, pleasant though misguided citizens, who are almost a model of an actively participating citizen. What I find most questionable, is the authors' decision to make them out to be some sort of dupes, who have been taken for a ride by the 'extreme' ideologues, billionaires, think-tankers and media pundits, who 'exploit' them for their own agendas, unconnected with the regular-tea-partisans main concerns. If this were something they agreed with, they'd probably call it leadership. Since it's not, it's only abhorrent elite manipulation.
Finally, the insistence to add the prefix 'ultra-' to every description of a position or idea the authors dislike (as in ultra-free market, ultra-conservative) does not make it sound more scary or less agreeable, it only makes the authors look more inane.
February 19, 2014
The authors interviewed some tea party activists/supporters and tried to describe their positions and what motivates them. They were reasonably objective - i.e., they refrained as much as possible from judging those positions. I rated the book 3-stars because the the positions and motivations weren't particularly clear or coherent - sometimes they were hard to decipher, and they weren't necessarily consistent, logical, and didn't hang together very well. I attribute that more to the nature of the tea party, and not to the authors. I think the authors actually did what they could to even tie together the loose and wild threads they gathered. The book was illuminating, if only because it demonstrated, unintentionally, how inconsistent and disorganized tea party movement is. The book was also a little frustrating because you couldn't quite get to the crux of the tea party's position, and maddening because the positions were so illogical, inconsistent, and based in (in my mind, blind) anger and reaction. And that's after the authors did what they could to mute the anger and just portray the positions as clearly and objectively as they could.
July 7, 2012
A great chronicle of the rise and motivations behind one of the most excellent examples of people uniting and actively participating in the democratic system. Helps reveal truth, lies, and unknows that one would receive from the media. They are regular people (only whiter and older) that are self-centered and only accepting of people in their groups. They've followed an agency of wanting spending cuts (but not sure what to cut) and no compromise; they want it all and will throw a tantrum if they don't get it. The movement has been sabotaged by self-appointed elites and billionaires, though their extremes are not far from the regular Party members. They are familiar with the structure of government but ignorant of the true content and impact of policies (a foil to liberals), which are worsened by the fact that people told things different from their beliefs will only cling to their beliefs harder. Exposes the media-powered movement that is a bigger threat to the GOP than to progressives.
March 19, 2012
This won't be an overly intensive review as I'm writing through my political science lens.
I think that Skocpol and Williamson do a nice job at defining the contours of being a self identified tea partier. One thing to keep in mind is that their book is based upon a series of interviews and observations of the process tea partiers utilize.
I don't think their methodology is an overall negative. There is a massive amount of future research to be pursued and without this work, said research would be impossible.
Anyway, I'm not commenting on the substantive conclusions of their work because it is largely consistent with media accounts.
I think that Skocpol and Williamson do a nice job at defining the contours of being a self identified tea partier. One thing to keep in mind is that their book is based upon a series of interviews and observations of the process tea partiers utilize.
I don't think their methodology is an overall negative. There is a massive amount of future research to be pursued and without this work, said research would be impossible.
Anyway, I'm not commenting on the substantive conclusions of their work because it is largely consistent with media accounts.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews