Tea Party Conservatives: The Evolution from

Conservative Intellectual Thought to Today’s

Conservative fundamentalism

Master’s Thesis

Thomas Haabendal Advisor: Niels Bjerre-Poulsen

November 2014

Center for American Studies, University of Southern Denmark, Odense

Table of Contents Abstract i Introduction 1 1. Conservatism – noun 4 1.1 The Early Conservatives 4 1.2 Six Decades of Attempted Alignment 6 1.2.1 Conservatism Comes under National Review 7 1.2.2 Traditionalism – A Matter of Virtue 9 1.2.3 Libertarianism – Absolute Liberty 11 1.2.4 Anti-Communism – The Negative Ideology 13 1.2.4.1 The Birchers – An Army of Loonies 14 1.2.4.2 James Burnham – An Intellectual Hawk 15 1.2.5 Fusion – Arguments to Fit the Ends 16 1.2.6 The New Right and the Virtuous Grassroots 18 1.2.6.1 The Culture Wars – Phyllis Schlafly 18 1.2.7 Neo-Conservatives – Ideological Drift Wood 20 2. Political Application 1945-2008 26

2.1 Taft – Stalling in a Lack of Charisma 26 2.2 McCarthy – A Censured Sense of Decency 28 2.3 Goldwater – The Extreme Defender of Liberty 29 2.4 The Gipper – A Sunnier Disposition 33 2.5 Disarray and a Contract with America 36 2.6 George W. Bush – Compassionate Conservatism 39 3. The Tea Party – Who, What, and Why 41 3.1 Tea Party Demographics 43 3.1.1 Mama Grizzlies – Women in the Tea Party 44 3.2 Tea Party Ideology – What to Believe 45 3.2.1 The Religious Right 46 3.3 Constitutionalism, Originalism, and Historic Fundamentalism 48 3.4 Hating Obama – The Paranoid Style in American Anger 50 4. Organization and Funding 54 4.1 Events of February 2009 54 4.2 FreedomWorks and American For Prosperity 56 4.2.1 The Kochs – A Right-Wing Dynasty 58 4.3 Local Autonomy 59 4.4 Lo’s Theory of the Division of Movements 60

5. Media Minions – Drawing Attention 63 5.1 Partisan Media 63 5.2 Glenn Beck – Promotion over Reporting 65 5.3 You the Tea Party 67 5.4 Painting a Picture – The Tea Party Obscured 69 6. Entrance into Politics – Pressure on the GOP 71 6.1 The Grand New Party – Why the Republican Party and How 71 6.2 The Man Who Would Be Kingmaker 73 6.3 Rand Paul – The Son of Dr. No 75 6.4 Win Some, Lose Some 77 6.5 The Tea Party Caucus – A Spanner in the Works 79 7. None Dare Call It a Ruse – Concluding Thoughts 81 Bibliography

!

!

i!

i!

Abstract

This thesis places the Tea Party movement ideologically in relation to the American

conservative movement started in the 1950s. The argument here is that the Tea Party is

solely a libertarian movement. Overlaps with the Religious Right a plentiful; but in those

instances the Tea Partiers merely happen to also belong to the Religious Right. This does

not, however, in any way make the Tea Party religiously fundamentalist or otherwise

engaged in social issues.

Further, the thesis argues that the Tea Party critics, who claim the Tea Party to

be ‘Astroturf’ rather than a genuine grassroots movement, are right. Not only that, but as the

thesis shows, the Tea Party is entirely an artificially orchestrated entity concocted to further

a libertarian agenda in the US Congress. While the artificial political machine responsible

for backing, endorsing, and electing congressional candidates has become the entity

identified as ‘the Tea Party’, private citizen activists and their local groups have taken a

backseat after merely supplying the backdrop of popular support.

Chapter 1, Conservatism –noun, provides as exhaustive an account as possible

within the space allowed by the thesis format. It is made clear that American conservatism

is based on two distinct lines of thought: The classical liberalism of John Locke and the

traditional conservatism of Edmund Burke. American conservatism as distinct from

traditional European conservatism is shown to not be born before the middle of the 20th

century, when especially William Buckley Jr. with the National Review stated an

intellectual conservative movement. The differences and clashes between the two basic lines

of thought are described along with attempts at alignment of the two.

Chapter 2, Political Application 1945-2008, not surprisingly, describes the

different incarnations of American conservatism in the period. The politicians are described

both with regards to their own conservative beliefs and with regards to their adherence to

the contemporary developments in the intellectual movement. It is found that only the

legacies of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan are remembered fondly by conservatives.

Barry Goldwater became an electoral fiasco in 1964 because the conservative movement

had not yet grown strong enough to have the momentum necessary to claim the presidency.

!

!

ii!

ii!

Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan became the first to have a broad appeal to, by then, many

various groups of conservatives.

Chapter 3, The Tea Party – Who, What, and Why, answers the important

basic questions to describe the demographics, beliefs, and motives of Tea Partiers. It is

found that the majority of partiers are male, middle-aged or older, white, and middle- or

upper middle-class. Partiers are almost exclusively conservative of the libertarian

persuasion. Some may have an awareness of traditionalist social issues. Fear and anger over

their displacement as the dominant class in America motivate partiers. Particularly Barack

Obama has become the personification of these topics.

Chapter 4, Organization and Funding, takes on the almost impossible task of

charting the landscape of the decentralized, leaderless Tea Party. It is found that the

particulars of local organization and activism is rather inconsequential, as the Tea Party, as

it exists in media and politics, no longer has any useful ties to the grassroots. An existing

theory devised to clarify the grassroots vs. Astroturf debate is tried against the theory of this

thesis that the question of whether local groups are artificial or genuine is no longer

interesting.

Chapter 5, Media Minions – Drawing Attention, describes the unprecedented

aid the Tea Party received from conservative media in drawing attention to the cause. It is

shown, how the extensive web of conservative media reinforces and creates self-referencing

confirmation for stories. Further, it is described how especially the Fox News Channel

promoted rather than reported the initial rallies helped expedite the growth of the

movement. It is discovered that early polls were vague and badly interpreted, which

obscured the true size of the movement.

Chapter 6, Entrance into Politics – Pressure on the GOP, deals with the Tea

Party as most people know it through the media today – namely as a political force in

Congress. It is shown why the GOP has been targeted for a ‘hostile takeover’, and that the

tactics are different from previous pressure groups that have tried to sway the GOP. A man

who made himself crucial to this tactics, Senator Jim DeMint, is portrayed, and it is shown

how his vigilance became a nuisance to the backers. Highly profiled Rand Paul is portrayed,

!

!

iii!

iii!

and in the concluding thoughts, None Dare Call It a Ruse, Paul is used to exemplify how

the Tea Party will fare in the future if, indeed, they will at all.

This thesis is 85.2 standard pages (178,923 characters) excluding front page, abstract, table

of contents, notes, and bibliography.

!

!

1!

1!

1. Introduction

In November 2008, the American people elected Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th

president of the United States of America. Obama had only been a household name after

giving the keynote speech1 at the Democratic National Congress, at which John Kerry was

nominated to challenge George W. Bush in the upcoming election. In that speech, Obama

expressed his awe at that opportunity despite the unlikelihood. Even less likely was

Obama’s own Democratic nomination four years later let alone his election to be president.

It was not unlikely that a Democrat would be elected to succeed a Republican president of

endless disrepute after a war in the Middle East on purportedly false grounds and, not least,

an immense financial crisis commenced on his watch and with hugely unpopular measures

underway to remedy the situation. Nor was it unlikely that the first man born after the baby

boom would be elected. It was not even unlikely that the first non-Caucasian man should be

elected. After all, his strongest opponent in the Democratic primary elections was a woman,

which would have novelty of equally historic proportions. The unlikelihood of such an

immense contrary reaction from average Americans, however, as the one that spurred the

birth of the Tea Party, is great. Hardly one month into his presidency, Obama was met with

anger. An anger that seemingly stemmed from disappointment in his failure to deliver on his

campaign promise of change. Hardly one month.

From a seat in a Scandinavian social democracy 4000 miles away, it is difficult

to understand what set off the protests, which in the States were ignored, then ridiculed,

then shrugged at, but eventually found its way to Danish news outlets. Pundits who have

given Tea Partiers only half a glance shrug them off as racists, even white supremacists,

who are responding solely to the mixed race of Obama. Indeed, sociologists who have

looked closer have still operated on the thesis, that the anger was directed solely at Obama,

because xenophobia had fanned the flame of political disagreements – much like the Ku

Klux Klan of yore. Such a comparison is false and, frankly, uncalled for. ‘Loonies’ are

everywhere, and although maybe especially prevalent on the American right wing – as we

will learn has been conceded by prominent conservative thinkers – they do not define

conservatives. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWynt87PaJ0!

!

!

2!

2!

The motivation for this thesis is this author’s longing to understand the

thoughts of the American right. For someone, born in Denmark in 1979, who then grew up

in the 80s learning of the US in the age of Ronald Reagan, American conservatism is an

underlying force in the perception of the American people. Certain conservative persuasions

are expected of the average American, which lie far from ones own worldview. The

theatrics of the Tea Party from early 2009 far exceeded those expectations and baffled even

Americans. In the process, not only clarity on American conservative thought was gained.

Quite surprising facts about the Tea Party were uncovered during research that beckoned

some often insinuated, if seldom directly uttered, conclusions surrounding the character of

that movement.

In the first chapter the base is laid for the understanding of American

conservatism. Very briefly, we visit the first conservative thinkers, on whose philosophies

American conservative thought is based. Then, research showed that no substantial volume

of conservative thought existed before 1955, when William Buckley Jr. launched the

National Review and summoned the intellect required to move conservatism from obscurity

into a respected position in American political philosophy. Soon, however, a clash of ideas

became the pattern within the conservative movement formed by Buckley. Burkean thought,

now known as traditionalism, clashed on pivotal points with Lockean thought, or,

libertarianism. Although, as the chapter will describe, many conservative lines of thought

have existed in these six decades, those clashes remains to this day and have continually

prevented a unified conservative movement. The second chapter rounds up the political

practitioners of conservatism from WWII through George W. Bush. No two conservative

profiles have carried themselves in quite the same way or had the same emphasis. Robert

Taft had only himself to answer to, as the conservative movement only grew after his death.

Joseph McCarthy exists in the scope of this thesis only because he is an iconic anti-

communist, and, as chapter one will show, anti-communism was an important sentiment in

the conservative movement. The first conservative political leader to look to conservative

thinkers was Barry Goldwater. He was also the first to ride the wave of a large-scale

grassroots movement. Ronald Reagan had so wide appeal within the conservative

movement that he was able to ascend all the way to the presidency. Also in his favor was

!

!

3!

3!

the four new conservative ‘congregations’ available to him that Goldwater had lacked: the

New Right, the Religious Right, the neo-conservatives, and corporate conservatives.

Between Reagan and George W. Bush’s compassionate neo-conservatives, the Religious

Right rose to claim both houses of Congress under the leadership of Newt Gingrich. In the

third chapter, we will look at who will support or, indeed, join the Tea Party. Further, the

very important task of placing the partiers in the landscape of conservative thought. In the

fourth chapter, the organization and funding of the Tea Party will be described. Allegations

that the Tea Party is not a grassroots movement at all, but an artificial entity conjectured by

political pressure groups will be explored, at which point, a surprising conclusion is reached

n the basis of which the remaining chapters will proceed. In the fifth chapter, we shall see

how some media threw press ethics to the wind and played an invaluable part in promoting

the Tea Party, and how vague polling obscured the true size and measure of the movement.

In the sixth and final chapter, we will discover how the Tea Party went about securing a

place in electoral history, and what the outcome has been of this.

!

!

4!

4!

1. Conservatism - noun

Conservatism is not easily defined. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary ventures:

“the political belief that society should change as little as possible” Etymologically, to be

sure, this has merit. However, as we shall see, this is simplistic to the point of uselessness.

No such short and simple definition of conservatism can be stated. To place the Tea Party in

the context of American conservatism, we must trace the origins and evolution of

conservatism from its earliest thinkers of late 17th century Europe to the birth of the specific

American style of conservatism following World War II. In this, we will have a look at

Edmund Burke and John Locke, whose thoughts are the basis of much American

conservative thought, and the differences between the two lines of thought has for 60 years

been at the heart of American conservative debate. Further, it is necessary to delve into the

details of American conservatism, i.e. the backdrop, the thinkers, the politicians and the

constituents. For, as we will learn, the intended beneficiaries of traditional conservatism and

the constituents of American conservatism have little in common and may even be

considered opposites. Indeed, considering traditional conservatism’s struggle for the

preservation of e.g. monarchical rule, one might expect conservatism to have never entered

American conscience. In the following, we will inspect conservative thought from its

beginnings up to and including American brand conservatism.

1.1 The Early Conservatives

Obviously, the ALD has not completely missed its target. However, the ‘society’, which is

to ‘change as little as possible’ has always had its own contemporary contexts. The very

first philosopher to be counted as a conservative was Thomas Hobbes. His was the context

of the English Civil War. Hobbes described natural rights, which was to achieve, by all

means, what was good and avoid what was harmful.2 In the natural state all men were,

according to Hobbes, equal and divided only by their physique. Consequently, with all men

pursuing what is good for themselves, conflicts of interest ensue. A greater good for all men

can then only be achieved by entrusting all natural rights to a sovereign whose covenant

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2!Bunce!(2013)!

!

!

5!

5!

responsibility it becomes to enforce the rights of all. Hobbes’ conclusion was that the

sovereign monarch is the result of human reason and as such instated by natural law.

Obviously, such an institution is not to be challenged, resisted, or revolted against.

Contemporary to Hobbes was John Locke. To him the natural state was the

state of perfect freedom, and like Hobbes, Locke thought that all men had a natural right to

life, liberty, and property. However, contrary to Hobbes, Locke found a natural moral order

independent of any sovereign. This order did not preclude the existence of a sovereign in the

form of a government created by men. However, it did limit the authority of said

government and created a basis for resistance against it. This would inspire the government

to defend the freedom of all men to order their actions and dispose of their possessions as

they saw fit for themselves. This personal freedom was, mind you not a freedom to

encroach on that of another man. The boundaries of a man’s freedom were equal to his

natural rights. The only legitimate function of government was to secure every man his

natural rights, and this legitimate function was sanctioned solely by the consent of its

citizens. Any government failing in or exceeding this function only invited its due

resistance. Within natural rights was the right to care for the salvation of one’s own soul,

meaning the right to freedom of religion.3 Locke is credited as the father of classical

liberalism, which exists within today’s American conservatism as libertarianism.

Edmund Burke observed of the French Revolution that “the levelers […] only

change and pervert the natural order of things”4 Burke believed in a strong hierarchical

system as a backbone for society – not simply a sovereign crown. To him, the natural moral

order entailed a social hierarchy. Indeed, the landed property of the aristocracy, Burke

believed, was the material base of civilization.5 Burke, according to professor of political

science at Brooklyn College, Corey Robin, admitted that a great many rights are afforded to

men as members of a polity, but a “share of power, authority and direction” 6 is not one of

them. If so granted, the proven system would deter into the Hobbesian natural state. Burke

believed that one could not constitute a country on the rights of man. Universal !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3!Mack!(2013)!4!Robin!(2011)!p.8!5!O’Keeffe!(2013)!6!Robin!(2011)!p.8!

!

!

6!

6!

insubordination would ensue. Once again, it was the contention that civil rights were better

left in the hands of superior classes. However, Burke did not champion the upper classes.

Rather, he bemoaned the decline of the values that were to be preserved by the gentry.

These were now equally threatened by the decadence of their champions and by the

revolutionaries. Burke was not averse to reform, and he most certainly saw the lethargic

status quo as a risk. The arrogant complacency could trigger a revolution. Burke said: “A

state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”7 Burke’s

thoughts are the basis of American conservative traditionalism.

As Robin, who in his book, The Reactionary Mind, states the controversial

thesis, that conservatism exits solely in its reactionary form and is only ever with merit

when mirroring the left, insinuates, a conservative, had he born any other name –

reactionary, counter-revolutionary or even aristocrat - he would surely smell as feeble.

There is an aura of regret in the conservative persuasion. The preservation of a condition

entails that it is already under threat or has even been lost. Never was a conservative pro-

active. However, with the emergence of American conservatism after WWII came a new

breed of conservative. It was a breed, which was anything but lethargic.

1.2 Six Decades of Attempted Alignment

The Right in the 1930s and early 1940s existed almost exclusively in a few men’s resistance

to the New Deal. The first Red Scare had ebbed out as the collectivism of the Roosevelt

administration took on the Great Depression. None even had a name for this dissent at the

time, as its constituents felt FDR had hijacked the term ‘liberal’, which had traditionally

covered most of their beliefs. The individualists, traditional liberals or true liberals took, by

the mid-1950s, the term conservative as theirs to boast. However, as much as FDR’s claim

to the term liberal, the claim to conservative was somewhat at odds with the original

meaning of the word.

While the Right did hold a set of Christian values in high esteem along with a

belief that the generic American was somewhat intimidated by change and the unproven vis

á vis the Burkean view of the 18th century Englishman, they also fought for the classical !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7!O’Keeffe!(2013)!p.24!

!

!

7!

7!

liberalism of Locke and the economic laissez faire teachings of Adam Smith. Although

Burke had no reservations towards laissez faire, he made a strong distinction between his

beloved gentry and the new business class, to whom capitalism was most favorable. As

such, the grey capitalists of the post war Right did not fit with Burkean conservatism.

Further, the reactionary counter-revolution, which drove Burke, was nowhere to be found as

a backdrop for the crystalizing right. At least that was so, unless one elected to view the

New Deal as an economic revolution and Communism as a new Jacobinism. In such light,

the business class – to Burke’s presumed regret – replaced the gentry. This time, however, it

was not too late to be pro-active and purge the communist threat. Anti-communism would

be the banner under which rightward persuasions would have to merge. Meanwhile,

different lines of thought claimed the label, and American conservatism would struggle to

find a common footing.

1.2.1 Conservatism Comes under National Review

In 1955, not much existed in way of public conservative thought. Outlets such as the

American Mercury and the libertarian Freeman weighed in, but they were not widely

circulated and virtually preaching to the converted. Then, along came the young William

Buckley Jr., Yale graduate and second generation conservative. In his book, God and Man

at Yale, he had attacked what he believed to be a liberal, secular faculty for not allowing

Christian values to prevail on campus and in class. Later, in McCarthy and His Enemies,

written with his brother-in-law L. Brent Bozell, he had given a passionate defense of

Senator Joseph McCarthy. While admitting the obvious faults in his modus operandi,

Buckley had expressed concern that in dismissing McCarthy one would risk neglecting the

important essence of his work, namely the purging of communist subversives in American

domestic society. Common consensus8 holds that with the issue of his National Review

(NR) in 1955, Buckley was to become the key player in the formation of a national

conservative movement.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8!E.g.!Nash,!Bogus,!Himmelstein,!Farber!et.!Al.!

!

!

8!

8!

According to law professor Carl T. Bogus, who admits to a different set of

beliefs than Buckley, conservatism was, in 1955, shunned by leading intellectuals as a

foolish philosophy.9 Indeed, John Stuart Mill had much earlier quipped that it represented

the ‘stupid party’. Although the NR would serve to prove the opposite, Buckley himself

even asked: “Why is it our side is afflicted with all the loonies?”10 In the six ensuing

decades, loonies, i.e. fringe extremists, as we shall see, have riddled the conservative

movement as they do today within the Tea Party. While the regular writing staff of NR,

counting Frank S. Meyer, Russell Kirk, James Burnham et. al., took NR to a different level,

Buckley, with his charming wit, moved conservatism from the grey corporate offices into

the limelight.

Buckley had no illusions that NR would revolutionize mainstream thought

overnight. He knew it was out of place amidst the liberal New Deal consensus. Indeed,

Buckley saw conservatives as hunted folk, and the establishment shunned even those who

had accepted the New Deal as fact. However, in his credenda of NR, Buckley claimed to

stand “athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have

much patience with those who so urge it.”11 Indeed, the Tea Party of today is yelling ‘Stop’,

even if they, as this paper will show, do not do it with one voice or for a single purpose.

Buckley was uniquely positioned as editor of NR to form the message and thus

the politics of the conservative movement, and with the presence of loonies in the

conservative midst strongly in mind, he would be critical in his selection of published

pieces. However, he would not singlehandedly formulate conservatism. He would not

always agree personally with the positions of NR. His was a mixture of different ‘types’ of

conservatism, and therefore he excluded nothing from consideration. However, other

contributors would be very adamant in the arguments for their own particular beliefs, and

personal grievances between them would often ensue. It is true that different strands of

conservative thought existed and the differences had long been an obstacle to forming a

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!9!Bogus!(2011)!10!Bogus!(2011)!p.8!11!Schneider!(2003)!p.!201!

