BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS

« A 60th vote for Associate Justice Hillary Clinton? | Main | Quinn thinking -- hoping -- that 2010 takes Democrats back to the future »

Monday, April 12, 2010

Trying to read the tea leaves

These data points from the Center for Survey Research at the University of Washington released last week are pretty dismaying:

The Tea Party, the incipient movement that claims to be committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, appears to be motivated by more than partisanship and ideology. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren’t much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy.

Nate Silver looks over the numbers and notes:


What I am still honestly puzzled by is what exactly those aligned with this movement want.  Here is the Tea Party Patriots mission statement, very similar to the comments I've heard and read in speeches, on radio panels, in letters to me and so on:  "Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets," is basically what it says and all it says, in various ways. (More of the same: This is What the Tea Party Stands For)

I gather they want lower taxes at all levels and believe deficits and spending are too high. But that's a bumper sticker. What's the white paper -- forgive the expression -- behind it? What's the point-by-point action plan? What should be cut and to what level? What functions of government would they like to see curtailed or stopped? And how realistic or popular would such plans be, given the overwhelming popularity of entitlement programs that make up so much of our budget? And how much of a dent would other such cuts -- eliminating funding for the arts, say -- really make?

I'll gladly post links to articles that get beyond the gauzy generalities and dig into specific demands/requests/suggestions of those who lead and attend these rallies. Anyone?

MORE-- Oh, look, here are the "goals" of the Richmond Tea Party:

# MOTIVATE individuals to defend liberty and our Constitutions through their involvement in the political process.
# EMPOWER individuals to stand united against a national government that operates beyond its Constitutional authority.
# EDUCATE the public on the Constitutions, our Founding principles, and the political process.
# MOBILIZE individuals to assert a unified and influential voice in our Constitutional Republic.
# ESTABLISH proper checks and balances between the federal and state governments.
# ADVOCATE legislation in the Virginia General Assembly and U.S. Congress that is consistent with our charter and mission.
# ENGAGE in peaceful public discourse through protests, rallies, petitions, open debate, and personal interaction with our political representatives.
# SHARE our vision with people of all races, religions, age groups, and civic and political affiliations, and invite their partnership and participation in the Tea Party movement.

 UPDATE -- Slight progress here --What (some) tea partiers want



---IMHO, the Tea Party is an ignorant bigoted mob incited by Fox News - nothing more, nothing less.

Dream on. There is no substance behind the appeal.

IMO, they're a group of people who see things changing around them, changes that would be happening regardless of who is in office, and they're scared. In reality, they're the Archie Bunker Party.

That is not to say that they don't have valid concerns. Blue-collar jobs are long gone and the working class isn't far behind. The middle class is losing ground too. I just don't think a libertarian govt. with a unrestrained capitalism is the answer.

If their know-nothingness weren't so dangerous to the future of this country, and so many of them weren't so full of misdirected rage that's looking more like incipient violence each day, I might see be able to empathize with them. Americans have a right and responsibility to be angry at politicians who have fleeced them, and hold them accountable--especially here in Illinois and Cook County. I gladly acknowledge that the "Democrats" here are horrendous (these cretins may as well be Plutonians; they are a loose band of disgraceful parasites who stand for nothing but incompetence and graft). The Tea Partiers, many of whom avail themselves of government assistance like Medicare, are not against entitlements, per se; they're only against the entitlements that go to other people.

The "Tea Party" overwhelmingly supports Republicans, who presided over the worst wealth transfer from the lower and middle class to the richest Americans since the Depression and an incompetently prosecuted war, which was started by civilian politicians, most of whom never served their country but were happy to profit from the sacrifices of the middle and lower classes who are still fighting it. The Tea Partiers support the party that stole their money and their children, so the richest 2% of Americans could get even richer, and they vent their rage at the only party that shows any interest in abating that situation. Too bad the Tea Partiers are voluntarily ignorant to the contempt in which the Republican Party holds them.

We didn't need much organization for the love-ins in the sixties when we would all meet in the local parks. We still managed to get the issues of the day discussed.

I feel the reason behind most of our troubles and the need for TEA Parties is the government's ability to print up whatever money it wants to get their way.

