What do you think?
Rate this book
Change They Can't Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America
How the political beliefs of Tea Party supporters are connected to far-right social movements
Are Tea Party supporters merely a group of conservative citizens concerned about government spending? Or are they racists who refuse to accept Barack Obama as their president because he's not white? Change They Can't Believe In offers an alternative argument―that the Tea Party is driven by the reemergence of a reactionary movement in American politics that is fueled by a fear that America has changed for the worse. Providing a range of original evidence and rich portraits of party sympathizers as well as activists, Christopher Parker and Matt Barreto show that what actually pushes Tea Party supporters is not simple ideology or racism, but fear that the country is being stolen from "real Americans"―a belief triggered by Obama's election. From civil liberties and policy issues, to participation in the political process, the perception that America is in danger directly informs how Tea Party supporters think and act.
The authors argue that this isn't the first time a segment of American society has perceived the American way of life as under siege. In fact, movements of this kind often appear when some individuals believe that "American" values are under threat by rapid social changes. Drawing connections between the Tea Party and right-wing reactionary movements of the past, including the Know Nothing Party, the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s, and the John Birch Society, Parker and Barreto develop a framework that transcends the Tea Party to shed light on its current and future consequences.
Linking past and present reactionary movements, Change They Can't Believe In rigorously examines the motivations and political implications associated with today's Tea Party.
Are Tea Party supporters merely a group of conservative citizens concerned about government spending? Or are they racists who refuse to accept Barack Obama as their president because he's not white? Change They Can't Believe In offers an alternative argument―that the Tea Party is driven by the reemergence of a reactionary movement in American politics that is fueled by a fear that America has changed for the worse. Providing a range of original evidence and rich portraits of party sympathizers as well as activists, Christopher Parker and Matt Barreto show that what actually pushes Tea Party supporters is not simple ideology or racism, but fear that the country is being stolen from "real Americans"―a belief triggered by Obama's election. From civil liberties and policy issues, to participation in the political process, the perception that America is in danger directly informs how Tea Party supporters think and act.
The authors argue that this isn't the first time a segment of American society has perceived the American way of life as under siege. In fact, movements of this kind often appear when some individuals believe that "American" values are under threat by rapid social changes. Drawing connections between the Tea Party and right-wing reactionary movements of the past, including the Know Nothing Party, the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s, and the John Birch Society, Parker and Barreto develop a framework that transcends the Tea Party to shed light on its current and future consequences.
Linking past and present reactionary movements, Change They Can't Believe In rigorously examines the motivations and political implications associated with today's Tea Party.
384 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
8 people are currently reading
301 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
December 12, 2013
I suspect those who gave 1-star reviews on Amazon did not read the book. If they had and if they were honest, even if they don't agree with Parker's opinions and/or don't like the book, they would have to give him credit for writing a carefully researched, methodological, empirical and fact-based look at Tea Party supporters. If they read the book, they'd understand that the Ku Klux Klan comparison is specifically based on the relatively political Klan of the 1920s, not the more violent Klan of the Post-Civil-War South or the 1950s and later. If they read the book, they'd understand the comparison with the '20s Klan and the John Birch Society is based on strong demographic and political similarities of supporters of these groups, again from fact-based research. And the authors certainly do not say that all Tea Party member or supporters are racist.
Particularly interesting to me is the research on how Tea Party supporters differ from other conservatives, in some ways they are very similar and in some ways very different.
Particularly interesting to me is the research on how Tea Party supporters differ from other conservatives, in some ways they are very similar and in some ways very different.
March 2, 2014
The authors use modern social scientific methods to tease out what truly motivates Americans in sympathy with the Tea Party. Their conclusion: the Tea Party is a modern-day manifestation of the Ku Klux Klan and John Birch Society of white, Protestant, well-educated (primarily) men, who are angry at the election of a president who symbolizes societal changes that challenge their traditional privilege. This is not an easy read, but I found it difficult to put down.
June 25, 2018
I first came across this book about the tea party movement because I am mentioned in it. It piqued my interest so I read the book to see what the authors had to say about the movement I helped to launch and organize. It was not a very accurate analysis, in my opinion, and the book's main claims don't even bear repeating. There are other books that I would recommend to anyone interested in learning about the movement, especially "Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America" by New York Times reporter Kate Zernike.
