Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America

by Kate Zernike

A surprising and revealing look inside the Tea Party movement—where it came from, what it stands for, and what it means for the future of American politics They burst on the scene at the height of the Great Recession—angry voters gathering by the thousands to rail against bailouts and big government. Evoking the Founding Fathers, they called themselves the Tea Party. Within the year, they had changed the terms of debate in Washington, emboldening Republicans and confounding a new administration's ability to get things done. Boiling Mad is Kate Zernike's eye-opening look inside the Tea Party, introducing us to a cast of unlikely activists and the philosophy that animates them. She shows how the Tea Party movement emerged from an unusual alliance of young Internet-savvy conservatives and older people alarmed at a country they no longer recognize. The movement is the latest manifestation of a long history of conservative discontent in America, breeding on a distrust of government that is older than the nation itself. But the Tea Partiers' grievances are rooted in the present, a response to the election of the nation's first black president and to the far-reaching government intervention that followed the economic crisis of 2008-2009. Though they are better educated and better off than most other Americans, they remain deeply pessimistic about the economy and the direction of the country. Zernike introduces us to the first Tea Partier, a nose-pierced young teacher who lives in Seattle with her fiancé, an Obama supporter. We listen in on what Tea Partiers learn about the Constitution, which they embrace as the backbone of their political philosophy. We see how young conservatives, who model their organization on the Grateful Dead, mobilize a new set of activists several decades their elder. And we watch as suburban mothers, who draw their inspiration from MoveOn and other icons of the Left, plot to upend the Republican Party in a swing district outside Philadelphia. The Tea Party movement has energized a lot of voters, but it has polarized the electorate, too. Agree or disagree, we must understand this movement to understand American politics in 2010 and beyond.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Audiobook

256 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2010

Reviews

[Liz Nutting · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the interests of full disclosure, I will start by saying I am a Liberal (with a capital “L”). So what made me eager to read Kate Zernike's hot-off-the-presses book Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America, when by just about every marker, I'm at the polar opposite in the political spectrum from the Tea Party adherents? To understand this emerging, vocal movement that is shaping much of the political debate in 2010.

Boiling Mad is a good place to start, too. Author Zernike is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times and brings a reporter's objectivity and analytic skills to her examination of the Tea Party movement. She gives as comprehensive an account of the movement as possible at this early stage (and it is hampered a bit by the fact that it ends shortly before the 2010 midterm elections; I suspect there will be an interesting afterword in the paperback release.) By and large, she lets the people she met along the trail of her research tell their own stories of why they participate in this movement, why they are so "boiling mad."

Zernike traces the roots of the movement to 2008, shortly after the election of Barak Obama to the presidency. And she does examine the criticisms that the Tea Party is a racist group born of a reactionary opposition to the first black president. The good news is that she concludes that really isn't the case. Although there are some adherents that exhibit racist attitudes, as in any group, the rank and file Tea Partiers are not focused on Obama's race--nor on the legitimacy of his U.S. citizenship or birth. Like any emerging (or established) political group, the Tea Party has a fringe element; but the people that Zernike focuses on, who make up the core of the movement, decry those more extremist elements and admonish their supporters to above all else remain polite and calm and focused.

What they're focused on is decidedly not the same old conservative issues that have driven the Republican agenda for the last two decades. This is not the Moral Majority. While many Tea Partiers may share conservative stances on the hot-button social issues like abortion and gay marriage, the Libertarian-leaning Tea Party is about something completely different: reducing the size of the Federal government, balancing the Federal budget, returning control to the states and local community, and forcing government to “keep its hands off”. And while most Tea Partiers have aligned themselves with the Republican Party for now, their criticism of Big Government extends every bit as much to the GOP as it does to the Democrats. The 2010 alliance between the Tea Party and the Republicans is a marriage of convenience, and a rocky one at that. It doesn't sound like it would take much to trigger a divorce.

The Tea Party itself is a sometimes odd blend of ordinary people--teachers, housewives, retail workers--and seasoned political operatives backed by conservative organizations like Freedom Works. What's particularly interesting to me is how many of the key players are women. Zernike spotlights several women, ranging from late 20s to early 60s, who turned their political frustrations into burgeoning careers as organizers, some leaving other jobs to travel around the country setting up local chapters of Tea Parties. Yet surveys of Tea Party members show it to be primarily appealing to older men. (Is this another case of women doing all the "domestic" work so the men can sit and "think"?) There are people here who have found their calling. And thanks to the backers like Freedom Works, they are steeped in grass-roots community organizing--learning from the very same teachers that Obama did. They have borrowed the tools of the Left to attack the Left.