!

!

9!

9!

movement. We shall now have a look at the different thoughts, their differences to this day,

and the attempts at reconciliation.

1.2.2 Traditionalism – A Matter of Virtue

According to conservative historian and author of the ‘go to’ work on American

conservatism, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, George H.

Nash, traditionalists were the widest spread conservative thought in the years immediately

following WWII. This was in part because of the stirring religious revival. 12 The

traditionalists championed values of which Christianity was the model. Buckley, who put

his dismay at secularism on paper, wrote; “I myself believe that the duel between

Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world.”13 In so saying, Buckley laid

ground to the philosophical battle to come over American values. Meanwhile, it also

exposed, as we shall see, one of the points around which the conservative split would turn.

In WWII, the fight had been against secular fascism. In the cold war, it would

be against secular communism. As far as an evil can exist in a biblical sense, it had certainly

shown its face through the atrocities of the holocaust and it would soon be repeated in the

Soviet gulags. One must grant, that if there was ever a time to look for an American set of

values to exemplify its exceptionalism; it would be at a time when ‘godless’ regimes

existed. Of course, to conservatives, in such a world the secularity of the liberal consensus

was a slippery slope to the same evils, which some feared already lurked about the great

halls. Thus, the traditionalism, which longed for good Christian values, was not tilting at

windmills. Worth noting, at the time, the Christian values of conservatism were

predominately Catholic rather than protestant.

Off the dusty top shelf, then, came the teachings of Edmund Burke. By 1953,

Burke had once again emerged from obscurity in time to inspire the writings of Russell

Kirk’s The Conservative Mind. Kirk was a ‘Jeffersonian individualist’ – that is, he was,

although from the Midwest himself, a Southern Agrarian. He argued for “slow democratic

decision, sound local government, taxation as direct as possible, preservation of civil

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!12!Nash!(2006)!13!Ibid.!p.89!

!

!

10!

10!

liberties, prevention of the rise of class antipathies, as little governing by the government as

practicable, and, above all, stimulation of self-reliance.”14 Kirk was as a professor, much as

Buckley would want, conservative, and his dissertation was on Burkean conservative

tradition.15 To Kirk, conservatism was in six layers:16

1. Belief that divine intent rules society as well as conscience

2. Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life

3. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes…leadership…

4. Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected

5. Faith in prescription and distrust of “sophisters and calculators”

6. Recognition that change and reform are not identical

Herein lay some interesting de-routes from what one might intuitively recognize as

conservatism. Kirk denounced liberalism, utilitarianism and atomistic individualism – all at

the heart of classical liberalism. He did not believe that a capitalist system could be held

together on economic interests, once “supernatural and traditional sanctions [were]

dissolved.”17 Big corporation was an imposition; however, unions were just as enslaving.

The automobile was a downright ‘mechanical Jacobin’. In short, the 20th century university

professor, Russell Kirk, was, indeed, an agrarian and an enemy of industrialization itself.

Meanwhile, traditionalist thinkers did not much concern themselves with the

mechanics of a society. They were hardly concerned with anything but the Western

Tradition on which to base society. Meanwhile, the cornerstone of society is economics.

Kirk himself paid no heed at all to the subject. However, this pivotal aspect had its own

conservative thought. While describing, expanding on and adhering to Locke and to the

laissez faire economics of Adam Smith, free-market individualism – or libertarianism –

presents different arguments for strong defense of liberty, all amounting to a strong call for

limited government.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!14!Ibid.!p.!105!15!Ibid.!16!Ibid.!p.109Z110!17!Ibid.!p.122!

!

!

11!

11!

1.2.3 Libertarianism – Absolute Liberty

The concept of laissez faire economics was all but dead by the hand of the New Deal.

Inspired by John Maynard Keynes’ theories FDR had trusted in the much less ‘invisible’

hand of government to stabilize the economy. However, while laissez faire may have been

dead in practice during the liberal consensus, libertarians were to reemerge coming out of

WWII.

In 1944, F.A. Hayek, an Austrian economist, published The Road to Serfdom.

Hayek’s theories, according to Nash18, were simple. Oppression of freedom is an inevitable

consequence, if economic activity is in any way planned or directed. All collectivism is

inherently totalitarian and negates democracy itself. The book, first published in Great

Britain, read more like paranoia than an economy textbook, as the bottom line had Britain

on the road to the same totalitarian dystopia as Nazi Germany. The only viable remedy

would be individualism and classical liberalism. Hayek himself, however, did not wish to be

read as pure laissez faire. Indeed, he did allow for some regulation, but only with the aim to

preserve competition, private initiative and private property. Equally important to the

formation of American libertarian economic understanding was Hayek’s mentor and fellow

‘professor’ of the Austrian School, Ludwig von Mises. Mises did not have the same disdain

for the label ‘laissez faire’ and based his theories and, indeed to him, entire civilization on

the sanctity of private property. The Austrian school of economics is revered widely among

libertarians, and their writings are recommended by most high profile Tea Partiers.

In 1947, Mises, Hayek et.al were founding members of the Mont Pélerin

Society. The aim was to better the future of the free society, and partisanship as well as

propaganda had no place. Of course, it was a gathering of likeminded classical- and neo-

liberals, and not much partisanship separated the members. Member, Milton Friedman, has

said of the founding: “The importance of that meeting was that it showed us that we were

not alone.”19

Mentioned above is the publication, the Freeman, founded in the 1920s. Its

founder, Albert Jay Nock, had moved from Jeffersonian ideals to virtual anarchism. His

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!18!Ibid.!19!Nash!(2006)!p.34!

!

!

12!

12!

philosophies developed into messianic rhetoric, claiming that the masses could not be

saved, but the intelligent few – the Remnant – could. Nock died in 1945 and never saw

conservatism come of age in America. However, he had been a friend of the Buckleys and

had made his libertarian mark on the young William Buckley.

Nock had taken individualism to the extreme, but he was outdone by Russian

émigré Ayn Rand. Formulating her own Objectivism through the medium of the novel, she

had formed a cult around her own person. Rand did not see herself as part of any movement,

and Buckley had not deemed her fit for an invitation in any case. Her absolute egotism and

claim, that there was no reason at all to allow space for fellow humans if not for one’s own

benefit, had landed her squarely in Buckley’s enclosure for the ‘loonies’. Equally,

Buckley’s Catholicism had prompted Rand to mock him as ‘too intelligent to believe in

God’20, and she took no notice of the exclusion. Ayn Rand, like the Austrian economists, is

hailed among partiers.

Apart from the ultimate free market economy, libertarians advocate a range of

liberties along the same line. At the center stands the government and its interaction with the

private citizens. Professor of Ethics, Economics, and Public Policy at Georgetown, Jason

Brennan, calls the philosophy radical tolerance.21 Although the essence can be inverted to

‘the right to be left alone’, Brennan stresses, in accord with Locke, that it is a duty to leave

others alone, i.e. to tolerate others without question. The absolute liberty entails the right to

live by one’s own set of values and virtues. In this way libertarianism conflicts with

traditionalism, which has a pre-determined – i.e. Christian – set of virtues at its center,

which is not always as tolerant as libertarianism dictates.

In approaching the relationship between government and citizen, political

scientist and co-author of the controversial The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure

in American Life, Charles Murray, is quite content to use the term violence.22 He assumes

e.g. taxes to be a violation of the citizens’ property, and any government sanction against

unpaid taxes is an act of violence. That is to say, enforcement of any infringement on civil

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!20!Farber!(2010)!21!Brennan!(2012)!p.3!22!C.!Murray!(1997)!

!

!

13!

13!

liberties is violent and unlawful. By these standards, a long range of laws would be deemed

unlawful in and of themselves if held against the strictest of readings of the Constitution of

the United States. Herein lies the concept of Constitutionalism, which will be described in a

later chapter.

As mentioned, much of what the conservative movement lacked if it were to

grow and gain ground was unity. Traditionalists and Libertarians differed in so many ways

that one was hard pressed to argue that they were both of the same cloth, i.e. conservatism.

As we shall see below, a specific effort was made to reconcile i.e. fuse the two. However,

first we will touch upon that which was most certainly common for them both, namely anti-

communism.

1.2.4 Anti-Communism – The Negative Ideology

While most ideologies and philosophies have sought to define themselves in their beliefs,

anti-communism did not. It simply existed in what it was not. Communism was deemed un-

American and not much attention was paid to defining what, then, was American. There

was, however, no doubt that there was such a thing as ‘American’. Communism was

perceived as totalitarian, while America was a ‘free country’. Communism was collectivist,

while America was individualist. The socialism, collectivism and ‘statism’ that lay in

communism had already, in the eyes of the anti-communist, won over American society,

and the New Deal was the proof. Anyone not fighting to roll back the New Deal was

nothing less than un-American. He might not be or ever have have been a member of the

Communist Party, but he was at the very least a sympathizer or ‘fellow traveler’. Such

accusations were common and at times strewn with impunity. Some theories even painted

President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a red tone. After all, none was in a position to roll back

the policies of FDR as much as he was, and yet he did not. Such accusations were made,

among others, by candy manufacturer, Robert W. Welch Jr., and his John Birch Society.

!

!

14!

14!

1.2.4.1 The Birchers – An Army of Loonies

George H. Nash, quite simply, states two categories of anti-communism: domestic fears and

foreign fears.23 Domestically, there were not many proposed alternatives to rooting out and

purging society of subversives. Domestic anti-communism serves as a prime example of

what Pulitzer Prize-winner and historian, Richard Hofstadter, termed a paranoid style in

American politics.24 Adhering to this, one never needed to look far for signs of subversion.

Meanwhile, e.g. the case of Alger Hiss showed that fears were not unfounded, and as a great

many anti-communists were themselves converts from one form of communism or the

other, fears were wide spread and had the ear of the public.

William F. Buckley Jr. was acquainted with Robert Welch. Indeed, Welch had

been an initial investor, when NR was launched. However, Buckley did not feel obliged to

Welch, and he would, in time, see him into the ‘looney enclosure’. In the meantime,

however, Welch’ John Birch Society would be too strong a national player to simply ignore

and dismiss as too extreme. For sure, Welch was extreme, and his ‘for your eyes only’,

’burn after reading’ distribution of an unpublished manuscript, naming Eisenhower as a

communist, was top-drawer paranoia. Still, Buckley recognized that the Birchers too

strongly represented the public sentiment to turn his back. Buckley’s movement was still

fledgling, and Welch’ magazine American Opinion was rivaling NR in circulation. Further,

the Birchers, according to Carl T. Bogus, were a semi-covert organization.25 The paranoid

fear of communist infiltration in their suburban homemakers’ coffee-parties had entailed

secret chapters and made an actual membership count virtually unobtainable. The JBS exists

in American conservative history, despite their size and influence, as an extremist fringe

organization. Lines have been drawn and comparisons made with the Tea Party, however,

the presence of former Birchers and abundant similarities, such as the conviction that

Obama is a Socialist, do not suffice to conclude the likeness, as shall be discussed in later

chapters.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!23!Nash!(2006)!24!Hofstadter!(2008)!25!Bogus!(2011)!

!

!

15!

15!

In no way did Buckley disagree that communism was a domestic threat. This,

he had already shown with his defense of Joseph McCarthy. Once again, as he had done

with McCarthy, he simply disavowed the paranoid rhetoric and method of the Birchers. His

cause was that of forming an intellectual movement, and paranoid fear mongering had no

place. Welch could never be allowed to put pen to paper in the NR. Meanwhile, an

aggressively anti-communist foreign policy was deemed intellectually viable. This was

because Buckley simply agreed with such a policy.

1.2.4.2 James Burnham – An Intellectual Hawk

Reactions to the foreign threat was more diverse, and the left wing too weighed in.

Solutions from non-interventionism, via appeasement, over George Kennan’s containment,

all the way to rollback of communism were tabled. True to form, conservative leanings were

toward either extreme i.e. non-interventionism or aggressive rollback.

Facing the threat of communism following WWII, conservatives sought to

learn from the travesties of the appeasement shown by British Prime Minister, Neville

Chamberlain, in Munich, 1938. Anti-communism, then, took the conservatives into a pro-

active mentality. A stronger and earlier response to communism was called for, lest a third

World War was to be forced by the totalitarian Soviet Union.

James Burnham, an ex-Trotskyite, would come to write for the NR. His was a

very dark worldview. To him, the third World War had already begun, with communism

seeking world domination. He anticipated an ‘irrepressible’ struggle against an imminent

danger of the ‘destruction’ of the most ‘cherished’ Western values.26 To Burnham, there

was no alternative but to, aggressively, roll back Soviet communism. Indeed, as he said

coming out of WWII: “The reality is that the only alternative to the communist World

Empire is an American Empire…The United States cannot help building an Empire”27

Barring this, “the defeat and annihilation of the United States [were] probable.” In 1953, in

his Containment or Liberation, Burnham acknowledged that a less isolationist foreign

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!26!Nash!(2006)!27!Ibid.p.141!

!

!

16!

16!

policy had developed, but that Kennan’s containment strategies were inadequate. One sees

the point in his quip: “Who will willingly suffer, sacrifice and die for containment [?]”28

Anti-communism did not exist as its own version of conservatism. Rather, it

was a common denominator for all conservatives and, indeed, most other Americans.

However, it did not do enough to merge traditionalism with libertarianism. Unity was not

simply to be found here, and some hard thinking lay ahead to intellectually join the two.

Somehow, a fusion had to take place.

1.2.5 Fusion – Arguments to Fit the Ends

Gregory L. Schneider writes: “Traditionalists with their insistence on social order typically

based on religious belief or prescriptive tradition, did not mesh easily with classical liberal

insistence on primacy of the individual.”29Once again, William Buckley played a key part.

He himself was of both convictions. This meant that he welcomed both thoughts to the NR.

On the masthead of the NR – much to the dismay of Russell Kirk – stood ardent libertarian,

Frank S. Meyer. While steadfast in his belief in universal individual liberties, he understood

the need for unity and took on the task of creating it, even if he had not meant to. His

argument was that unity existed in American brand conservatism in its very definition.

Quite simply, he defined it using elements of both thoughts using a direct reference to the

“Declaration of Independence the Constitution and the debates at the time of its adoption”30

In doing so, he blatantly ignored the European traditions of conservatism as adhered to by

traditionalists, and he did so deliberately. Further, he would insert a belief in virtues into

libertarianism while placing responsibility on each individual to respect it, despite them

being at liberty not to do so. Thus, his arguments might as easily be read as a defense of the

lack of unity as an approach towards unity. Meyer made an underlying claim that unity

existed in a particularly American definition of conservatism, even if the diverse

constituents did not believe so. Thus, he argued that his ends were already achieved in his In

Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo. Meanwhile, according to Carl T. Bogus, Meyer

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!28!Ibid.p.144!29!Schneider!(2003)!p.169!30!Meyer!in#Schneider#(2003)!p.173!

!

!

17!

17!

defended these lackadaisical arguments in claiming that he never intended to argue for

fusion, even if it would eventually earn him the credit as fusions father. He claimed to have

merely sought to point out the presence of virtues in libertarianism. To be sure this explains

better the many critiques of traditionalism in his text, thus seeking to claim American brand

conservatism solely for his definition of libertarianism.

Another classical liberal, F.A. Hayek made his own inadvertent argument for a

singular conservative credo in his Why I am Not a Conservative by simply removing his

beloved libertarianism from conservatism and letting traditionalists have it as theirs. Where

Meyer had called for a disregard for European tradition, Hayek would refer to it. He pointed

to the original rivalry of thought between classical Lockean liberalism and classical Burkean

conservatism. Hayek argued for a complete removal of libertarianism from the concept of

American conservatism. He did not completely oppose traditional conservatism. However,

he did not wish for association with the traces of collectivism present in the virtuous

compassion of traditionalism. Further, Hayek pointed to the traditional fear of change. His

classical liberalism had position of “courage and confidence “31 In short; Hayek had much

disdain for the complacency and reactionary lack of own principles, which Corey Robin

also refers to. Hayek, in alluding to the separation of libertarianism from conservatism,

ponders, then, by which name classical liberalism should go in the light of the ‘hi-jacking’

of the word ‘liberal’. He confessed himself an ‘Old Whig’, and much like Meyer refers to

the Constitution and its father, James Madison. Combined, Meyer and Hayek allowed for

both thoughts to claim conservatism as exclusively theirs ignoring the other and its

dissimilarities. In this stood the shaky, fused unity as long as no one took another hard look

at it.

As Gregory L. Schneider terms it, fusion was a “marriage of tactical

convenience”32, but despite the obvious internal conflict that persisted in the conservative

movement, practical politics, as will be discussed in chapter 2, succeeded in catering to both

conservative philosophies and convert it into electoral victories. From the traditionalists

would come a demographic, which would grow so fast that it became consequential to

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!31!Hayek!in#Schneider!(2003)!p.182!32!Schneider!(2003)!p.170!

!

!

18!

18!

political successes of the conservative movement. This segment became known as the ‘New

Right’.

1.2.6 The New Right and the Virtuous Grassroots

Professor of Sociology at Amherst College, Jerome L. Himmelstein speaks of the New

Right as a misnomer,33 while Samuel Francis calls the label “at best a confusing one”34.

Ideologically, not much was new about it. New Right leader, Richard Viguerie, said;

“There’s not a great deal ‘new’ about the New Right. Our views, our philosophy, our

beliefs, are not that different, if at all, from the Old Right. It is our emphasis that is different

at times.”35 The difference was quite simply chronological. However, as Himmelstein’s

emphasis is on political success rather than the intellectual movement, his contention is that

conservative organization only started in the 70’s with the New Right. Indeed, his

conclusion is that neither Goldwater nor Nixon could hitherto claim conservative leadership,

as they had been unsuccessful and not conservative enough respectively. Only Reagan,

riding on the backs of the New Right, could claim such a position. Thus, Viguerie stood

front and center as he proclaimed; “Conservatives cannot become the dominant political

force in America, until we stress the issues of concern to ethnic and blue-collar Americans,

born-again Christians, pro-life Catholics and Jews. Some of these are busing, abortion,

pornography, education, traditional Biblical moral values and quotas.”36 These social

issues along with the sanctity of the family was to take center stage in the Culture Wars of

the 1970’s

1.2.6.1 The Culture Wars – Phyllis Schlafly

In his 1991 book Culture wars – The Struggle to Define America, Professor of Sociology

and Religious Studies, James D. Hunter, traced conflicts over social issues all the way back

to the failure of the American ‘melting pot’ to create a homogenous American creed.

Different religious alignments – alliances, if you will – had existed in American history.

Protestants, Catholics and Jews had rivalries, with Protestants vastly outnumbering all other !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!33!Himmelstein!(1990)!34!Francis!in#Schneider#(2003)!35!Himmelstein!(1990)!p.85!36!Himmelstein!(1990)!p.83!

!

!

19!

19!

denominations. Internally, however, Protestants were not aligned. Therefor, not until each

denomination broke into progressives and conservatives, did alignments form to ‘fight’ the

Culture Wars as the Religious Right. At this point, traditionalism, as championed by the NR

et.al, had spread from its Catholic roots to all of Judeo-Christianity.

At the heart were family values, around which social issues were defined.

Conservatives accepted no threat to the traditional family, as they knew it, mainly from the

50’s. As Viguerie said, Biblical and moral values defined the family itself. Significant

energy was spent fighting legalized abortion. Generally, women’s rights were an issue, and

it met strong resistance from a particularly counter-intuitive place – a woman, Mrs. Phyllis

Schlafly.

Schlafly had been a public figure in the 50’s and 60’s through her ardent anti-

communism and strong public support of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Having fallen from the

GOP’s top ranks along with Goldwater, Schlafly stumbled onto the issue of women’s rights,

with which she had hardly been pre-occupied before. Her fusionist conservatism founded in

Catholicism centered on family values as best protected by the ‘republican motherhood’37.

She was of the belief – hitherto not peculiar to conservatives – that the natures of men and

women were fundamentally different, and men, with their personal ambition, could not

protect virtue and value as well as the nurturing nature of women. Thus, even if a woman

was perfectly capable of achievement in society – of which Schlafly herself was living proof

– she should not necessarily seek it, as her value was clearest as a protector of the American

family.

