Tea Party politics this week - is the GOP (finally) taking back their party?

What's interesting about this emerging shift is that this is where we first began investigating the Tea Party 5 years ago:  wanting to know where the GOP ends and the Tea Party begins.  For a long time, there was little difference, since the "devil" of the Tea Party (Barack Obama) was the target of GOP campaigning, too.

But now (theoretically) that we are moving to midterms and a new Presidential election cycle, the "devil" is no longer running, so the Tea Party is losing influence and the GOP seems to be taking back the party from them, perhaps realizing they have no identity once Obama is gone.

They will need something positive to be for because what they were against is no longer an issue.  (or they will need a new anti-thetical trope, but I doubt anything will ever match the fanatical opposition to Obama).

GOP mainstream politicians such as Jeb Bush began this shift years ago (see his 2013 keynote to CPAC).  In that speech, he never mentioned Barack Obama, but instead spoke of what the Republican party stands FOR, not what they stand against.  He noted "we have to stop being against everything."

In essence, the Tea Party needs a new anti-thesis and devil to survive rhetorically. So far the new antithesis seems to be "Benghazi" which is an anti-Hillary (+ Obama) trope.  But Hillary rhetorically turned that back on them in her book recently, accusing them of playing politics "on the backs of dead Americans", which I think significantly weakens for a future anti-thesis.

Not surprising, however, Tea Party leaders such as Sarah Palin and legislators like Ted Cruz are still fixated on Obama and "Obamacare" as a primary problem in the U.S. and still calling for repeal; others such as Rand Paul are slowly backing away from that position.  

Dave Weigel - Slate
The Tea Party vs. the Establishment, in Two Newspaper Front Pages

David Freelander - The Daily Beast
Conservative Senator Kicks Tea Party to the Curb

Stephanie Grace - The Advocate
The GOP keeping the Tea Party at bay.

Jonathan Martin - The New York Times
On Win Streak, Mainline G.O.P. Takes Tougher Stance Toward Tea Party

Jake Sherman - Politico
John Boehner’s friends plot tea party crackdown

Dan Balz - Washington Post
At Republican Leadership Conference, the struggle over the GOP’s future continues

Sean Sullivan - Washington Post
The tea party and GOP establishment are happily married in the Iowa Senate race

David Montgomery - The New York Times
Slowed Elsewhere, Tea Party Still Wields Considerable Sway in Texas Races

Tea Partiers Swear They Are Not Racist, But Their Actions Beg To Differ - Occupy Democrats

Occupydemocracy via Twitter:

Tea Partiers Swear They Are Not Racist, But Their Actions Beg To Differ - Occupy Democrats:

Salvatore Aversa writes in this analysis of the Value Voters Summit:

"It is not often I will say somebody is being racist, simply because they disagree with President Obama.  Despite that, there are times when arguments become latent with racism.  It is becoming more and more apparent that the Republican Modus Operandi is complaining because there is a black guy in the White House.  We see it when teabaggers carry signs of President Obama with a bone in his nose.  We see it when Republicans put criticisms on President Obama, that never seemed to be an issue before, like the raising of the debt ceiling, or even simply keeping the government operating.

 This has never been more apparent than with Joe Wurzelbacher, who recently published on his website an article by an unattributed author.  In it, the article states that wanting a “white Republican President” does not “make you racist, it just makes you American.”

'via Blog this'

Tea Party Devil and Holy Cause redux: "I hope he fails!"

Once again, I assert that the "devil" of the fanatical Tea Party movement is Barack Obama - and Limbaugh's 2009 rallying cry of "I hope he fails!" is their primary identity, their fanatical "Holy Cause" and their one true political goal. There is nothing about this movement rhetoric that is rooted in reality and reaching toward a better future for all Americans. This is once again, as always, about demonizing and obstructing the "un-American" "tyrannical" "socialist" "dictatorial" President of the United States, Barack Obama.

(The democratically elected, majority-winning POTUS, mind you - but, hey, let's not let that annoying fact get in our fanatical way).

Their "Baracknophobia" and fanatical Holy Cause to defeat Obama the devil doesn't get any clearer than this:

"Tea Party Nation urges businesses to stop hiring in order to hurt Obama"

Right Wing Watch writes:

"Tea Party Nation sent to their members today a message from activist Melissa Brookstone urging businesspeople to “not hire a single person” to protest the Obama administration’s supposed “war against business and my country.” Brookstone writes that business owners should stop hiring new employees in order to stand up to “this new dictator,” the “global Progressive socialist movement,” Hollywood, the media and Occupy Wall Street."

Brookstone writes:

Resolved that: The Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Senate, in alliance with a global Progressive socialist movement, have participated in what appears to be a globalist socialist agenda of redistribution of wealth, and the waging of class warfare against our constitutional republic's heritage of individual rights, free market capitalism, and indeed our Constitution itself, with the ultimate goal of collapsing the U.S. economy and globalizing us into socialism.