Maybe this will help make the danger of fiat money clear.


You own half of everything and so do I.







I don't doubt that the Tea Parties attract a disproportionate share of bigots, but the quantification of that presented in this article might not be very solid.

is the full table of the survey results that started this thread. Either it or the summary contains a mistake. The summary says "Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy."
The full table is about 23% of the whites, those who strongly approve of the Tea Parties.

I guess that's a little bit better bad news. The disheartening thing is that among the 13% of the whites who strongly disapprove of Tea Parties, presumably the least bigoted ones, have large proportion - over 40% with negative option of blacks and Latinos. If that is true

I also am hoping that the results are off because of sample sizes. She sample size - 505, is such that subset sizes are very small: 13% of 505 is 65 people, 23% is 116. So the response to "Blacks Hard Working (Agree)" differs by 20 percentage points (35% vs. 55%), the 95% confidence interval around that is very wide: 4.4 percentage points to 36.7% percentage points. (Here is one calculator you can use to verify http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/prop2_ind.html).

I can’t believe Conservatives are demanding respect from the Left. What leadership, character or morals has the right-wing displayed in the past?

NO solutions, NO rational plans, clear agendas or common sense policy… JUST SARAH PALIN/Glenn Beck groupies parroting talking points! Come on, are you right-wing wackos INSANE? Am I missing something here but didn’t Conservatives just have 8 YEARS of Bush/Cheney and Republican controlled Congress (1994-2006) to put your ideology into practice? AND IT ALMOST DESTROYED THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH!


Where was the Tea Party anger THEN?

But you want Democrats/Progressives to believe if you only had one more chance it can work? The very definition of insanity, isn’t IT? Just separate yourselves from Bush/Cheney… bull$#!~ stupid people into believing they’re part of a NEW Conservative Movement. You want the American PEOPLE to put their faith, trust and government in SARAH PALIN, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and those numbkulls making up the Tea Party cult?


Great Americans WANT TO EMBRACE ETHICS, RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Something this sick, twisted Neo-Con generation FAILED miserably at. Republicans in Congress since 1984 have been no better than highly paid prostitutes for the wealthy and powerful. You make me ill every time I see you on the TV, please GO AWAY and let the adults fix the HUGE MESS left over from the Bush/Cheney DISASTER…


I suppose I should actually take the time to read the survey methodology before commenting, but, to be honest, if someone were to ask me if I believe that Blacks are "trustworthy" or "hardworking" or "intelligent", I don't know how I'd answer - I'd probably say no just to make a point. Not because I'm a bigot - in fact, I'd say the same about Whites - but because I can't classify a whole group of people "yes" or "no" on any given trait. Now, if the question were something like, "Do you feel that, on average, Blacks are as trustworthy as Whites on average"? I would, of course, say yes. To say that "Blacks" (or "Whites") are either trustworthy or untrustworthy is to lump them all in as one monolithic group which itself is racist either way it goes.

Of course, I'm probably giving the Tea Partiers too much credit - I'm sure they didn't put that much thought into it.

BTW, Special Political Operative, I agree with your basic point, but it's rather embarrassing when I have to wipe your spittle off to read it. Please refrain from RANDOMLY capitalizing WORDS. It makes you seem a bit UNHINGED.

Good luck finding a consistent ideology in the Tea Party.

They are the astroturf invention of GOP lobbyist Dick Armey.


They are a tool, nothing more and nothing less, and you don't want your tools to have an ideology. Do you really want a hammer that asks the question "Should we really hit that nail?"

This tool has one over-arching purpose: to elect Republicans at the federal level. Because the more Republicans there are in Washington, the more money Dick Armey makes.

That's why you rarely if ever hear about Tea Partiers weighing in on state issues.

Want more proof?

REPUBLICANS in Florida, Indiana, California, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and other states have raised taxes in response to the recession. Where were the Taxed Enough Already? Party protests then??

Now do you get it?

I'm a white, working class, under-employed, over-qualified, over-taxed, under-served guy from the south side. I know exactly what Tea Party members want. They want a Black Scapegoat that they can blame all their troubles on. I can say that without any fear of honest repudiation.