In 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment, women were secured the

right to vote. Immediately, pressure began to secure protection for women against

employment discrimination. The notion of the Equal Rights Amendment was born. The

notion divided even women themselves. Some saw legal protection as an argument for

women as weaker than men. Others feared that other rights of women, such as exemption

from conscription, would be defeated, and that the ERA would eventually cost women more

than it gained them. By the time of the women’s liberation movement, such concerns had

taken a backseat to the symbolic value of equal rights for women. In the early 70’s, all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!37!Farber!(2010)!

!

!

20!

20!

feminists and most of Congress supported the ERA. “Equality of rights under the law shall

not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.” was,

according to professor of History at Temple University, David Farber, a no-brainer.38 In

June 1970, the ERA passed Congress, and state ratifications began. Meanwhile, so too did

the work of Phyllis Schlafly.

To Schlafly, the American woman was privileged like no other. Women had

the babies, so chivalry had dictated that men in turn created a protective bubble around

those babies and the mothers with them. She said; “The claim that American women are

downtrodden and unfairly treated is the fraud of the century. The truth is that American

women never had it so good. Why should we lower ourselves to ‘equal rights’ when we

already have the status of special privilege”?39 Re-animating the cost-benefit arguments

and crying havoc on the belittling of the otherwise most important role of women as

guardians of the family, Schlafly managed with the circulation of a single newsletter to

convince the Oklahoma legislature not to ratify the ERA. Schlafly’s STOP ERA became a

national organization and gained much support in religious circles, which linked the ERA

with abortion rights40 and the rights of homosexuals. Thus, STOP ERA became a Gargantua

among grassroots. Schlafly herself, according to Farber, taught organizers how to raise

money, how to get publicity, how to make politicians pay attention, and how to connect

with the politically inexperienced.41 She groomed them for television and improved their

debating skills. Meanwhile, her ultimately successful one-issue STOP ERA created a wide

base of conservative activists and voters. From this base, many other battles of the Culture

Wars would be fought for Judeo-Christian values against ‘secular humanism’.

1.2.7 Neo-Conservatives – Ideological Drift Wood

As liberals drifted further and further left, there were those who could no longer follow

them. In the shadow of many liberal failures, they took a stand. They were not necessarily

prepared to call themselves conservatives, but the right wing seemed more and more like, at !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!38!Farber!(2010)!p.142!39!Ibid.p.144!40!The!verdict!of!Roe!v.!Wade!was!yet!to!come.!41!Farber!(2010)!

!

!

21!

21!

least, the lesser evil. One such self-proclaimed “liberal who had been mugged by reality”42

was Irving Kristol. He was by no means the first to have drifted from the far left to the far

right. Many, especially among those intellectuals who had joined the conservative

movement, had done so through their fervent anti-communism. However, he was the first to

be labeled ‘neo-conservative’. He did not shy from the label. Rather, he spent much time

defining his thoughts in order to define neo-conservatism, as was his given prerogative.

Today, neo-conservatives are sometimes called Straussians. And Kristol has referred to Leo

Strauss as having given him an intellectual shock.43

Leo Strauss believed, according to British associate Director of the Cambridge

spawned Henry Jackson Society, Douglas Murray44, that the ancient Greeks could inspire

American society. He taught ‘natural law’ and the superiority of ‘ancients’ over

‘moderns’.45 Strauss was an absolutist. Indeed, he believed, relativism would open a door to

nihilism. He saw relativism this way; “The standard in question is in the best case nothing

but the ideal adopted by our society…according to the same view, all societies have their

ideals, cannibal societies no less than civilized ones”46 Strauss adamantly believed in

natural law, and so, no legislators – nor Founding Fathers - had any authority to determine

what is right. In this sentiment, Straussians relied on a strong government to secure a social

order in a virtuous society. Here lay an obvious aggravation of the traditionalist conflict

with libertarianism. Frank S. Meyer, for one, perceived Straussians as downright

authoritarian. Such a version of conservatism needed a new interpretation of the

philosophies of John Locke, on which the founding papers were believed by libertarians to

be based. Willmoore Kendall provided these new interpretations.

To Kendall, individual rights had been determined by a legislature, much like

natural rights, to Hobbes, were to be surrendered for a sovereign to defend them. This,

however was premised on an insecure trust in men to do the right thing, and that the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!42!D.!Murray!(2005)!p.45!43!D.!Murray!(2005)!44!Ibid.!45!Nash!(2006)!46!D.!Murray!(2005)!p.32!

!

!

22!

22!

legislature “would never withdraw a right which the individual ought to have.”47 Kendall,

who had been a religious skeptic, converted to Catholicism. He had sought virtues and

values to accompany his fervent anti-communism. With it, he found the Straussian ‘Great

Tradition’, which was based, among other things, on man as a social animal. Further, he

found his new truth, that the good in men is not a given, and majority rule was not an

absolute virtue.

The crusade for Willmoore Kendall would be to link the Great Tradition of

Europe to American society – keeping in mind the inherent differences between the cradles

of the two i.e. not leaning too strongly on Burke - thus displacing Lockean liberalism. One

argument used was, that ‘all men are created equal’ was not in the Constitution, but only in

the Declaration of Independence. Thusly, the US was not constituted by inherent equality

and could easily contain some social hierarchy. Further, rights had not existed in the

original Constitution, which had had to be amended for this purpose. The Founding Fathers

had necessarily adhered to the Great Tradition rather than Lockean principles. I.e., Kendall

challenged the very understanding of American democracy. He said; “…the issue is not

whether the American system is or is not ‘democratic’, but which of two competing

definitions of ‘democracy’ should prevail.”48 The two definitions, of which he spoke, were,

the people acting through representatives – a republic - or through direct majority rule –

democracy.

So, Kendall moderated his belief in majority rule, although he still thought that

the American people were virtuous. The inherent virtues, however, were under threat from

the secular left and needed defending by a ‘select minority’, that is, the top of a social

hierarchy, not based on business and merit.49

Irving Kristol, in his On the Democratic Idea in America, acknowledges

Strauss as inspiration.50 He expressed dismay at how the self-discipline needed to uphold

American values had taken a back seat to personal aspiration. Admitting the virtues of the

free economy, Kristol warned against extending too much personal liberty to the polity as a !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!47!Nash!(2006)!p.355!48!Ibid.p.373!49!Ibid.!50!Ibid.!

!

!

23!

23!

whole. Kristol wrote; “Self-government, the basic principle of this republic, is inexorably

being eroded in favor of self-seeking, self-indulgence, and just plain aggressive

selfishness.”51 Further, virtue and liberty did not go well together in a number of areas e.g.

pornography. Hence, neo-conservatism could, if not overtly be called radical traditionalism,

certainly be placed safely within traditionalism. Indeed, virtuous tradition was deemed

important by neo-conservatives for a Republic to survive. And so, neo-conservatism did

nothing to fuse conservative thought. Rather, it rekindled the conflicts that Buckley et.al.

had identified years earlier.

Meanwhile, Irving Kristol took his opportunity to define neo-conservatism, as

he, perhaps, felt all conservatism should be. First, he made sure to point out, that neo-

conservatism was not an ideology. The only word he saw fit to use was ‘persuasion’. In

1976 in the short essay, What Is a Neo-Conservative?, Kristol made a short itinerary of

points to check, if you were a neo-conservative. He admits oversimplification and, as he

writes; “Not all neoconservatives will accept all of those tenets; but most will accept most of

them.”52:

1. Neoconservatism is not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state…while being for

the welfare state, it is opposed to the paternalistic state.

2. Neoconservatism has great respect for the power of the market to respond efficiently

to economic realities while preserving the maximum degree of individual freedom.

3. Neoconservatism tends to be 53 respectful of traditional values and institutions:

religion, the family, the “high culture” of Western Civilization. Neoconservatives are

well aware that traditional values and institutions do change in time, but they prefer

that such change be gradual and organic.

4. Neoconservatism affirms the traditional American idea of equality, but rejects

egalitarianism – the equality of condition for all citizens – as a proper goal for

government to pursue. The equality proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!51!Ibid.p.529!52!Kristol!(2011)!pp.148Z150!53!Emphasis!mine.!

!

!

24!

24!

is an equality of natural rights, including the right to become unequal (within limits)

in wealth, or public esteem, or influence.54

5. In foreign policy, neoconservatism believes that American democracy is not likely to

survive for long in a world that is overwhelmingly hostile to American values.

Kristol still knew that he could not, with authority, speak for all those, who accepted the

label neo-conservative. Therefor, he added the phrase ‘tends to be’. Also, he added the

‘most will accept most of them’ disclaimer. This was not because he doubted his own

position. Indeed, he, on another occasion, pointed to himself being referred to as the

‘godfather’ of neoconservatives.55 He simply knew that neo-conservatism does not have a

doctrine. Point 4 adheres to Kendall’s findings on natural rights in America. In his essay

The Neoconservative Persuasion (2003), Kristol expands on point 1 that neo-conservatives

know they have to periodically accept budgetary deficits to achieve economic growth.56

Further, he attributed neo-conservatives with the belief, that when society was so affluent

that the poorest could fend for themselves, society would “become less vulnerable to

egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals…”57

Kristol hailed neoconservatives for possessing an optimism not seen before

among conservatives. Hayek’s dystopian vision of Western economies on a ‘road to

serfdom’ was not accepted. Of course, this does not ring true with point 5 on his list, but his

contention was that “there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy,

only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience.”58Contradictions to his earlier

work notwithstanding, he summarized these attitudes as59:

1. Patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged.

2. World government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny.

3. Statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies.

4. For a great power, the “national interest” is not a geographical term.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!54!Emphasis!mine.!55!Kristol!(2011)!p.190!56!Ibid.!P.191!57!Ibid.!58!Kristol!(2011)!p.192!59!Ibid.!

!

!

25!

25!

Ironic here, is that Kristol was seeking to defend neo-conservatives against the accusation of

being hawkish and aggressive in their foreign policy. As will be shown in chapter 2, these

very attitudes were very much satisfied during the Iraq War, 2003.

Although no alignment seems to have ever been found among conservatives, there were

always those who claimed to have cracked that nut. Always, someone – many more than

mentioned above – had made their own thoughts, which they believed universal for

conservatism. However, none ever stood unchallenged. Meanwhile, the world would not

wait for conservatism to lead the way, and politicians of one conservative persuasion or the

other tried to take their own brand to the top.

!!!

!

!

26!

26!

2. Political Application 1945-2008

It is one thing to develop an ideology, set of principles, or, indeed, a mere persuasion.

Another thing is to sway society toward these principles. First, as we have seen above, you

must have a clear, coherent message. Next, you must have a medium through which to sway

others’ leanings. Then, you must have the knowledge, charisma, and drive to organize the

new followers. These points have been very real for the Tea Party as well. Not least,

however, excepting the Tea Party, one needs patience. The world does not change over

night let alone the world of the liberal consensus following the New Deal. Understandably,

however, American conservatives tried their luck politically whenever the opportunity arose

for direct influence. Senators Robert Taft and Joseph McCarthy both came before the

movement started by William Buckley Jr. Taft was very boisterous in his resistance to the

New Deal, which had made him reconsider his liberal ties. McCarthy became infamous as

he created his own ‘ism’ through his very public hunt for domestic communists. Barry

Goldwater rode almost to the top on the coat tails of anti-communism and his libertarian-

leaning fusionism. Richard Nixon went from being the next great hope for conservatives to

becoming a by-note in conservative history because of Watergate and, as importantly,

disappointing conservatives with some strangely liberal policies. Out of the still waters of

political influence emerged Ronald Reagan to clinch the triumph of a quarter centuries’ hard

conservative work. Conservatism existed through the nineties with Newt Gingrich backed

mainly by the Religious Right et.al., before the presidency of George W. Bush landed

conservatism front and center once again.

This chapter places those politicians in context of contemporary conservative

thought.

2.1 Taft – Stalling in a Lack of Charisma

Up until his run for Senate in 1938, Robert Taft had called himself a liberal. From this

moment, however, he was the first politician to consistently call himself a conservative.

Others would follow, even if it were, at the time, merely a term to denote someone opposing

!

!

27!

27!

the New Deal. Indeed, it was, in 2010 like Robin in 2011, the contention of David Farber60

that conservatives themselves would continue to define themselves in relation to liberalism.

This, as showed in chapter 1, is too simply stated. However, Farber is certainly right, that a

conservative, such as the word was used, only existed as a reactionary opposition until the

dawn of the intellectual movement. Consequently, conservatives were almost exclusively

people who had nothing to gain from the New Deal. That is, most of them were the wealthy

and the business class. This caused the stigma that conservatism was the ideology of big

business, and the intellectual movement spent much energy refuting this.

Robert Taft, son of a former president, was by no means fit for an intellectual

movement, even if he usually was the smartest man in the room. He had graduated from

Yale at a time, when most were accepted on the merit of legacy, but he would have had the

diligence to be there on his own merits. However, according to Farber, he was a cold,

cynical and calculated man, and he, in Farber’s words “did not need an Austrian to tell

[him] that capitalism was good…”61 Taft and the other ‘grey suits’ wished to preserve

traditions and institutions, which had helped the US prosper. The New Deal was not one of

them. In this belief, Taft and a few like-minded were vastly outnumbered in politics.

Taft believed in freedom and liberty, but he was no libertarian. He merely

believed that government should stand aside just enough as to not impede the prosperity of

those able to seize their American opportunity. Herein lay the Taftian equality. Most

assuredly not in a government guaranteed egalitarianism. Meanwhile, Taft was not

unsympathetic to the perils of the industrious, and he did have the pragmatism to support an

outstretched hand to the destitute. In this regard Farber hails Taft as “principled but not

dogmatic.”62

Taft was, as conservatives at the time, a non-interventionist. He much opposed

American participation in WWII. Indeed, he was one of the voices claiming that FDR had

covertly tried to force the US into the war. He proclaimed; “We should not undertake to

defend the ideals of democracy in foreign countries…no one has ever suggested before that

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!60!Farber!(2010)!p.5!61!Farber!(2010)!p.12!62!Ibid.p.25!

!

!

28!

28!

a single nation should range over the world…”63 Tying American economy to the military

industrial complex, Taft thought, would be to approach a planned economy.

Taft had presidential aspirations, but he would on every occasion loose the

republican candidacy to a more moderate opponent – among them Eisenhower. This, he

adamantly claimed, was because the moderates on the East Coast controlled the party

machine of the GOP. Although he was surely right about this circumstance, he would

privately admit to a lack of a certain personal charisma, which was becoming important in

politics already at this early stage. And so, Taft’s most notable legacy would be the Taft-

Hartley Act. Although Taft had publically supported organized labor, this legislation was

designed to restrict unions’ tools, thus serving employers i.e. big business.

2.2 McCarthy – A Censured Sense of Decency

Senator Joseph McCarthy was easily dismissed on appearance. His relationship with alcohol

hampered his appearance in clothing, demeanor, and speech. He was even prone to lying.

The plain truth, however, was that McCarthy was an American patriot and had identified a

threat which he would battle fiercely. However, as Farber quotes historian Richard Powers;

“In the mouth of McCarthy, the truths of anticommunism would turn into evil, malicious

lies.”64

McCarthy, however, was determined not to play the role of the beaten reactionary. So, he

took it upon him, to lead the US out ahead of communism, and purge all inner deviants

beforehand. Like other Catholics, e.g. William Buckley, McCarthy had long heard of and

been warned against the secular communism. It was no wonder that a Catholic would pick

up the reigns of anti-communism, but the sentiment was strong in all Americans. That it had

to be McCarthy was troubling even to his defenders. Defenses, like Buckley’s McCarthy

and his Enemies, would mostly read as a defense of the importance of an aggressive anti-

communism. Usually, McCarthy’s own specific methods were denounced. Eventually, in

1954, Senator McCarthy was censured by congress for his methods. The term,

McCarthyism had already been coined to denote accusations with little or no regard for

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!63!Ibid.!64!Farber!(2010)!p.53!

!

!

29!

29!

evidence. McCarthy, the would-be hero, who aimed to rid the US of communism risked,

instead, losing public backing for anti-communism. In the end, however, only he was the

victim of his methods, and anti-communism survived as an American virtue.

2.3 Goldwater – The Extreme Defender of Liberty

When Robert Taft died in 1953, no one stood at the front of political conservatives.

President Eisenhower was too moderate, and conservatives accused him of ‘New Deal me-

tooism’. Consequently, true conservatives had no political party to fend for their beliefs,

although they felt the GOP was the designated party that sadly failed. There was much

sentiment among conservatives to the effect of ‘taking the Republican Party back’. Lisa

McGirr quotes Robert Welch of the John Birch Society as believing that the Republican

Party “could not save the country…unless it has strong help and backing from forces

outside the straight political organization”65, obviously, among others, referring to the

Birchers themselves.

In 1960, a small group headed by Birchers convinced Arizona senator, Barry

Goldwater, to make a bid for the Republican presidential nomination. As expected, the

attempt hardly made a dent at the Republican convention. However, as Goldwater stood up

to release his assigned delegates in favor of Richard Nixon, he took the opportunity to call

on conservatives to “take this party back.”66 On that podium he made himself a leader of

conservative politics.

Goldwater, however, was not convinced of any imminent success against the

East Coast establishment giant, moderate Nelson Rockefeller. Thus, he was not easily

swayed towards a second attempt in 1964. Member of the National Draft Goldwater

Committee, J. William Middendorf, quotes Goldwater; “A campaign is like a stool with

three legs, a good message, a good candidate, and someone to pay for it. Without the third,

the cash, the stool falls over.”67Reversely, Middendorf knew that; “[Goldwater’s] public

disclaimers were not helpful; they dampened our ability to raise money, and by fostering the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!65!McGirr!(2001)!p.114!66!Ibid.p.122!67!Middendorf!(2006)p.32!

!

!

30!

30!

impression that he was not interested in running, they created a vacuum into which

Rockefeller moved.”68 A defeat, however, would not be for naught. Middendorf saw some

silver linings in losing the nomination to Rockefeller. He felt that Goldwater would put

himself in a position to ‘pick up the marbles’ when Rockefeller lost the general election.

Should Goldwater win the nomination only to suffer that defeat himself, he would have

stood in the national limelight for the duration of the campaign and fought the conservative

cause. This second point is sure to have had much sway as, according to Middendorf,

Goldwater’s pre-occupation was not the presidency. Rather, it was to “foster the

conservative movement in the US through the Republican Party.”69

It is important to understand what Goldwater-conservatism was. To that end, he

had graced voters with a book, ghost-written in 1960 by NR’s L. Brent Bozell, The

Conscience of a Conservative. Goldwater was a die hard anti-communist. His ties to the

Birchers lay very much, however, in their initiative rather than his own. These were ties, he

was well aware, that could haunt him in the electorate. Knowing, as had William Buckley,

that the Birchers were too strong to disavow outright, he would, during the entire campaign,

be labeled an extremist. Meanwhile, according to Middendorf, the Birchers had minimal

influence on Goldwater’s campaign.

The Conscience of a Conservative did mention communism several times, but it

was not the central message. Having, for all intents and purposes, been written in the offices

of NR, it showed sensitivity to the inner conflicts of conservatism. It took care to cater to

traditionalists as well as libertarians. In other words, it was fusionist, meaning, it spoke for

both thoughts while ignoring conflicting sentiments. Meanwhile, it failed to describe

conservatism without the mirror of liberalism. It led with a juvenile ‘if I am, then what are

you’-rebuttal of liberals’ accusation that conservatism is cold hearted and only interested in

monetary gains. With a claim that conservatism has as its primary concern the spiritual

nature of man, the book draws on traditionalist sentiments. However, the claim that liberals

only see man through the satisfaction of his economic wants seems more drawn out of thin

air.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!68!Ibid.p.27!69!Middendorf!(2006)!p.30!

!

!

31!

31!

On the last page of chapter 1, with the assertion that “the Conservative looks

upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is

consistent with the maintenance of social order”70, the book leaves traditionalism behind

and lays into the libertarianism and constitutional antics, for which conservatives today

remember and revere Goldwater. Goldwater’s way of reading the Constitution was

somewhat inverted. Mostly, the constitutional amendments, to which Goldwater would

always refer, dictate what the government ‘shall not’. However, Goldwater tended to allow

only government actions expressly permitted in the Constitution. Further, the particular

constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court were not to be taken for law of the land.

Naturally, this would narrow the scope of government immensely, and that was exactly

what Goldwater sought to do. To explain the reason for this, he quoted Lord Acton in

saying; “Power corrupts men. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”71 There was no trusting

a man with power. One thing was a man, who did not keep promises. However, Goldwater

believed that the death of a free society lay in the thousand paper cuts of men who kept their

well-meant promises. It was fallibility of man that threatened liberty – especially the

delusion that a man was not under tyranny, if only he had a vote. There was such a thing as

the tyranny of the masses.