Resolved that: President Obama has seized what amount to dictatorial powers to bypass our Congress, and that because the Congress is controlled by a Progressive socialist Senate that will not impeach one of their kind, they have allowed this and yielded what are rightfully congressional powers to this new dictator.

Resolved that: By their agenda and actions, those in our government who swore oaths to protect and defend our Constitution have committed treason against the United States.

Resolved that: The current administration and Democrat majority in the Senate, in conjunction with Progressive socialists from all around the country, especially those from Hollywood and the left leaning news media (Indeed, most of the news media.) have worked in unison to advance an anti-business, an anti-free market, and an anti-capitalist (anti-individual rights and property ownership) agenda.

…

Resolved that: Our President, the Democrats-Socialists, most of the media, and most of those from Hollywood, have now encouraged and supported "Occupy" demonstrations in our streets, which are now being perpetrated across the globe, and which are being populated by various marxists, socialists and even communists, and are protesting against business, private property ownership and capitalism, something I thought I'd never see in my country, in my lifetime.

I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.

And there you have it . . . bat-shit-crazy redux. The Tea Party fanaticism is back and more hyperbolic and vitriolic than ever. Now our democratically elected President - in cahoots with OccupyWallStreet - has created a war within America - "I...resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped."

This will surely be interpreted as a call to the Holy Cause (and most likely violence) for the nuttiest wingnuts - mark my words.

This.is.not.good.

Is the Tea Party Over?

Article from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/is-the-tea-party-over.html

UPDATE (10-19-11): Obviously not! http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-urges-businesses-stop-hiring-order-hurt-obama

President Obama as rhetorical devil of the Tea Party . . .

This billboard recently covered up by the Tea Party movement makes an important point for our case here:

Hoffer makes clear that a mass movement of "true believers" must have a clear anti-thesis to create the essential identity of the movement. He states, "Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil."

I still maintain that being "anti-Obama" is the primary rhetorical identification of the Tea Party movement, and it has been since day one. Although certainly there are racist elements and members of the Tea Party movement, the identification is not necessarily racist per se, but it IS essentially primarily and anti-Obama. Thoughts?

Former POTUS Bill Clinton on radical anti-government rhetoric . . .

Bill Clinton looking back at the rhetorical climate of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to compare and contrast with 2010 Tea Parties.

Interesting but seemingly rare example of someone on the left explicitly countering RW rhetoric with a direct argument rather than mockery or silence.

In an interview with the New York Times on Friday, Clinton warned of the affect that angry political rhetoric might have on antigovernment radicals like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh; he pointed to Rep. Michele Bachmann calling the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress "the gangster government" at a tax day Tea Party rally on Thursday.

"They are not gangsters," Clinton told the newspaper. "They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do."

Clinton said that demonizing the government with incendiary language can have effects beyond just rallying a crowd.

I have trouble seeing the Tea Party as a social movement as long as there are so many anti-government radicals associated with it. Defining our democratically elected government as anti-American or making a false analogy with Britain''s King George is damaging our ability to find any common ground. To limit "American" to those on the right - or to identify the right in anti-thesis to the "un-American" left = is to spur a fanatical patriotism for many radical conservatives who may ultimately choose to take violent action against this supposedly "un-American" and uber-liberal government.

There is perhaps a fine rhetorical line between advocacy for better ideas and conditions to help groups and the kind of propaganda that merely seeks to demonize and destroy groups. I think as long as the Tea Party crafts and performs a political identity from what they are against rather than what they are for, and as long as their anti-thetical demon is this administration and government, then citizens will have to be extra alert to the possibility of hyperbolic rhetoric gone too far awry - and be prepared to speak more directly and firmly in return about common grounds and "American" values in the United States.

There can be no mere difference of opinion on this issue it seems to me. To turn Americans against one another by demarcating an "us" and a "them" and to refuse to share our common grounds as Americans is to open ourselves to civil warfare - be it verbally punishing or physically violent.

I think that rhetorical state of affairs in the United States today is unacceptable in light of our history and traditions - and the efforts of the Founding Fathers to provide us all with a SHARED democratic republic - and an enduring plan of harmony and unity - liberty and responsibility - reason and real debate. And any useful debate on the policies and future of the United States must begin at least with the common ground and understanding that we are ALL Americans. As such we have a right and a responsibility to pay attention to our government, but to portray the democratically elected government as un-American is outside the frame of useful or rational debate. It hurts us all.

