Posts
LATEST DRAFT
Tea Parties,
#Occupations, and True Believers:
Toward a rhetorical
theory of fanatical political movements
by
Lynette
M. Long, PhD
September
2012
Accepted
by the 2013 SSCA convention (not presented)
Abstract: This paper will outline the traditions of
fanatical political rhetoric as identified by Eric Hoffer’s theories on True
Believers and Mass (fanatical) Movements.
Specifically I will focus on his theories of the audience
characteristics of those attracted to fanatical movements and the rhetorical
strategies of identification present in those movements. Finally I will illustrate how this fanatical
rhetorical tradition identified by Eric Hoffer serves to encourage and
constitute the contemporary Tea Party political movement and may also help us
to analyze the #Occupywallstreet movement.
An earlier draft of this paper was presented at
SSCA 2011. The author wishes to thank Eric
Covington for his contributions to this analysis.
************************************************************************************************************************************
Tea
Parties, #Occupations, and True Believers:
Toward
a rhetorical theory of fanatical political movements
On April 15th, 2008, I
stood mesmerized by the pictures and reporting coming from the local public Tea
Party rally being held downtown. It was
fairly large, and the overwhelmingly white crowd was clearly anti-Obama,
touting signs that associated him with socialism and fascism while others were
good old fashioned mockery. There was a vehemence
I found unusual in this visual and verbal rhetoric that invigorated the first
Tea Party demonstration. This vehemence
painting President Obama as an anti-American threat continued in the following
months, and the rhetoric of this branch of Conservative politics became
increasingly fanatical, manifesting most through the public communication of
the original Tea Party Supporters such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and
the de facto leadership of the Tea Parties by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and 2012
Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann.
News media has continued to give voice
and coverage to the Tea Party; in the case of Fox News, the Tea Partiers have
been given high credibility and visibility and also encouragement for their
candidates and demonstrations. This
movement is highly visible, very vocal, and in some cases extraordinarily
powerful, and it has grown considerably since its public debut in 2009.
On
the last big Election Day, in 2008, the Tea Party didn't exist. Now the name
encompasses the most energized segment of the electorate, one that has denied
members of Congress renomination, created a new constellation of political
heroes and pushed the GOP to the right.
An article in USA Today in July 2010
stated boldly that “The
Tea Party is less a classic political movement than a frustrated state of
mind.” (Page and Jagoda). This
characterization echos the theories of Eric Hoffer in his consideration of how
fanatical political movements form and prosper.
In
his book True Believers: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Eric
Hoffer identified “the frustrated mind” as the key to understanding fanatical
movements and their political rhetoric.
It is the frustrated mind that will form the core audience and eventual
“True Believers” that join and promote any fanatical movement.
“Starting out from the fact that the frustrated predominate among the
early adherents of all mass movements and that they usually join of their own
accord, it is assumed: 1) that
frustration of itself, without any proselytizing prompting from the outside,
can generate most of the peculiar characteristics of the true believer; 2) that
an effective technique of conversion consists basically in the inculcation and
fixation of proclivities and responses indigenous to the frustrated mind.” (p.
xii)
I
will argue throughout this essay that the contemporary Tea Party movement is a
fanatical political movement comprised of “True Believers” as first identified
in the work of Eric Hoffer.
This paper will outline the parameters
and identifying themes in the fanatical rhetorical tradition by first exploring
the tenets of Eric Hoffer’s theories on True Believers and Mass (fanatical)
movements, focusing specifically on the audience characteristics of those
attracted to mass movements and the rhetorical strategies of identification
present in those movements. Finally I
will illustrate how this fanatical rhetorical tradition identified by Eric
Hoffer serves to encourage and constitute the contemporary Tea Party political
movement in its earliest stages by examining the rhetoric of two popular
conservatives associated with the movement.
Finally, I will reflect on the implications of identifying the Tea Party
as a fanatical movement and discuss further avenues of research, including how
this theory might be used to analyze other emerging political movements such as
#occupywallstreet.