Such rhetoric put Goldwater and the movement he represented in the search

light of historian Richard Hofstadter. The dystopian outlook Hofstadter would call a

‘paranoid style’ in which “the feeling of persecution is central and it is indeed systematized

in grandiose theories of conspiracy.”72 To Hofstadter the ‘paranoid spokesman’ would have

seen himself gradually dispossessed of his own world, and now, annihilation was imminent.

Ones mind wanders to the foreign policies of James Burnham. Hofstadter points specifically

to Goldwater as a ‘pseudo-conservative’. To Hofstadter, conservatism needed to let

pragmatism guide, wherever tradition failed, as Eisenhower had done earning himself critics

on the far right. Goldwater would simply make the hat fit. Further, Hofstadter tellingly

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!70!Goldwater!in#Schneider#p.213!71!Ibid.p.215!72!Hofstadter!(2008)!p.4!

!

!

32!

32!

quotes Goldwater; “I fear Washington and centralized government more than I do

Moscow.”73

Fierce support from Phyllis Schlafly notwithstanding, Goldwater lost in a

landslide. Conservatives will tell you that the movement had not yet matured into a political

force. Liberals might point to the context of a dead president whose politics demanded

posthumous notice. In reality, Goldwater quite simply was the extremist he was being

accused of being. He may well have ridden the high waters of conservative revolt to the

Republican nomination, but nationally, Americans were not at all near ready. Indeed,

instead of denying accusations of extremism, he endeavored to defend it; “I would remind

you that extremism in the defense of liberty is not a vice. And let me remind you also that

moderation in the pursuit of justice is not a virtue.”74 Having fought the moderates in the

GOP for so long, Goldwater was not about to modify himself to win an election, and one

newsman exclaimed; “My God, he’s going to run as Barry Goldwater!”75

In 1960, Goldwater had eventually thrown his support behind Richard Nixon.

In 1964, Nixon, always alert to party unity, had returned the gesture. Once again entering

the ring, Nixon faced a wide spectrum of politics including the last of the dixiecrats, George

Wallace. He went on to beat democratic vice-president, and good friend of Goldwater,

Hubert Humphrey. Nixon had to, in order to neutralize the bid from George Wallace, devise

strategies for the South, which would sway the southern segregationists from the

Democratic Party to the GOP. A pledge to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme

Court would be his only true mark as a conservative president. And still, it was during his

tenure that the Supreme Court handed down their decision on Roe v. Wade effectively

legalizing abortion. Quite inept - and certainly not conservative – attempts at a reversal of

Johnson’s Great Society had alienated Nixon from conservatives, and the emergence of the

New Right and Religious Right was partly a backlash to the Nixon Administration.

Watergate firmly kicked Nixon out of the conservative annals, and the period until the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!73!Ibid.p.98!74!Middendorf!(2006)!p.131!75!Ibid.!

!

!

33!

33!

national political breakthrough of Ronald Reagan in 1980 had as little direction for the

conservatives as for the American economy.

2.4 The Gipper – A Sunnier Disposition

Ronald ‘the Gipper’76 Reagan took on the ‘malaise’ of the American economy with an

altogether different mindset than his predecessor, Jimmy Carter. Reagan turned his back on

Carter’s ‘blame America first’ attitude. He quite simply and explicitly blamed government

as the problem in American Society. As in Buckley’s phrase; Reagan stood athwart history

and yelled, “Stop!” But Reagan didn’t, as Buckley had, stop to think if America was ready

for it. Indeed, however, it was. Reagan’s producerist rhetoric appealed so broadly to the

extended middle-class, that, finally, conservatism would reach the top. In the analysis of

Jerome Himmelstein77, however, there was no distinct evidence of a rightward realignment

in America. And although by a smaller margin, the Democratic Party still led the GOP in

regards to party identification – noting, like one should today, that the quarter population

identifying as ‘independent’ may well have been conservatives. Within conservatism,

however, Reagan had an even greater ecumenical role than Buckley had. Not only did he

turn more people to conservatism – there were by this time even more groupings within

conservatism to conjoin. Nash, in his 2006 republishing of The Conservative Intellectual

Movement of America Since 1945, counts five distinct impulses: libertarianism,

traditionalism, anti-communism, neo-conservatism, and the Religious Right.78 Whether

Nash did not respect the intellectual credentials of the group highly enough to mention them

or not is unknown; but indeed, Nash neglected a sixth group – namely what Jerome

Himmelstein calls Corporate Conservatives.

The abysmal economy of the 70s had a rather predictable outcome; big

business mobilized politically to promote their own interests. Big business could then

develop its own agenda to have government devise policies to their advantage. Or, as they,

not surprisingly, did, they could support the party with the most libertarian leanings. After

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!76!A!name!carried!over!from!a!movie!role!during!his!negligable!acting!career!77!Himmelstein(1990)!78!Nash!(2006)!

!

!

34!

34!

all, if government policies do not abide by your needs; better to have a government with no

policies at all concerning your needs. Not only had New Deal liberalism never catered much

to corporate interests, worse, by the mid 70s, liberal government had visibly failed. Liberal

market restraints were perceived to have inhibited the competitive edge for American

business internationally, and such restraints had to go. Himmelstein lists such things as high

business taxes, government deficits, and income management programs as key to the

unrest.79

Usual divisions within the business community were then ignored to form all

the more serious interest groups, foremost among them the Business Roundtable, itself a

unification of existing business groups. The Business Roundtable engaged corporate chief

executives in lobbying, to have more stature behind their activities. In such a top group

covering so broadly, of course, only the biggest issues were handled – such as union matters

and limitation of government. Lesser subject simply spread different interests too thin for

the Roundtable to hold sway. Campaign contributions became more coordinated, and PACs

grew markedly in number. PACs would, further, become more diverse in issues and no

longer apply a very narrow pressure for a single cause. Nearly all corporate campaign

contribution would henceforth be funneled through PACs, which we shall se in a later

chapter, is very much the case with the Tea Party today.

As mentioned in chapter 1, many thinkers in the conservative movement did

not care much for big business and had, in fact, denounced any claim that conservatism was

the ideology of big business. Therefor, not much existed in ways of coherent philosophy to

suit corporate interests. Astronomical amounts of money were then put into conservative

think tanks. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) saw its annual budget increase ten-fold

going into the 80s. Notably, in 1973, a new think tank, the Heritage Foundation, was

founded and had, by 1983 the same annual budget as AEI. Not only did these think tanks

develop policies, they were also given opportunity to push them on the legislature.

Appointees in the hundreds already in the first Reagan Administration came from

conservative think tanks.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!79!Himmelstein!(1990)!p.136!

!

!

35!

35!

Corporate America was stoked as they, in the Republican presidential

primaries, heard Reagan tout a fiscal policy called supply-side economics later to be re-

dubbed Reaganomics. Not all were convinced of its merit, and indeed, Reagan’s primary

opponent and later Vice-President, George H.W. Bush had called it ‘voodoo-economics’.80

Believing in its success or not, corporations ate supply-side economic theory up, as they

stood to gain much from it. Roughly sketched, the theory was that tax relief for corporations

and the wealthy would kick-start the ailing economy. This would supposedly be to a point,

where the initial deficit from the tax cuts would be out-weighed by the extra revenue gained

by the virtual eradication of unemployment. Relying too much on the willingness of the top

to let gains ‘trickle down’ through society, the theory was widely discredited, however put

into legislation as the Economic Recovery Tax Bill of 1981. This was a prompt act from the

newly instated president, but of course, he had, in fact, promised eradication of the

government deficit within his first term in office.

As mentioned, most of the intellectual conservatives shunned big business.

However, neo-conservative ‘godfather’, Irving Kristol, welcomed this ‘new leviathan’81,

although he acknowledged that as an institution it was only surpassed by slavery in

unpopularity. In the step up from one man – or family - to public ownership, the corporation

had assumed an ambition of immortality. And in 1978, as Kristol wrote his essay, Why Big

Business is Good for America, the steady supply of consumer goods and not least relative

job-security for employees that came with corporate immortality, was a sought after

commodity in America. Kristol noted the paranoia, stemming from populist producerism,

allowing people to believe “anything reprehensible, no matter how incredible, about the

machinations of ‘big business’”.82However, cynically, Kristol dismisses fears with the

observation that “corporate executives are too distracted and too unimaginative even to

contemplate” exploitation of the American people. As Kristol has on one occasion

described neo-cons as of a far more optimistic stock, Reagans own optimism went far to

endear him to them.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!80!Wilentz!(2008)!p.121!81!Kristol!in#Schneider#(2003)!82!Ibid.p.321!

!

!

36!

36!

Meanwhile, neo-cons were already becoming the black sheep of the

conservative movement. Much of the blame for this can be laid at the feet of the lacking

definition of neo-conservatism. As mentioned in chapter 1, not all neo-cons were prepared

to classify themselves as ‘conservative’. Kristol himself had quipped a neo-con as a liberal

albeit one ‘mugged by reality.’ In his essay, Of What Use is Tradition?, Gregory Wolfe

points to some differences between neo-cons and the paleo-cons of the Old Right and the

conservative movement. In their essence, Wolfe characterizes neo-cons as Lockean i.e.

classically liberal. This makes them strong believers in equality, which should be promoted,

even if it calls for government intervention. However, it is a belief in equal opportunity not

in an egalitarian equal outcome. This, as Wolfe sees it, is why neo-cons have left the

‘liberal’ bandwagon of fair housing, affirmative action and the likes. They may not have

adopted conservative traditionalist virtues, and that’s why the neo-cons wear the predicate

of conservatism undeservedly. Indeed, as Dan Himmelfarb was writing his essay,

Conservative Splits, in 1988, neo-cons were starting to inherit the term entirely displacing

the paleo-cons. As we already know, however, traditionalism is not the only true

conservatism, and to characterize a Lockean as non-conservative is out of order. Further,

Himmelfarb neglects to see, that the conventional attribution of Strauss and Kendall to the

neo-con thought, applies some very traditional traits indeed to them. Nevertheless,

Himmelfarb places neo-cons on the center-right of the spectrum, and hearing no complaints

from those neo-cons who, unlike Kristol, shied away from the term, he succeeds in his ex-

communication of neo-cons from the conservative movement. Of course, Himmelfarbs

errors in judgment aside, the burnhamesque foreign policies of the neo-cons, as defined by

Kristol, would keep them safely anchored on the right. An observation here of utmost

importance is that both Wolfe and Himmelfarb are constituents of the Religious Right, in

comparison to whom most of the traditionalist virtue of other conservatives pale.

2.5 Disarray and a Contract with America

When Reagan left office, the Right had nowhere to go. Work since 1955 had culminated

with eight years in the Oval Office. There was no ‘up’ from there. Further, conservative

thinking was saturated. All issues had been front and center at each their point in time.

!

!

37!

37!

Some had succeeded and some had failed. Supply-side economics had proven to be the type

of ‘voodoo’, that incoming president George H. W. Bush predicted. However, the economy

had, in the end, turned around largely due to the large military spending during the last years

of the Cold War, which some had called ‘military Keynesianism’.83 Meanwhile, deficits had

run amuck rather then being eradicated. Reagan had slowly but surely abandoned die-hard

conservatism in the light of its shortcomings, and with the election of the first Bush, it did

not seem that conservatism would be given the opportunity to redeem itself. Bush did not

carry the same torch as Reagan had for the conservative cause. Bush was as much of an

anti-communist as Reagan, but he had seen the economics of conservatism fail. He had, not

least, seen the reactionary obstinacy of conservatism out of place in the driving seat – a fact

that was embarrassingly predictable, but had nonetheless escaped the electorate in 1980, and

1982, Reagan’s ‘STOP’ had become ‘stay the course’ once again persuading voters. And so,

in Jerome Himmelstein’s words, Bush was “committed more to consolidating and modifying

the Reagan legacy than to extending it.”84

Staunch conservatives were becoming disenchanted and pessimistic about the

future of the conservative cause. Co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and notable

representative of the New- and Religious Rights, Paul Weyrich, wrote An Open Letter to

Conservatives. While touting conservatives for electoral successes, he decried the failure to

implement the conservative agenda in American society. This, he ultimately blamed on the

decay of American culture and its adoption of Political Correctness. While wording his

letter so unfortunately as to invoking the impression that he was claiming his right to utter

racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs, one ultimately discerns a concern in Weyrich with the

state of the 1st Amendment. Soon, however, his celebration of free speech turns into a call

for restrictions on the sorts of speech he as a social conservative abhors. Admitting to have

lost the culture wars, Weyrich proposes desperate measures. He calls for the virtuous to

separate themselves from the popular culture so polluted by secular humanism.

The Religious Right had played a large part in the election of Ronald Reagan.

Or, at least, its reverends had ‘let’ their flocks vote for him, swaying much of the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!83!Wilentz!(2008)!84!Himmelstein!(1990)!p.200!

!

!

38!

38!

evangelical vote that had favored born-again Christian, Jimmy Carter, in 1976. The

Religious Right group, the Moral Majority, led by Jerry Falwell, expected the 80s to be the

start of a new Great Awakening under the leadership of Ronald Reagan. Michael Sean

Winters, journalist for National Catholic Reporter, in his book God’s Right Hand, writes of

Falwell: “He predicted that the decade of the 1980s would produce the ‘greatest spiritual

renewal’ in the nation’s history and set a goal of repealing legalized abortion by the end of

the decade.”85 Meanwhile, although the Religious Right did not see the expected influence

on the Reagan Administration, Falwell, according to Winters, expressed understanding that

economic policies took precedence over social issues in the new administration.

Nevertheless, constituents wanted and deserved their reward and had, not yet seen their day

in the sun. Nor did televangelist Pat Robertson’s 1988 bid for the presidency bear fruit.

However, in the midterm elections of Bill Clinton’s first term, in 1994, led by social

conservative representative, Newt Gingrich, the Religious Right had their day.

In Gingrich’s Contract with America, he aimed for “a governing rather than an

opposition conservatism.”86The ‘contract’ was not an evangelical manifesto. It was a ten-

point legislation plan in strict adherence to conservative limited-government policies.

However, Gingrich who, if Republicans succeeded in taking the House, would become

Speaker, was, himself, a religious man. Gingrich, in his book, A Nation Like No Other,

exhibits a profoundly religious form of conservative constitutionalism: “Our entire

American system of government is premised upon a deeply religious ideal. The proposition

that ‘all men are created equal’ expresses a profound religious principle that recognizes

God as the ultimate authority over any government.”87 Claiming that men can only be

created equal but for the presence of a Creator, then forms the basis for his view of

America as a devoutly Christian nation. Republicans took both chambers from under Bill

Clinton, and drew the Democratic president in a distinctly moderate direction.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!85!Winters!(2012)!p.159!86!Himmelstein!(1990)!p.202!87!Gingrich!(2011)!

!

!

39!

39!

2.6 George W. Bush – Compassionate Conservatism

Bill Clinton did not only come out moderate in an effort to actually sign his name to some

legislation for the remainder of his first term, which might well have turned out to be the

only one. The pressure was so high that his rhetoric became distinctly conservative: “We

have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in

Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means. The

era of big government is over…Family is the foundation of American life. If we have

stronger families, we will have a stronger America.”88 While he was not merely paying lip

service to the strong Right, Clinton was not a conservative either.

Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, was, indeed a conservative. In the

highly contested election of 2000, he had, however, beaten Al Gore who might have carried

Clinton’s economically prudent policies into the 21st century. As well known, however, Bill

Clinton’s family values left much to be desired for the Religious Right, and the stigma of

the Clinton Administration, despite very public displays of spousal affection, proved too

much for Gore to eject.

Unlike Reagan, Bush found conservatism along with his Christian rebirth.

Bush’s was a much less economically attentive conservatism, nor would it have mattered.

Even though Bush took his cue from Reagan on fiscal conservatism, his two all-out wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq became so much a burden on the state budget that he ran out his tenure

with a staggering deficit. The big issues for the Religious Right, such as abolition of

abortion, had not gained any ground. However, at least, Bush had taken a moral stand

against stem cell research. Displaying a paranoid style of traditionalism, Bush explains in

his memoirs, Decision Points: “I felt that technology should respect moral boundaries. I

worried that the destruction of human embryos for research would be a step down the

slippery slope from science fiction to medical reality. I envisioned researchers cloning

fetuses to grow spare body parts in a laboratory. I could foresee the temptation of designer

babies that enabled parents to engineer their very own blond-haired basketball player. Not

far beyond that lies the nightmare of full-scale human cloning.”89

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!88!Farber!(2010)!p.210!89!Bush!(2010)!pp.111Z112!

!

!

40!

40!

Having existed inside the Reagan Administration, neo-conservatism had gone

from present to prevalent in the Bush Administration. Despite Irving Kristol’s claims that

no neo-conservative foreign policy dogma exists, his ‘merely historically derived attitudes’

– described in chapter 1 - were followed to the letter in the War on Terror. Under the literal

guise of patriotism, the PATRIOT Act challenged the constitutionally based right to

privacy. The unilateral circumvention of the UN rejected even the faintest trace of World

Government. A clearer distinction between friend and enemy cannot be found than “If

you’re not with us, you’re against us”. Finally, the defense of American interest was in a

‘pre-emptive’ war moved deliberately beyond American territory, effectively making the

United States a defensive aggressor. Neo-conservative relativism was, indeed, in play as the

Bush Administration attempted to justify its actions including torture against prisoners held

without due process. The relatively peaceful 90s following the collapse of the Soviet Union

and subsequent end of the Cold War had prompted neo-conservative Francis Fukuyama to

proclaim ‘the end of history’. Fukuyama believed that after two centuries of ideological

struggle, the world had finally settled on liberal democracy as the way to go.90 With 9/11, he

was proven wrong. The new enemy, replacing communism, was hard to define; but liberally

democratic it was not.

George W. Bush did not leave a blooming America for his successor, Barack

Obama. Economy was in a crisis not seen since the Wall Street crack of 1929. Deficit on the

state budget was largely as out of control, and in addition, bailouts and stimulus packages

were underway to help private economies straining government spending all the more.

Unrest among conservatives was already brewing, as policies had now failed completely.

Obama’s arrival provided a much-needed scapegoat, and the conservative movement was,

despite almost knocked back 50 years, about to be revitalized with an un-bridled

enthusiasm. Enter the Tea Party.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!90!Fukuyama!(1989)!

!

!

41!

41!

3. The Tea Party – Who, What, and Why

In 2008, global financial crisis struck. Years of prosperity had caused private citizens as

well as corporations to overreach. People had taken out extra mortgages in their homes,

which suddenly no longer had the net worth. Foreclosures ensued, due to large-scale layoffs.

Banks suffers great losses, and fear of a meltdown was not merely paranoia. The George W.

Bush Administration prepared stimulus packages – or ‘bailouts’. Some corporations had

been deemed ‘too big to fail’; meaning their sudden disappearance from the economy would

tear it apart. Banks, investors, insurance companies, and large industrial companies were

given loans. Barack Obama took office amidst the debacle and had no choice but to follow

through on the current measures. Nor should he do otherwise, as the measures were

successful. Consequently, further steps of the sort were taken at great temporary cost to the

taxpayers.

On February 18, 2009, the Obama Administration then announced the

Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan, which was a measure instated to help private

citizens avoid foreclosure. The next day, scarcely a month into Obama’s tenure, CNBC

News turned over to their man on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Rick

Santelli. Santelli, who is by no means a stranger to the occasional hissy fit or camera walk-

off, proceeded with the ‘Rant Heard Round the World’91. In it92, he accused the government

of “promoting bad behavior” by helping the “losers” who took up mortgages they then

could not afford. Riling up the cheers from the brokers surrounding him, he yelled; “We’re

thinking of having a ‘Chicago Tea Party’ in July. All you capitalists that wanna show up at

Lake Michigan…I’m gonna start organizing!” Thus alluding to the Boston Tea Party of

1773, Santelli had created an increased attention to the use taxpayer money. Another

debater in the program, Jason Roney of Sharmac Capital, agreed that the moral issues would

be debated for some years to come. For as with the financial technicalities of 1773, many of

the measures of 2008-2009 would not actually cost taxpayers any money. Santelli rather

made the point about Founding Fathers as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson that

“what we’re doing in this country now is making them roll over in their graves.”

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!91!Lepore!(2010)!92!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA!

!

!

42!

42!

Santelli was thus using a rhetoric, which would be embraced by a large group

of people from that instant and in the years to come. While, as mentioned, the incident was

not unheard of in the on air career of Rick Santelli, on this particular day, people listened as

the video went viral on Youtube.com.

Rick Santelli had reacted to the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan.