As much as Boiling Mad helped me better understand the Tea Party, it also helped me better understand and articulate why I do not and will not ever share their political philosophy. It really boils down to a matter of core values. The Tea Party embodies one pervasive strain of American politics--the fiercely independent, self-reliant, bootstrap spirit. It's the attitude celebrated in our myths (“the kudzu of history”) of the American West and the Pioneers. And according to the Tea Party, it is the spirit behind our Constitution.

The Constitution, they believe, should only be interpreted as the original authors would interpret it (which of course begs the question of how they know what the original authors thought). To some of the adherents, Constitutional amendments beyond the original Bill of Rights are anathema and illegitimate--especially those that expand the role of the Federal government into areas like income tax and enforcing of Civil Rights. And this is one place I cannot go with them. I am not a Constitutional literalist any more than I am a Biblical literalist. I am wary of any claim to know the intent of an author, whether they lived 200 years ago or 2000. Human society is not static; change is its only constant. Any document that is going to legitimately govern values, actions, beliefs over centuries must, in my view, be interpreted as fluidly as possible. Of course, the other problem with the Tea Party view of the Constitution is that it ignores the historical facts. Tea Partiers do not acknowledge the bitter and heated contemporary debates that our Founding Fathers held with regard to the role of government, or the key decisions made by the early presidents—themselves authors of the document—that have since shaped our approach to government.

I am also concerned with the Tea Partiers calls to eliminate regulations on business. I work in one of the most heavily regulated fields—banking and finance—where my colleagues regularly argue that regulations are onerous and unnecessary. We can self-regulate! But I’ve seen the hollowness of attempts to self-regulate; more time and money is spent reinterpreting the “best practices” to suit the business than is ever spent trying to abide by them. I agree that some of the regulations imposed are onerous and even downright ridiculous (don’t get me started). But I have far less faith in the good will of big business than I do the rules of big government. At root, I believe that the commonweal is best served when we stop worrying about protecting "mine" and actively seek to promote the good for all.

It remains to be seen how much staying power the Tea Party movement has. Zernike implies that it is not a fly-by-night movement, but whether it is the new face of the Republican Party or the beginnings of a true third party is anybody’s guess. In light of the election victories that the Tea Party had in 2010, I wonder how success will change the movement. As countless liberal activists have discovered over the last 40 years, it’s a lot easier to mobilize people against an establishment than to keep the ideals from being co-opted by the Establishment. And I can’t help but ponder the reaction of those very same Tea Partiers if some of the more dramatic calls for change are implemented. Are we ready to live without public education, without financial or medical or agricultural regulations, without any safety net for the poor or the elderly? I'm not.

[Jaylia3 · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you wonder, “What are they thinking?!” this book will help you peel back the rhetoric to see the human beings behind the protest signs. It’s a brief history of the diverse local groups that self-identify as the Tea Party, from their grassroots anger over bank bailouts and health care reform to their sometime alliances with politicians and organizations also seeking a smaller role for government—though these traditional federal foes often oppose many more programs than the typical Tea Partier, who tends to be at or near retirement age and doesn’t want Medicare or Social Security eliminated.

According to this book,Tea Party members enjoy a strong sense of mission and community, they embrace some of the vigorous reform methods of Abbie Hoffman and MoveOn, and they revere the Constitution as an almost religious text that is selectively and narrowly interpreted. There is some divide between the libertarian side which wants to focus on strictly economic matters and those who want to include opposition to issues like abortion and gay marriage.

This book is particularly interesting right now (late October 2010) because it covers the primary campaigns--the how-did-they-win?--of some Tea Party endorsed candidates in next Tuesday’s election, including Rand Paul and Sharon Angle (who is opposing Senate Majority leader Harry Reid).

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

An even-handed portrayal of the Tea Party political movement. Those sympathetic to the cause will appreciate the author's skill in portraying its members' frustration with government growth; those not-so sympathetic will see that unless they can manage to support candidates who are more socially moderate, they'll quickly become nothing more than a fringe element of the Republican party.

Audio version especially recommended for good narration.

[Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was pleasantly surprised by "Boiling Mad". I feared it would be full of rants and raves by anti-everything activists like those depicted in editorial cartoons carrying signs reading "keep the government out of my Medicare".
But I picked it up to read, just in case it explained the core of the movement. Tea Party members and supporters purport to be "ordinary people" and "grass-root activists", but opponents claim most are old white racists against anything the Obama Administration is for. Zernike makes a solid case to support the notion that most are ordinary people interested in a smaller government, and does a good job explaining the movement. Whether you agree with the politics and policies of the movement or not, the book at least will dispell some common stereotypes about the majority of the membership, and explain what the Tea Party expects from their government representatives.

[Suzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Let me be clear: I am not now or ever have been a fan of the Tea Party. But as an American, and as a human, I am interested in how people get "boiling mad." This book is not only about the Tea Party, it is more universally about angry, fed-up people finding each other and banding together to make a change, in a time where change can happen quickly--no one can deny that this movement has grown like a wild fire.

This book is a calm sit-down-take-a-deep-breath look at how the Tea Party started. Stories of the people in the movement. The writer is journalist, reporting on the Tea Party, so it doesn't feel sensational, unbalanced, angry. If I could read a full book on politics, I would read this one. I may come back to it. (I quickly read the first two chapters.) I think this book could help me and my family understand each other, as polarizing politics is one of the things keeping my extended family from drawing close.

Our country is so divided right now. We need books like this. We need more books like this. And we need people to read them, to see where the seeds of discontent start.

How did I find this book? I wasn't looking for it. This is just one of the many unusual non-fiction books I discover weekly while checking Dewey Decimal Numbers. I could have put it in 320.52, for Conservatism, under Political Ideologies. But I chose to put it in 973.932, which is the number for this presidential administration. Partly because there was another Tea Party book there, but partly because this is a timely book, one that was born in this administration and has a lot to do with this administration.

Someone said today that she likes that I can assume the best in people. I suppose I am a little bit like Anne Frank, who also assumed the best. But I also know there IS evil lurking. And I know that there is more evil when we disrespect each other than when we search for an ideology that feeds us. There is a reason my aunt wanted to see Glenn Beck speak at the Washington Monument. There is a reason I can't listen to Glenn Beck. But if we can't talk like grownups about those reasons, if we can only yell at and dismiss each other, then, evil wins. Everyone thinks they are right. We can't all be right, all of the time.

So I hope people will read this book, curious. And that they will see the humanity that lies within each page.

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short read on the incarnation of the Tea Party. I thought initially it would be a great drawback that it's now 2 years out of date, being published in 2010 at TP's height, but the advantage of those 2 intervening years actually provides useful insight into the brief trajectory of this extreme shift to the right. Our current gridlock in Congress can, in my opinion, trace its roots to this misguided movement of "patriots". I would not, however, discount them going forward. As the 2012 exit polls showed, their demographics may be on the wane, but their ideological beliefs are hard-wired in that constituency.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A JOURNALIST PORTRAYS THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT FROM "INSIDE"

The author (a national correspondent for The New York Times) wrote in the first chapter of this 2010 book, "Its critics dismissed the Tea Party as 'Astroturf'" (i.e., "looking like a grassroots movement but actually fake and manufactured by big interest groups"), and "It certainly had its fringe elements" (such as the "birthers" who insisted that President Obama was "a Kenyan-born Muslim infiltrator"), yet argues that "this fringe did not define the Tea Party." (Pg. 4-5)

Noting that the movement "had failed to attract nonwhites in proportion to their numbers in the country at large" (Pg. 5) they are "Almost uniformly white... disproportionately older than the general public, more likely to have a college or advanced degree, and more likely to describe themselves as fairly or very well off." (Pg. 6) Although conservative about issues such as abortion, "they were more likely than ordinary Republicans to say that they wanted to focus on economic issues." (Pg. 7)

Although the movement is often traced to the 2009 rant on the floor of the Chicago Merchantile Exchange by financial commentator Rick Santelli, Zernike considers the origin of the movement as from a 29-year old woman named Keri Carender (who is "Half-Mexican, with a pierced nose"). (Pg. 13-14)

She asks along with the critics, "If these new grassroots protesters were so upset about deficits and the national debt, why hadn't they massed on the streets during the Bush administration as the numbers soared?" and suggests that "their complaints about fiscal responsibility and big government (was) just a thin disguise for their revulsion against the nation's first black president." (Pg. 51)

She notes that to the activists, the Tea Party movement was "more like a religion. It had given them a community, and it had given them a cause." (Pg. 124)

This book is an insightful, reasonably objective portrayal of the Tea Party, and will be of value to anyone studying the beliefs and adherents of the movement.