Eric
Hoffer and the Fanatical Rhetorical Tradition
Eric Hoffer was not formally educated
and worked as a longshoreman when he wrote his classic on True Believers and
Mass Movements. He was pondering the
question of how people become involved in fanatical mass movements and
theorized that there exists a ready made audience that is attracted to the
“brotherhood” of these fanatical movements and persuaded by common strategies
of unification and anti-thetical consitution designed to increase
identification with the movements.
Hoffer further explained that the
attraction of these movements was not so much about policy or advancement of
ideas but rather a shelter and security and outlet for fearful, frustrated
individuals.
“A rising mass movement attracts and holds a following not by its doctrine
and promises but by the refuge it offers from the anxieties, barrenness, and
meaninglessness of an individual existence.
It cures the poignantly frustrated not by conferring on them an absolute
truth or remedying the difficulties and abuses which made their lives
miserable, but by freeing them from their ineffectual selves – and it does this
by enfolding and absorbing them into a closely knit and exultant corporate
whole.” (p. 41)
Taken together,
Hoffer’s assumptions about audience and identification strategies in the persuasion of fanatical mass movements
potentially constitutes a theory of fanatical rhetoric that can be applied to
different movements to predict the development of certain political actions and
the potential for violence .
“It is necessary for most of us these days to have some insight into
the motives and responses of the true believer.
For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of
irreligious. The true believer is
everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping
up the world in his own image. And
whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well that we should
know all we can concerning his nature and potentialities. (p. xiii)
Although Hoffer did
not include explicitly incorporate rhetorical theory into his observations, his
attention to and emphasis on audiences, strategies, symbols and identification
clearly situate his theories of fanatical movements and True Believers in the
tradition of political rhetoric and discourse.
This paper attempts to explain his theories as rhetorical theories and
to illustrate contemporary examples of fanatical rhetoric found in the rhetoric
of Tea Party leaders and sympathetic popular Conservative talk show hosts.
The fanatical “True
Believer” audience: Disaffected and
Frustrated/Fearful
The
previously noted frustration can be found most readily in groups that Hoffer
identifies as “the disaffected.” These
are the demographics most likely to respond to fanatical movement rhetoric. His list includes:
“Though the disaffected are found in all walks of life, they are most
frequent in the following categories: a)
the poor, b) misfits, c) outcasts, d) minorities, e) adolescent youth, f) the
ambitious, g) those in the grip of some vice or obsession, h) the impotent (in
body or mind), i) the inordinately selfish, j) the bored, k) the sinners.” (p.
25)
Hence,
fanatical leaders need do little to persuade these audience members to become
members of the movement to promote this important Holy cause that will make
their lives matter and relieve their frustration. Joined with others who share this Holy cause,
the “brotherhood” must simply provide a symbolic home for the disaffected - a
clear policy platform is not at all necessary.
As Page and Jagoda (2010) chronicled,
the Tea Party lacked a coherent political identity even among those who claimed
membership. There was no specific policy
of the Tea Party, although there are some consistent characteristics of the
audience and membership.
Even
so, the movement is less a party than an anti-party, with no clear consensus
about whom its national leaders are and a generally dyspeptic view of organized
political power. (Page and Jagoda)
This
characterization of the Tea Party as a collection of frustrated individuals is
echoed by several writers, including Peter Katel (2010): “…the movement exerts strong appeal for
citizens fearful of growing government debt and distrustful of the administration.” (p. 1) It is important to note that the distrust is
not the government itself, but this particular administration led by President
Barack Obama.
Hence,
it is the frustrated or “fearful” audience that originally and substantially defines
the Tea Party movement, rather than a specific policy or philosophy. This explains why those who have tried to pin
down the Tea Party demographic to one traditional demographic have been
unsuccessful thus far. Although XXX
assert that this movement is primarily one of religious fundamentalists, their
analysis ignores important elements of other Tea Party polls and the larger
history of the movement itself.
Nevertheless, their assertion can be taken as support for my thesis
because religious fundamentalists are an obvious prototype for the kind of
fanatical “True Believers” described by Hoffer.
Most national polls, however,
have found results consistent with the NYT polls, finding that Tea Party
membership draws largely from older White Republican voters who indicate in
specific poll questions one of their greatest unities is a majority opinion
that President Barack Obama “does not understand” them, that he is “socialist”
and that he is moving the country in the wrong direction. Hence, traditional demographics only partly
explain the Tea Party phenomenon.