Summary - Eric Hoffer "The True Believer" (1951)

Pasted below is the summary handout I've used in my rhetoric classes to begin the discussions of Eric Hoffer's work on True Believers and Mass Movements. I invite you to read through it and see if you think any of these characteristics apply to popular Conservative Talk Radio/Fox News personalities (aka "wingnuts") and/or the Tea Party movements we have witnessed since Barack Obama became President of the United States. Note particularly Hoffer's key insights at the end - and the essential insight that a mass movement need not have a god, but it MUST have a devil. It is this rhetorical anti-thesis that creates their primary identification as a group. "We are who we are because we are not THAT."

For Hitler's Nazi Germany, they were who they were because they were not Jewish (or any other non-Aryan group). Hitler himself remarked that if the Jews had not existed, he would have had to invent them (to be the devil) for the Nazi identity.

So . . .I wonder: who would Tea Partiers be if there was no Barack Obama?

My friend Genma related her experiences at the convention to me last night...and she was simply amazed that the group was so tightly focused on Obama as the (un-American, un-Christian) devil.

Indeed, this morning the keynote address at the convention is titled: "A comparison of the current administration to Marxist dictators of Latin America." (Okay, I'm stumped. Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama is like a Marxist dictator because . . . ???)

Note the determination to associate President Obama with anything "un-American" . . . birthers say he isn't American outright. Others simply keep calling him a "socialist" while still others refuse to believe the man is a Christian. This repeated mantra of "un-American Obama" serves a clear purpose in the identity (and motivation and fervor) of the movement.

I'll leave it to @coviner to tell you about what he found in his ideograph research and the connection between popular Conservative pundits and these movements and the rhetorical motivation that works to fuel this association and fanatical opposition to the President.

_____________________________________________________________

COMM 4650 – Long

Hoffer, E. (1951). The true believer: Thoughts on the nature of mass movements. New York: Harper and Row.

Definition: The true believer = “. . . the man of fanatical faith who is ready to sacrifice his life for a holy cause” (p. xii)

Rationale:

“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)

“The assumption that mass movements have many traits in common does not imply that all movements are equally beneficent or poisonous. The book passes no judgments, and expresses no preferences. It merely tries to explain…(p. xiii)

Hypotheses:

“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)

“ . . . a 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)

Potential Followers and ‘True Believers’ = The Disaffected

“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)

Content vs. Form:

“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)

Preface: Part III - United Action and Self-Sacrifice (pp. 58-61)

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.

“The reader is expected to quarrel with much that is said in this part of the book….this is not an authoritative textbook. It is a book of thoughts, and it does not shy away from half-truths so long as they seem to hint at a new approach and help to formulate new questions. ‘To illustrate a principle,’ says Bagehot, ‘you must exaggerate much and you must omit much.” (pp. 60).

Factors promoting self-sacrifice (pp. 62-90):

1. identification with a collective whole (44-46)

2. make-believe (47)

3. deprecation of the present (48-55)

4. “things which are not” -

5. doctrine – not meaning but certitude (58-59)

6. fanaticism (60-63)

“What surprises one, when listening to the frustrated as the decry the present and all its works, is the enormous joy they derive from doing so. Such delight cannot come form the mere venting of a grievance. There must be something more – and there is. By expiating upon the incurable baseness and vileness of the times, the frustrated soften their feeling of failure and isolation….(p75)

“The effectiveness of a doctrine does not come from its meaning but from its certitude…presented as the embodiment of the one and only truth. If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable. One has to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine….simple words are made pregnant with meaning and made to look like symbols in a secret message. There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate true believer.” (pp. 80-81).

“The fanatic is perpetually incomplete and insecure. He cannot generate self-assurance out of his individual sources – our of his rejected self – but finds it only by clinging passionately to whatever support he happens to embrace. The passionate attachment is the essence of his blind devotion and religiosity, and he sees in it the sources of all virtue and strength….He sacrifices his life to prove his worth.” (p. 85)

“The fanatic cannot be weaned away from his cause by an appeal to reason or his moral sense. He fears compromise and cannot be persuaded to qualify the certitude and righteousness of his holy cause.” (p. 85).

Mass Movements vs. Armies (p. 88-90).

Unifying agents (pp. 91 – 128):

1. hatred

2. imitation

3. persuasion and coercion

4. leadership

5. action

6. suspicion

Key insights/Summary from The True Believer (P. Bsumek, James Madison University, 2000)

• 1. We may be godless, but we are not irreligious.

• 2. Mass organizations appeal to us through appeals of self- advancement.

• 3. Mass movements offer and in fact require self-renunciation.

• 4. The logical content of the message is irrelevant.

• 5. A mass movement should have a god, but it must have a devil. (p.91)

• Characteristics of a devil:

• Devil is ugly.

• Devil is powerful

• Devil is strangely attractive

• Devil is omnipresent

• 6. If you want to stop a movement, you cannot argue against it logically.

• 7. Movements offer freedom, but only deliver brotherhood.

• 8. Proselytizing as a sign of doubt not of truth.