From very close observation, I can say that Tea Party followers believed the "pie-in-the-sky" deferred benefits scheme of workers taking pay-cuts and forgoing raises for decades while the "Greatest Boom In History" was happening on Wall Street (after all, it was going to trickle down, right). Only to be disenfranchised on Dividends Day.

These people were deceived openly by White Guys who everyone knew, but now believe that a Black Guy that nobody ever heard about was behind it all.

Of course it defies logic and understanding.
That is the definition of "Irrational"

I completely agree with Dienne on the racial questions. I don't find the majority of people I encounter - whether they are white, black, or hispanic to be "hardworking" or "intelligent," and I certainly don't find them to be "trustworthy." Were we supposed to be comparing each group to some other group? If so, is it supposed to be whites, or the Harvard faculty, or reality TV viewers, or a pack of wild dogs? Without a basis for comparison, the questions are meaningless.

I also agree with Dienne's message to the commenter above. When you are criticizing a group for looking, sounding, and acting unintelligent and unsophisticated, it looks really, really bad when you can't write a coherent comment.

To answer the substantive question about the tea party movement's goals, I think it's comprised of people who agree on basic concepts but might differ on how to get there (in that way, we could call them a diverse coalition and actually be using the term "diversity" in a meaningful way, for once). I don't claim to have any special knowledge of the tea party group's specific policy goals but they seem inclined to vote the right way, and that's enough for me. Whether they have leaders who can do the intellectual heavy-lifting remains to be seen.

The fact that the answers were different for the same questions about Blacks vs. Latinos does suggest that the responders were making racial distinctions.

A commenter above seems to make an indirect reference to this, but I wanted to suggest people read up on the "Know Nothings", the American Party of the 1850s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing . The parallels are remarkable. (In case you don't read the link, the "know nothing" here doesn't refer to general ignorance, but the fact that they would always claim to be what we would now call grassroots, and if asked about any higher structure, they were to say "I know nothing." But seriously, at least give a quick skim to the article. Everything old is new again.)

Hell, lower taxes and less spending is actually *coherent* for these people. What they usually blather on about is "I want my country back," which is code for "A black man is president and I don't like it."

"What should be cut and to what level?" Regarding people's attitudes about cutting spending, here's a link to an interesting chart showing the disconnect between what people think should be cut and how little effect it would have on the actual budget.


Engage in peaceful public discourse? Share our vision with all races? religions? political affiliations?? Invite their partnership and participation???


I notice that, so far, no Tea Partier has taken Eric up on his challenge and actually posted how, specifically, spending should be reduced.

I'm sure it's because they're all busily pouring over the federal budget and making line-by-line cuts, right? If I wait a bit, I'm sure they'll have a detailed report.

Dienne -- I'm guessing most Tea Partiers don't READ Eric, probably because they know what he thinks about them.

By the way -- just found a Media Research Council report on media bias in covering the tea party movement, and how it came about, how it's portrayed, etc. Very interesting -- though I have to admit I've only read the intro and a couple sections, and even that quickly. Here's a link:


ZORN REPLY -- The few defenders who have shown up here and on Facebook have not yet brought the goods. If they indeed exist.

And Pan -- was "take my country back" code when Howard Dean used it? He even wrote a book with the phrase in the title. Guessing Howard wanted Bush out of office. That was OK then, right?


I don't know if you consider yourself a Tea Partier, although you have defended them a number of times. But you have, frequently, bemoaned the crisis of excessive government spending and debt (but only since Obama's been in office). Why don't you take a crack at Eric's challenge? What, specifically, would you cut out of the budget?

Dienne -- No I am not a Tea Partier. I just don't think the people who would go to a TP (yikes!) rally are a bunch of toothless, deranged, homophobic, racist neandrathals who want to return to 1952.

And how would you know I've only bemoaned excessive spending since Obama's been in office? Au contraire! I went crazy during the Bush spending blitz. Absolutely bonkers. And I vividly recall an early-morning exercise session at our park district fitness facility in which two of us of perhaps 10 or 15 were the sold stake-holders in the position that there were NO WMD, the proposed invasion of Iraq was idiotic and would lead us to wrack and ruin. I'm sorry, but you can't look at the deficits were piling up without wondering how the heck we're (or, more properly our children and grandchildren) are going to pay for it. Using what for money? Our good looks?