Instead, the defining characteristic is a frustration with the state of
our nation, particularly the Presidency of Barack Obama.
The
search for a “brotherhood” of other disaffected voters, and more importantly the
development of a stronger sense of security, is at the heart of Tea Party
membership. (See Covington, 2009). Hoffer indicates that it is the drive to
constitute a new personal identity and find comfort in belonging to a
“corporate whole” that fuels the fanatical rhetoric of mass movements and
attracts a particular type of audience and member.
“ . . . a [fanatical] mass movement . . . appeals not to those intent
on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid
of an unwanted self. A mass movement
attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for
self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for
self-renunciation.” (p. 12)
In
the case of the Tea Party, the renunciation seems to be jettisoning a losing
political party and the resulting fearful personality for one of strength. Tea Party members most often define
themselves as “Patriots”, thus positioning themselves as the only members of
this current society who really care about this country, and aligning themselves
with the successful overthrow of the British monarchy by American
revolutionists.
This
“closely knit and exultant corporate whole” that is sought by fanatical
movement members is further strengthened by rhetorical unification strategies
that stimulate and reinforce the frustrated or disaffected person’s need for
the movement. These unification
strategies are the motivating elements of fanatical rhetoric and they exist
differently but certainly in True Believer mass movements to clarify the need for
self-sacrifice to the cause.
When we ascribe the success of a movement to it faith, doctrine,
propaganda, leadership, and ruthlessness and so on, we are but referring to
instruments of unification and to means used to inculcate a readiness for
self-sacrifice. It is perhaps impossible
to understand the nature of mass movements unless it is recognized that their
chief preoccupation is to foster, perfect and perpetuate a facility for united
action and self-sacrifice. To know the
processes by which such a facility is engendered Is to grasp the inner logic of
most of the characteristics attitudes and practices of an active mass movement.
Constituting
Movement Identity: Symbolic Devils and
Rhetorical Strategies of Anti-thesis
Hoffer further clarifies that
fanatical movements are always constituted and identified by anti-thesis with a
clearly defined symbolic devil. While
the policies of a movment are not clearly defined, the devil always is. One of his most specific and fundamental characteristics
that defines a fanatical movements is
this rhetorical anti-thesis with a symbolic devil.
"Mass
movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief
in a devil." (p.)
This identification
through anti-thesis is a primary attraction for True Believers because by
opposing this symbolic devil, the True Believers find identity and belonging in
a mass movement that promotes the political goals of its leaders. Essentially, they are who they are because they are not THAT. There is little clear policy agenda in
fanatical rhetoric, however – or at least not in the beginning1. Instead the focus is perpetually on the
specific devils that form the core of their identity and purpose for existing. The fanatical movement’s primary goal is to
stop or eliminate these symbolic devils.
This characteristic separates fanatical groups from those which unite to
promote a positive ideal rather than oppose a negative devil. Thus, groups such as the NAACP seek to
positively promote “advancement of a cherished self” while groups like the Tea
Party seek to eradicate what they define as negative and dangerous.
For the Tea Party movement, the symbolic
and rhetorical devil is clearly President Barack Obama. This is perhaps best captured and summarized
by the most prominent themes of Tea Party leader and Presidential candidate,
Michele Bachmann. Two of Bachmann’s most
stated goals of her campaign include “making Barack Obama a one term President”
and defeating “Obamacare”. Identifying
the national healthcare law as “Obamacare” was an early Tea Party slogan
beginning with the nation-wide Town Halls in the summer of 2009 meant for
citizens to discuss a new healthcare bill that were maniacally and repeatedly
disrupted by Tea Party activists. To
this day, the healthcare law and the realities of healthcare in the United
States is grossly misunderstood or simply mischaracterized by the Tea
Party. Again, however, truth and
understanding are not a primary goal for a fanatical movement – the goal is the
elimination of a devil and all of his works.
