Harvard Hates the Tea Party: Xenophobic, Racist, Theocratic Whites Less Popular Than Muslims and Atheists
A hot item on the New York Times website is an op-ed by Harvard professor Robert Putnam (who drew a lot of media notice for his nonfiction book "Bowling Alone") and Notre Dame professor David Campbell called "Crashing the Tea Party." The professors earn their Times real estate by regurgitating the CBS-Times polling on the alleged growing unpopularity of the Tea Party, and calling the Tea Party brand "toxic" for the GOP.
But Putnam and Campbell bring their own data, which purports to find that the Tea Party is even less popular than atheists and Muslims, that they're defined by "low regard for immigrants and blacks," and that their more common characteristic is their theocratic tendences to "mingle religion and politics" which they allege is causing the crash in public support:
[I]n data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.
The professors theorize that the Tea Party is just like the anti-war McGovernite left in 1972 which damaged the Democratic brand. (The McGovern nomination did signal liberal dominance of the Democratic Party, but a Democrat would remind the professors they didn't exactly suffer in the 1974 midterm elections, and elected Carter president in 1976. But their image of softness on defense has often damaged their presidential electability.)
So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.
More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.
Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose. While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity.
On everything but the size of government, Tea Party supporters are increasingly out of step with most Americans, even many Republicans. Indeed, at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, today’s Tea Party parallels the anti-Vietnam War movement which rallied behind George S. McGovern in 1972. The McGovernite activists brought energy, but also stridency, to the Democratic Party — repelling moderate voters and damaging the Democratic brand for a generation. By embracing the Tea Party, Republicans risk repeating history.
Putnam and Campbell couldn't more perfectly align themselves with the secular leftists at the Times. We'll try not to question why a professor from Notre Dame would be championing the get-God-out-of-our-politics Left.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
The Left's Theme for the upcoming Election Season
Submitted by iamsaved on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 7:26am.
The Left reads and distributes their daily and weekly talking points like clockwork. Like a well planned mission, they synchronize their watches and spew the same virtiol against conservatives on cue.
Their long term talking point in preparation for the upcoming elections is to continue to tout polls of how unpopular is the Tea Party. They call them terrorists, thugs, racists and every other derogatory term they can think of. Anyone watch Fox's show "The Five"? Listen to Bob Beckel. Everything 30 seconds or so, he's condemning the Tea Party, using the coarse language he is so eloquent with. He's just an example of these talking points as are the two buffoons from Harvard who are the subject of this post.
Harry Reid says the Tea Party will fade away. I agree. It will fade away once the scourge of the leftist liberals in our elected offices is erradicated like the vermin they are.
The funny part is they don't realize that...
Submitted by JohnMcGrew on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:47am.
...the more the establishment liberal elites use these high-profile smear assaults on the Tea Party, the more popular and entrenched the Tea Party becomes. The empty hate-rhetoric they spew in lieu of actual arguments only serves to convince the skeptical that the Tea Party actually might be of more substance than the establishment liberals do, and lends even more legitimacy.
Putnam and Campbell are fighting a ghost, a spirit.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:09am.
The Tea Party is a spirit of freedom.
"The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as:
• Limited federal government
• Individual freedoms
• Personal responsibility
• Free markets
• Returning political power to the states and the people
As a movement, the Tea Party is not a political party nor is looking to form a third political party any time soon. The Tea Party movement is, instead, about reforming all political parties and government so that the core principles of our Founding Fathers become, once again, the foundation upon which America stands." (http://theteaparty.net/inner.asp?z=40)
These two are scared of a spirit...freedom.
Very well put Red Jeep, thats
Submitted by kinijane on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:11am.
Very well put Red Jeep, thats exactly what the tea party represents and the left by their rhetoric are alienating a big part of
the American population, pissing off the very votes they need to continue with their agenda. And here I thought that Harvard
professors were supposed to be some of the smartest folks on earth.......geeeze.
Spot on, Jeep
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:45am.
The Dems are used to what we might for the sake of discussion label as conventional political warfare in a bi-polar political environment.
The parallel is the Cold War competition between the US-led West and the Soviet-led East. Characteristics include --
- A shared extinct for survival above all else -- the status quo is preferred and manageable
- A shared understanding of the rules, and a common acceptance of some level of rules breaking
- Common 'weapons' types
- A good read on the opposition's strengths and weaknesses; strategic surprise is rare
- Minor conflicts fought by proxies
- Insurgencies
The constant thorn in the side of the major parties is popularly-supported insurgency, which threaten the status quo.