Others had protested other stimulus packages earlier. However, Santelli’s heated reaction on

that day, and his allusion to the Boston Tea Party, is commonly recognized as the birth of

the Tea Party. Over the next few weeks, protest gatherings grew in number and turnout, and

on Tax Day, April 15, 2009, protests amassed outside a number of state capitols. More and

more coherency was built, and organizations such as the Tea Party Express and the Tea

Party Patriots were founded. Jenny Back Martin and Mark Meckler, founders of the Tea

Party Patriots, refer in their book, Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution

(2012) to an early outline of the Tea Party; “A tea party is a public protest against big

invasive government, organized through online means, but intended to take place in the

offline world.”93 Twitter especially was a tool for organizers.

Jenny Beth Martin had, herself, been struck hard by the financial crisis. Her husband had

lost his otherwise thriving company, and their home, in Atlanta, Georgia, had been

foreclosed. But as she claims: “We didn’t think we deserved a bailout. Like most other

Americans, we believed in taking responsibility for our own situation in life.”94Martin

quotes her husband, Lee’s, words, eerily similar to those of Rick Santelli; “It’s not right for

our neighbors to pay for our house.” And so, they did not take any ‘handout’, and started

over. Symptomatic for the veracity of the various organizations, Martin neglects to mention

her earlier career as a campaign coordinator for the GOP.

However well coordinated the wording, the sentiment is what binds Tea Party

activists, members and sympathizers. Meanwhile, Martin’s predicament was not one shared

by many ‘partiers’. Very roughly sketched, partiers are white, male, middle- to upper

middle-class and middle-aged or older. In other words, for various reasons, the average

partier is not the most susceptible to financial crisis. Still, a closer look at Tea Party

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!93!Meckler&Martin!(2012)!94!Ibid.p.2!

!

!

43!

43!

demographics is called for, as public perceptions do not match partiers’ own claims, that

political motivation is scattered and diversely defined.

3.1 Tea Party Demographics

Mark Meckler’s, although he too has a career with the GOP in his past, is a much more

representative example of a cross section partier. A self-employed practitioner of Internet

law, he is an upper middle-class male with a wife and to children. He describes his 2008-

2009 self as ‘living the American dream.’ 95 Although describing some failed

entrepreneurship in his past, he was not struck by the crisis himself. He was driven purely

by his small-government persuasions when he actively entered and pioneered the Tea Party.

While one cannot rule out some self-aggrandizing on the part of Meckler and Martin, the

statistics gathered by several sociologists and political scientists put the two squarely in the

mainstream Tea Party demographics.

Through much number crunching from political scientists, Christopher S.

Parker and Matt A. Barretto, professors at the University of Washington, one can discern

much in the way of a demographic cross section of the Tea Party, although the aim of their

book, Change They Can’t Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America

(2013), is to cut through all the rhetoric and place partiers’ animosities directly on Barack

Obama. Before discussing that claim below, we will use Parker and Baretto’s thorough

work to look closer at our average partier.

Drawing lines to the partiers from the historic right-wing fringe groups, the Ku

Klux Klan and the John Birch Society of the segregated 50s and 60s, it is a natural

conclusion that the first African American president will provoke a reaction. However,

while the KKK is beyond the scope of this paper, and the JBS was concerned with the

outdated anti-communism, it will not be the present conclusion below, that the partiers are

descendants of Birchers or Klansmen. In the meantime, the overwhelming white majority of

partiers and their present rhetoric that led to that comparison96, is admittedly of the same

mold as the JBS. It is, once again, the “white, middle-class, middle-aged, Christian,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!95!Ibid.p.5!96!Parker&Barreto!(2013)p.68!

!

!

44!

44!

heterosexual, mostly male”97 segment that is threatened by displacement and is facing a loss

of their perceived status as ‘real Americans.’ In other words, Hofstadter’s paranoid style

plays a part in Tea Party support.

Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard, Theda Skocpol, and PhD

candidate of Government and sociology at Harvard, Vanessa Williamson, in their book, The

Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (2013), have taken a closer look

at why statistics add up in this way. They found first of all, that the individual chapters of

Tea Party organizations are quite fine with the present demographics, i.e. there are no

extensive outreach efforts made to recruit e.g. people less than 45 years of age. On the

contrary, the partiers take pride in being the older, wiser segment. While there seems to be

no hope for the 25-45 segment, some outreach to schools is made, as there is “some hope for

the grandkids.”98 The oldest of partiers will tell of the days when they supported Barry

Goldwater, and living ties with the old conservative movement thus still lingers.

3.1.1 Mama Grizzlies – Women in the Tea Party

Because of the traditional family settings of the elder segments, men are more numerously

represented in the Tea Party at 55-60%99. Quite simply, as the primary breadwinners – and

often business holders - men are more likely to have personal interests at stake. However,

women are far from invisible in the Tea Party. In fact, women are the most active and often

serve in more prominent positions.100 Former Governor of Alaska and vice-presidential

candidate, Sarah Palin, Representative from Minnesota and founder of the House Tea Party

Caucus, Michele Bachmann, afore mentioned Tea Party Patriots founder, Jenny Beth

Martin, chair and spokesperson of the Tea Party Express, Amy Kremer, among others grace

the face of the Tea Party. Political scientist, Melissa Deckman, in her essay, Of Mama

Grizzlies and Politics: Women in the Tea Party, quotes Jenny Beth Martin, as she explains

why women fit so neatly in a fiscally conservative organization; “Many women are the

primary decision makers when it comes to the household budget….[F]rom firsthand !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!97!Ibid.p.35!98!Skocpol&Williamson!(2013)p.25!99!Ibid.p.42!100!Deckman!in#Rosenthal&Trost#(2012)!

!

!

45!

45!

experience, they know you cannot spend your way out of debt at home and they know that

philosophy translates to business and to the government.”101 Further, with only a few

notable exceptions, e.g. Phyllis Schlafly and Jeane Kirpatrick, women have never been

afforded much room in conservative circles, and so, the attraction for women to rise in the

Tea Party is great. In the tune of Schlafly and the Republican motherhood, Sarah Palin

referred to women as the champions of the family and called female Tea Party activists

‘mama grizzlies’ out to protect their cubs.102

3.2 Tea Party Ideology – What to Believe

The Tea Party pride themselves on being non-partisan. They will point to the fact that not

all partiers regard themselves as Republicans. According to Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen

Reports – a notoriously right-leaning polling firm, only half of the partiers are

Republican.103 However, they will not mention that most of the remaining consider the GOP

too moderate and find themselves even further to the right. According to Skocpol and

Williamson, they did for sure all vote for McCain over Obama though. According to Parker

and Barreto, three in four partiers identify themselves as conservatives.104 It is important to

note, how Parker and Barreto use the term ‘conservative’ as they eventually distinguish it

from ‘reactionary’, into which bracket the Tea Party is placed. Their definition of

conservatism approximates traditionalism, in that it heralds ‘ordered liberty’. This, one

notes, excludes pure libertarianism to which partiers adhere and which is at the core of the

Tea Party Patriots’ mission statement;

“The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending

and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our

fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!101!Ibid.p.173!102!Ibid.!103!Rasmussen&Schoen!(2010)!104!Parker&Barreto!(2013)!p.39!

!

!

46!

46!

Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free

Markets.”105

Some partiers may, like F.A. Hayek, not see themselves as conservatives, precisely because

they define libertarianism as such and conservatism as traditionalism. These are semantics,

but they are at the heart of the issue. E.g. ‘a constitutionally limited government’ excludes a

Burkean traditionalist view on change as a gradual move away from a sudden revolution.

Partiers speak in Originalist terms with references to the clear, discernible intent of the 18th

century Founding Fathers. 106 Professor of American History at Harvard, Jill Lepore,

describes vividly in her book, The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party’s Revolution and the

Battle over American History (2010), how at Tea Party gatherings, partiers would turn up

dressed as one Founding Father or the other or sporting original tri-cornered hats. Lepore

also calls them ‘historical fundamentalists’. Fusion or not, Frank S. Meyer might have

asked William Buckley to send the costumed partiers to the ‘looney bin’, but he would not

have accepted Parker and Barreto’s all too traditionalist definition of conservatism. Besides,

as Meckler and Martin write: “Issues like abortion and gay marriage have little to do with

our three core principles, and therefore we leave these issues for other groups to advocate”

and “As an organization we do not take stances on social issues.”107One may then ask why

people think the Tea Party is filled with religious traditionalists. Well, because it is.

3.2.1 The Religious Right

The New Religious Right, which crystalized in the 70s in response to the new social issues,

had continued their attempts to align their family values with the mainstream Republican

agenda of limited government. This is once again the libertarian/traditionalist conflict

showing its face although through the Reagan years, the Religious Right with their very

staunch traditionalism had more sway and in the 90s all but took the GOP as their own. On

the right wing of today stand the Religious Right and the Libertarians of the Tea Party,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!105!Meckler&Martin!(2012)!p.21!106!Ibid.p.22!107!Ibid.p.23!

!

!

47!

47!

which places the conflict between two groupings who were never further apart. However,

there are some key arguments to bridge the gap. According to senior fellow at People for the

American Way, Peter Montgomery, a simple concession on the part of the libertarians, at no

great ideological cost to themselves, made the alliance possible. It was quite simply granted

the Religious Right, that the Founding Fathers had been divinely inspired.108 Nothing would

be lost to the constitutional fundamentalists, and the religious fundamentalists would be

allowed to claim equal ownership. Any other than a fundamentalist reading of the

Constitution was hence forth, then, as heathen as it was un-American. Such circumstance

should be enough to make a libertarian religious and vice versa. Of course, such an

argument is as frivolous as Frank S. Meyer’s own denounced fusionism. Indeed, the

concession was supposedly made implicitly through a quote from John Adams109 in the

statement of intent of the Tea Party Patriots, who you will remember, had just washed their

hands of social issues in the very same document. Former Republican House Majority

Leader, Dick Armey, admitted that when social and economic conservatives join over the

battle against a growing state – i.e. when they join over libertarian politics – things go well.

However, refusing to turn a blind eye to the obvious, he kept alive the conflict with; “…my

point is very simple; you live a righteous life, you’re an encouragement to other people; use

the state to impose it and you’re a tyrant.”110And, according to Montgomery, the Religious

Right wanted to do exactly that. They wanted the Tea Party organizations to insist that

candidates, whom they endorsed, were against abortion and gay marriage. To sum up the

religious presence in the Tea Party, allow a crude analogy:

Some partiers are religious, therefore all partiers are religious, and by extension the Tea

Party is religious,

- Equals –

Some shoppers are poor, therefore all shoppers are poor, and by extension Wal-Mart is

poor.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!108!Montgomery!in#Rosenthal&Trost#(2012)!109!Ibid.!110!Ibid.p.247!

!

!

48!

48!

Hardly all Wal-Mart shoppers are poor; and Wal-Mart most certainly is not poor. Poor

people just happen to shop there and have only their choice in retailer in common with other

shoppers. Thus, while some partiers may be religious – and most are – they are partiers

because they are libertarian. If they have come looking for a religiously fundamentalist

pressure group – and some have – they have come to the wrong place. Quite simply, the

overlap among conservatives between libertarianism and religiosity has created the

confusion that the Tea Party is part of the Religious Right. Facts remain that the Tea Party

started as a libertarian protest against taxes and big government and has never changed that

course. Of course, in a grassroots movement, sentiments change with the constituency.

However, as we shall see in chapter 4, this is not the case with the Tea Party.

3.3 Constitutionalism, Originalism, and Historic Fundamentalism

Statistic, official statements from organizations, historic comparisons, and constitutional

readings are at the forefront of interpreting the Tea Party at this, still, young age. However,

as Skocpol and Williamson point out, personal encounters and the simple plea “Tell us a

little about yourself and how you came to the Tea Party,”111 is an important and much

neglected tool to the understanding of the average partier. Responses are varied, but can, not

unexpectedly, be classified as within generic conservatism or, at least, right wing reaction to

the current government. Simple references to Rick Santelli and the ability to relate to him,

aversions to Obama on varied subjects such as his stance on ongoing war efforts, and

outright indignations at a change away from the society which partiers themselves grew up

in, are many. Common for them all is the emotionality of the responses. Partiers bleed for

their beliefs. Equally common is an unspecified terror at the presidency of Barack Obama.

Like Goldwater, still a hero to many partiers, did in The Conscience of a Conservative, and

Santelli in a simple news show, they invoke the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of

Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Workshops, seminars, and video-tutorials on the ‘correct’ reading of the

Founding Papers are abundant. This allows the naïve belief, that the partiers as laypersons

are able to correctly interpret the Constitution. Thus the inherent conservative aversion to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!Skocpol&Williamson!(2013)!p.!47!

!

!

49!

49!

intellect and expertise prevails. Partiers have, sitting across from Skocpol and Williamson,

summed up their personal take on Tea Party credence as “smaller government, the

Constitution, and personal responsibility” or “honesty, transparency, adherence to the

Constitution.” Any expressions of social concerns, such as religious freedom, are usually

founded in the Constitution. However, these are still firmly within a libertarian context and

any undue expansion on them does not speak on behalf of the Tea Party. Meanwhile, a

selective silence exists on the matters of the deism of the Founding Fathers and the far cry

from the evangelical fundamentalism of the Religious Right this entails. Certainly, as

Skocpol and Williamson point out, no admission is given on the fact that the Founding

Fathers debated long and hard over the Papers, which even Frank S. Meyer admitted, that

would negate the claim of the easy reading of the exact intent of the Fathers. Most of all,

states rights, as secured in the tenth amendment, are emphasized. The more localized and

decentralized governing the better. This is what saves the libertarian vision from being

downright anarchistic. A little leeway is given in terms of personal liberty; but, after all,

what is decided by a the representatives of a few thousand local citizens is better than what

is decided by the representatives of several million federally.

The Originalist notion that the constitution can be read in a distinct way and

applied directly to society and politics 230 years on, Jill Lepore calls ‘historic

fundamentalism’.112 Obvious to Lepore is, that the Founding Fathers could not have

foreseen anything happening in the interim, which they knew very well. They knew their

own fallibility and merely contemporary wisdom and harbored no illusions that their

intentions would be universally applicable.’ Indeed, the one step further taken by many

partyers in claiming that the “Founding Fathers walk among us this very day” or that they

are rolling over in their graves, Lepore calls anti-history. There is simply no way to know

what those men of the 18th century would think of today’s America, nor if they would be the

wisest people to ask. An important question for originalists to ask themselves, is whether or

not the pedestal, on which they put the Fathers, is not tantamount to the sort of divine

mandate, they rebelled against. For sure, the fact remains that their prime antagonist, Barack

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!112!Lepore!(2010)!

!

!

50!

50!

Obama, a law professor nonetheless, is better suited to read the 21st century than

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, or even the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.

3.4 Hating Obama – The Paranoid Style in American Anger.

In Barack Obama and the perceived slide towards a socialist state, the American Right has

found its new antagonist. A foe, rivaling communism in terror, has entered the scene, and

anti-government sentiments roam the land spawning the Tea Party. Out of the stimulus

packages have come a resistance to taxation and government spending that seems for

partiers uncompromising. Meanwhile, the lore of a partier demanding government to “keep

their hands of Medicare” is, first of all, not representative of the average partier’s

knowledge of government activity. Second of all, it is symptomatic of the dichotomy and

selectiveness, with which partiers regard welfare programs and other government activity.

There is, to justify such incoherency, a clear distinction made between ‘freeloaders’ and the

deserving.

According to Skocpol and Williamson, to the average American, Social

Security, public education, subsidized healthcare – i.e. Medicare and Medicaid – programs

to help disabled and low-income people, and veteran’s benefits are welcomed, as long as the

beneficiaries are deemed deserving. On account of the more ultra-free-market advocates

associated with the Tea Party, partiers are perceived outside this norm. The truth is very

different. Especially considering the relatively high age demographics in the Tea Party, it

becomes understandable, however hypocritical, that partiers would support Social Security

and the likes. They are, quite simply, within the sphere of beneficiaries themselves, and of

course they, as ‘real Americans’ are the ‘deserving’. Concerns for these programs were

about the fact, albeit exaggerated, that with the boomers entering retirement, the increased

payout might bankrupt e.g. Social Security. The 60s buzzword of ‘entitlement’ has been

dusted off to denote the opposite these days. Namely that aforementioned programs are

earned and therefore one is entitled to them, as opposed to ‘welfare’ not being something

earned. At the same time, entitlement to something unearned has been denied. A

coordinated message among partiers is seldom at hand; but the gist is never obscure.

!

!

51!

51!

Generally, the adherers to the American Protestant work ethic are deemed worthy. This has

spurred some like Chip Berlet, formerly of Political Research Associates, to use the term

‘populism’ of the Tea Party. His is the claim, that among others, populism has the form of

‘producerism’, which hails the goods-producing, hard-working middle-class as the real

Americans, while there are the moochers in the upper- and lower classes. 113 Populism as a

concept with regards to the Tea Party is, however denied by historian, Charles Postel,114who

rejects the arbitrary use of a term he feels belongs on another branch of the political tree.

Like the present argument, he insists on the Tea Party being a conservative movement. And

while the Tea Party may represent sentiments of both populism and conservatism, it will,

presently, be considered conservative, as populism is beyond the scope of this thesis.

According to Skocpol and Williamson, partiers consider it obvious, who the

freeloaders are. Immigrants and young people – often there is a relative who is a

disappointment – are often pointed out. Face to face, only faint hints at race i.e. African-

Americans come out; but, according to Skocpol and Williamson, racial slurs are “rare but

persistent”115 at rallies and meetings. Racial slurs are, however, overt in the isolated case of

Barack Obama, who is the epitome of the displacement of the white suburban middle-class.

There is a distinct attitude among partiers, that the freeloaders are those who do not ‘try

hard enough’. One sign, protesting financial redistribution, has read; “Redistribute my work

ethic”, inferring that a willingness for hard work is the salvation from poverty.

One group of freeloaders, who do show the right work ethic, is illegal

immigrants. In their case the reverse is the problem. They take jobs away from real

Americans. And they are by definition lawbreakers. Partiers are very happy to relinquish tax

money to the effort against illegal immigration. Partiers, despite their misgivings, do muster

some realism at times; “It’s not their fault they are here. I would have crossed the border,

too. They can’t make a living down there. Why are they here? Because of our greed. We the

people, when we hire a landscaper, or a plumbing job, an owner with Americans working

there…they will be underbid. We foster that…the Hispanics I’ve met are just super

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!113!Berlet!in#Rosenthal&Trost#(2012)!114!Postel!in#Rosenthal&Trost#(2012)!115!Skocpol&Williamson!(2013)!p.68!

!

!

52!

52!

people…they work hard. They are better than a lot of us here in a lot of respects.”116

Nevertheless, the criminality of their unsanctioned presence weighs heavier. Ironically,

illegal immigrants, though frequently pointed out as freeloaders, are, despite oftentimes

paying taxes, never eligible for any of the entitlements.

There is an underlying fearful current that runs through the Tea Party. The

country is perceived to be taken away from them. “I’ve had such a good life, and I just want

other Americans to have that life.”117 Never mind the question of whether that fearful life

under the threat of nuclear war was better than the life of 2014 under the ‘threat’ of what

Skocpol and Williamson call a “pussyfooting health care reform more conservative than the

one supported by Richard Nixon in the 1970s.”118 Partiers are, as reactionary conservatives,

simply not susceptible to any sort of change. Skocpol and Williamson further ask; “What is

so ‘fascist’ or ‘socialist’ about an economic stimulus bill, one-third of which was tax

cuts?”119 And it even worked. Reversely, partiers themselves will ask; “What’s happening

in this country? What’s happening with immigration?”120 To which the answer is clear:

What is happening is a tight lock-down of a country built by immigrants. A fact which

should be well known – and bemoaned – by a historic fundamentalist.

All these cardinal points of fear and anger are attributed to Barack Obama. He

is supposedly a Muslim, an immigrant, a socialist, a Communist, and a Nazi. ‘Birthers’ led

by real estate magnate and occasional presidential candidate, Donald Trump, claim that

Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia and had a Muslim father. Although Obama has

actually produced his Hawaiian birth certificate, allegations persist. Richard Hofstadter,

who pointed out in The Paranoid Style in American Politics a mind prone to conspiracy

theory121as a characteristic of the reactionary conservative, was not wrong – at least about

the Goldwater conservatives, of whom he spoke, and who are now living out their political

activist twilight years as partiers.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!116!Skocpol&Williamson!(2013)!p.71!117!Ibid.p.75!118!Ibid.!119!Ibid.!120!Ibid.p.76!121!Hofstadter!(2008)!

!

!

53!

53!