Michele Bachmann, along with other prominent Conservative voices such as
Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, have repeatedly raised
questions about the President’s patriotism and his “tyranny” over the United
States. Indeed, an important event leading up to the
original Tea Party demonstration in April 2009 and later that summer at the
Town Halls was the encouragement of the movement by conservative radio talk
show host, Rush Limbaugh. A year later,
Sarah Palin keynoted the first Tea Party Nation convention in Nashville,
TN. Both of these speeches serve to
identify the symbolic devil and thus the movement using the rhetorical strategy
of anti-thesis fundamental to fanatical movements. In the next two sections I will provide
specific examples of how this works by examining the speeches by Limbaugh and
Palin. These speeches provide the early
rhetorical foundations upon which Michele Bachmann will later build her Tea
Party coalition and launch her Presidential Campaign.
Birth of a
movement: Rush Limbaugh and the 2009
CPAC Convention
One of the earliest examples of
constituting Obama as the movement’s devil is evident in Rush Limbaugh’s
keynote speech to the 2009 Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC)
convention, given shortly after his widely
publicized on-air comments following President Obama’s inauguration where he
boldly stated: “I hope he (Obama) fails.” Even though Obama’s failure to fix
the economy would be disasterous for all Americans, Rush hoped he failed –
suggesting once again the idea that it is opposition to Obama himself and not
the promotion of a specific policy agenda that is at the heart of what
eventually becomes the current Tea Party. In this keynote speech to the CPAC annual
convention, Limbaugh specifically encourages the Tea Party movement,
associating his brand of Conservative politics and popularity with their
burgeoning mass movement.
And you’re going to
see — you’re already starting to see evidence of these. All the tea parties
that are starting to bubble up out there. Those are great. Fabulous. [Applause]
Limbaugh
specifically constitutes political Conservatism throughout the speech by
defining it in anti-thesis to liberals and democrats, but most specifically in
opposition to President Obama who is identified repeatedly as un-American and a
threat to the history and future of this country.
Now, let me speak
about President Obama for just a second. President Obama is one of the most
gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have ever witnessed. He
has extraordinary talents. He has communication skills that hardly anyone can
surpass. No, seriously. No, no, I’m being very serious about this. It just
breaks my heart that he does not use these extraordinary talents and gifts to
motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be. He’s doing
just the opposite. And it’s a shame. [Applause] President Obama has the ability
— he has the ability to inspire excellence in people’s pursuits. He has the
ability to do all this, yet he pursues a path, seeks a path that punishes
achievement, that punishes earners and punishes — and he speaks negatively of
the country. Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill. Barack
Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night in a corner of
America that’s very obscure. He’s constantly telling the American people that
bad times are ahead, worst times are ahead. And it’s troubling, because this is
the United States of America.
Limbaugh
goes on to demonize Barack Obama by claiming he wants “to destroy” capitalism
and suggesting he doesn’t respect or follow the U.S. Constitution.
Barack
Obama, the Democrat Party, have one responsibility, and that’s to respect the
oath they gave to protect, defend and follow the US Constitution. [Applause]
They
don’t have the right to take money that’s not theirs and none of it is from the
back pockets of producers and give it to groups like ACORN which are going to
advance the Democrat Party. If anybody but government were doing this, it would
be a crime. And many of us think it’s bordering on that as it exists now.
[Applause]
President Obama is so busy trying to foment and create anger in a created atmosphere of crisis. He is so busy fueling the emotions of class envy that he’s forgotten it’s not his money that he’s spending. [Applause]
President Obama is so busy trying to foment and create anger in a created atmosphere of crisis. He is so busy fueling the emotions of class envy that he’s forgotten it’s not his money that he’s spending. [Applause]
More than once,
Rush warns the audience that following Obama will result in “disaster”. Rush also states:
President Obama is so busy trying to foment and create anger in a created atmosphere of crisis. He is so busy fueling the emotions of class envy that he’s forgotten it’s not his money that he’s spending. [Applause] In fact, the money he’s spending is not ours. He’s spending wealth that has yet to be created. And that is not sustainable. It will not work. This has been tried around the world. And every time it’s been tried it’s a failed disaster.
Note
that Limbaugh does not ascribe these political commitments to the Democratic
party but rather to President Obama, the devil, specifically. Once again he speaks of “disaster”:
The
future is not big government. Self-serving politicians. Powerful bureaucrats.