- For the Dems, the Tea Party is the insurgency that threatens the political status quo, and so they are trying to fight it with the convnetional weapons they use against the GOP, with little success to date.
- For the GOP, they see the Tea Party as helping to serve their goals by mustering popular sentiment, but they are troubled by their lack of control over the Tea Partiers. Conventional tools, such as buying cooperation with a pork barrel project in one's district, don't work because the movement doesn't own any 'dirt;' it consists of Americans across party lines and geographic boundaries.
In both cases, the difficulty the two major parties have is due to the nature of the Tea Party --- as you noted, a movement vice a party. The movement has no real hierarchy to take orders from, and therefore can't be obligated to compromise its ideals. And as long as the two major parties fail to get the debt under control, the movement is alive. It's very difficult to isolate an idea that makes common sense to even its opponents.
Harvard Liberals
Submitted by John21 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:04am.
Harvard liberals are the poster children for the Xenophobic, Racist and
Anti-Theocratic. The far left tries to hide these facts by claiming that everyone is worst than them so their ego will allow them to keep their elitist status.
Oh, good grief!
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:27am.
I just love how Democrats have an "image" [read: false perception] of being soft on defense,
but the TEA Party is
defined by "low regard for immigrants and blacks," and that their more common characteristic is their theocratic tendences to "mingle religion and politics"
Defined by whom, exactly? Oh, yeah, by Haavad professors, and polls showing that some people believe them.
The Tea Party
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:16am.
is a direct response to Alinsky techniques no leaders to mock and ridicule, a basic message that when attacked or ridicule makes the accuser look the fool. That is why they hate the Tea Party so much. It is immune from their SOP.
An excellect point, dmaley1714
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:06am.
Just as the tenets of Keynsian economics are failing the Dems, so too are their Alinsky tools, and while they aren't acknowledging the failures publicly, I'm sure that at least a few Dem strategists are pointing our that they need a new game.
Your are exactly correct
Submitted by boscokraft on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:13pm.
Classic Alinsky technique.
Crap!
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:27am.
The left hates law-abiding, tax-paying, play-by-the-rules citizens.
This is Why I am now a "Card Carrying" Tea Party Member!
Submitted by scottyusmc on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:45am.
It's because of all this intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy that I am now an even more active supporter of the Tea Party movement. These elitist academic snobs know nothing outside their protected class worlds...
Oh, and calling someone a "racist" today after all the language abuse means nothing. In fact it might be a "badge of honor" in some circles. I use to think that words mattered in a discussion, but with liberals it's not the words they use - you first need to get a primer of the definitions being associated with those words...
Liberals are
Submitted by johnsonl on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:51am.
terrified of the Tea Party and especially what it represents. We can't have people running around all willy-nilly thinking they can do what they want! They must listen to the elitist Harvard professers! They are very smart and will take wonderful care of us through many wonderful government programs!
These people need to get out of NY
Submitted by ex buff e-dub on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:10am.
These people need to get out of NY, out of Manhattan. Drive across the US and break down somewhere in the middle of Missouri or Oklahoma or (gasp!) Texas somewhere and get to know some of the REAL people of this country
Even just visiting upstate New York...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:17am.
..would seem like visiting a foreign country to these two.
Really. I was stationed in
Submitted by ex buff e-dub on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:24am.
Really. I was stationed in upstate NY. Some of the best "salt of the Earth" types I've ever met
Yep
Submitted by bertkillian on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:06am.
They can come out here to Oklahoma anytime; we will take them huntin, fishin and maybe even a nature hike.
Without The Harvard "Elites"...
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:16am.
I would have nobody to feel superior to.
They are so smart, they just stay in their little Harvard cocoon because they haven't got the skills to perform real work.
Unfortunately, some of these ass-monkeys stumble into major political office and then we need to surgically remove them just as we would a cancerous lesion.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
It was high jacked....
Submitted by jdripper on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:17am.
Michelle Bachman and other politicians hijacked the Tea Party movement. At the beginnings the movement worked assiduously to segregate itself from all of the religious and social nonsense. Then some very over eager politicians such as Michelle Bachman and others came in wrapped themselves in the tea party flag and took over the megaphone. Others came in and set up organizations looking to make money off of it or to expand their egos.
The original movement that stopped the socialism and put a halt to the dimocrat power grab does not represent what Michelle Bachman and others now claim it is.
Jack
Agree 100%, jdripper
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:53am.