Without taking any kind of study of the federal budget, here are some things I'd do: Trim the overall cost of government. How many staffers do reps and senators make? Trim that by 10 percent. Office of the First lady -- absolutely craziness for her to have a staff that large. At one point the first lady was simply the spouse. Can't do anything about current year, or perhaps even current administration. Starting in 2012, cut that by minimum 60 or 70 percent. We don't need a FLOTUS with policy positions. If we do, they're funded at 30 percent of now. Earmarks, for stuff like building new police stations and bridges to nowhere. They're gone. Now. Maybe my town would like a new police station or pool (definitely would like the latter.) Too bad. We have to pay for it and not the US as a whole.

And Dienne -- maybe the reason people are screaming now because, as horrifying as the Bush deficits were, they're breathtaking now. Report out today -- Obama QUADRUPLED the deficit in just one year. We spent, in just one year, 1,288,000,000,000 more than we took in. I regard that as somewhat akin to my family having, say, credit card debt one year of $10,000. Then, the next year we spent so much more than we ended up the year with $40,000. And we showed no sign of stopping.

So that brings us to income. I think we need to raise the earnings subject to FICA taxes. However, we can't spend that money -- has to be saved in the SS rainy day account, which is coming very, very soon.

Those are off the top of my head. Do I think cuts will be painful? Absolutely. I also think that unless we're prepared for economic collapse, we better do something.

ZORN REPLY -- Those are pretty small bore savings, there, Beth, and not consequence free

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/12/AR2010041204364.html is the very latest onthe deficit near as I can tell, you are welcome to give another site about your "report out today!"
Obama team points to smaller deficit numbers

By David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 13, 2010

The federal deficit is running significantly lower than it did last year, with the budget gap for the first half of fiscal 2010 down 8 percent over the same period...If the trend continues for the rest of the year, it would mean the annual deficit would be $1.3 trillion -- about $300 billion less than the administration's projection two months ago for 2010.

The federal deficit was large when Obama took office, but it ballooned as the administration launched an ambitious stimulus program to soften the economic downturn, which was eating tax revenue and prompting increased spending on safety net programs. ....The White House proposed a budget in February that projects a budget gap of $8.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Obama's senior officials have argued that the huge outlays are essential to pull the economy out of its worst recession in generations. But Republicans say the administration's stimulus programs have not significantly reduced the jobless rate, now at 9.7 percent.

Oops -- above I said " How many staffers do reps and senators make?"

Mean -- how many staffers do reps and senators HAVE

"How many staffers do reps and senators make?"


Based on the info in that link, and based on your cuts, congratulations, you just saved about $50 million. Keep going - you'll get to $10 trillion yet. And that assumes, of course, that those staff members are dispensible. Maybe they are, maybe not, but staffers are the ones who actually read the legislation. Personally, I think perhaps there should be more of them.

And once again, how much of that QUADRUPLING of the deficit comes from putting off-book war expenses back on the books where they belong?

Eric -- The WaPo piece was the one I meant -- yes, it shows the deficit may be slowing, but we're still gushing red ink.

I never claimed to be an economist or the person in charge of the budget. You asked me to cut the budget. I did. And earmarks? Those would be significant savings.

(Now, if we were cutting state budgets, we could start with the deplorable practice of padding superintendent salaries in the two years before retirement. Makes my blood boil)

ZORN REPLY -- Come on, earmarks are a small part of the budget at worst. Check your facts here

and note this passage:

For fiscal 2008, the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense said there was $18.3 billion earmarked in spending bills. Citizens Against Government Waste came in at $17.2 billion. The Office of Management and Budget tallied earmarks at a mere $16.9 billion. In 2006, the Congressional Research Service, which used a different definition of "earmark" for each of the 11 spending bills it studied in that year, came up with over $67 billion.

But contrary to popular belief -- this is the first of several bits of information readers may be surprised by -- cutting earmarks wouldn't necessarily cut government spending....

