Academia has it proven: Tea Party are devout racists!

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Artful D0dger, Sep 4, 2011.

  1. Academics dub tea partyers devout, racist

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/4/academics-tea-partyers-devout-more-likely-racist/

    Two years after it burst onto the political scene, the tea party is getting a critical eye from political science academics who say the movement’s adherents are knowledgeable and religiously devout - but hypocritical and more likely to be motivated by “racial resentment.”

    Gathering this weekend in Seattle for the annual American Political Science Association convention, several professors argued that tea party Republicans are more likely than other voters and more likely than most others in the GOP to harbor racial hostility, as judged by their answers in a broad pre-election survey administered in October.

    “Tea Party activists have denied accusations that their movement is racist, and there is nothing intrinsically racist about opposing ‘big government’ or clean-energy legislation or health care reform. But it is clear that the movement is more appealing to people who are unsympathetic to blacks and who prefer a harder line on illegal immigration than it is to other Americans,” Gary C. Jacobson, a professor at the University of California at San Diego, wrote in his paper, “The President, the Tea Party, and Voting Behavior in 2010.”

    In another paper, Alan I. Abramowitz, a professor at Emory University, crunched the numbers from the American National Election Studies’ October 2010 pre-election survey and drew up a portrait of tea party voters that found they are more likely than other Republicans to be registered to vote, to have contacted a public official or to have donated to a campaign. They also are generally older, wealthier and more likely to be evangelical.

    Like Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Abramowitz also said they were more likely to harbor racial resentment, which he judged based on their answers to questions such as whether blacks could succeed as well as whites if they “would only try harder,” and whether they agreed with the statement that Irish, Italians and Jews overcame prejudice and “blacks should do the same without any special favors.”

    Mr. Abramowitz said tea party supporters were substantially more likely than other voters to question how much effort black Americans are making to advance themselves, versus being held back by social factors.

    “Tea Party supporters displayed high levels of racial resentment and held very negative opinions about President Obama, compared with the rest of the public and even other Republicans,” Mr. Abramowitz wrote. “In a multivariate analysis, racial resentment and dislike of Barack Obama, along with conservatism, emerged as the most important factors contributing to support for the Tea Party movement.”

    More than a dozen papers at the conference peered into the tea party, the movement’s philosophical underpinnings and its role in the 2010 elections. Titles included “Civil Rights and LGBTQ Scapegoats in the Tea Party Movement,” “Passionate Patriotism: Gender and the Discourse of Anger in the Tea Party Movement” and Mr. Abramowitz’s “Partisan Polarization and the Rise of the Tea Party Movement.”

    Tea party leaders laughed off the scrutiny and chuckled when they heard the names of the papers.

    “This is good. You’re making my day,” said Mark Meckler, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots.

    “Statistics show that the vast number of folks that are in the world of academia are liberals,” he said after collecting himself. “Liberals don’t like the tea party movement. I don’t think that’s news.”

    “From my perspective, they’ve literally become a caricature of themselves,” he said of the academy, adding that there are a “few exceptions.”

    The academics posed a wide breadth of questions, but a number of them delved into what makes tea party voters tick. Others explored the movement’s philosophy and questioned its internal consistency.

    Christopher S. Parker, a political science professor at the University of Washington, put the tea party’s proclaimed beliefs in limited government to the test on three questions: whether they supported limits on free speech, whether they believed in indefinite detention and whether they wanted broader police powers for racial profiling.

    Using his own survey data, he concluded that tea party supporters were more likely than the general public to believe speech should be free of restrictions and were just as likely to support indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, but were more willing for police to use racial profiling to stop crimes.

    “The hypothesis would be if they were really just about freedom, they would be unabashedly, relative to other groups, in favor of freedom or supporting civil liberties. One would think that would be the case across the board, but that’s not the case,” Mr. Parker said in an interview.

    In his research, Mr. Parker controlled for other factors and said the defining characteristic isn’t education level or class or racism, but rather that tea party supporters are more likely to be “reactionary” conservatives who strongly oppose change.

    “It’s not about law and order, it’s not about education, it’s not even about racism as racism, per se. And it’s not completely tied into race. It’s this diffuse idea that our country is slipping away from us,” he said.

