The Tea Party Movement History Essay Example

WHAT WAS SOCIETY’S RESPONSE TO THE MOVEMENT? 

American society was quite receptive to The Tea Party Movement that emerged after the 2008 financial crisis and the presidential election of Barak Obama. The Tea Party Movement (TPM) was effective in its mobilization efforts to gather massive support and endorsements from high-ranking political figures. Consequentially, a relatively small, grassroots movement transforms into to being something deeply entrenched in American politics that still hassignificant ramifications today. The movement’s success was heavily accredited to the way political and religious leaders framed the movement as well as the effective tactics that made their grievances infiltrate American politics at an opportunistic moment. In this essay, I will analyze the Tea Party Movement through McAdam’s Political Process Theory, and examine the complexities of the sociopolitical environment at the time to elicit certain collective behaviors from the Party’s followers. 

GOVERNMENT INTERACTIONS

The interactions from high-ranking governmental figures with the Tea Party wereinstrumental in the institutionalization and legitimizing force of the TPM. By analyzing the TPM through the Opportunity Model and Threat Model in Political Process Theory, we gain critical insight as to how the movement obtained such political and societal success through this collective behavior theory. The 2008 presidential election results created internal conflict within the Republican Party, causing moderate conservatives to become increasingly more polarized to far-right politicians. More far-leaning right politicians like Sarah Palin gave the grassroots movement credible institutional access that propelled its following even further. Thus, this conflict among the political elites, combined with the changing political environment was an optimal opportunity for this social movement to form. The movement was unique in its ability to framethe opportunity to act as both “good” and “bad” news simultaneously (McAdam 1999).Thiscombined framing allowedfor arguments to be made that inactionwill onlycontinue to deteriorate the statusquo,as well as capitalize on the changing political alignment. While governmental figures played a role in institutionalizing the movement, the media greatly contributed to the success of the TPM as well (McAdam 1999, p. 42-44). A major part in the movement’s stride to be a legitimate political force has also been attributed to the news’s role- and specificallyFox News- in supporting the movement while it unfolded rather than just reporting on it (Rafail and McCarthy 2018). The media coverage throughout the beginning demonstrations and protests illustrate how conservative America seemed to respond favorably to the movement.

THE PROTESTS

The Tea Party Movement began in early 2009 when CNBC analyst Rick Santelli delivers an impassioned speech declaring that he was tired of big government spending and federal bail outs from the Obama Administration’s stimulus package. The initial protest months later drew massive appeal on National Tax Day on April 15th, 2009 as some 250,000 to 500,000 people across 200 cities in the U.S. called for an end to big government and claimed that they had been “Taxed Enough Already” (The Week 2015). This massive demonstration drew the attention of the federal government and particularly the Republican Party. Several months later, Sarah Palin declared herself as the de facto leader of the organization and asked that the Tea Party to affiliate itself with theRepublican Party. These demands were imperative to the survival and institutionalization of the movement. Resource Mobilization theory explains how while social movements may at times arise without a central leader, there is a need for leadership and a need for institutionalized channels for the movement to sustain itself. Palin, like McAdam’s points out, was willing and even aggressive in supporting this movement’s cause (McAdam 1999, p. 38). Therefore, the TPM had support both outside and inside traditional institutions to meet their demands and address their grievances. This institutional, elite access was vital to the success the movement sees.

A COUNTER APPROACH 

The TPM could actually be viewed as a countermovement itself. The Tea Party came about as a response to progressive social change and governmental change. The emergence of Tea Party and its severe anti-Obama sentiments originated after Obama’s 2009 Stimulus package but especially after socially progressive policies like the Affordable Care Act were enacted. As a result of these policies, the TPM strengthened and used repressive tactics that countermovement’s typically utilize to deter social progress. Therefore, the TPM can be viewed as a countermovement against the progressive movement in the U.S. at the time that implemented slogans like “Yes We Can” and pushed for more socially progressive policies. The Tea Party purposefully worked to stop any change to the status quo and deter any political and social power away from Democratic policies.These countermovement tactics were successful in mitigating socially progressive agendas to ever pass at state and local levels. As the media perpetuated stereotypes of an “us” being strong-willed, Christian, and capitalistic-valued Americans versus “them” being supposed Muslim socialists, it became clear the way the movement was framing the problem. There was diagnostic framing of portraying Obama as a threat to American Democracy that led to the motivational framing that gave the emotional, patriotic call to action to protest and protect their country. The framing was very effective in essentially halting Democratic policies as evident in two ways: First, the 2010 mid-term elections were greatly impacted by the TPM and its affiliation with the GOP (Do Political Protests Matter?) A 2013 research shows that strong candidate support for the Tea Party led to more Republican votes in 2010. This implicitly impacted policy as more Republican candidates were able to curtail Democrat’s policies once elected into office. Secondly, it was effective in establishing a chasm within the GOP which led to politicians being increasingly more polarized to the right.As these massive protests were occurring, incumbent politicians were more likely to vote moreconservatively in Congress than they would have beforehand (Madestam et al 2013). Thus, the TPMwas tactfully designed to counteract the shifts towards social change in America at the time, and their institutionalization into the GOP was effective in stagnating this sociopolitical shift altogether. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, conservative society in America responded quite supportively to the movement. Through the Political Process Theory we can see the different methods and explanations of mobilization that wereeffective in obtaining support throughout society andwithin institutions. With the abundance of social change that came at the onset of the ObamaAdministration’s first term, there was an opportunistic model to protest such change,while simultaneouslyposing social change as a threat to the status quo. This threat was perpetuated and communicated through themedia andpoliticians effectively, however the tactics used throughout the movementcan be perceived as being quite repressive. This suggests the movement as a whole was a countermovement detesting social progress. Conservative Americans were very responsive and agreeable to the TPM’sframing of their grievances with their new president, and repressive- albeit at times down right racist- call to action was appealing to this conservative base. All in all, the TPM was a legit political force after endorsements came in fromhigh-profilepolitical figures, and the impacts the TPM has on the Republican Party continue to have significant influence on American politicstoday.