But you'll be glad to know you inspired a fresh post for the blog with your deficit complaint.

Dienne, I take it you are not one of the believers in wars as a way out of recessions (or depressions), still a widely held [in my opinion, insane] notion.

Go tea party lets get rid of the spend spend Dems who don't listen to the people. They are arrogant and idiots who think they are God Almighty and can just take over the country and force their commie ways on everyone

ZORN TO EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD -- A real tea party idiot or a liberal POSING as a tea party idiot? You make the call!

"# MOTIVATE individuals to defend liberty and our Constitutions through their involvement in the political process."

Constitutions? I didn't know there was more than one.

I'm not a Tea Partier (in fact, my idea of a party would get me in worse trouble than the RNC got itself into recently) but I'll offer this as a start to how to reform federal government spending. http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-4.pdf

ZORN REPLY -- Got anything that's not a hard-drive clogging .pdf? I link to .pdfs from time to time but 9 times out of 10 I feel .pdfs are inconvenient and excessive.


GREG J REPLY -- I agree about pdfs but this one wasn't so bad. The problem is that it's hard to find good, specific policy statements that are posted on a webpage, and my liberal friends will jump all over my comment if it's not specific enough. Of course when you are specific, some of those same people claim that the cuts aren't politically viable, to which I respond that the current level of government spending isn't politically viable either. Anyway, I cut-and-pasted the summary page from the CATO report here:

Congress should
● cut federal spending from 21 percent to 16 percent of gross
domestic product over 10 years, as detailed in this chapter;
● terminate, privatize, or transfer to state governments more than
100 programs and agencies, including those involved in agriculture,
education, housing, and transportation;
● reform Social Security by cutting the growth in government
benefits and adding a system of private accounts;
● cut Medicare spending growth and move toward a health care
system based on individual savings and choice;
● convert Medicaid into a block grant and freeze federal spending;
● impose a statutory cap on the annual growth in total federal outlays.

The detail is in the pdf.


I have to go with real tea party idiot, I don't know of any liberal who does grammar this bad, not even me.

No wonder I feel sandwiched between those who think they are God Almighty and those who think God Almighty is directing them.

The Tea Party message is simple: people are afraid that out-of-control deficits will destroy our economy, and that, rather than reigning in the spending, when economic crisis comes, the government will simply raise taxes to European levels or higher. My 70-year-old dad went to a Tea Party rally. His opinion on ObamaCare: mom and I will do just fine; I just feel bad for what the future holds for you and for the grandkids.

Yes, none of the Tea Partiers have come up with a White Paper on shrinking the size of government, but is that really necessary? No one Congressman or Senator can come into office and put into place their campaign platform. No white paper has ever been adopted as law. The best you can hope for is to elect individuals who are disposed to fiscal discipline, because it is absolutely true that cutting "waste" and "pork" would barely make a dent in government spending, and you most definitely have to go beyond cutting fat to cutting what plenty of people believe are vital services in every department.

The comments to this entry are closed.

More about Eric Zorn


•  The Tweet of the Week 2015 Compendium
•  Transition time
•  Open Thread: The Weeks In Review
•  Fine lines final four
•  Two takes on medical tokes
•  Missed it by that much
•  16 is the new 21
•  Fine lines


• `The Office'
• American Idol
• Anthony Porter Case
• Blago trial
• Books
• Chicken!
• Commenters
• Common Sense Caucus
• Current Affairs
• Film
• Fine Expressions
• Fine Shots
• Food and Drink
• Friday Night Lights
• Grey's Anatomy
• How Long Does it Take?
• Jessica Reynolds
• Mad Men
• Megan Crepeau
• Month in Review
• Obama
• Peterson case
• Predictions
• Prickly Pair Podcasts
• Race to the Slop
• Religion
• Rhubarb Patch
• Rules for commenting
• Somebody Nobody Asked
• Speaking of Sports
• Spit takes
• Sports
• Television
• The Killing
• This I No Longer Believe
• Trayvon Martin case
• Video Commentaries
• Webliographies
• Weeks in Review
• YaGotta

December 2015 posts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Browse archives

Chicago Tribune Media Group