I went to the very first Tea Party demonstration in my area in early 2009. Of the maybe 5,000 in attendance, I would bet that not one ever heard of Michele Bachman.
That's an odd argument
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:32am.
Is Tea Party affiliation limited to those who were in on it at the beginning?
I thought the point was to expand, not limit.
I wasn't making an argument, just an observation.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:05am.
The Tea Party thing brewed for a while before the bigger organized events took place, and I can't recall any politicians jumping on the bandwagon from the very git-go, Bachmann included. I don't hold that against her now, either.
That being said, of course the point is to expand.
The point is to educate SOL,
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 3:39pm.
The point is to educate SOL, and in the education the TEA party expanded. That's how a grassroots organization operates.
What???
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:02am.
Bachmann hasn't hijacked anything.
She can't force the Tea Party to do anything. She is who she is, and the Tea Partiers either support her or they don't.
If they don't, why are they endorsing her?
Ditto for the "others" you claim wrapped themselves in the tea party flag
If they are not what the TEA Party is about, they will end up disowned.
I agree, motherbelt
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:51am.
Bachmann may be popular with many Tea Partiers, and she did create a Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representative, but in no way does she represent the Tea Parties, let alone lead them.
She is a merely convenient face for the Dems and MSM to whup up on, as they did on Palin. She's a target that they can apply their usual tactics against -- the 'politics of personal destruction,' as Hillary Clinton calls it.
Bachman voted against
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:27am.
raising the debt ceiling limit, for fiscal conservatism. What has she done for "God in government" side of legislation? She signed a statement to uphold the traditional form of marriage, is the closest that I know of. And that's not legislation. But DOMA is something like it, but that is simply a stipulation that only "traditional marriage" will continue to be the traditional interpretation of the full faith and credit application of marriage between states.
How strange that a traditional interpretation should conform to the traditional understanding of what was comprised. I'm quite sure that if polygamy had ever been legal in Utah, that pre 20th-century, it would never excuse people from bigamy laws in other states.
As a Tea Party regular, I
Submitted by fxmaven on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:38am.
As a Tea Party regular, I would like nothing better than to disband the Tea Party. That would mean our "subversive" goals of limited gov't, free markets and fiscal responsibility have been achieved. We got in this to defend ideas and ideals, and I think most of us would be happy if we weren't needed.
Where are they taking these
Submitted by Snappy on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:14am.
Where are they taking these polls at? Marthas Vinyard?
There, and in the MSNBC
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:53am.
newsroom, and the campus at Hahvahd.
Legislation as evidence?
Submitted by b-dob on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:34am.
Can these leftists point to any legislation passed or proposed by Tea Party backed candidates that supports their "theocracy" conspiracy theory? The same with the racism charges. The left's mantra has been, "well, the right claims they don't like Obama's socialist mindset, but really they just don't like having a black man in the White House." Well, really it's that we don't like having a socialist in the White House, which is what we've been saying all along. How does the left get a free pass to ignore reality to create bigoted stereotypes? I guess when you get to make the rules you don't have to play by them.
Harvard Professor probably doesn't mean what it used to.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:30am.
The core of their "argument" is a glowing non sequitur.
Why I italicized that last will become clear after the next paragraph.
What that says is that the the category of preferring religious representatives is the biggest similarity that Tea Party members have. But for all the specifics this could be under 50%. He already ruled out Republican affiliation, so it could be that no one other faction is so strongly represented in the Tea Party as the "wants religious representatives" category. But even given that it could be 75% or even 90% distribution, it simply gives this disposition as common.
However, the *Harvard Professor* leverages that to a measure of *intensity*: "more concerned about putting God in government". However, I really doubt that if they polled the TPM on fiscal restraintthat they'd really find it that low in correlation, so I'm guessing they either 1) didn't poll it, or 2) subsume it under "Republican" classification. But they repeat the same fallacious argument here:
There's not a lot of facts there, and one big ol' honking non sequitur.
Hahhvahd has become little more than a haven for well-heeled...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:46pm.
...commies.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
LIES
Submitted by Joe W. on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 3:33pm.
A pack of bald faced lies. the Tea Party didn't even exist in 2006 as these moonbats claim...
Tea Party People are Religious?
Submitted by boscokraft on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:17pm.
I have met several, and they are only about smaller government and less taxes. I have never felt like they want to put more religion into politics, but they do want the freaking government and the ACLU to stop telling them where they can put a cross, and what liberal horse crap will be taught in schools. The liberals want their agenda taught in public schools, from gay rights to green theory, but if a group of people resist government intrusion into their childrens minds, then they are suddenly radical Christians?