[Cj · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm not boiling mad, but I'm lukewarm about a book that is written by a journalist who does not offer a bibliography or even a section of notes; the book contains no references. She quotes many different people but the only document she offers is a survey. I would expect better from an author that "was a member of the New York Times team which shared the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting" (though, none of the references to that claim seem willing to say what that team reported on or who else was a member-- I suppose I could go to the Pulitzer website, but should I have too?). The book itself is interesting, but how can I give it credibility? I can't be comfortable using something as a reference that expects me to take its contents on faith.

[Jesse · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe the most definitive first-draft-of-history version of the story: culled from her 2010 campaign reporting, mostly, with some analysis and a little bit of historical context (really need to read TH Breen's book on angry public protest in the 1770s next-ish), but mostly a lot of sympathetic participant's-POV discussion. Her big take is that these people are "idealists." Which I buy, but they're pretty ill-informed and incoherent idealists, which would seem to matter. It does usefully show how many of these people really were individually inspired to do something, which at least suggests some revision of the astroturf argument. But I would need to see more to be fully convinced.

[Les · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author tried her BEST to do objective justice to such a polarizing topic/population. But her reporter's veneer of common sense couldn't mask the truth. This is not a group of revolutionaries. These are people who are against gov't programs that don't benefit them directly. They are indeed bigots and as a friend said aren't mad about anything as much as the fact that slavery ended. The limited freedom (for white men) prescribed by the founders is what they seek. Freedom for those who can afford it.

[Jeff Raymond · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surprisingly fair.

That's pretty much the best review I can give this. I had heard interesting things about this look at the Tea Party movement, and it definitely delivered a good product. Nothing new for me, but I think it's actually for an audience that isn't familiar with the movement, or is significantly opposed to it. It's an incredibly fair, mostly factual reading, and that makes it worth the time and effort.

[Jeanne Boyarsky · Rating 4 out of 5]

I saw "Boiling Made" in the featured books section of the library and it seemed interesting - seeing how the movement started.

The book is a mixture of explaining the background of what the Tea Party is all about and featuring people who advocate for it.

The book was not political - it focused more on what and explained where all positions came from. It pointed out both strengths and shortcomings of the Tea Party.

By the end it felt a bit repetitive, but all in all a good read.

[Brad · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short but pretty thorough look at the Tea Party. It didn't add a ton but does do a good job of discussing the division that still exists between Tea Partyers and many Republicans. This may also be a slightly premature work - any analysis of the Tea Party without knowing how it impacts the results on election day is incomplete.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book. I started making a list about the things I agree with that the tea party believes in and the things I adamantly oppose. It is great to understand why people are mad enough to protest in this fashion, and I think it's going to play a big part in future elections. Worth reading for sure!

[Abby · Rating 3 out of 5]

At first, I wasn't entirely sure that I wanted to read anything even remotely describing the Tea Party. This book shows the method to the madness- the evolution of the party we see today. I really enjoyed the book and found it a fascinating look at a movement that has been in the spotlight, yet nobody ever seems to talk much about.

[Hélder Azevedo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uma excelente obra para se compreender a natureza do libertarismo radical americanos e o seu oportunismo político. Esta obra não trata apenas do Tea Party, mas também dos grupos mais ou menos autónomos surgidos no pós 11/9, como o Freedom works (de inspiração puramente randiana e freedmaniana) ou o movimento 12/9, com reivindicações mais sociais.

[Dave Sidney · Rating 3 out of 5]

Provides abit of understanding what they are thinking and where they came from. Appears that these kind of movement come in times of economic distress and then go away when the economy improves. One can only hope.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting look into the world of the Tea Party from a relatively unbiased perspective. It was very informative and gave a voice to the "normal" people of the movement who are often drowned out in the news media.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting enough read, but I hoped it would pierce the surface a bit more. It seemed to never get at the true genesis of the tea party movement, though it did do a good job of humanizing the everyday people behind it.

[Marcia · Rating 4 out of 5]

What I appreciated most about this book is that the author did not seem to have an agenda. It neither demonizes the members of the tea party nor does it make them into saints. Instead, it portrays them as real people.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Worth reading to gain insight into the politics and history of the Tea Party and its rise in American Politics and Culture.

[Darren Tripiciano · Rating 4 out of 5]

A surprisingly balanced look at a movement that made noise yet had trouble finding a common voice.

[Lottie Faver · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting and informative. A great insight into the Tea Party movement and it wasn't full of jargon.

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good basic intro to the emergence of the Tea Party movement.