January 2, 2017
This very academic look at the Tea Party and its right wing populist antecedents, distinguishing the movement from more traditional conservatism and highlighting how the values of its supporters differ from those of traditional conservatives. Necessary, thoughtful, thorough, but a little repetitive and tedious, the book proceeds like a PhD thesis as we are told what we will be told, then told it, then told what we have just been told. There is some analysis of attitudes towards President Obama and opinions of "out" groups such as immigrants and gays (and how these are similar to or different than those attitudes of Republicans and the broader American public).
I found the historical context the most interesting part of the book, and would have like to have heard more about the John Birch Society and rise of the Klan in the 1920s. There's not a lot of look here at geographical differences or much about specific policy.
I found the historical context the most interesting part of the book, and would have like to have heard more about the John Birch Society and rise of the Klan in the 1920s. There's not a lot of look here at geographical differences or much about specific policy.
June 6, 2018
Written in an academic fashion, so a bit dry/tough to read, but it really illuminates the similarities between Trumpism and the Tea Party. A fascinating study that really makes clear what the movement is about.
June 2, 2017
It's pretty much what you knew about them, but with social science to back it up.
August 29, 2021
This book exemplifies my mixed feelings about social sciences. On one hand, it's worth checking out for students/scholars of American politics and conservatism, as it is rigorously researched and has some interesting findings. On the other hand, it is overly schematic and rigid in many places, often lacking in historical context, and incredibly repetitive (at 260 pages, this book easily could have been under 200 if the authors had not repeated their major claims over and over again).
Parker and Barreto use survey data to try to differentiate Tea Party supporters from the general population, from mainstream conservatives, and from other social-psych personality types (like authoritarian tendencies or social dominance orientation). They find, in most cases, that sympathy for the Tea Party shows up as a statistically significant and distinct explanation for a variety of viewpoints, particularly viewpoints associated with the belief that their country is "slipping away" from them through demographic and cultural change exemplified by Obama's election. PB locate the Tea Party in the tradition of reactionary conservatism, similar to the KKK and the John Birch Society, in that they are a conspiracy minded, anger-driven reaction to social and demographic change and an attempt to preserve hierarchies and traditions. TP supporters also showed high levels of antipathy for minorities, LGBT people, and other marginalized groups and a tendency to believe Obama is not a Christian or an American. This analysis draws on a somewhat outdated historical under standing of conservatism, but I think it holds up. For instance, if the TP was genuinely about conservative values of small gov't rather than reaction, it would have shown up before Obama took office given that Bush violated virtually all small gov't precepts of conservatism.
Of course, this is the kind of distinction that only a social scientist could love (I'm a historian). Historians have been questioning in the last decade or so whether you can really draw this clear boundary between reactionary conservatism and the "mainstream," which is supposed to be about stability, tradition, order, a slow pace of change, and moderation. Certainly the type of panic-mongering about moral and social crises has been pretty central to many mainstream conservatives, and there is absolutely no way to separate the rise of the modern conservative GOP from vehement anti-Communism, anti-Civil Rights sentiment, and a general backlash to social change. Social science relies on these ideal types, and I think PB has shown there is a real difference in how mainstream conservatives and Tea Partiers think and act in politics, with TP's being generally more extreme. However, especially in the Trump age, it seems hard to really make that distinction, and historians like COrey Robin have made solid cases that it has always been dubious. After all, it has largely been conservative thinkers and scholars who have insisted on that division (Rossiter, Buckley), for obvious reasons.
SO while this is an interesting book, I found myself consistently frustrated by the somewhat hair-splitting distinctions between, for example, someone in the Tea Party and someone with social dominance orientation, which is all about maintaining your group's dominant status. That seems to overlap significantly with the Tea Party's major concerns. A more historical approach to the Tea Party would have looked more at the tensions/factions within conservative and GOP thought/politics, how they were shifting in the 2000s in the response to a variety of contextual factors, and how certain events (Obama's election, the 2008 crisis) crystallized the formation of a distinct political movement. As is all too common with social science, this book is sorely lacking in the broader context. That problem, plus the tedious repetition of the major claims and the endless descriptions of their methodologies (basically the same in every chapter, yet explained in each chapter as if they were stand-alone articles), make this book a frustrating if ultimately useful read.
Parker and Barreto use survey data to try to differentiate Tea Party supporters from the general population, from mainstream conservatives, and from other social-psych personality types (like authoritarian tendencies or social dominance orientation). They find, in most cases, that sympathy for the Tea Party shows up as a statistically significant and distinct explanation for a variety of viewpoints, particularly viewpoints associated with the belief that their country is "slipping away" from them through demographic and cultural change exemplified by Obama's election. PB locate the Tea Party in the tradition of reactionary conservatism, similar to the KKK and the John Birch Society, in that they are a conspiracy minded, anger-driven reaction to social and demographic change and an attempt to preserve hierarchies and traditions. TP supporters also showed high levels of antipathy for minorities, LGBT people, and other marginalized groups and a tendency to believe Obama is not a Christian or an American. This analysis draws on a somewhat outdated historical under standing of conservatism, but I think it holds up. For instance, if the TP was genuinely about conservative values of small gov't rather than reaction, it would have shown up before Obama took office given that Bush violated virtually all small gov't precepts of conservatism.
