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

Obamacare - The Rest of the Story - NYTimes.com

Obamacare - The Rest of the Story - NYTimes.com:

The conclusion of Bill Keller's analysis questions whether the opposition to Obamacare is simply (fanatical) opposition to Obama:

 "The Democrats were passionately in favor of enrolling the uninsured, but many would have preferred a government-run program, or at least a public option. What Obamacare has wrought is the kind of market-driven reformation that Republicans pretend to believe in. Which makes you wonder how much of their opposition rests on the merits, and how much is just a loathing for anything associated with Barack Obama."  (Emphasis mine)

'via Blog this'

Forward Progressives — Sarah Palin Shows Her Stupidity Once Again: Obama Risking “Impeachment” Over Debt Ceiling

Forward Progressives — Sarah Palin Shows Her Stupidity Once Again: Obama Risking “Impeachment” Over Debt Ceiling:

I'm not sure I would write Palin off as merely stupid.  She is a True Believer and for her Tea Party audience her rhetoric does not have to be logical, it only has to be certain.  (See Hoffer).  This is a great (i.e. classic) example of fanatical rhetoric.  

Here's part of what I wrote about Sarah Palin's rhetoric in February 2010 (after we saw her speak at The Tea Party convention in Nashville):

Much ado about Sarah's rhetoric . . . and why it matters.

 “. . . With that said, however, I will acknowledge that based on the evidence from our ongoing research, I do think Palin and the Tea Parties are rhetorically dangerous because of the fanaticism they breed toward the US Government, and in particular, the irrational hatred and fear they exploit and nurture toward out current President, Barack Obama. She clearly stated in Nashville that her motives are to start a revolution . . . The problem with Sarah Palin is that she herself is a True Believer . . . I honestly think she has no clue what she is doing, and I honestly think she believes she is doing a really great thing for America. (You betcha!) . . . someone with very little solid education about human history recklessly running strategy and calling rhetorical plays without full consideration or even awareness of the potential consequences. And wish as we might, she is not going away - indeed, her voice is getting bigger, thanks to Fox News.”

'via Blog this'

More of this, please!

As I said earlier this week, what needs to happen rhetorically is for the GOP to start casting the Tea Party as the bad guys and the GOP and traditional Conservatives as the good guys.  As President Obama said October 1st, the Tea Party is "one faction of one party in one house".   The political right needs to run with that . . . and that appears to be finally beginning.   

Here is Scott Galupo from The American Conservative today:

Why are Republicans inflicting real, immediate, and tangible harm on the economy in order to accomplish the impossible (delay or defund Obamacare) address an abstract future threat (debt) or merely to save face? Why isn’t the majority of the House majority isolating its rightmost faction and ending this pointlessly asinine pissing match?

Contra the conventional wisdom, I maintain that no one in leadership will lose his job. The very nature of Tea Party opposition, whether it issues from the likes ofBazooka Ted and His Gang in the Senate or the unappeasable Jacobins in the House, is to throw weight without consequence. They evince no interest in actually wielding power from the inside, which would require restraint, conciliation, and moderation. They are hysterics on the brink of utter demoralization. The danger they pose to democratic norms, institutional comity, and political functionality is precisely why they can’t be bargained with; they must be marginalized.

 It’s time, Republicans: it’s time to throw the One Ring into Mount Doom. (emphasis mine)

Word.  More of this, please!!

The Shutdown Party: Our view - (USA Today Editorial)

USA Today editorial position - October 1st, 2013

The Shutdown Party: Our view:

As the government shutdown loomed, many Americans did what comes naturally in matters regarding Washington: They ignored it.Now that the shutdown has happened, many people are inclined toward a second default position: Blame everyone.

Both positions fit the dismally low view that Americans have of government in general, and Congress in particular.