This has been tried, tested throughout history. The result has always been
disaster. President Obama, your agenda is not new. It’s not change, and it’s
not hope. [Applause] Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of
compassion. All politicians, including President Obama, are temporary stewards
of this nation. It is not their task to remake the founding of this country. It
is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image.
(Crowd
chanting “USA”).
Obama
the rhetorical and anti-thetical devil is again accused of not respecting or
protecting the Constitution, which again clearly suggests that he is an
un-American devil to be feared and opposed.
Likewise, referring to TARP, Limbaugh said, “Aside from the
bastardization of the Constitution that the Obama plans are…” In this way the President, not a political
philosophy or party, is held up as the symbolic devil to which conservatism is
anti-thetically defined and constituted.
The President, as a person, becomes the focus of the “brotherhood” of
the Conservatives and the developing movement of Tea Partiers. As the narrative develops, it becomes clear
that the “Patriots” of the Tea Parties must unite to stop this devil, Barack
Obama. Nowhere has that theme been more
strongly stated than in the rhetoric of Sarah Palin. In the next section I will highlight the aggressive
rhetoric she uses to encourage “revolution”.
Formalizing
Identity: Sarah Palin and The first Tea
Party Nation Convention
Surrounded
by controversy from start to finish, Sarah Palin was selected to give the
keynote speech in 2010 to the first Tea Party Nation Convention in Nashville,
TN. I attended that dinner with one of
my students and experienced first hand both the speech and the fanatical nature
of the crowd. The 6 other people seated
at our table did not discuss any topic more than their contempt for Barack
Obama. Palin’s speech did not disappoint
the all-white audience who paid 350 dollars a plate to hear her headline the
convention and formalize the identity of the movement.
Introduced
by controversial publisher Andrew Breitbart as the hero who warned us about
“death panels” in “Obamacare”, Sarah Palin repeatedly referred specifically and
contemptuously throughout her speech to the current President as the devil
destroying America that the Tea Party must fight – often using highly
violence-flavored images to get her point across. Although she used his name only once, she
repeatedly referred to “the President”, “the White House”, “this administration”
as the symbolic devil to be fought. She also made several references to Obama’s
campaign slogan of “hope”. I assert this
is the same devil however more cleverly
disguised, perhaps. But unlike
Limbaugh’s relatively tame criticisms of the President and encouragement of the
Tea Party movement, in Palin’s keynote speech, the call is for a more vigorous “revolution”
and “fighting” opposition by the Tea Party to the devil in Washington and The
White House.
Consider
these representative identifications in Palin’s speech:
Got lots of friends and family in the lower 48
who attend these events and across the country just knowing that this is the
movement and America is ready for another revolution -- and you are a part of
this.
Folks, I won't go into all of it tonight, but the
list of broken promises is long. Candidate Obama pledged to end closed-door,
sweetheart deals and no-bid contracts once and for all, But just last month his
Administration awarded a 25 million dollar no-bid contract to a Democrat donor.
Is that hope? Nope. It's not hope.
And while no, our votes did not carry the day, it was still a call to
serve our country. Those voters wanted us to keep on fighting and take the
gloves off. And they wanted common sense conservative solutions. And they
wanted us to keep on debating. And each of us who is here today, we're living
proof that you don't need an office or a title to make a difference. And you
don't need a proclaimed leader, as if we're all just a bunch of sheep and we're
looking for a leader to progress this movement.
That is what we're
fighting for. It is what we are fighting about. It is what we believe in and
that's what this movement is all about. When people are willing and to meet
halfway and stand up for common sense solutions and values, then we want to
work with them. And in that spirit, I applaud Independents and Democrats like
Bart Stupak who stood up to tough partisan pressure and he wanted to protect
the sanctity of life and the rights of the soon to be born. I applaud him for
that.
When we can work
together, we will. But when the work of Washington violates our -- our
conscience and when the work and efforts in Washington, D.C., violate our
Constitution, then we will stand up and we will be counted -- because we are
the loyal opposition. …And that freedom is a God-given right and it is worth
fighting for.