The Tea Party took their cue in 2009 from the angry commentator Rick Santelli who called

for protest against Obama. Although Santelli, along with many future partiers, was already

riled up by measures taken by republican president George W. Bush, it was the election and

subsequent policies of Barack Obama that spurred the growing organization. In the next

chapter, we shall see, how this ‘angry mob’ is organized, and how financial backing from

large PACs and encouragement from large conservative think tanks cause observers to

question, whether the Tea Party is truly a grassroots movement or an artificially created

movement, which has been coined ‘Astroturf’.

!

!

54!

54!

4. Organization and Funding

When reading current literature on the Tea Party, one encounters many different

approaches, focuses, and even differences of conclusion. However, one thing that is always

referred to as pivotal is the antics on February 19, 2009 of CNBC commentator Rick

Santelli. Meanwhile, as the rant is seen as the catalyst of an immediate reaction against the

bailouts and stimulus packages of the Obama Administration, one eventually wonders, if the

event was as spontaneous as first reported. Activities of major think tanks and advocacy

groups in the days leading up to the outburst seem all too convenient to be a coincidence.

While this thesis not, God forbid, a conspiracy theory, attention must be paid and a

conclusion made on the matter. Luckily, reactions have shown that the thought of careful

planning is not a novelty. A great many dismissals have been made of the Tea Party as a

grassroots movement. Indeed, the phenomenon has been granted its own name in the

coinage ‘Astroturf’.

Ultra-conservative free-market advocacy groups had, according to sociology

professor at University of Missouri, Clarence Lo, already done market analysis on the

support of libertarian standpoints.122 Likewise, several websites had been made ready for

launch with different varieties of names containing the term ‘Tea Party’. The term had, as

well, been floating around since before the election of Obama. In this chapter, we will,

although Skocpol and Williamson concede that a map of Tea Party organization is a

mountain to climb, explore how organizations and money men influenced the very

beginnings and facilitated the growth of the Tea Party, how they ‘helped determine’ the

focal points of the movement, and exactly what that focus was. Not least, we will take on

Clarence Lo’s claim, that due to a division in the formation of the Tea Party they can

reliably be called both grassroots and Astroturf.

4.1 Events of February 2009

According to Devin Burghart of the Institute of Research and Education on Human Rights

as well as internationally recognized expert on far-right political and social movements,

conservative advocacy group, FreedomWorks Tea Party, on February 9 contacted a Florida !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!122!Lo!in#Rosenthal&Trost#(2012)!

!

!

55!

55!

activist and encouraged her to stage a protest the next day, as Barack Obama visited the

area. This activist had prior to this attended a FreedomWorks training session.123 All over

the country, local groups received the same call regardless of whether or not there was any

special occasion. The insidious presence of FreedomWorks within Tea Party activity, which

will be described below, has helped spur the claims of illegitimacy as a grassroots

movement. Conspicuously, so closely after these activities, Santelli’s rant occurred only a

day after the announcement of the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan. It is not a

great leap to wonder if FreedomWorks had made a phone call to Rick Santelli. As early as

March 3 of the same year, Mark Ames and Yasha Levine in an article for AlterNet, made

that very connection.124 The two writers quoted Santelli on another occasion saying: “I hope

the president and the final stimulus plan succeed.” Ames and Levine went on to say, that

this statement was “very much at odds with his on-screen persona as an instigator of a

right-wing protest movement against Barack Obama’s economic recovery plans.” Further,

it was Ames and Levine’s conclusion that “Santelli’s tirade was a ‘carefully planned

trigger’ for the Tea Parties.”

Within days TeaParty.org (1776 Tea Party), Tea Party Nation, Tea Party

Express and Tea Party Patriots had formed. The clearly libertarian manifesto of Tea Party

Patriots, who would become the largest umbrella organization within the movement, makes

no mention of social issues, and founders Martin and Meckler, as mentioned in chapter 3,

clearly state that social issues belong in other venues. However, the manifesto of

TeaParty.org described themselves as “a Christian political organization that will bridge

the gap of all parties, in particular Democratic an Republican Parties. It will welcome all

peoples and ideological perspectives, with the intent to streamline and adhere to

Constitutional Rights addressed in the U.S. Constitution, and by God above.”125 While,

granted, constitutionalist and fiscally conservative, the inclusion of religious undertones in

the declaration suggest social issues awareness not otherwise championed in the initial

movement i.e. FreedomWorks or Tea Party Patriots. Tea Party Express is a for-profit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!123!Burghart!In#Rosenthal&Trost#(2012)!124http://www.alternet.org/story/129656/the_rick_santelli_'tea_party'_controversy%3A_article_kicks_up_a_media_dust_storm!125!Burghart!in#Rosenthal&Trost#p.73!

!

!

56!

56!

organization. It was created by the existing Our Country Deserves Better PAC. Initially,

TPE organized busing to the many rallies around the nation. Soon, however, it became

apparent that the TPE was earning large sums by staging these rallies, while the Our

Country Deserves Better PAC passed them on to Republican candidates. At least

superficially, partiers at this point still stuck to the idea of non-partisanship, and the TPE

very soon became less popular with the crowd. According to Burghart, this sentiment is

enhanced in that the TPE is not a membership organization and does not support build or

support local groups. The Tea Party Nation is, for all intents and purposes, the real life

manifestation of the Buckleyan looney pasture. In here are – still along with mainstream

partiers – ‘Birthers’, who believe Obama to be born outside the United States, culture

warriors, whose soul concern are social issues i.e. the Religious Far-Right, Christian

nationalists, and even white nationalists. 126 TPN founder Judson Phillips, a former

ambulance chasing lawyer and tax evader, has stated: “I’m not trying [to] attract moderates.

Moderates are just those who have no core beliefs.”127 Further, the TPN is, like the TPE, a

for-profit organization. Phillips has succeeded in accumulating the signatures of 180 local

Tea Party groups, leaders and activists on a letter to Republican leadership demanding

culture war issues on their agenda. In comparison, The Tea Party Patriots alone are,

however, as of June 1, 2011, affiliated with 2,900 local groups, showing the miniscule

fraction of religious fundamentalists looming in the Tea Party. As mentioned earlier, an

instrumental group in the upstart was FreedomWorks. Along with Americans for Prosperity

– their counterpart as the group Citizens for a Sound Economy split in two – they have

aided the Tea Party from the very beginning to this day.

4.2 FreedomWorks and Americans For Prosperity

FreedomWorks fancy themselves an organization with a great responsibility for educating

right-wing activists. Knowing full well, that what conservatives lacked in the 60s to gain

more sway was the pro-active passion of the New Left. Among other things former House

Majority Leader and then chairman of FreedomWorks, Dick Armey, along with Matt Kibbe,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!126!Ibid.p.77!127!Ibid.!

!

!

57!

57!

president and CEO of the organization, in their co-authored book Give Us Liberty: A Tea

Party Manifesto, recommend 60s left-wing literature, such as Rules for Radicals by radical

activist Saul Alinsky. The, in general, ultra-libertarian group have, according to Devin

Burghart specifically an agenda of e.g. privatization of Social Security, tax cuts for the

wealthy, deregulation, free trade, and, to the presumed detriment of ambulance chasing

Judson Phillips, tort reform.128

FreedomWorks had a great hand in what Lo called facilitated mobilization.129

At a certain, early, point, partiers became so numerous that large organizations could no

longer steer them so firmly as they had. FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Express had done

much of the organizing of rallies to that point; but as more and more local groups emerged

all over the 50 states, they could no longer coordinate activities. Quite likely according to

plan, FreedomWorks now had as their task to resume their usual activities of educating

activists, however on an increased scale. In Lo’s terminology, they facilitated mobilization

by pointing to rally venues, help setting up web sites, and even make suggestions for protest

signs. And, of course, there was Armey and Kibbe’s book, which reads much like a

handbook for Tea Party activism on every level. Having spent the better part of a year

breaking the ground for local Tea Party groups all over the country, FreedomWorks

watched the fruits ripen, as they in January 2010 turned their attention to the midterm

elections in November of that year. This will be discussed in chapter six.

Americans For Prosperity is, with their larger funding, more engaged locally

than FreedomWorks. This is not as much a difference in focus, as AFP is, indeed, as

interested in political developments as FreedomWorks. Their funding and organization

simply allows for a more hands on leveraging of local activists. The goal for AFP is to form

policies. And as viewers of the motion picture Inception can attest, you must go deep to

plant ideas. AFP is run on funds from the infamous Koch-brothers, and their ultra-free-

market beliefs must be spread to apply pressure from the public

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!128!Burghart!in#Rosenthal&Trost#129!Lo#in#Rosenthal&Trost.#

!

!

58!

58!

4.2.1 The Kochs – a Right-Wing Dynasty

Owning the second largest privately owned company in the US, Koch Industries, Charles

and David Koch are in an income bracket with no comparison. However, as they learned

from their father, Fred Koch, co-founder of the John Birch Society, they are very private

people. Senior editor in the Washington bureau of Mother Jones, Daniel Schulman, in his

book Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America’s Most Powerful and

Private Dynasty quotes David Koch in saying that they wished to run “the biggest company

you’ve never heard of.”130 Although raised by their father to the paranoid style of the JBS,

especially Charles, the head of Koch Industries after the death of Fred Koch, has shown

himself more driven by passion than by fear. His is a passion for libertarianism in the near

anarchist style of Albert Jay Nock, and the objectivist style of Ayn Rand. Charles always

wanted to spread libertarian ideas, and in 1977 he funded the opening of the Cato Institute,

a non-profit libertarian think tank. At that time, leading up to the breakthrough of

conservatism, Charles Koch was hardly impressed with the Republican Party being formed

by the New Right along with corporate conservatives. He thought that the change he and

other business men needed was not the one promised by the Republicans: If this is our only

hope then we are doomed…The Republican Party is the party of ‘business’ in the worse

sense – in the sense of business accommodation and partnership with government.”131

Indeed, David Koch, however symbolically, ran as vice president in 1980 on the Libertarian

Party ticket – against Reagan. According to Schulman, the Koch brothers do not carry any

religious torches. Indeed, much of David’s extensive philanthropy has, partly due to his own

ailment, gone to medical research and the study of the evolution of man. It would not ever

be likely to see any Koch money sent in the direction of social issue causes. For that reason,

FreedomWorks and Americans For Prosperity had their hands deep in the formulation of

Tea Party manifestoes and denunciation of social issues.

The extensive network of libertarian work built around the Cato Institute served

to promote the policies. However, an institute or publications, such as the Libertarian

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!130!Schulman!(2014)!p.4!131!Ibid.p.107!

!

!

59!

59!

Review, could never gain much ground by themselves. It was always the plan to cultivate

activists. Charles Koch has said: “What we needed was a sales force that participated in

political campaigns or town hall meetings, in rallies, to communicate to the public at large

much of the information that these think tanks were creating.” 132 This is an exact

description of the function the Tea Party serves today. In achieving this end, however, the

Kochs have had to concede their prized privacy. With so much money – Schulman

estimates it in the hundreds of millions of dollars – flowing in the direction of a seemingly

fringe political movement, it was inevitable that someone would come asking. Although

vehemently denying it, most money trails have ended at the front doors of Koch Industries

in Wichita, Kansas. Further, Shulman’s fascinating book has shown that behind the veneer

lies a story of brotherly betrayal and endless litigation as Koch Industries almost broke up

but stayed in the hands of two of the four brothers. Theirs is not a pretty story.

4.3 Local Autonomy

The rapid spread and growth of local Tea Party groups could never have been predicted and

not even dreamt of by FreedomWorks and AFP. There exists no national database of Tea

Party groups let alone their members. Even so, Skocpol and Williamson venture: “The

founders of Tea Party groups acted out of like-mindedness and the desire to do ever-more-

challenging things in an exciting mobilization, and they brought recognizable resources

experiences, and skills to the task.”133 Recognizing the time consuming nature of such a

venture, Skocpol and Williamson also find that the founders and keepers of such groups are

ones with the time to spare. This means that retirees and stay-at-home mothers are prevalent

and that a certain income or nest egg is usually present.

On a local level, you will not find the neighborhood oil-billionaire handing out

cash for activities. Usually, you will not even see a use of paid memberships. At rallies,

there will be a sale of protest buttons and other paraphernalia to cover basic costs. At

meetings, turns will be taken to bring coffee and cake. The joining members will, privately,

pay for the odd chartering of a bus to transport the group to out of town rallies, unless one

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!132!Ibid.p.266!133!Skocpol&Williamson!(2013)!p.93!

!

!

60!

60!

of the national organizations, like the Tea Party Express, makes a stop. The for-profit status

of many of these, however, often put off local groups who will organize their own transport.

Eventually, however, the trend, according to Skocpol and Williamson, has been curbing

towards membership dues, which creates a more stable wallet, which can produce better

organization and e.g. visits from renowned speakers

The Tea Party Patriots, although still with close ties to FreedomWorks, pride

themselves with being merely an umbrella organization of the local grassroots groups. The

purpose of this umbrella function is mainly to coordinate messages. Of course, this

coordination can only reach as far as their affiliations. Different messages, such as those

concerning social issues, can easily still emanate from other groups bearing the Tea Party

name. Those groups are much less likely to have joined the TPP, who has taken strong stand

against social agendas. This means that even the largest assembly of groups only reaches

those of like-minded agendas, and the Tea Party name is used by an assorted range of

people and beliefs. Clarence Lo has to explain the difference between the Astroturf and the

true grassroots, which he believes have existed both in their own right.

4.4 Lo’s Theory of the Division of Movements

In his Essay Astroturf versus Grass Roots: Scenes from Early Tea Party Mobilization,134

Clarence Lo argues that “in its initial stage, the Tea Party was Astroturf – grassroots

contrivance; in a second stage, however, the grass roots developed an autonomy (both

strategically and organizationally) that revitalized the Republican Party.” 135 When

studying the Tea Party, it becomes quite clear that one cannot make a single statement,

which applies to all bearing the term ‘Tea Party’. On the surface, on can then only join Lo in

his attempt at drawing lines and localizing definitions. Meanwhile, it is hard to see, why he

stops at a single division and, not least, why he draws the line chronologically and, indeed,

so early in the process.

Clarence Lo draws the line in this heart wrenchingly simplistic way: “This

second wave of Tea Party protests began on April 15,2009, Tax Day, when three hundred

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!134!Lo!in#Rosenthal&Trost#135!Ibid.p.98!

!

!

61!

61!

thousand citizens protested in 350 American cities; these protests were followed by massive

national demonstrations on July 4 and September 12, 2009.”136 Thus, he claims that all the

activities, money spent, and policies pushed by FreedomWorks, Americans For Prosperity,

and the likes, were only facilitating the continued growth of the Tea Party, whose local

autonomy now left it to retirees and bored house wives to decide, if the intended libertarian

philosophies would be embraced or other conservative values would rule the day. First of

all, the contention that the enormous rally in Washington DC on September 12 was merely a

facilitated effort of local groups is ludicrous. Second of all, it is quite simply not true, as it

was the brainchild of Glenn Beck, then of Fox News, and the center of his 9/12 Project.

This, further, exemplifies an oversight in the theory of Lo: The great aid the Tea Party had

from media outlets. This will be discussed in chapter 5. Lo even claims that “the Tea

Party’s marginal autonomy opened up choices about movement goals.” In another crude

analogy, this would approximate two men meeting in the Harvard Chess Club and realizing

they are both avid checkers players and alumni from Columbia University now living in

NYC. The following years they then meet in a Columbia University cafeteria playing

checkers under the name of the Harvard Chess Club. Having met at the 2009 Tax Day Tea

Party protesting for limited government, does not mean you can go back to your hometown

discussing social issues on Wednesdays under the name The *** Tea Party. This, however,

is exactly what has happened on a large scale, and that is why Lo cannot draw a line through

a specific date, and he can certainly not let one line suffice.

There are two likely scenarios here from the perspective of the original

organizations. Either, the message has spun out of control, but somehow otherwise astute

businessmen have seen fit to keep posting money into an obscure assembly of loosely allied

Right to Far-Right communities. Or, the original organizations who, having catalyzed the

mass movement, turned their attention to electoral politics funneling money through PACs

toward ‘electable candidates’. In this second, far more likely, scenario, the faceless masses

congregating under the name Tea Party and occasionally amassing under that name are

merely weight behind words they have not uttered themselves. The ‘Tea Party’ is not an

organization or institution and has no official spokespersons. Anyone can claim the name !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!136!Ibid.p.99!

!

!

62!

62!

and speak for them with authority. That is why the libertarian advocacy group,

FreedomWorks Tea Party, the PAC subdivision, Tea Party Express, the tax exempt non-

political Tea Party Patriots, and the for-profit outlier group, Tea Party Nation are perceived

as parts of the same entity and lumped in with well meaning local libertarians as well as gun

toting survivalists and religious fundamentalists. The question, for Lo, is how many lines to

draw or where to draw them, to make an argument for partiers as true grassroots activists.

The question is truly, if the term ‘Tea Party’ has not been inflated so much that whatever is

left of it carrying any meaning, are exactly those organizations who coined the term and are

now using it mainly to endorse political candidates in the name of countless Americans,

who have been lumped together – by disputed numbers – and may not have many beliefs in

common. Our conclusion must be, that the original organizations, especially

FreedomWorks, are the inventors, triggers, beneficiaries and continued utilizers of the

concept ‘Tea Party’. The grassroots, which are, indeed, grassroots, as they are no longer

coordinated centrally, are now, however no longer a part of the Tea Party, as the brand has

only drawn on their numbers to gain inflated political leverage. Many lines can be drawn to

separate the fractions of these less organized groups in the grassroots. However, should one

wish, like Lo, to only draw one line, it would be horizontally to separate political pressure

groups, i.e. FreedomWorks, from grassroots groups.

When Skocpol and Williamson wrote: “Mapping the Tea Party as a set of

organizations is no easy undertaking,”137they were pulling no one’s leg. There is no map to

be made. When Rasmussen and Schoen claim, “the political elite often deny that the Tea

Party movement even exists,”138they are taking it too far. For, there is definitely something

there. It can be seen on the news. Chapter 5 explores which role the media played in the

growth of the Tea Party Movement.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!137!Skocpol&Williamson!(2013)!p.84!138!Rasmussen&Schoen!(2010)!p.145!

!

!

63!

63!

5. Media Minions – Drawing Attention

One cannot expect to get any message out by merely gathering a group of vocal people on a

potato field in Idaho. The partiers did no such thing. In fact, the average Tea Party ‘infantry’

only had to show up at pre-arranged rallies during the first months of the movement. As

described in the previous chapter, arrangements were taken care of by special interest and

advocacy groups. However, that would still only have amounted to an advanced hoedown

under a lone star, if it were not for the extraordinary interest shown by the press at a very

early stage. Indeed, interest arose so early that especially one news outlet, Fox News

Channel, may well be credited with some of the early growth of the movement. Similar

protests, e.g. anti-Iraq War, have often made the news only to fail in achieving sustained

coverage. Skocpol and Williamson found that: “Even if protest events attract a day or two

of attention, would-be movements usually end up a flash in the pan, as media outlets move

on to the next new and controversial thing.”139

In this chapter, we will explore the American media market, we will take a

closer look at Fox News and the one media personality, then of Fox News, Glenn Beck,

who most personified media bias toward the Tea Party from the start. Then, attention will be

paid to how the media and, not least, dodgy polling created a murky image of the Tea Party,

which makes it difficult to define the Tea Party to this day.

5.1 Partisan Media

Jill Lepore tells of a letter exchange between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson: “Who

shall write the history of the American Revolution? Who can write it? Who will ever be able

to write it?” asked Adams, to which Jefferson replied: “Nobody. The life and soul of history

must forever remain unknown.”140 Contemporary historians had already tried; but a loyalist

in exile had given a different account from others’, whose accounts had differed once more.

John Adams was somewhat worried that he would be written out of history, and indeed he

had already seen attempts at alternate emphasis. Adams further asked: “What do we mean

by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the revolution. It was only an effect and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!139!Skocpol&Williamson!(2013)!p.123!140!Lepore!p.21!

!

!

64!

64!

consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from

1760-1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington.”141

One thing that had occurred in those years was the Stamp Act of 1765, which hit printers,

and therefor the news media hard. The consequent death of several outlets was perceived as

the death of liberty and a restriction on free speech. Of course, citizens were not, at the time,

secured any such thing constitutionally; but the sudden lack of that particular freedom

stirred some thoughts in the colonists’ minds. Thus, while ‘taxation without representation’

was, no doubt, a weighty factor, other liberties were desired as well – including the right to

say and write as you please of, especially, the governing body.