Harvard Terrorist Organization
Submitted by commenta on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:20pm.
Harvard forgets itself. How many times, since its charter began, have we heard about insane ideas coming from the HTO, and being implemented without much comment against the will of the American people? These people are master propagandists besides. What they insist is science, is merely consensus.
TEA Party contains democrats, independents, and republicans. But, TEA party members probably reject, or are highly sceptical of Harvard terrorist communicades, or the entire Ivy beLeagers for that matter. This "hate" is in light of the Harvard class, whose ideas have clearly failed back on the streets instead. But we know there will be no further "Beer Summits" for the rest of us.
TEA Party does have many, but not all democrats, neither all the independents, nor all the republicans. It has enough passion to fill the Washington Plaza. TEA party demonstrations, ignored by these squeaks, in truth outstripped whatever numbers, the elites own grandiose demonstrations ever produced during the sixties and seventies. But now Harvard sniffles, and the world catches the virus however, because they are repeatedly said too smart to be morons. "Everybody knows..."
Harvard helped along a false science called eugenics once too. I don't think that attitude, about "undersirables" has left the building actually. Of course, they are Harvard Terrorist Organization, to TEA Party "undersirables," and only by the grace of a fifth regiment of snotty media graduates, they cannot do harm.
In 1978, John LeBoutillier---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:03pm.
a Harvard graduate, wrote a book titled "Harvard Hates America".
If there have been any changes in the demeanor of Harvard personnel or the liberals who matriculate there, over the last thirty plus years, they have been course changes to delve deeper into the sinister (left) side of the spectrum.
MD
Great post MD
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:40pm.
Also take this into account. ' During the early 1900`s and ideological war erupted, and the word "democracy" became one of the casualties. Today, the average American uses the term "democracy" to describe America`s traditional Constitutional republic. But technically speaking, it is not. The Founders had hoped that their descendants would maintain a clear distinction between a democracy and a republic. The creation of the current confusion developed as a result of a new movement in the United States. Approximately 100 people met in New York in 1905 and organized what they called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS). Chapters were established om more than SIXTY college and UNIVERSITY campuses coast-to-coast. In time the co-directors of the movement became Harry W. Laidler and Norman Thomas. Laidler explained that the ISS was set up to "throw light on the world-wide movement of industrial DEMOCRACY known as socialism." ( The New York Times, Jan. 28, 1919.) It has been a movement to destroy our Republic for a long long long time through the mush in the heads of young students.
Btw
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:41pm.
my info came from the book ' The 5000 Year Leap' Principles of Freedom 101
Prisondog---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:59pm.
Even allowing for bone-deep ideology, it is truly difficult to understand how liberals, or progressives, or socialists, cannot look at history and note that every socialistic endeavor eventually went TU.
I have seen put forth many times, that current denizens of the left believe they are so much smarter than their forebears that they can make the system work under their benevolent guiding hand.
While their belief in both the socialistic system and their own talents are most certainly inane, I would imagine that there is a good deal of truth behind the surmise of why they think they can make the system successful.
MD
Matthew
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:06am.
it`s not bone deep ideology, it`s bone deep stupidity:)
Prisondog---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:05am.
Winner!
MD
MD, progressivism(communisim) can work,
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:00am.
it just hasn't been done by the right people. That's why it's always gone TU in the past. If only the Russians, East Germans or NORK's had asked, I'm sure that President Present, Sen. Reid, Rep Pelosi or Rep Clyburn, the list is endless, would have been more than glad to help them out.
Heck, I'm sure that the Rev Wright would have grabbed Calypso Louie and gone over to help out too, after all, look at all those crackers they could have ruled over.
UpNorth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:09am.
Four racist Blacks and two white fools.
Scary.
MD
Well, MD, you gave Harry the benefit
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 1:23am.
of the doubt, but I think he's as racist as the 4 racist blacks I listed. Witness his "negro dialect" comment.
The American Thinker nailed it, in one sentence. "The supernatural ability to accurately divine the meaning behind the public testimonies of their adversaries is the sole intellectual proprietorship of liberals". It applies to everything that's going on today.
American Thinker, did indeed nail it---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:36am.
and I agree that Reid is a racist.
However, being liberal as well, the charge would never even be brought up, let alone stick.
MD
Before the 1960's election
Submitted by wingnut55 on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:20am.
I seem to remember these same people were saying before the elections in 1960 that if we elected a Cathloic President, that the Pope would be ruling America.