    Mr. Parker said his research found that tea party supporters were significantly more likely to be involved in the political process and, as such, will be a force within the GOP.

    Other academics saw other mechanisms at work. Emily McClintock Ekins, a graduate student at the University of California at Los Angeles, said tea partyers have more faith in the fairness of capitalism, which she said could explain their attitudes on race.

    “This makes it less surprising that nearly all Tea Partiers believe that hard work, rather than luck, drives success. This might also explain their lower levels of racial empathy, as they are less aware for how opportunity may be different for particular groups of people,” she wrote in a working draft paper.

    In his paper, Nicol C. Rae, a professor at Florida International University, said the tea party movement rose as a reaction to the failures of Republicans when they controlled most of the levers of the executive and legislative branches from 2001 through 2006, yet oversaw massive government expansion.

    “George W. Bush had campaigned as the heir of Ronald Reagan, but his presidency yielded a huge new government bureaucracy in the form of the new Department of Homeland Security, and a massive new federal entitlement - the Medicare Prescription Drug program,” he wrote, saying it wasn’t surprising that conservative Republicans rebelled against that trajectory.

    Yet another paper questions the conventional wisdom that tea party power propelled the GOP to its 2010 electoral victories.

    “We failed to find any systematic evidence that the Tea Party was responsible for the Republican success in 2010,” professor Jon R. Bond and several colleagues wrote in their analysis. “Instead, we find that variables long cited by scholars of congressional elections [-] in particular, the incumbent’s previous electoral performance, the normal party vote in the district, candidate spending, and challenger experience - best explain the district-level outcomes of the 2010 elections.”

    The authors of that analysis said the tea party did help nationalize the election by highlighting spending and the growth of government.
     
  2. The Tea Party has one agenda, less spending.
    There is no other political agenda.

    The Democrats are trying to cast upon the Tea Party a different poltical agenda that does not exist.
    It's is called a scam.
     
  3. rew

    rew

    The left keeps moving the goal posts. Opposition to illegal immigration is now "racism".
     
  4. the idiocy of this, ( I was tempted to say funny, but I'm no longer in a laughing mood), is the Tea Party's opposition nearly always brings up the fact that it is prodominantly, if not entirely, made up of White People ... "Groups of White People Must Be Racists!"

    idiots...

    VOTE OBAMA THE HELL OUT
     
  5. Why dont they ever threaten to shut the government down over the 700 billion a year we spend on the military industrial complex ?Russia and China only spend around 100 billion a year on defense and nobody fucks with them but republicans nor the tea party complain about defense spending :confused:
     
  6. primarily because that is ONE OF THE FEW OBLIGATIONS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN MANDATED WITH ....


    but I have to agree with the spirit of your question .... no I don't, the spirt of your question is born of complete and utter dupery and ignorance....
     
  7. And you're one of the dumb asses that think we need to spend 700 billion a year on defense when China and Russia can do it for 100 billion .Then dumb asses like yourself complain about to much spending

    As Ron Paul said we can defend this country with a few submarines.
     
  8. BTW tea partyers are devout racists
     
  9. Well, it's easy to call someone "racist" when you can spontaneously redefine what "racism" consists of.

    For example now apparently "opposition to illegal immigration" and being "unsympathetic to blacks" is now "racism". According to the article, if one of the "scientists" determined that people were racists if they said that blacks would find more success as a group if they tried harder. LOL! So basically, if you don't think the plight of the black man is whitey's fault, and that all of his shortcomings have somehow been caused by "racism", then you are a racist :D

    Brilliant criteria the have here for identifying racists :p
     
  10. For example, is that standard applied equally? Are THEY racist since they are apparently less sympathetic to whites being on the receiving end of the vast majority of interracial violent crime? Are THEY racist because they have less empathy towards white people who are discriminated against because of "skin color" for jobs, education funding, university admissions, job promotions, etc.? What about the extra rights which are given to every other group except for white people? Like the right to organize politically as a group along racial lines and pursue group interests? No other group are denied this right and attacked as "racist" if they want it, except for white people.
     
    #10     Sep 5, 2011