In the 18th century and well into the 19th, there was no such thing as press

ethics. Any printer had his own bullhorn to convey his own opinion. Not until the 20th

century was the concept of an objective, balanced, and observing printing press born.

Nevertheless, around the time the conservative movement took form, allegations of a liberal

slant in the press arose. Such concerns are still present on the right, despite sporting the

most partisan news outlets on the American market. In the case of Fox News, according to

Skocpol and Williamson, not much is done to claim otherwise. Fox News personified, Bill

O’Reilly, has admitted a rightward tilt.142 Radio hosts, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity,

make no secret of their political leanings either. Hannity, too, is a television host at Fox

News. Truth is, according to Skocpol and Williamson, that only the Right has biased media

outlets. The mainstream media still aims for the balanced approach. Only, the truth does not

always sit well with the conservative media, and so, they dismiss a balanced reporting as

liberally biased lies. Meanwhile, there is no denying the appeal in the style of the

conservative media. It is, quite simply, entertaining. And while FreedomWorks defer

conservative activists to 60s liberal literature for inspiration, mainstream media are

struggling to keep up with conservative media. To the extend a balanced journalism can be

presented in a sensationalist style and loud voices bordering on downright yelling into the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!141!Ibid.p.24!142!Skocpol&Williamson!(2013)!

!

!

65!

65!

microphone, mainstream media take their cue from the Right. Rightly so, as Fox News are,

according to Skocpol and Williamson, regularly watched by 25% of all Americans.143

5.2 Glenn Beck - Promotion over Reporting

Conservative media tend towards blindly using each other as sources. One report, be it

factual or otherwise, can spread through the extensive network of conservative outlets. The

farther out it gets, the more sensationalist spins have been made on it, and all the more

attention will be paid. As, according to Skocpol and Williamson, partiers rely heavily on the

Internet for information, they may come across the same outrageousness in several outlets,

making the story credible. Others may have seen it as well, and the story then gains further

confirmation through word of mouth. Finally, claims, such as Obamacare containing ‘death

panels’, ring true to the conservatives, and their political stance on matters is reinforced.

The Santelli rant of 19 February 2009 went through exactly this sort of media frenzy to the

extent where mainstream media reported on the event as well. Fox News immediately went

from reporting on the event to promoting any up-coming Tea Party rallies as they were

arranged. The distinction, to Skocpol and Williamson, between reporting and promoting the

events lay in the anticipation of events. Where e.g. CNN reported, at most, during the

rallies, Fox News would report on their planning.

One Fox News personality, Glenn Beck, in particular, celebrated the first Tea

Party rallies including the 15 April Tax Day Rallies. He had already, once again a

conspicuously mere two days before the Santelli rant, initiated his own 9.12 Project, a rally,

which, although quickly consumed by the overall Tea Party efforts, were to take place in

Washington DC and “bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001.” The

aim was the unity as Americans felt after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, i.e. united in fear. In

his book, Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against Out-of-Control Government,

Inspired by Thomas Paine, Beck further laid out 9 principles and 12 values of the 9.12

Project:144

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!143!Ibid.!P.125!144!Beck!(2009)!p.109!

!

!

66!

66!

The 9 Principles:

1. America is good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my life

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

4. The Family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the

government.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee

of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government

cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal

opinion.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them; they answer to me.

The 12 Values:

1. Honesty

2. Sincerity

3. Reverence

4. Moderation

5. Hope

6. Hard work

7. Thrift

8. Courage

9. Humility

10. Personal Responsibility

11. Charity

12. Gratitude

!

!

67!

67!

These two lists might have been taken directly from a fifth grade textbook on traditionalist

conservatism. With them, Beck sought to position himself as the intellectual leader of the

conservative movement of the 21st century, after the thinkers of the Old Right had almost all

passed away. In his book, Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance,

Alernet.org contributor, Alexander Zaitchik, describes at length how Beck has always

tended to center current events around his own person, and how the 9.12. Project was no

different.145 Meanwhile, the Mormon Beck, although for him unusually secular, does cater

more to traditionalists and social conservatives than libertarians. Beck’s 9.12 Project, while

an attempted self-service, drew social issues closer to the libertarian Tea Party. To this day,

Skocpol and Williamson report, the Tea Party Patriots have, on their membership roster,

groups with names such as Wyoming 912 Coalition and Daytona 912.146 Nevertheless,

FreedomWorks embraced Beck as a partner in the birth of the Tea Party. After all, one

might say, the libertarian agenda of FreedomWorks, entailing an electoral push on the backs

of a faceless grassroots movement, only needed strength in numbers. Their own ‘Tea Party

endorsed’ candidates would supply the strength in message. Further, Beck had already

established a base of followers, containing exactly the kind of conservative demographic

FreedomWorks was aiming for. So, rather than ousting a media personality who largely had

a skewed message from their own, FreedomWorks utilized the link and, in the words of Fox

host Greta Van Susteren, made him “the cable news poster child for these tea parties.”147

5.3 You the Tea Party

Knowing their demographic, while still having an agenda to push, Fox News quickly started

addressing their audience as if they were the Tea Party. Bill O’Reilly once said on air: “The

American media will never embrace the Tea Party. Why? Generally speaking, they look

down on the folks, they think you are dumb.”148 Glen Beck, too, has used this tool. He

promised his viewers, that they would learn “what the media said about you or the people

that think like you,” and that critics were “trying to belittle and dismiss you, the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!145!Zaitchik!(2010)!146!Skocpol&Williamson!(2013)!p.134!147!Ibid.!148!Ibid.p.137!

!

!

68!

68!

viewer.”149Sean Hannity, in his book, Conservative Victory, calls it “our Tea Party

movement.”150 According to Skocpol and Williamson, it is always so at Fox News.

Criticism of the Tea Party is always relayed to the viewer as a personal attack on them.

Meanwhile, Fox News are not the only ones trying to be the voice of the Tea

Party. The numbers amassed by FreedomWorks have no natural spokesperson. This means

that anyone who can credibly stand at its head can claim Tea Party backing for his or her

own particular message. Needless to say, an endless row of people has done and continues

to do so. Skocpol and Williamson mention such politicians as Representative Michele

Bachmann and Senator Jim DeMint.151Besides them are other politicians, spokespersons

from advocacy groups like FreedomWorks, and television personalities including,

obviously, Glen Beck.

It was, granted, not long before the mainstream media accepted the Tea Party as

anything but a fad. Especially after the 2010 midterm elections, when they could not be

dismissed as a politically influential group, were spokespersons allowed to preach beyond

the choir. Partially, mainstream media had covered events but mostly ignored the Tea Party

message, because the Fox News involvement was so intense, that it all seemed staged by the

outlet. All household Fox News faces made appearances at rallies for something more than

simply reporting. Fox News would actively goad mainstream media to intensify their

coverage of the Tea Party. In a newspaper ad with an aerial shot of a rally, Fox News asked:

“How did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN miss this?” Especially CNN responded

aggressively with one anchor noting: “Here’s the fact. We did cover the event. What we

didn’t do is promote the event…That’s not what real news organizations are supposed to

do.”152 Ironically, while no network went unaffected, CNN would turn out to be those most

susceptible to the challenge, as they have later, according to Skocpol and Williamson,

worked closely with the Tea Party Express arranging televised debates. It is, however,

important to note, that while Fox News may have succeeded in pushing the Tea Party onto

the mainstream airwaves, they have never been able to goad any of the larger networks into !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!149!Ibid.!150!Hannity!(2010)!151!Skocpol&Williamson!p.138!152!Ibid.p.139!

!

!

69!

69!

speaking the conservative cause like they do themselves. The debate remains balanced; but

the Tea Party has gained a voice in mainstream debate.

A further problem faced by the Tea Party when entering the mainstream

debates, is their loonies. The fringe groups, whatever they may be, take, in the mainstream

media, a front seat to the on-message libertarians. When asked at all, the rally attending

partiers singled out by mainstream media will tend to be the ones in the most outrageous

costumes or the ones carrying the most radical signs. Simply put, the entrance of the Tea

Party into the mainstream media has hurt the message, insofar as it has created a skewed

image of the Tea Party as radical extremists. One must always keep in mind that the

libertarian message of limited government is but a more fundamental expression of a quite

central sentiment in democracy. White supremacy or Christian fundamentalism is present in

the Tea Party for different reasons, as we have seen; but those are not the Tea Party

message. The usual cross section of the partiers is flawed if one seeks a genuine picture of

what the Tea Party is. And so, by the way, are the questions asked.

5.4 Painting a Picture – the Tea Party Obscured

A gauge to show the dismissal of the Tea Party in the mainstream media in the early days

was the polling questions going around. According to Skocpol and Williamson, fewer than

ten poll questions were asked about the Tea Party in 2009. They were simply not counted

within serious politics. During 2010, however, this changed drastically, as at least 300

questions were asked topping those asked of Wall Street and the Iraq War.153 However, not

sufficient work was put into the wording of the questions. Skocpol and Williamson say: “In

the earliest phases of intensive polling about the Tea Party, the nature of the poll questions,

and dubious interpretations of the results, fed an overinflated and imprecise narrative about

the Tea Party as a large mainstream movement.”154 Such a finding speaks to a deliberate

rigging of the general image of the Tea Party. While mainstream media painted a picture

from, perhaps, equally skewed representation of partiers, polling – presumed more accurate,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!153Ibid.p.143!!154!Ibid.!

!

!

70!

70!

as a cross section of the population supposedly are allowed to speak for themselves – drew

the Tea Party’s image squarely to the center of American politics.

Questions that might have been better phrased “are you active in the Tea

Party?” were in some polls worded “do you support/agree with/fell favorable towards the

Tea Party?” Answers in the affirmative were then reported as the number of actives in the

Tea Party, boosting the numbers to an absurd extent. According to Skocpol and Williamson,

New York Times columnist, David Brooks, claimed on this premise, that the Tea Party was

equal in size to the movement that had secured the presidency for Barack Obama. In depth

analysis of the poll question were not made at the time, so many pundits on either side of

the aisle reported the numbers on face value. The conclusion must be that this was an

intentional and successful manipulation of numbers, as the alternative would be a

handwringing incompetence on the part of otherwise trusted surveyors. As the goal of e.g.

FreedomWorks and extremely well funded Americans for Prosperity was to inflate the

appearance of a mass movement as fast as possible, it is impossible to ignore the possibility

of a deliberately inflated display of mainstream appeal. The inference here is not that

numbers were swindled; merely that questions were intentionally vague and interpretations

willfully favorable. On the bottom line, according to Skocpol and Williamson, a vast

number of Americans were counted as partiers despite having never attended meetings or

rallies, made a donation or even visited a Tea Party affiliated website. In contrast, serious

researchers such as Parker and Barreto distinguish between activists, supporters, and

sympathizers,155 which clarifies matter a great deal. Further, not only are their more recent

numbers not tainted with the kneejerk declarations of sympathy during the movement’s

genesis, they contain reactions more informed on the political intentions.

In the final chapter of this thesis, we shall have a look at these political

intentions of the Tea Party.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!155!Parker&Barreto!(2013)!

!

!

71!

71!

6. Entrance into Politics – Pressure on the GOP

To gain any sort of political influence, it was never enough for the Tea Party to just attend

rallies and make clear their wishes for congressional policies. With the American legislative

system set up as it is, they needed to apply pressure on at least one of the two major parties.

One ought to stress that it is ‘one of the parties’, as the national Tea Party organizations

continue to claim non-partisanship. This claim is, however, the most laughable of those

made from the beginning to seem more broadly popular. As we shall see, the GOP is the

targeted party for several reasons. However, the Tea Party’s march into the GOP adopts a

different strategy from those seen earlier on the right when conservatives sought influence.

This strategy has seen both successes and failures, upon which we will touch. Lastly, we

will look at the Tea Party’s work in Congress and the implications it has had.

6.1 The Grand New Party – Why the Republican Party and How

It is painfully obvious that a conservative pressure group would target the GOP rather than

the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, the endless claims by e.g. FreedomWorks 156 ,

Rasmussen Report,157 and the Tea Party Patriots158 that they might as well support a

Democrat, if he were the one who catered to their limited-government agenda, force

pointing out the obvious. While all Republicans may not rightly be called conservative;

certainly almost all conservatives vote Republican. According to professor of political

science at James Madison University, Martin Cohen, a surprisingly few six in ten partiers

call themselves Republicans. Meanwhile, with only five in 100 claiming to be Democrats,

we are left with 35 in 100 who claim to have no party affiliation. With 92% of partiers

agreeing with conservative causes such as limited government, one can then surmise, that

the ‘independent’ partiers reject affiliation on principle, or are simply too conservative to

relate to even the most conservative Republicans.159 To sum up, partiers vote republican,

and the question is, as it always was; should ‘Tea Party candidates’ run on a third party

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!156!Armey&Kibbe!(2010)!157!Rasmussen&Schoen!(2010)!158!Meckler&Martin!(2012)!159!Cohen!in#Rosenthal&Trost#(2012)!

!

!

72!

72!

ticket or draw the GOP far enough to the right for partiers to relate and vote for their

candidate on a Republican ticket.

To FreedomWorks, the answer to that question was never under serious

consideration. In their book Give Us Liberty, Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, tell of one time

Kibbe was asked that very question by Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball: “Would

you knock off an incumbent Republican by going third party, because you know the vote

splits?”160 While it may have been ‘plan B’, as republicans were no favorite sons of

FreedomWorks and the term ‘Republican In Name Only’ had been words of choice since

George W. Bush had disappointingly expanded government expenditure, ‘plan A’ was to

seat likeminded candidates rather than just unseat unpopular ones. So, the answer was “no”,

they would not form a third party and thus challenge the two-party structure of American

politics. And there were other reasons as well. As they write: “In the real world, third

parties don’t win very often…It’s much easier to start a successful campaign with a network

of donors and a political party apparatus.” Indeed, they are right. In the 112th Congress that

convened in January 2011, only two in 535 members were Independent – what is more, they

caucused with the Democrats. The standing threat – however ridiculous it seemed at the

time – was ‘We will replace any republican who does not live up to our standards of

conservatism and limited-government’. As they were writing in 2010 prior to the midterm

elections that November, which would prove the veracity of that threat, Armey and Kibbe

conveyed the following message on how they would ‘exert their influence over the

Republican Party’: “To earn grassroots support, Republicans will have to be bold on policy

that will get to the heart of the problem: Americans think government has grown too big

and spends too much. Our job as the voters in this country is to supply the boldness for

party leaders by making it clear we’ll be participating in November for those who are as

bold as we are in our desire to limit Washington’s power.” 161 Although they showed to be

no pushovers, Armey and Kibbe inadvertently expose a sad truth, they have long tried to

keep hidden: The true grassroots are merely for show. If only they turn up at rallies

signaling their intent to participate, they have served their purpose in the Astroturf politics

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!160!Armey&Kibbe!(2010)!p.126!161!Ibid!p.154!

!

!

73!

73!

of FreedomWorks. They are simply the silent, mindless muscle to add backdrop to the

threats of the big funders.

South Carolinian, Jim DeMint, already a senator at the time, points in his book,

The Great American Awakening, to a joint op-ed in the August 17, 2010 Wall Street Journal

by Armey and Kibbe in which they further state: “The movement is not seeking a junior

partnership with the Republican Party. It is aiming for a hostile takeover.” DeMint did not

shy away from this very blunt statement. For he was one Republican incumbent ready to be

bold, and he, for one, was going to make the takeover quite hostile.

6.2 The Man Who Would Be Kingmaker

Jim DeMint was a three term representative serving his first term in the senate, when the

Tea Party entered the scene. Although he was up for re-election himself in 2010, DeMint

took it upon himself to run the bidding of the Tea Party from inside the senate. Jim DeMint

was staunchly conservative and had, besides Dick Armey, lacked truly likeminded

conservative companions in his time in Congress. Even Newt Gingrich had lagged in

DeMint’s mind. With the possibility of outside help, he saw in the Tea Party, a chance to

muster some truly conservative force in the Senate. Although he, in his book, Saving

Freedom, had shown strong concern for social issues, he sent that shopping elsewhere when

his libertarian streak finally got the chance. So, despite minor risks – he was fairly certain of

re-election - in relation to his own incumbency and some major ones with regards to his

continued work relationships, he made himself watchdog over the endorsements from the

National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) for the upcoming elections. As per the

guidelines for true conservatives, given by FreedomWorks, he would personally, through

his newly founded PAC, the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), endorse those who might

have been passed over by the establishment. DeMint acknowledges no other presence than

his own as instrumental in the Tea Party success in the 2010 midterm senate elections. Even

FreedomWorks is only mentioned as an organizer of rallies.

DeMint’s first target among the establishment was Pennsylvania senator, Arlen

Specter. Specter was by no means conservative enough to suit the tastes of DeMint, so he

and SCF instead endorsed Pat Toomey who had run and lost against Specter six years prior.

!

!

74!

74!

The tactics of threatening to ‘primary’ incumbent Republicans leaves the incumbent with

few options of which none are comfortable. Firstly, you can stand and fight on your current

principles. This seems like the ‘honorable’ thing to do; but FreedomWorks and their

minions do their homework. If you have been targeted to be primaried, you will most likely

lose. Secondly, you can move so far to the right that you risk losing the base that got you

elected in the first place, while battling a Tea Party endorsed candidate, who might have

already secured the base you are now gunning for. It will simply be too little, too late.

Lastly, you may drastically jump ship. Either you lose out in the primaries and then run

against the two party machines as an Independent, or you simply leave the GOP

immediately upon the challenge. Arlen Specter chose the latter and ran as a Democrat only

to lose the Democratic primaries. Pat Toomey took the senate seat comfortably, and while

Specter may have been an easy target, his show of panic had proven the hostile takeover

viable.

Next NRSC candidate to be challenged was Charlie Crist from Florida. The

race was for a vacant seat in the Senate; but with Crist as an incumbent Florida Governor

and establishment candidate, young Florida State Representative, Marco Rubio, was

supposed to have no chance of mounting a serious challenge. DeMint, upon the NRSC

endorsement of the notoriously unprincipled political opportunist, Crist, decided he could

no longer work with them, and quickly endorsed Rubio162. With tables rapidly turning in the

polls, Crist announced his withdrawal from the Republican primaries and that he would

continue his candidacy for senate as an independent. The hugely popular middle of the road

Governor, who had been considered as John McCain’s running mate in 2008, now saw his

political career in shambles from his brush with the Tea Party. In his book, The Party’s

Over: How the Extreme Right Hijacked the GOP and I Became a Democrat, Crist attempted

to reassemble some credibility for his 2014 run as a Democrat to take back the governorship

of Florida. In this, Crist was narrowly beaten by incumbent, Rick Scott, another Tea Party

backed Republican. Truly, moderate Republicans ought to fear being tapped on the shoulder

by the Tea Party.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!162!DeMint!(2011)!

!

!

75!

75!

6.3 Rand Paul – The Son of Dr. No

Representative, Ron Paul, of Texas was often called Dr. No during his years in Congress. A

clearer cut model of libertarianism has never been elected. His attempts to limit government

took the form of simply voting ‘nay’ to anything not explicitly sanctioned by the

constitution. The Pauls had personal bonds to the Goldwaters and have continuously touted

Ronald Reagan as their role model. Ron Paul’s son, Rand – supposedly not named for

objectivist Ayn Rand, in 2010, eyed the senate seat for Kentucky vacated by Jim Bunning.

Paul has been as vocal in his criticism of the resent Republican government as

he has been of Obama. In fact, he, in his book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington, writes:

“If judgment is based on spending and the budget, then Bill Clinton should be considered

preferable to Bush, given that he spent less money than his successor.”163 Indeed, no Tea

Party politician comes as close to non-partisanship as Rand Paul, and yet he is not non-

partisan at all. He is as dependent on the Republican apparatus as others and must heed his

respect to the Republican machine and especially his senior Kentucky senator, and soon to

be Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. Even Jim DeMint held off his endorsement

of Paul during the primaries out of deference to McConnell.

Still, Rand Paul has, for better or worse, become the most visible of the Tea

Party affiliated politicians. His insistence on libertarian policies has set him somewhat apart

from other Republicans including fellow partiers. The endorsements of McConnell, DeMint,

and Sarah Palin did not come before he made absolutely clear that he is pro-life. Such are

the expectations that he will follow his father’s libertarian stance and be for legalization of

drugs, pro-choice, or for gay marriage, that he is simply not by default trusted to adhere to

traditional conservative politics.

As mentioned, the Pauls had strong ties to the Goldwaters, and in 1960 in The

Conscience of a Conservative, Goldwater sought a man who in a campaign speech would

dare say: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for

I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend

freedom. My aim is not to pass laws but to repeal them…I will not attempt to discover

whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!163!Paul!(2011)p.48!