Of course, this is the kind of distinction that only a social scientist could love (I'm a historian). Historians have been questioning in the last decade or so whether you can really draw this clear boundary between reactionary conservatism and the "mainstream," which is supposed to be about stability, tradition, order, a slow pace of change, and moderation. Certainly the type of panic-mongering about moral and social crises has been pretty central to many mainstream conservatives, and there is absolutely no way to separate the rise of the modern conservative GOP from vehement anti-Communism, anti-Civil Rights sentiment, and a general backlash to social change. Social science relies on these ideal types, and I think PB has shown there is a real difference in how mainstream conservatives and Tea Partiers think and act in politics, with TP's being generally more extreme. However, especially in the Trump age, it seems hard to really make that distinction, and historians like COrey Robin have made solid cases that it has always been dubious. After all, it has largely been conservative thinkers and scholars who have insisted on that division (Rossiter, Buckley), for obvious reasons.
SO while this is an interesting book, I found myself consistently frustrated by the somewhat hair-splitting distinctions between, for example, someone in the Tea Party and someone with social dominance orientation, which is all about maintaining your group's dominant status. That seems to overlap significantly with the Tea Party's major concerns. A more historical approach to the Tea Party would have looked more at the tensions/factions within conservative and GOP thought/politics, how they were shifting in the 2000s in the response to a variety of contextual factors, and how certain events (Obama's election, the 2008 crisis) crystallized the formation of a distinct political movement. As is all too common with social science, this book is sorely lacking in the broader context. That problem, plus the tedious repetition of the major claims and the endless descriptions of their methodologies (basically the same in every chapter, yet explained in each chapter as if they were stand-alone articles), make this book a frustrating if ultimately useful read.
March 16, 2024
Outstanding. A solid piece of social science scholarship. The Tea Party movement appeared in 2009, shortly after Barrack Obama’s inauguration, and declared that they were opposed to economic stimulus policies such as those aimed at citizens who could not pay their mortgages. More generally, they claimed to be for limited government, lower taxes, and personal responsibility. Soon, it became clear that the Tea Party also seemed to be about racist depictions of Obama and conspiracy theories that depicted him as Muslim, born overseas, and leading the country to ruin through socialist or communist policies. To shed light on the true nature of this movement, Parker and Barreto gather evidence from a variety of sources. They examine the content of Tea Party websites and compare that to the content of National Review Online as representative of mainstream conservatism. They also deployed two probability sampled phone interviews in 2010 (about 1,000 respondents in 7 states) and again in 2011 (about 1,500 respondents in 13 states). In both cases, their goal is not only to identify how Tea Party sympathizers are distinct from those opposed to the Tea Party, but also to identify how they are distinct from conservatives who do not approve of the Tea Party. Their conclusion is that the Tea Party is best interpreted as a Far Right movement motivated by the fear of “their America” (White, Christian, heterosexual, Christian, middle class) slipping away. Their fear is subversion: a threat to the White majority social hierarchy, much like the motives behind other American far-right groups: the 1920s KKK or the 1960s John Birch Society. The authors suggest that the trigger for the Tea Party was not the stimulus but rather the election of the first non-White head of state in the U.S.
Coming at this book from 2024, I’m left with the question of how much of the Republican Party is the Tea Party. My current theory is that the Tea Party largely consumed the Republican Party, forming a core of White Christian nationalism that was fertile ground for Trump’s populist, racist, xenophobic message.
Coming at this book from 2024, I’m left with the question of how much of the Republican Party is the Tea Party. My current theory is that the Tea Party largely consumed the Republican Party, forming a core of White Christian nationalism that was fertile ground for Trump’s populist, racist, xenophobic message.
August 30, 2017
The conclusion is a must-read for anyone concerned about our current political situation.
February 20, 2016
This well-researched and well-executed book takes a good look at who supports the tea party and at what the movement's motivation and purposes are. (Full disclosure: I am not a fan of the movement; I went into this fully expecting that it would confirm much of what I have already concluded about it. That is what happened.)