In this case, however, the "they're all bums" reaction is off-base. This shutdown, the first in 17 years, isn't the result of two parties acting equally irresponsibly. It is the product of an increasingly radicalized Republican Party, controlled by a disaffected base that demands legislative hostage-taking in an effort to get what it has not been able to attain by the usual means: winning elections.

Call it the Tea Party shutdown. The group will wear the badge proudly. 

Pressed by this uncompromising fringe, Republicans leaders in the House are making demands that are both preposterous and largely unrelated to budgetary matters in return for keeping government running. Most absurdly, they want President Obama to undermine the health care law that he ran on in 2008 and 2012, and now considers his signature domestic accomplishment. 

No president of either party could accept that kind of badgering. No president should.

 (emphasis mine)

'via Blog this'

Jon Stewart Destroys Fox News Over Syria Coverage: 'Who Cares HOW We Avoided A War...' (VIDEO)

Jon Stewart - the man who brought us "Baracknophobia"  - blasts Fox this week for their fanatical opposition to President Obama ("the devil").  They do this not with well reasoned argument on policy but rather with fear that serves to increase and feed their "brotherhood".

I get that Fox opposes the Syria peace plan because its modus operandi is to foment dissent in the form of a relentless, irrational contrarianism to Barack Obama and all things Democratic to advance its ultimate objective of creating a deliberately misinformed body politic whose fear, anger, mistrust and discontent is the manna upon which it sustains its parasitic, succubus like existence, BUT... sorry, I blacked out for a second I was saying something?  (emphasis mine)

This is epic.  Watch:

Jon Stewart Destroys Fox News Over Syria Coverage: 'Who Cares HOW We Avoided A War...' (VIDEO):

'via Blog this'

Glenn Beck Bringing Anti-Immigrant Conspiracy Theories To Tea Party Rally | Blog | Media Matters for America

Of course he is.

Glenn Beck Bringing Anti-Immigrant Conspiracy Theories To Tea Party Rally | Blog | Media Matters for America:

'via Blog this'

Welcome to the Rhetoric Goat!

Welcome!

Eric Covington and I started this blog in the Spring of 2010 as we prepared to see Sarah Palin speak at the first Tea Party National Convention in Nashville, Tn.  Thanks to the generosity of then MTSU Associate Dean of Liberal Arts, Mark Byrnes, we had been able to purchase two tickets to the dinner and her keynote speech at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel.  We started this blog as a place to talk about our ideas and refer others who might be interested in what we were studying, too.

This all grew out of a class project that developed in my COMM 4650 (Rhetorical theory, history, and criticism) class in the Spring of 2009.  On April 15th, the first ever "Tea Party" rallies were held around the country, and I was fascinated - pretty soon everyone was.  What on earth were they protesting?  Why?  What was their goal?

What immediately caught our attention were the anti-Obama signs that dominated these events.  Was the Tea Party FOR something or were they just AGAINST newly elected President Obama?

I assigned the class to read Eric Hoffer's work on "the True Believer" and his theory of Mass Movements.  We had some great discussions looking at the Tea Party as well as the "Hope" campaign of Obama.  Did they fit the criteria Hoffer described?  How so?  Why or why not?  And who cares, anyway?

We had also already discussed in class the Republican party's challenge to re-brand themselves following their defeat in the 2008 Presidential election.  How would they use rhetoric to constitute a new identity?  What would they include, what would they change, who would be the voices of leadership?

So naturally, these discussions led us to consider if the Tea Party was going to be  the new face of the Republican party.  Little did we know in the Spring of 2009 how our curiosity about these topics would become political reality in the U.S. throughout the summer at the HealthCare Town Hall meetings and then throughout the next year as the Congress debated Health Care Reform.  And then, in the Fall of 2010, the Tea Party made its formal debut in American politics by capturing a number of Congressional seats.

So the initial insight that prompted me to involve my students in the study of this (then completely) new movement turned out to be amazingly prophetic.  And long before the 2010 mid-term election, we had some insights and predictions gained through rhetorical criticism papers completed for the rhetoric class.  Eric's paper - an analysis of Tea Party ideographs - won the top undergraduate paper award at TCA in 2009.  He continued his research with me during an Independent Study in the Fall of 2009 and the formal paper he finished and submitted was accepted for presentation at the annual Theodore Clevenger Undergraduate Honors conference at the annual SSCA regional convention.

My own work was focused on the application of Hoffer's ideas to the Tea Party movement.  First this required me to turn Hoffer's thoughts about audiences and rhetorical strategies into a theory of fanatical rhetoric.  Then I had to determine how or if it fit the Tea Party movement (and later the OccupyWallStreet movement).  This research and rhetorical theory development is what I am working on now and my papers working through this development have been competitively selected for three major regional conferences (SSCA and CSCA).

I was also interviewed for the NCA online journal, Communication Currents, in the Spring of 2011 about my theories and my perspective on the Tea Party and their "violence-flavored rhetoric" (which was my term for it).  You can watch that interview here:

So throughout the years since we started it in 2010, this blog has become a "dumping ground" of sorts for things we/I found in research and internet journies that related to the study and the development of the fanatical rhetorical theory.  We also share it with others who are interested in studying the Tea Party movement as a "library" of sources.  It is certainly not complete nor does it even have any organization at this time; but the blog gets a significant amount of traffic every month, so somebody must find it useful.

If you search the archives you will find the actual blog posts I wrote along the way describing and explaining what we were seeing rhetorically in the Tea Party.  Most of those posts were in early 2010, but there have been a number of them since then, commenting on signficant developments as the Tea Party gained power.

What tickles us is how right we were.  Our insights may seem like "common sense" now, but they surely weren't in 2009-2010 when this study began.  It's a useful reminder for us about following that "hunch" when it strikes.  I thought this was going to be a huge rhetorical development in American politics, and it was.  It still is.

It's not over.  So stay tuned . . .

Feel free to leave us comments!

p.s. if you want to know the story behind the name, you can find it at the very beginning of the blog - February, 2010.

Yeah...I think I called that one.

I previously commented on the inadvisability of a Dem alliance with OWS.

"As radicalism creeps in, credibility retreats from OWS" by Michael Gerson highlights some of the problems that have given me pause all along.

At what point does a protest movement become an excuse for camping? At what point is utopianism discredited by the seedy, dangerous, derelict fun fair it creates? At what point do the excesses of a movement become so prevalent that they can reasonably be called its essence? At what point do Democratic politicians need to repudiate a form of idealism that makes use of Molotov cocktails?

The emergence of Occupy Wall Street raised Democratic hopes for the emergence of a leftist equivalent to the Tea Party movement. The comparison is now laughable. Set aside, for a moment, the reports of sexual assault in Zuccotti Park and the penchant for public urination. Tea Party activists may hate politicians, but they venerate American political institutions. Veneration does not always involve understanding. But the Tea Party’s goal is democratic influence.

GO(tea)P

http://www.nationalconfidential.com/20111012/democrats-plan-war-on-tea-party-economics/

Democrats are circulating a memo in which they make it clear they plan to brand the GOP as the party of “Tea Party economics” in the months ahead. The memo makes the case that the unpopularity of the Tea Party skyrocketed after the debt ceiling fight, and that America risks a “Tea Party recession” if the GOP continues to obstruct jobs bills from the President and other Democrats.

The Democratic memo argues that “Tea Party economics” are hurting the economic recovery, citing economists from the left and right who have supported solutions like tax cuts, revenue raisers, and jobs bills that Tea Party-influenced Republicans have rejected.

Well, duh!!!

The Tea Party's frustrated state of mind . . .

This weekend, the front page of USA Today features a story on the Tea Party. The reporters, Page and Jagoda, open the article by noting:

"The Tea Party is less a classical political movement than a frustrated state of mind."

I've been saying since April 15th of 2009 that the Tea Party is what Eric Hoffer describes as a "Mass Movement" comprised of "True Believers." This was my original hypothesis and theory that my students set out to investigate with me in COMM 4650, and I specifically addressed the issue of frustration as a key element of their rhetorical movement when Eric and I were preparing to attend the first annual Tea Party convention in Nashville in February, 2010.

Hoffer specifically states in the introduction to his work, "The True Believer: Thoughts on the nature of Mass Movements" (1951) that:

“This book concerns itself chiefly with the active, revivalist phase of mass movements. This phase is dominated by the true believer the [person] of fanatical fairth who is ready to sacrifice his life for a holy cause - and an attempt is made to trace [their] genesis and outline [their nature]. 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)

Eric's study of the rhetorical ideographs that structure and inspire the Tea Party movement was one piece of the puzzle for understanding HOW the frustrated are being persuaded to join this particular mass movement. One of the primary rhetorical strategies of Tea Party advocates is the use of a new political ideograph he identified as "security". By fueling an already frustrated public with repeated and ever greater fears for their economic and homeland security, popular Conservative pundits like Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Palin have been very successful in promoting and growing the Tea Party mass movement.

The Tea Party really has no consistent or coherent political agenda other than to fanatically oppose the current political status quo and many members "...acknowledge they aren't really sure what that allegiance means". However, I realized early on (ala Hoffer) that this particular movement mostly creates identification specifically and consistently through antithesis to President Barack Obama more than any other theme or goal, making him the scapegoat and target for their insecurities and frustrations. Whatever else the Tea Party may be, our first-hand experience with members at the first national Tea Party convention in Nashville confirmed for us the personal and vehement hatred and opposition to the current POTUS by members attending the convention.

While some have chalked this anti-thesis and opposition up to racism or fascism, those answers are too simple to explain the growing membership and rise of the Tea Party movement. Not all of the Tea Party members are racist per se, but racists are certainly an easy target audience for this particular mass movement. And certainly the members of the Tea Party do not consider themselves fascist, instead projecting this quality onto Barack Obama (another fear tactic).

Instead, the more comprehensive answer to the question of the Tea Party movement must investigate the antithetical rhetorical identifications and the FANATICAL nature of its rhetoric as well as the insecurities and frustrations of its "true believer" membership.

"Starting out from the fact that the frustrated predominate among the early adherents of all mass movements . . . "

Ephphatha Poetry: "Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

Ephphatha Poetry: "Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

Posted using ShareThis

This blog post by Tim Wise is SO powerful! Not only does he help us to think more clearly about the Tea Party movements, but it also helps us to think about the reality of "white privilege" in a way that is undeniable.

I remember reading Peggy McIntosh's classic article, "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies," in college and being completely blown away by the experience of having been changed forever by a new way of seeing things. Using what Kenneth Burke called "perspective by incongruity," this new way of seeing was perhaps one of the most powerful motivators for me to study and understand and champion diversity and communication in my doctorate and career.

I wonder if Mr. Wise's post will do the same for a new generation of students . . . if nothing else, he has provided a powerful way to think about and talk about what's happening in this country today. It will be interesting to see what comes of this in the weeks ahead.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over.

The wisdom of Lincoln . . .

I recently finished reading Gore Vidal's "Lincoln" and re-reading all of Lincoln's most important speeches. (See www.Americanrhetoric.com for transcripts).

If there was ever a voice that wisely appeals to our common grounds, who helps us to identify with being AMERICAN despite all of our many disagreements, it was President Lincoln who steadfastly, stubbornly, and successfully refused to let our Union be destroyed.

His first inaugural address in 1861 lays out his logic and reasoning on the matter, and it is wise and relevant in our rhetorical climate today as it was then - and perhaps just as politically unpopular to the same kinds of divisive voices and groups we encounter today.

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

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.

"We need to read Eric Hoffer . . . "

This particular rhetorical criticism project began April 15th, 2009 - the day I was late to my rhetoric class because I was fascinated watching the tea party protests on the noonday local news in Nashville. I was also following blogger Oliver Willis as he began live tweeting from one in Washington, DC. And all I could think about this rhetorical phenomenon as I drove to class was: "we need to read Eric Hoffer."

I began reading and discussing Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" with my rhetoric classes in the Fall of 2001. After 9/11, we spent a great deal of time talking and making sense. And one thing that just didn't make sense was the fanatical nature of Al-Qaeda. It also seemed to me that we needed to be mindful of our own nationalism; that our collective bonding in the face of such horror must not deterioriate into blind fanatical rhetoric and behavior of our own. So, because it helped us make sense of this rhetoric of our time, we would read Eric Hoffer's classic analysis of fanatical social movements at the end of every semester through the spring of 2004.

I've since changed Universities, and I've been teaching other courses since then, so I didn't include Hoffer in my course syllabus when I was assigned to teach a rhetoric course again last spring. It simply didn't seem as necessary to consider his work that winter because fanaticism per se was not so much in the public eye then. Mostly it was celebration and exultation following the election of Mr. Barack Obama as POTUS. And President Obama's rhetoric is not True Believer/fanatic rhetoric. It may be many things, but it is not that. So, I edited Hoffer readings and discussions out of my syllabus in favor of trying some different learning activities that are currently more in vogue with educators (i.e. group projects).

But then came Rush "I hope he fails" Limbaugh . . . and the army of True Believers that followed him. They had a very clear fanatical "devil" = any and all things un-American. And that's fine as far as it goes - I am pretty passionately patriotic, too. But they weren't standing up for American values, they were standing against a very specific un-American devil = the President of the United States, Barack Obama (and his leagues of evil liberal minions).

Jon Stewart captured and confronted the spirit of this developing rhetorical community quite well when he said on the April 7th Daily Show episode "Baracknphobia": "I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing...See, when the guy you disagree with gets elected, he's prob going to do things you disagree with...That's not tyranny, that's Democracy. See, now you're in the MINORITY. It's supposed to taste like a shit taco."


This demonization rhetoric characteristic of True Believer movements intensified throughout the spring, reaching it's first peak and public organization with the Tea Party protests on April 15th, once again prompting a "perspective by incongruity" from Jon Stewart on "Tea Party Tyranny".

To make the President of the United States and the US Government into an Un-American rhetorical devil like this is the hallmark of True Believers and Mass Movements, ala Eric Hoffer. And it was this rhetoric - this increasingly vehement, vitriolic, vengeful and intensely political action - toward our constitutionally elected leaders in the spring of 2009 - that made me throw out the vogue but bland course syllabus and start seriously discussing rhetorical current events with my students again. We voted to scrap the group projects and read Eric Hoffer and take a closer, academic look at this rising mass movement against the POTUS and US Government as our real time rhetorical criticism for the remainder of the semester.

My co-blogger, @coviner, was one of those students - and he has done great research on this topic with me since then, culminating in two conference papers that have used the tools of rhetorical criticism to dispassionately and academically investigate this rhetoric. He began by analyzing popular Conservative pundits, and then turned his attention to the tea parties and other rising true believer voices. His analysis of their ideographs and my application of Hoffer's ideas to this rhetorical discourse community form the core of our ongoing rhetorical criticism project seeking to understand the new social movements that have grown since the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

As luck would have it, the first Tea Party Nation convention is being held in Nashville, and we have the opportunity to study some of the discourse first hand. Thanks to our generous and adventurous assistant Dean of Liberal Arts, and the University mission to support student-faculty scholarship, we have two tickets to their dinner, to enrich and extend the rhetorical analysis we've established this far. We'll share that experience here - as well as some other insights from our ongoing rhetorical criticism project. We invite and welcome your thoughts and ideas, too.

Next up . . . a summary of Eric Hoffer's theories of True Believers and Mass Movements as a method for rhetorical criticism.