Psychoanalyzing the Tea Partiers

[one_voice]

Andrew Sullivan, like many of us, is confused about just what exactly motivates the tea party crowd. Today, he recommends a New York Times essay by J.M. Bernstein, who suggests that tea party anger is, at its core, almost metaphysical:

My hypothesis is that what all the events precipitating the Tea Party movement share is that they demonstrated, emphatically and unconditionally, the depths of the absolute dependence of us all on government action, and in so doing they undermined the deeply held fiction of individual autonomy and self-sufficiency that are intrinsic parts of Americans’ collective self-understanding.

....This is the rage and anger I hear in the Tea Party movement; it is the sound of jilted lovers furious that the other — the anonymous blob called simply “government” — has suddenly let them down, suddenly made clear that they are dependent and limited beings, suddenly revealed them as vulnerable.

This sounds nice, but it just doesn't jibe with the basic facts and known demographics of the tea party movement. Here are the results from a New York Times poll a couple of months ago:

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally....Tea Party supporters over all are more likely than the general public to say their personal financial situation is fairly good or very good.

*snip*

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/06/psychoanalyzing-tea-partiers


Interesting read. But I still say they're all nuts. :-)

[ScarletFyre]

1. I think they were told by their handlers...

To lie on polls. I see the older and conservative and male part, but I'm not feeling the more affluent and better educated parts, from what I've seen.

[KonaKane]

2. I always knew "affluent and better educated" was unmitigated horseshit

All one has to do is witness their signs and them expressing themselves, to know the truth about that.

[moondust]

6. If actually true, it is probably because

the "general public" includes minorities which have a long history of systemic disadvantage when it comes to education, higher-paying jobs, health care, etc.

But it very well could be lying on polls. Would anybody with half a brain associate with a crowd carrying signs advertising their illiteracy, or go so far as to carry one of those signs?

[Urban Prairie]

3. I think that the Teabaggers are mostly middle-class versions of BP executives

With their own entitled/inherited sense of moral, ethical, economic, and educational superiority over others, especially minorities. Many would probably feel much more comfortable in their lifesyles, if the US forever existed in a 1950s-like era tape reel loop of Leave It To Beaver or Ozzie and Harriet TV sitcom.

[Walk away]

4. Not teapartiers....TEABAGGERS! nt

[dorkulon]

5. It's hardly a mystery.

They're white, relatively privileged people who cannot abide the idea that some of their income may be diverted to help brown people. It doesn't matter that they may not pay income taxes at all, or that the fraction of their tax dollars that goes to help others is mathematically insignificant. The very concept that the government might give some help to minorities drives them to distraction, and drowns out all other problems in the world. That's why their "ideology" is so inconsistent; the resentment that unites them cannot be openly articulated.

[Curmudgeoness]

7. I'm confused. Thought liberals were the Ivory Tower elitists.

Audi driving, organic food eating, over-educated, rich East/West coasters. What happened? Now they are the same demographic as the teabaggers? I don't think so. Read their signs.