I knew I was going to like this book when Richard Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" was mentioned within a few pages. Hofstadter's work from 1968 explores reactionary movements throughout the years, and the authors of this book include the tea party in these reactionary groups.
Reactionary means simply that they are reacting to changing social and political atmospheres that they feel are beyond their control. The two main groups that the authors in this book compare tea partiers to are the KKK and the John Birch Society. The former obviously hated blacks, Jews, Catholics, and they weren't too crazy about uppity women, either; the latter were focused on creeping Communism, and saw Communist plots in the Civil Rights movement, women's rights, and pretty much every other thing that they didn't like.
Before anyone freaks out, the authors go out of their way to stress that not all of those who support the tea party are racist. However, their research showed that people who support the tea party are more inclined to have racist views than those who do not support the tea party. No surprise there.
The authors explore the difference between traditional conservatives and tea party conservatives, and the difference is clear. It is not just a matter of being against big government and fiscal conservatism. For tea partiers (as for the other reactionary groups mentioned above) there is an element of "I want my country back!" Tea partiers are, in the majority, white, middle class, middle-aged, Protestant men. They feel their country is being taken away from them by Others.
The embodiment of the Other to them is President Obama. Hatred, fear, and loathing follows. They feel that he is not just espousing political ideas with which they disagree. He is actively working to destroy the country. For what purpose, they are unable to articulate.
In my opinion, the driving emotions behind tea party support are fear and anger. "Others" are taking over their (the tea partiers) country, and that is unacceptable to them. Their easy dismissal of religious freedoms other than Christian, their willingness to suspend Constitutional legal guarantees, and their belief that shutting down the government will make a point rather than harm our economy show that they are far from traditional conservatives.
One more thing. Tea partiers claim to love their country and to be REAL Americans...the best patriots. The book speculates that if true patriotism means wanting your country to succeed by advocating for ALL of its citizens to succeed, including by enacting laws and reforms to feed the hungry, help the sick, and educate the uneducated, the tea partiers fail. America would benefit greatly both at home and on the world stage with ensuring a quality education for all, but tea partiers are against more excessive student aid.
I read this book in order to "know the enemy," and I truly believe that the tea party is the enemy of a healthy and well-educated country...a country that includes a lot more than middle-aged white straight Christian men.
I knew I was going to like this book when Richard Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" was mentioned within a few pages. Hofstadter's work from 1968 explores reactionary movements throughout the years, and the authors of this book include the tea party in these reactionary groups.
Reactionary means simply that they are reacting to changing social and political atmospheres that they feel are beyond their control. The two main groups that the authors in this book compare tea partiers to are the KKK and the John Birch Society. The former obviously hated blacks, Jews, Catholics, and they weren't too crazy about uppity women, either; the latter were focused on creeping Communism, and saw Communist plots in the Civil Rights movement, women's rights, and pretty much every other thing that they didn't like.
Before anyone freaks out, the authors go out of their way to stress that not all of those who support the tea party are racist. However, their research showed that people who support the tea party are more inclined to have racist views than those who do not support the tea party. No surprise there.
The authors explore the difference between traditional conservatives and tea party conservatives, and the difference is clear. It is not just a matter of being against big government and fiscal conservatism. For tea partiers (as for the other reactionary groups mentioned above) there is an element of "I want my country back!" Tea partiers are, in the majority, white, middle class, middle-aged, Protestant men. They feel their country is being taken away from them by Others.
The embodiment of the Other to them is President Obama. Hatred, fear, and loathing follows. They feel that he is not just espousing political ideas with which they disagree. He is actively working to destroy the country. For what purpose, they are unable to articulate.
In my opinion, the driving emotions behind tea party support are fear and anger. "Others" are taking over their (the tea partiers) country, and that is unacceptable to them. Their easy dismissal of religious freedoms other than Christian, their willingness to suspend Constitutional legal guarantees, and their belief that shutting down the government will make a point rather than harm our economy show that they are far from traditional conservatives.
One more thing. Tea partiers claim to love their country and to be REAL Americans...the best patriots. The book speculates that if true patriotism means wanting your country to succeed by advocating for ALL of its citizens to succeed, including by enacting laws and reforms to feed the hungry, help the sick, and educate the uneducated, the tea partiers fail. America would benefit greatly both at home and on the world stage with ensuring a quality education for all, but tea partiers are against more excessive student aid.
I read this book in order to "know the enemy," and I truly believe that the tea party is the enemy of a healthy and well-educated country...a country that includes a lot more than middle-aged white straight Christian men.
October 9, 2016
A window into the tea party movement.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews