The Effect of the Tea Party Formed in 2009 on Elections in 2012 in the US - Research Paper Example

Introduction In 2008, Barack Obama made history by becoming the first African-American President of the United s. In 2009, conservative Republicans decided that they had enough of Obama, and declared, in essence, that they were mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. These individuals felt that their views were not receiving adequate representation in the halls of Congress or the White House. A rallying cry went out across the land for smaller government, lower taxes, and repealing Obamas health care bill. A group was formed on just this platform, and they were known, nationwide, as “The Tea Party.” They were so called because of their parallels with the Boston Tea Party in 1789, which was, in itself, a protest against high taxes and lack of representation. The group became politically active, running candidates in the United States House and Senate in 2010, as well as candidates in statewide offices. They were largely considered to be successful in electing candidates to offices. That said, in 2012, there is increasingly evidence that their influence has waned – more Americans see them extremely unfavorably than see them extremely favorably, and there has not been any 2012 Tea Party rallies scheduled. Fewer GOP candidates are affixing the Tea Party label to their candidacy, and there was not talk about the Tea Party in the 2012 Republic Presidential Primaries. Therefore, there is considerable evidence that they will have little, if any, influence on the 2012 elections. This paper will examine the roots of the Tea Party, analyze why the Tea Party was important, and analyze its influence on the 2010 Southern United States House Races and the probably influence on the 2012 House races. Description of the Tea Party The “Tea Party” movement began in 2009, according to Ceccarelli (2011). Ceccarelli (2011) explains that the movement is modeled after the Tea Party movement in 1773. Just as the Tea Party movement in 1773 protested because they felt that they were losing their voice to the establishment, and that they are being overtaxed, so the current Tea Party movement has these same concerns as the foundation for their movement. The specific actions taken by the federal government which galvanized the Tea Party movement was the auto bailout, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the stimulus bill. The nationwide protests that coalesced around these actions, and other actions of its ilk, began in February of 2009. The Tea Party movements platform revolves around fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets. The official platform also eschews social issues, according to Ceccarelli (2011). Their stated goals did not include forming a third party, but, rather, that the United States House and Senate should be purged of incumbents who are not sufficiently conservative. These Senators and Representatives are known by Tea Partiers and conservatives, in general, as “RINOs” (Republican in Name Only). However, although these individuals are known to be fiscally conservative, Williamson et al. (2011) argues that the movement is in favor of such big-government, financially costly programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This is because the Tea Party Movement, as a whole, is in favor of individuals who work for their benefits, and Social Security and Medicare are both financed by workers, and they are against individuals who are perceived as not working for their benefits, such as welfare recipients and individuals on Medicaid (Williamson et al., 2011). The Tea Party movement, as a whole, eschews social issues. However, in looking at individual Tea Party candidates, social issues are very much a bedrock of their positions, and these social positions track conservative. Keil & Keil (2011) examined the commonalities between Tea Party candidates by examining the websites for all the Tea Party candidates who ran for the House of Representatives in 2010. They found that the candidates were predominantly pro-life. The major differences between Tea Party candidates on the issue of abortion was how extreme they were on this issue – some Tea Party candidates oppose abortion for any reason, why others oppose most abortions, but would allow exceptions for abortions related to incest, rape or pregnancies which endanger the life of the mother. Tea partiers also, by and large, are for traditional marriage and are anti-same sex marriage – marriage is to be between one man and one woman. Foreign policy, like social issues, is also not a focus of the Tea Party Movement. That said, there are positions taken by individual Tea Party candidates, and there is also conflicting wings within the Tea Party in this regard. According to Mead (2011), the Tea Party is split between the isolationist wing, unofficially led by United States Representative, Ron Paul and his son, Senator Rand Paul and the neo-conservative wing, unoffically led by Sarah Palin and boasting commentator Bill OReilly as one its spokesmen. According to Mead (2011), Ron and Rand Paul would like to end contact between the United States and the outside world, which would mean not engaging in anymore wars or getting involved in anymore conflicts. Palin and OReilly, however, would like the see the United States pursue wars and conflicts, whenever deemed necessary, with an eye towards winning (Mead, 2011). Overall Effect on Political Races According to Gervais & Taylor (2011) the Tea Party serves a purpose in providing an additional distinction between Democratic and Republican candidates. They argue that the presence of the “Democrat” label or the “Republican” label on candidates provides cues to the voters. They make the further presumption that, the more that the two candidates, the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate are distinguished from one another, the more efficient the voter will be in using the partisan cues. The Tea Party Movement is considered by Gervais & Taylor (2011) to be a “sub-partisan” cue, in that it provides more context and more cues to the Tea Party Candidate (Gervais & Taylor, 2011). For instance, if there is a Tea Party candidate in the race, then the voters know what this particular candidate will stand for, even if they do not know much about the Tea Party platform. A liberal voter will see that one of the candidates is a Tea Party candidate, and presume that this candidate is a fringe candidate who believes in extremely low taxes and a limited government. A conservative voter would assume the same, even if nothing else is known about this candidate. Same with a moderate – the Tea Party label is helpful in designating to the voter that there is a wide distinction between one candidate and the other candidate. Therefore, candidates would presumably benefit from the Tea Party label, because, if this candidate is otherwise not well-known, the Tea Party label will help the candidate define him or herself to the voters. Gervais & Taylor (2011) further states that the Tea Party label is not cognitively challenging to interpret, and, because of this, it increases voter turnout in elections that feature a Tea Party candidate. Gervais & Taylor (2011) go on to explain how cues work in partisan voting. Cues serve the purpose of giving unstated information about the candidate to voters who might not know the positions that these candidates might take. The Republican label on a candidate might cue the voter to that persons stance on abortion rights. A Democrat label might provide a cue as to the candidates position on environmental protection. Etc. Gervais & Taylor (2011) state that such cues are important in political races. The stereotypes regarding the parties provide information to the voters regarding candidate positions regarding environmental protections, abortion rights, taxes, the size of government, and the like. Group endorsements also provide an important heuristic to the voters, argues Gervais & Taylor (2011). An endorsement by a group which is aligned with a voters values provides information to the voter that this candidate also aligns with that voters values. Gervais & Taylor (2011) further state that these types of cues – party labels and group endorsements – are more important to those who are politically unaware and/or uneducated. Moreover, Gervais & Taylor (2011) argue that, in races where such heuristics and cues are not afforded, politically unaware and/or uneducated voters are not able to discern a difference between candidates. Therefore, the Tea Party candidates set themselves apart from regular Republicans in political races. The specific platform of the Tea Party, argues Gervais & Taylor (2011) is that their motives in getting into political races are that the Republican Party should be purged of individuals with less-than-conservative credentials. Therefore, the Tea Party candidate signals to the voter that he or she is substantially more conservative than the average Republican. The Tea Party is considered to be sub-partisan by Gervais & Taylor (2011) because the label denotes that the candidate differs from the national Republican party on public policy grounds. The Tea Party has had some parallels in history, according to Gervais & Taylor (2011), including “Blue Dog Democrats,” and “Dixiecrats, Democratic candidates who are more conservative than the establishment Democrats. However, unlike the earlier incarnations of sub-partisan groups, the Tea Party movement is providing an identity for its followers – that of ultra-conservatism. Moreover, Tea Party followers are part of the Tea Party because they want to express dissent, not just influence party politics (Gervais & Taylor, 2011). Karpowitz et al. (2011) is in accord with this view, as they argue that, while “Republican” and “Democrat” designations traditionally provide a way of aggregating citizens preferences, in times of economic or social turmoil, such as what was roiling in the 2010 mid-term elections, social movements, such as the Tea Party Movement, become the preferred vehicle of protest against governmental policies (Karpowitz et al., 2011). Effect of the Tea Party on 2010 Southern House Races The Tea Party has widely been credited with helping the GOP overtake the House of Representatives in 2010 (Blake, 2012). The Tea Party movement should be especially vibrant in the Southern United States, if the hypothesis of Cho et al. (2012) holds true. They state that the regions of the country which are especially hard hit, economically, and have a large number of adherents to conservative principles, are the regions of the country where the Tea Party Movement should have strongholds (Cho et al., 2012). Since the southern region of the United States has long been a Republican stronghold, and since the southern region of the United States consists of such perpetually economically deprived states as Mississippi and Alabama, these states should seem ripe for strong Tea Party movements. Indeed, Cho et al. (2012) found that the largest Tea Party activities occurred in a traditional southern state, North Carolina, as Raleigh, North Carolina had the largest number of Tea Party memberships, at 1,500. Cho et al. (2012) further found that another southern state, although it is not necessarily considered to be a “true” southern state, Florida, also boasts a large number of tea partiers – the city of Tampa also has 1,500 tea party members (Cho et al., 2012). McNitt (2012) confirms the suspicion that Tea Party candidates in the House of Representatives, in the 2010 mid-term elections, were more likely to come from Southern States. He states that the conservative nature of the Tea Party makes it more likely that Tea Party candidates will come from voting districts which are traditionally conservative, have large rural regions, fewer government employees and fewer minorities. McNitt (2012) states that the Representative in the House which were elected as Tea Party candidates were significantly more likely to come from Southern States than are non-Tea Party Republicans and Democrats. However, McNitt (2012) also was careful to note that the Tea Party wing should not be considered to be simply the Southern Wing of the Republican Party in the House. 57% of Southern Republicans are not Tea Party candidates, and 31% of Tea Party candidates did not come from Southern States. According to The Washington Post, Marco Rubio and Allen West of Florida, Jeff Landry from Louisiana, and Tim Scott of South Carolina were Tea Party Candidates who all won seats in the United States House of Representatives in 2010. Jeff Landry is a Tea Party-backed candidate who won a seat in the House of Representatives, representing South Louisiana. Landry states, on his website, that he is “pro-family” and fights the White House on debt issues. He was, proudly, the only member of Congress who refused to attend a lecture by Obama about debt issues. He also voted against raising the debt ceiling, and has consistently voted for lower taxes, lower government spending and lower debt. He fought for a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would force Congress to balance its budget, and continues to fight for the Balanced Budget Amendment. He is also a leading advocate for more drilling in the Gulf region. He boasts of being the only member of Congress with a background in the oil and gas industry. He is also a veteran of Desert Storm, and has the military rank of Sergeant. He is also a member of the NRA. He currently serves on the Tea Partys Platform Committee (Jeff Landry). Marco Rubio was another Tea Party backed candidate who took office in the Senate after the 2010 elections. According to his biography, Rubio ascended to the House on a platform of standing up to Washingtons “reckless spending and its assault on the free enterprise system” (Marco Rubio). His overall message is that he is a supporter of “fiscal discipline and [giving] job creators more certainty and confidence to open new businesses and expanding existing ones” (Marco Rubio). Rubios parents were immigrants from Cuba, and both his mother and father worked low-level jobs – his father was a bartender, his mother was a maid, cashier and retail clerk. He, like Jeff Landry, is an advocate of the Balanced Budget Amendment. He is also in the wing of the Tea Party which is not isolationist, as he wants a strong United States presence in the world (Marco Rubio). Allen West is an African-American Tea Party backed candidate from Florida who is currently serving in the House of Representatives. His constituents are in Floridas 22nd District. Allen states on his website that he was born and raised in the inner city of Atlanta, Georgia. West was in the Army and served in both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was in the military for 22 years. As with Landry, West believes in low taxes and low government spending. He also speaks about the Affordable Care Act, stating that it needs to be repealed because of its detrimental effect on small businesses. As for energy independence, he is a proponent of more drilling, but also is in favor of alternative fuel sources. He is in favor of a strong defense against illegal immigration. He also is in the wing of the Tea Party which is in favor of a strong military, and a strong United States presence in the world. Overall, as far as social issues goes, he does not emphasize them, and he also does not emphasize his beliefs regarding the environment (Allen West). Tim Scott is another African-American Tea Party candidate who believes in small government, lower taxes and “restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington.” The first bill that he authored would defund President Obamas health care reform package. He, like West, would like to overhaul the tax code. He also would like to lower the corporate tax rate. Repatriating overseas profits is another mission of Scotts, as he believes that such an act would encourage American companies to bring jobs home. He was a cosponsor of the “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act,” which would cut spending, cap spending going forward and adds a Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution. He is an outspoken critic of labor organizations. He is also a social conservative who has cosponsored bills protecting the American Family values and Second Amendment Rights (Tim Scott). The Tea Party and the 2012 Elections While the Tea Party may have helped the GOP win in 2010, there are indications that the Tea Party might have the opposite effect in the upcoming 2012 elections. According to Blake (2012), Americans are increasingly having a less favorable view of the organization. A Fox News Poll shows that just 30% of Americans have a favorable view of the Tea Party. Another poll, conducted by ABC News showed that there more of an even split between supporters and opponents of the Tea Party. However, there were many more individuals who strongly oppose the Tea Party – 26% - than Americans who strongly support it – 15%. Blake (2012) states that, because so many more Americans are actively opposed to the organization than actively in support of it, the Tea Party may do the GOP more harm than good in the upcoming elections. Furthermore, Blake notes that the enthusiasm regarding the Tea Party has waned, considerably. He notes that there are no major Tea Party rallies scheduled for this election year, and that few GOP candidates are using the Tea Party as a label. The Tea Party is also rarely mentioned in the Presidential campaign trail (Blake, 2012). Which is not to say that the Tea Party will not have an effect on the 2012 elections. Blake (2012) argues that it will have an effect, but the effect is likely to be more positive to the Democrats than to the Republicans. Blake (2012) argues that the group is now seen as extremist and dangerous, and out of touch with the mainstream values of America. Individuals in the GOP argue just the opposite - one states that the Tea Party has become irrelevant, largely because, according to this GOP operative, the values of the Tea Party – lower taxes, smaller government, opposition to the Affordable Care Act – are now embraced by the mainstream. This, in turn, makes the Tea Party less relevant (Blake, 2012). Conclusion Individuals formed the Tea Party because they were fed up with government taxing and spending. The Tea Party formed in 2009 and drew a lot of attention in the 2010 Mid-Term elections, including the 2010 elections in the South. Several candidates were elected to House Seats with the backing of the Tea Party. All of these candidates have similar messages and platforms – they are against big government, against high taxes, want a balanced budget and a strong defense. That said, their influence is waning considerably in the run-up to the 2012 elections. The Tea Party is not brought up in the presidential election rallies, and there are no rallies scheduled. Fewer GOP candidates are aligning themselves with the Tea Party. There are conflicting messages as to why this is so – Democrats state that the Tea Party is irrelevant because they are dangerous extremists, while Republicans state that the Tea Party is relevant because, in essence, it has done its job. According to this Republic view, the values that they espoused, which helped them win office in 2010, are now mainstream, so there is no longer a need for the Tea Party label being affixed to candidates. However, considering the evidence and arguments made by Gervais & Taylor (2010), the view that the Tea Party has become increasingly irrelevant because their values have become mainstream, is unlikely to be inaccurate. After all, Gervais & Taylor (2010) state that underinformed and uneducated voters need “sub-partisan” cues which help them determine if a certain candidate is in line with their personal values. These sub-partisan cues would encompass the Tea Party label. The Tea Party label means that the candidate has certain values and principles, and this would help voters decide for whom to vote. Just a straight designation of “Republican” does not have the same punch, according to Gervais & Taylor (2010). Therefore, it would seem that, if the Tea Party values are still considered to be desirable, candidates would still want to have the Tea Party label associated with their name, even if the values were mainstream. That candidates are increasingly shying away from the label, and, in fact, there are no Tea Party rallies scheduled, in such an important election year, would seem to indicate that the Tea Partys time has come and gone. Therefore, the group probably will have little effect on the 2012 House Races in the South, or any other region. Bibliography Blake, Aaron. “Has the Tea Party Become a GOP Liability?” The Fix. 6 April 2012 [Web] 13 April 2012. Gervais, Bryan & Jeffrey Taylor. “Sub-Party Cues, Party Differences, and Voter Turnout: An Analysis of the 2010 Mid-Term Elections and the Tea Party Movement.” (2011) Web. 10 April 2012. Karpowitz, Christopher, Quin Monson, Kelly Patterson & Jeremy Pope. “Tea Time in America? The Impact of the Tea Party Movement on the 2010 Midterm Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics (April 2011): 303-311. McNitt, Andrew. “The Tea Party in the House: The Shape of Things to Come?” 29 February 2012. Web. 10 April 2012. Mead, Walter. “The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 90.2 (2011):28 – 44. Williamson, Vanessa, Theda Skocpol & John Coggin. “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.” Perspectives on Politics 9.1 (2011) : 25-40. The 50 States: The South. Washington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/50states/south/ Allen West [website] http://west.house.gov/index.php Jeff Landry [website] Retrieved from: http://www.landryforlouisiana.com/meet-jeff/ Tim Scott [website] Retrieved from : http://timscott.house.gov/Biography/ Read More