Less
than a year later, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot in an assassination
attempt. Giffords had previously been
identified by Sarah Palin as a “target” for the movement to oppose and defeat;
Palin’s visual representation of who the movement should “target” even went so
far to use the image of a gun sight to pin-point where these candidates were
throughout the country as she encouraged them to “reload” and defeat them. She later removed this imagery after
largescale public condemnation of the violence indicated by such symbols. Nevertheless, this is imagery that is
associated with the Tea Party – and as a fanatical movement filled with
frustrated people determined to eradicate the devil of Barack Obama, this
violence-flavored rhetoric is a potential recipe for disaster.
Summary
The
contemporary Tea Party is comprised of disaffected and frustrated individuals
who are united by that disaffectation more so than any particular demographic
or political policy. Likewise, the
“frustrated state of mind” is quick to join a movement that offers to ease that
frustration by taking action – typically against the Devil. It is this anti-thetical rhetorical
constitution against a symbolic devil that Hoffer identifies as a defining
characteristic of fanatical political movements. In the Tea Party we find “a frustrated state
of mind” that exists as a core demographic.
In addition, there are repeated rhetorical acts that specifically
identify and oppose Barack Obama as their movement devil.
Although later actions and campaigns
of the Tea Party will eventually coalesce around particular political policies,
most notably debt reduction, this was not true in the beginning. What got my attention in 2008 was the huge
number of signs and posters that vehemently attacked President Obama but did
not give any information about what they were actually protesting. And indeed, there was no one specific thing
that they were protesting – except maybe Barack Obama, symbolic devil.
Implications and Future Research
Fanatically opposing the President of
the U.S. as an un-American devil and threat to the security of its people is
bound to result in a passionate rhetoric and perhaps even violent political
actions. How can one as “a Patriot” just
idly sit by while the nation is destroyed by the devil – which here is the
government itself when led by Barack Obama?
Radical actions such as the man who flew a plane into a local IRS
building in protest or opposition to the government seem likely to recur when
there is a movement that encourages if not supports those political actions
that stop the frightening devil from advancing.
What is interesting to note in
reference to Hoffer’s ideas is that his fanatical rhetorical traditions seem to
support the claims of the Tea Party that they are not merely motivated by white
racism and simple opposition to a Black President. Instead, the devil just happens to be a Black
President – or perhaps a Black man as President is “un-American” to them, and
it is the un-American aspect they oppose, thereby not associating this with any
particularly obvious form of racism.
Although many racists are attracted to this movement, no doubt, the most
prominent rhetoric is not visibly racist nor does it seek to eradicate Obama
because he is Black, but because he is a danger to America. A subtle difference, perhaps, but I think it
is an important one in the identity of the movement, because there are indeed
plenty of Tea Party members who are not racist, and there are even a small
number (very small) who are African-American.
Nevertheless,
being motivated by anti-thesis to their African-American President as devil, I
think it remains to be studied more comprehensively and argued more convincingly that a overwhelming White
political movement (77% - Page and Jogoda) has NO racial bias at work. As noted earlier, our attendance at the Tea
Party nation convention proved that at least THAT audience was all white. But even so, we did not hear any traditional
or obvious racist talk among the people we talked to. Nevertheless, it is the presence of any
symbolic devil that provides the opportunity to adopt a new identity as a foe
of that devil and to join with others in constituting and growing a movement
dedicated to the same. It makes sense
that African-American individuals as well as Whites who perceive this primary
opposition in racial terms would never be persuaded to join the Tea Party
movement, and thus, the Tea Party membership is constituted by people who are
less inclined to view this in racial terms.
Hitler chose the Jews as his devils –
and it was remarkably powerful in uniting a disaffected German public and
condoning the atrocious Nazi violence against them and others identified as
devils of the German people. And that is
a fair concern that anyone should have in the face of fanatical political
movements. The identification of a devil
and the constitution of identity in opposition to that devil is a powerful way
to unite people and to encourage strong and determined resistance to the
threat. Shortly after the Inauguration,
popular conservative talk show host Sean Hannity evoked the “Tree of Liberty”
which claims that it must be “watered occasionally by the blood of
tyrants.” These sentiments associated
with our President and opposed by True Believers may be a recipe for a greater
disaster.