!

!

76!

76!

permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I

shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am

doing the very best I can.”164 Even more so than Goldwater himself, Rand Paul tries to be

that man.

Such staunchness has caused him some trouble along the way. Much coverage

was done of a statement he made concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thinking the

hypothesis harmless, Paul admitted that one of the ten articles in the legislation might have

been something he would take a closer look at if he had been senator in 1964. Roughly

sketched, nine of the ten articles abolish institutionalized i.e. government sanctioned

segregation. The last one prevents private business owners from making their own

judgments on how to run their business. Such infringement on liberties, to Paul, is of course

unacceptable. Ignoring his repeated claims that he was appalled at the thought of racism and

that discrimination would simply be bad business, mainstream media quickly painted him as

a segregationist in opposition to the entire Civil Rights Act.165

Based mostly on financial concerns, Rand Paul takes a non-interventionist

stance on foreign policies. This also has earned him much critique from his own side of the

aisle. In spite of Tea Party arguments, the Republican Caucuses in Congress have been quite

conservative since Gingrich’s Contract With America. The hawkish neo-conservatism is

still largely in place. Therefor, Paul’s non-interventionism is contrary to conservatism, as it

has been since the beginning of the Cold War. Even worse, the hesitance and reflectiveness

in dealing with perceived threats remind conservatives a little too much of Barack Obama.

And as he has quipped, himself, if the presidential election in 2016 should be between

Hillary Clinton and himself, we might see a Republican running on a foreign policy

platform to the left of his Democrat opponent. As Paul makes his way up the ranks in the

GOP, he must be taken increasingly seriously on both sides and in mainstream media. This

means increased coverage and with it increased criticism.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!164!Goldwater!in#Schneider#(2003)p.218!165!Paul!(2011)!

!

!

77!

77!

6.4 Win Some, Lose Some

Not all campaigns were successful. After Obama’s victory in 2008, which also led to a

Democratic dominance of both houses of Congress, the GOP stood to gain much ground in

the 2010-midterm elections. They might even be so lucky as to claim both houses.

Coinciding with the surge of the Tea Party, the GOP gained sixty-three seats to gain House

majority.166However, not all are convinced that the Tea Party was instrumental in this, as

the congressional ‘pendulum-effect’ might well be a bigger factor. Further, the failure to

claim the Senate majority was blamed directly on the Tea Party and, in some instances,

specifically on Jim DeMint. Yet, carried on the backs of the reporting of Fox News along

with the well-timed appearance, the conventional narrative has been, that the Tea Party won

that election. In more in-depth explorations of this debatable subject, researchers such as

political scientists at Harvard, Steve Ansolabehere and Jim Snyder, had to make distinct

definitions in order to attribute the electoral victory to one factor or the other. ‘Tea Party

candidates’ were then defined as having been endorsed by the Tea Party Express,

FreedomWorks, or both.167This distinction makes sense, as partiers are both frequent voters

and overwhelmingly Republican – hence, their votes would arguably have gone to the GOP

with or without the Tea Party, leaving only endorsements as visible factors of definition.

Ansolabehere and Snyder, on this basis, found no discernable difference between Tea Party

or GOP-establishment success rates. They thus concluded, that the Tea Party and

FreedomWorks have merely been apt at claiming credit. It is here curiously left out by

Ansolabehere and Snyder as well as Skocpol and Williamson themselves, that the ‘hostile

takeover’ tactics of FreedomWorks had a ‘playing it safe’ element. They hardly ever

challenged in the Republican primaries, if the district was not already safely Republican.

This meant that the many upsets happened in Republican primaries. In the general elections,

the GOP candidate would have arguably beaten the Democrat every time. This fact leaves

the Tea Party with virtually no impact on the Congressional seat count. Thus, one may

argue that the Tea Party and the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections are merely

symptoms of the same thing – namely the disappointment with the impact of the Obama

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!166!Skocpol&Wiliamson!(2013)!167!ibid.p.159!

!

!

78!

78!

Administration on the economy. In short, the growing polarization in American politics is

not caused by the Tea Party. Rather, the reverse is true.

Case in point: On some highly profiled occasions, here including DeMint’s

SCF as an ‘official’ Tea Party endorser, candidates have lost in highly contested districts.

With his disregard for FreedomWorks’ principles of casting support on the most

conservative electable candidate, he helped pin two less electable – and ultimately losing –

candidates against weak Democrats. One of these was Sharron Angle, who, in Nevada,

would run against Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. Angle herself, in her book, Right

Angle: One Woman’s Journey to Reclaim the Constitution, asks the question most others

had already concluded in the affirmative: “Could someone else have defeated Harry Reid?

The deck is stacked against any primary winner challenging an incumbent opponent with a

starting advantage, a multi-million dollar war chest, no primary election race, negative

tactics, and get-out-the-vote machinery.”168 Clearly, she did not wish to concede that

answer. In Delaware, an even bigger debacle struck an SCF endorsement. Christine

O’Donnell, whom FreedomWorks and the Tea Party Express did not embrace on account of

her social conservatism, succeeded, with the endorsements of DeMint, other Tea Party

kingmaker Sarah Palin, and media personalities Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, in

beating former Governor and then US Representative of Delaware, Mike Castle, in the

Republican primaries. Her endorsers took immediate flack from pundits, such as Charles

Krauthammer with: It’s a big mistake. Mike Castle is a shoo-in. He wins. O’Donnell is very

problematic. She probably will lose,” and “In Delaware, O’Donnell is going to lose and

that could be the difference between Republican and Democratic control of the

Senate.”169However, asked if he had any regrets, DeMint proclaimed: “No. I’ve been in the

majority with Republicans who didn’t have the principles and we embarrassed ourselves

and lost credibility in front of the country. Frankly, I’m at the point where I’d rather lose

fighting for the right cause than win fighting for the wrong cause.”170 While the rejection of

the ‘wrong cause’ was in accord with the project of FreedomWorks, such a statement cannot

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!168!Angle!(2011)!p.218!169!DeMint!(2011)pp.182Z183!170!Ibid.!

!

!

79!

79!

have sat well with Armey and Kibbe. Indeed, highly profiled Rand Paul hardly mentions

DeMint in either of his books, and DeMint left Senate during his second term to become

president of the Heritage Foundation. Angle, O’Donnell, and, according to Skocpol and

Williamson, Ken Buck of Colorado, were all DeMint-endorsed candidates who ran

interference on more electable Republicans. Those three seats might have tied the Senate.

6.5 The Tea Party Caucus – a Spanner in the Works

Skocpol and Williamson tell us that failure to grab both houses in 2010 did not matter much

to FreedomWorks as “their long-term crusade to remake the Republican Party as an ultra-

right juggernaut remains on schedule.”171 In a manner that would have made Barry

Goldwater proud, Tea Party incumbents have not so much introduced and passed legislation

as they have interfered with the attempts of others. Actions taken by congressmen- and

women with Tea Party backing have largely had the explicit intent of slowing the business

of Congress. The few positive actions include a demand that all sessions of Congress must

commence with a ritual reading of the Constitution. A symbolic gesture to prelude an

unsuccessful demand that all proposed bills must be accompanied with direct references to

their constitutionality.

Rand Paul makes no secret of his intention to slow down Congress: “I will

introduce a mandatory waiting period for every twenty pages in a bill, during which Senate

must wait one day in order to properly read and consider the proposal. Some say this might

slow the rate of government growth or action. Exactly.”172 It is, generally, hard to discern

what the Tea Party on the Hill are for. Even Minnesota Representative and official founder

of the Tea Party Caucus, Michele Bachmann, concedes that the positive policies disappear

in the endless array of negative ones. She has a list of things she is against, and, seemingly

for show, she has a list of things she is for. However, it does not do much to weigh things

out, when one proclaims to be against tax-increases, but for lower taxes or against

Obamacare, but for peoples free choice in health care.173

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!171!Skocpol&Williamson!(2013)!p.168!172!Paul!(2011)!p.244!173!Bachmann!(2011)!

!

!

80!

80!

Meanwhile, as the Tea Party Caucus, now all but defunct as an official entity,

has continuously claimed to be of the people, Congress Approval just prior to the 2014

midterm elections bottomed out at 14%, i.e. lower than the 18% just prior to the 2010

midterms.174 In the interim, the Democrats even gained seats back in both houses in 2012,

although the GOP maintained a status quo in majorities. In conclusion, the Tea Party has not

done much to give government back to the people as promised. The large gains in Congress

in 2010 and 2014 can, according to Gallup.com, be attributed to the fact that, usually, the

frictions between the White House and a Congress led by the other party, cost the presidents

party dearly in midterm election, which are, in any case, influenced by a traditionally larger

turn-out among Republican voters. Indeed, Ansolabehere and Snyder were right that the

swing of the pendulum has been favorable to the place of the Tea Party in the history books.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!174http://www.gallup.com/poll/175676/congressZapprovalZsitsZtwoZmonthsZelections.aspx!!

!

!

81!

81!

7. None Dare Call It a Ruse – Concluding Thoughts

It must be the fear, as felt by the townspeople in The Emperors New Clothes, of being the

first to call out the ruse and then to be called stupid that precludes observers, pundits, and,

indeed, scholars from stating outright that the Tea Party as it exists in the minds of the

American voters today does not, in fact, exist. It may even never have existed as the

movement as which it is perceived. That may well be the genius of the charade played by,

mainly, FreedomWorks.

When William Buckley Jr. in 1955 set out to assemble a volume of American

conservatism, he certainly did not have in mind the picture that has been painted of

conservatism in the past 5 years. Even taking cultural development over 60 year into

account, Buckley would have booted the Tea Party from the conservative movement with

no regard for intellectual or electoral consequences. True, the current incarnation of the

conservative movement does not have any intellectual leadership, and might be thought to

gain something if they did. However, it is not very likely that they would let themselves be

led by anyone regardless of their conservative stance. Neither Dick Armey, Matt Kibbe, Jim

DeMint, Rand Paul, Michele Bachmann, nor even Sarah Palin can claim a sufficient

leadership position to unite the grassroots groups to be their own legitimate political force in

the image of Phyllis Schlafly’s STOP ERA. Certainly no one would contest the claim that

any of them possess any intellectual prowess by which to carry on the tradition of the

National Review.

The lack of unity between libertarianism and traditionalism has never been

more pronounced, as these days each exist in their hitherto most polarized versions. Yet, it

seems, that in true fusionist fashion, no one simply cares. Within the entity known as the

Tea Party Movement are examples of both ultra-free-market libertarianism and religious

fundamentalism. Although Skocpol and Williamson tell of local groups who have had to

make two separate groups for either of the two fractions, they all carry some variant of the

Tea Party brand. Meanwhile, as no one seems to care about the rift anymore, there will be

no way to ever mend it and finish the work of the late Buckley, Meyer and Kirk.

As early as the 90s, those who cared seemed to give up. There seemed to be no

staying power in conservatism as a ruling ideology, and the reactionary character of the

!

!

82!

82!

sentiments seemed to have proven. Perhaps, conservatives, with the Tea Party, have

regained their proper place as the angry opposition or, indeed, watchdog, as they have often

termed it themselves. It is not unlikely that paleo-conservatives in the 90s were right in

fearing, that neo-conservatives had inherited conservatism. In that case, with the discredit

that has befallen them with the foreign policy exploits of George W. Bush, they could well

have buried the conservative movement as Buckley envisioned it. Indeed, neo-

conservatism’s standard-bearer approaching the 2016 presidential election has, in Forbes,

been said to be Hillary Clinton.175 If so, neo-conservatism has come full circle since leaving

the Democratic Party, and will reclaim it after 40 years of ideological homelessness.

Curiously, with a possibly neo-conservative candidate on the Democratic ticket, non-

interventionist Rand Paul would indeed be the dovish candidate, should he grace the

Republican ticket in 2016.

Rand Paul’s policies would, however, not likely fall in good stead with his Tea

Party base. The mostly male, mostly middle-age, mostly white partiers have a tendency to

exempt government expenditure from their government limitation, which they stand to

benefit from themselves. Paul is a much stauncher libertarian than that, and especially his

willingness to put government on a PAYGO budget, i.e. put expenditure on hold to the

extent they cannot be funded immediately, thus enforcing the debt ceiling. Such a measure

may well impede programs, the partiers stand to depend upon themselves. Further, Tea

Partiers do not regularly adhere to non-interventionism. Rather they are more in line with

the traditionally hawkish conservative sentiments.

Rand Paul does, however, not shy away from catering to the paranoid

tendencies of his constituents. Tea Partiers are as wary of their own displacement as the

Birchers were of communism during the Cold War. His demand to “take our country back,”

invokes the same sense of loss as the counter-revolutionaries had in the time of Burke.

Goldwater, too, used this ploy.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!175!http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2014/08/18/withZdemocratZhillaryZclintonZlikelyZ2016ZneoconservativeZstandardZbearerZrepublicansZshouldZofferZaZrealZalternativeZsuchZasZrandZpaul/!

!

!

83!

83!

Meanwhile, Paul will not have room to stray far from his libertarian beliefs. His

unimaginably wealthy backers would simply not stand for it. The libertarian agenda of,

especially, the Koch Brothers must be the cardinal point for any candidate who wishes to

run on a ticket backed by them. They have not shown very pragmatic in the past with David

Koch running on a doomed Libertarian Party ticket. Much like Jim DeMint, they would

rather die by the sword fighting for the libertarian cause than compromise their beliefs and

back a moderate – bearing in mind that Reagan was too moderate for them.

One must, here, make pause and consider, if not FreedomWorks and Americans

for Prosperity already have their candidate in mind, be it Rand Paul or not. After all, all

things point to the fact, that they carefully planned the entire Tea Party phenomenon in early

2009. Simply too many events of that February coincide to paint a picture of a

spontaneously arisen movement. To be fair, the grassroots are indeed grassroots. They have

been unwilling participants in the plan to pull the GOP rightward. Meanwhile, Skocpol and

Williamson get the impression that such speculation does not bother the partiers much

whether true or false. They do not feel taken advantage of, as they came out to protest

limited government, and that continues to be the agenda of FreedomWorks. Thus, the work

and planning has been in the interest of the grassroots as well. The only dishonesty

perpetrated is the tenacious insistence that the Tea Party is, indeed, a true grassroots

movement, and that FreedomWorks merely serves the same function for the Tea Party as

Phyllis Schlafly did for STOP ERA.

As we saw in 2010, FreedomWorks hostile takeover of the GOP was successful

insofar as taking Republican seats away from other Republicans, thus pulling the GOP to

the right. It cannot be categorically denied, but a closer look, however, indicates that Tea

Party backing did not have much impact on the number of congressional seat for the GOP.

2012 did not turn out as well for the GOP, and the great victory for the GOP in 2014 was

largely without interference by Tea Party endorsed candidates.

The question people have asked since momentum faded in 2012 is: ‘Is the Tea

Party dead?’ The answer is ‘No’. The Tea Party is alive and well on life support in the

offices of FreedomWorks, just as it has been since February 19, 2009. The ace up

FreedomWorks sleeve remains to be seen; but time is running out, and the closing thought

!

!

84!

84!

might be, that a given run for president by Rand Paul in 2016 may well be the last we will

hear from the Tea Party brand.

Bibliography

Books:

Alinsky, Saul D. Rules for Radicals. New York: Vintage Books, 1971

Angle, Sharron. Right Angle: One Woman’s Journey to Reclaim the Constitution.

Bloomington: AuthorHouse, 2011

Armey, Dick & Kibbe, Matt. Give Us Liberty. New York: HArperCollins Publishers, 2010

Bachmann, Michelle. Core of Conviction. New York: Penguin Group, 2011

Beck, Glenn. Glen Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control

Governtment, Inspired by Thomas Paine. New York: Threshold Editions, 2009

Bogus, Carl T. Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and The Rise of American Conservatism.

New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2011

Brennan, Jason. Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxfor

University Press, 2012

Bunce, R.E.R. Thomas Hobbes. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013

Bush, George W. Decision Points. UK: Virgin Books, 2010

Crist, Charlie. The Party’s Over: How the Extreme Right Hijacked the GOP and I became a

Democrat. New York: Penguin Group, 2014

DeMint, Jim. The Great American Awakening. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2011

DeMint, Jim. Saving Freedom. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009

Farber, David. The Rise and Fall of Modern American Conservatism. Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 2010

Gingrich, Newt. A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters.

Washington DC: REgnery Publishing, 2011

Hannity, Sean. Conservative Victory. New York: HarperCollins, 2010

Himmelstein, Jerome L. To the Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990

Hofstadter, Richard. The Paranoid Style in American Politics. New York: Vintage Books,

2008

Horwitz, Robert B. America’s Right: Anti-establishment Conservatism from Goldwater to

the Tea Party. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013

Hunter, James D. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books,

1991

Kibbe, Matt. Hostile Takeover. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2012

Kristol, Irving. The Neoconservative Persuasion: Selected essays, 1942-2009. New York:

Basic Books, 2011

Lepore, Jill. The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party’s Revolution and the Battle over

American History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010

Mack, Eric. John Locke. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013

McGirr, Lisa. Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 2001

Meckler, Mark & Martin, Jenny Beth. Tea Party Patriots. New York: Henry Holt and

Company, 2012

Middendorf II, J. William. A Glorious Disaster: Barry Goldwater’s Presidential Campaign

and the Origins of the Conservative Movement. Cambridge: Perseus Books Group, 2006

Murray, Charles. What It Means to Be a Libertarian: A Personal Interpretation. New York:

Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1997

Murray, Douglas. Neoconservatism: Why We Need It. London: Social Affairs Unit, 2005

Nash, George H. The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945.

Wilmington: ISI Books, 2006

O’Keeffe, Dennis. Edmund Burke. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013

Parker, Christopher S. & Barreto, Matt A. Change they Can’t Believe In: The Tea Party and

Reactionary Politics in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013

Paul, Rand. The Tea Party Goes to Washington. New York: Hashette Book Group, 2011

Rasmussen, Scott & Schoen, Douglas. Mad as Hell. New York: HarperCollins Publishers,

2010

Robin, Corey. The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2011

Schulman, Daniel. Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America’s Most

Powerful and Private Dynasty. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2014

Skocpol, Theda & Williamson, Vanessa. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican

Conservatism. New York: Oxford Univerity Press, 2013

Wilentz, Sean. The Age of Reagan: A History 1974-2008. New York: HarperCollins

Publishers, 2008

Winters, Michael Sean. God’s Right Hand: How Jerry Falwell Made God a Republican and

Baptized the American Right. New York: HarperCollins, 2012

Zaitchik, Alexander. Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of

Ignorance.Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2010

Essays:

In Schneider, Gregory L. Ed. Conservatism in America Since 1930. New York: New York

University Press, 2003:

Kirk, Russell. The Conservative Mind pp107-121

Meyer, Frank S. A Rebel in Search of Tradition pp122-130

Meyer, Frank S. A Rebel Finds his Tradition pp171-179

Hayek, F.A. Why I Am Not a Conservative pp180-194

Buckley Jr., William F. National Review: Statement of Intentions pp195-200

Buckley Jr, William F. National Review: Credenda and Statement of Principles pp201-206

Goldwater, Barry M. The Conscience of a Conservative pp.211-225

Schlafly, Phyllis. A Choice, Not an Echo pp. 231-237

Kristol, Irving. Why Big Business Is Good for America pp.318-336

Wolfe, Gregory. Of What Use Is Tradition? Pp. 379-382

Himmelfarb, Dan. Conservative Splits pp.383-394

Buchanan, Patrick J. A Republic Not an Empire pp401-413

Gingrich, Newt. Contract with America

Weyrich, Paul. An Open Letter to Conservatives pp.428-431

In Rosenthal, Lawrence & Trost, Christine Ed. Steep:_ The Precipitous Rise of the Tea

Party. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012:

Postel, Charles pp.25-46

Berlet, Chip pp 47-66

Burghart, Devin pp.67-97

Lo, Clarence Y.H. pp.98-130

Deckman, Melissa pp.171-192

Cohen, Martin. Pp.212-241

Montgomery, Peter pp.242-274

Online Sources: (all accessed on November 27,2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWynt87PaJ0;;;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA;;http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm;;http://www.alternet.org/story/129656/the_rick_santelli_'tea_party'_controversy%3A_article_kicks_up_a_media_dust_storm;;http://www.gallup.com/poll/175676/congressRapprovalRsitsRtwoRmonthsRelections.aspx;;http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2014/08/18/withRdemocratRhillaryRclintonRlikelyR2016RneoconservativeRstandardRbearerRrepublicansRshouldRofferRaRrealRalternativeRsuchRasRrandRpaul/;

;;;;