To be rhetorically fanatical is not
necessarily to be politically violent, however, and so far most Tea Party
events are relatively non-threatening.
Glenn Beck’s march on Washington was a nonviolent yet still fanatical
protest against the government and the current President, Barack Obama. Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign was
also fanatical but also relatively free of violence-flavored rhetoric, opting
instead to promote voting, the traditional weapon of democracies.
But perhaps just as dangerous as
physical violence is political action taken to be destructive to the nation
under the leadership of Barack Obama.
Most particularly dangerous was the “hostage-taking” stance taken by Tea
Party members of Congress in the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations. Standing firm to the principle of debt
reduction is one thing – but threatening to cause the U.S. Government to
default on its debt obligations by refusing to vote for a debt ceiling increase
is another. The Tea Party was the
leading obstacle to any smooth and rational resolution of the issue. Candidate Michele Bachmann still asserts that
voting against the raising the debt ceiling increase was the right thing to
do. Ultimately the wrangling that was
necessary to keep the Tea Party from voting against the debt ceiling increase
was so crazy that it prompted Standard and Poor’s to downgrade the US credit
rating, specifically citing their concern about the government’s ability to
avoid default. I think it can be easily
argued – and was in the aftermath – that the Tea Party was not merely opposed
to the debt ceiling per se, but rather wanted more than anything to refuse a
“win” to the President. An article in
the Wall Street journal specifically highlighted the implications of adopting
any debt reduction plan of the President’s as helping him to get re-elected,
although they also encouraged the Tea Party to stop being obstructive for the
good of the country and the GOP.
More research and analysis should be
done to highlight Hoffer’s theories and the tradition of fanatical political rhetoric
that he illuminates for us. And
certainly more research needs to be done to more persuasively make the case
that the Tea Party is a fanatical movement.
More specific polling and surveying with questions designed to gauge the
fanaticism of this movement along the lines discussed in this essay would be
useful. Continuing studies by this
author include analysis of the rhetorical content of Tea Party member
blogs. And, quite obviously, a full
study of Michele Bachmann’s Presidential campaign is in order and in progress.
Occupy
Fanaticism: Another political movement
of True Believers
On July 13th,
2011, a new political movement called #occupywallstreet was introduced via
Twitter by Kalle Lasn, editor of Adbusters
magazine.
Some
quickly identified #occupywallstreet as “The Tea Party of the Left”. As far as fanatical rhetoric goes, this is an
apt comparison: the #Occupy movement by
design had no original goal. Instead, it
was designed to first attract frustrated people to the movement whereby then they would develop their specific
policy demands. “This occupation is
first about participation.” (“Editorial note”).
In some ways, the Occupy political movement is even more definitive of
fanatical rhetoric because it specifically consists of recruiting disaffected
persons without a clearly defined policy or goal. Although “principles of solidarity” were
produced, they were so far reaching as to be meaningfully and practically
vague.
Nevertheless,
leading voices within the movement disassociate themselves from the “fanatical
fringe” of the Tea Party, citing them as wanting to turn back on progress made
for people in the US, while insisting that the #Occupy movement was the
legitimate heir to US social (non-fanatical) movements, such as civil rights. Although embracing the same Liberty Tree
imagery as the Tea Party to articulate their visions, they clearly indicate
this is a different and non-fanatical vision compared to the Tea Party (Manski,
2011). Indeed, #Occupy likened
themselves to the “Arab Spring” uprisings around the world, situating
themselves as those who fight for liberty in the face of oppression. And yet, despite their rejections of the
idea, this is precisely what the Tea Party claims to do as well. For the Tea Party, the oppression, the devil,
is Barack Obama. For the Occupiers, the
devil is . . . . um, well, therein lies the problem. There are so many devils produced by this
movement, that the constitution of Occupy identity was perpetually in flux and
misunderstood. Without a clear
anti-thesis, who and what were they?
Enter the “99%” vs. the “1%” imagery
and opposition. This opposition gave a
concrete anti-thesis for the movement’s identity. #Occupy ostensibly included anyone who wasn’t
part of the top 1% of wealthy in the United States, thus identifying themselves
with the other “99%”. Yet even this
devil remained somewhat of a mystery – was the enemy the wealthy, the
corporations, capitalism, the US government?
Who is the devil? Without a clear
articulation of what they were against – and without also a clear articulation
of what they were for – the movement continued to lack any consistent political
agenda and remained a “brotherhood” – a solidarity - for the frustrated masses to join and for
slacktivists around the country to watch on the Internet.
The #Occupy movement was quickly embraced by
politically liberal activists such as Michael Moore and Cornel West, although
at the outset of the Occupation there was little to no media coverage of their
events. Only after clashes with the NYPD
did #Occupy begin to make its way into the national consciousness. This pattern of movement associated violence
and increased media coverage continued to be the negative cycle that continued
throughout the most active months of the occupations. Eventually most Occupations were disbanded
and barred by local authorities after months of occupation and no
progress. To date there remains little
legacy of their brief uprising. Unlike
the Tea Party, they never sought change through the existing mechanisms of
change, namely voting. Thus, unlike the
Tea Party, they had little to no real effect on the political landscape in the
United States.
So
does this status of remaining merely a brotherhood of like-minded individuals
actually place them more firmly in the camp of fanatical movements than the Tea
Party? That’s an issue that requires
more discussion and research. Does a
fanatical movement cease to be a fanatical movement simply because they move
from complaint to action?
According to Eric Hoffer, the answer
is, NO. His original questions and
analyses focused on clearly powerful political groups – his concern was how
people were persuaded to join those mass movements. In Hoffer’s analysis, it is the mindset of
the adherents, the disaffected who join the movements, that matters. It is also the use of a symbolic devil to
rhetorically constitute the identity of the group that gives rise to a
fanatical movement. Unlike the Civil
Rights movement, for example, there is something the movement is against
(Obama, the 1%) rather than for (Civil Rights).
This is how Hoffer distinguishes mass movements from social
movements.
On
these criteria, both the Tea Party and #Occupy qualify as fanatical political
movements. Both serve as brotherhoods for
the disaffected, even in the early stages where no clear political policy or
agenda was available. It might be argued
that the Tea Party was a more effective fanatical movement since it did in fact
change political history. But it is not the success of the movement per
se that qualifies it for fanatical status, as suggested by Eric Hoffer and laid
out here.
More
research and thoughtful discussion of Hoffer’s theories and how they can inform
our rhetorical studies of contemporary political movements is necessary.
References
Covington,
E. (2009). Life, liberty and the pursuit of
security: Ideographs in popular
Conservative political rhetoric. Paper
presented at the 2010 Theodore Clevenger Honors Conference, Southern States
Communication conference, Memphis, TN.
Dunlop,
D. (2009). The six unifying agents in
Wingnut rhetoric. Paper presented to the
2009 Tennessee Communication Association conference, Natchez Trace, TN.
“Editorial
Note.” The Occupied Wall Street Journal, volume 2, OccupyMedia Publisher,
October 8, 2011. Web. Retrieved September 12, 2012. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/68041981?access_key=key-2bz013r79s3ur26g6wcg
Hoffer,
E. (1951). The True Believer: Thoughts on the nature of mass movements. HarperCollins, NY.
Katel,
P. (2010). The Tea Party Movement. CQ Researcher, 20 (11).
Limbaugh,
R. (2009). Keynote address to the
Conservative Political Action convention,
February, 2009, Washington, D.C.
Manski,
R. (2011). “What Liberty Square Means: The progress of revolutions.” The
Occupied Wall Street Journal, vol.2, OccupyMedia, October 8, 2011. Web.
Retrieved September 12, 2012. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/68041981?access_key=key-2bz013r79s3ur26g6wcg
New
York Times / CBS Poll: National Survey
of Tea Party Supporters. April 5-12,
2010. http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters?ref=politics#document/p1
Page,
S. & Jagoda, N. (2010, July 8). What
is the Tea Party? A growing state of
mind. USA Today, pp.
Palin,
S. (2010). Keynote address to the Tea Party Convention,
February 2010, Nashville, TN.
No comments:
Post a Comment