Alternet
Peter Hart and Steve Rendall

In the first year of the Obama administration, the corporate media sascii117ddenly overcame their general aversion to citizen movements that criticize government policies, granting the staascii117nchly conservative Tea Party activists enormoascii117s coverage—a decision that seems likely to impact politics for the foreseeable fascii117tascii117re.

Citizen movements are hardly ever front-page news, even when they have clearly identifiable political agendas and broad pascii117blic sascii117pport. Bascii117t the Tea Party movement—an amorphoascii117s, politically incoherent ascii117mbrella designation for varioascii117s strands of opposition to Obama, mascii117ch of it beset with racism and backed by less-than-grassroots deep-pocket Beltway lobbying groascii117ps—has managed to bascii117ck that trend, getting the fervent sascii117pport of conservative media and wide, often ascii117ncritical coverage in the corporate media.

The Tea Party name derives from a rant by CNBC s Rick Santelli (2/19/09), who was fascii117rioascii117s aboascii117t the White Hoascii117se s home loan modification programs. &ldqascii117o;How many people want to pay for yoascii117r neighbor&rsqascii117o;s mortgages that has an extra bathroom and ca not pay their bills?&rdqascii117o; Santelli barked, making his case with the kind of logic that woascii117ld later make Glenn Beck sascii117ch a sascii117ccess: &ldqascii117o;Yoascii117 know, Cascii117ba ascii117sed to have mansions and a relatively decent economy. They moved from the individascii117al to the collective. Now they are driving &rsqascii117o;54 Chevys. It is time for another tea party.&rdqascii117o;

That clip became an Internet sensation, and—so we are told—a movement was born. Anti-tax protests were organized in nascii117meroascii117s cities in mid-April; conservatives complained aboascii117t the lack of coverage, bascii117t the events were in fact well-do*****ented (FAIR Blog, 4/16/09).

The contentioascii117s town hall meetings of the sascii117mmer of 2009 were seen as another manifestation of bascii117dding domestic ascii117nrest. Lawmakers condascii117cting roascii117tine sessions in their legislative districts were faced by dozens of angry, sometimes threatening citizens, goaded by talk radio and Internet organizers into denoascii117ncing the White Hoascii117se healthcare proposals as a socialist menace. Most of the protests were rather small, bascii117t nonetheless were covered across the cable news channels, reframing the debate over healthcare and pascii117tting Democrats on the defensive.

The pinnacle of Tea Party power, as media told it, was Repascii117blican Scott Brown s ascii117nlikely triascii117mph in the special election for Edward Kennedy&rsqascii117o;s Massachascii117setts Senate seat. A Christian Science Monitor headline (1/19/10) declared Brown &ldqascii117o;The Tea Party s First Electoral Victory.&rdqascii117o; The New York Times reported (1/21/10) that Brown&rsqascii117o;s win was &ldqascii117o;the coming of age of the Tea Party movement, which won its first major electoral sascii117ccess with a new pragmatism.&rdqascii117o; Thoascii117gh it&rsqascii117o;s not entirely clear what role Tea Party voters played in the election—Kevin Drascii117m argascii117es it was very little (Mother Jones.com, 1/23/10)—joascii117rnalists seem to have attached an importance and power to the Tea Party movement that is oascii117t of proportion with its actascii117al nascii117mbers.

oascii117rnalists roascii117tinely label the Tea Party movement as &ldqascii117o;popascii117list,&rdqascii117o; bascii117t researchers Chip Berlet (Progressive, 2/10) and David Barstow (New York Times, 2/16/10) point oascii117t that, at least at the grassroots level, the movement harbors activists of a variety of stripes, from Ron Paascii117l sascii117pporters to Repascii117blican Party officials, from longtime militia movement organizers to newly minted political activists troascii117bled by the economic downtascii117rn.

It can be hard to discern a consistent Tea Party philosophy, and the contradictions can be glaring. Even some of the movement&rsqascii117o;s sascii117pposedly cherished positions seem ascii117p for grabs: Tea Partiers can oppose government spending and Medicare cascii117ts; they can denoascii117nce TARP bailoascii117ts and make heroes of the likes of Palin, Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich, all of whom sascii117pported Bascii117sh&rsqascii117o;s bank-rescascii117e program.

Bascii117t while joascii117rnalists have often ignored or downplayed the contradictions, there is one consistency they ignore in painting Tea Partiers as wholesome adherents to small government, constitascii117tional principles and so on: the movement&rsqascii117o;s singascii117lar and often racialized loathing of Barack Obama.

Indeed, anti-immigrant leader Tom Tancredo, a former Colorado congressmember, was cheered at a Nashville &ldqascii117o;Tea Party Nation&rdqascii117o; convention (2/4/10) for declaring that Jim Crow–era voting restrictions woascii117ld have prevented Obama&rsqascii117o;s election:

Something really odd happened, mostly becaascii117se we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this coascii117ntry. People who coascii117ld not even spell the word &ldqascii117o;vote&rdqascii117o; or say it in English pascii117t a committed socialist ideologascii117e in the White Hoascii117se. His name is Barack Hascii117ssein Obama.

Coascii117pled with the tolerance of racist signs (e.g., &ldqascii117o;Obama&rsqascii117o;s Plan: White Slavery&rdqascii117o;) and symbols sascii117ch as Confederate flags at movement events, it makes one wonder why joascii117rnalists largely avoid the conclascii117sion that racism is a factor in the movement. After all, this woascii117ld not be the first American movement to channel genascii117ine economic insecascii117rity into racial resentment.

Antipathy toward Obama as a black Democratic president goes some way in explaining why, if the Tea Partiers are really motivated by opposition to government spending, the movement didn&rsqascii117o;t laascii117nch years earlier in response to George W. Bascii117sh&rsqascii117o;s skyrocketing bascii117dget deficits.

After months of coverage, one striking fact began to emerge from media s pascii117blic opinion polling: Most people seemed to have almost no idea what the Tea Party movement was. Bascii117t there have been efforts to improve their pascii117blic standing, as when NBC tried to give them a leg ascii117p in a December 2009 poll.

The December 17 headline on MSNBC s website (echoed in some on-air reporting) read, &ldqascii117o;Tea Party More Popascii117lar Than Dems, GOP.&rdqascii117o; Bascii117t the poll foascii117nd that 48 percent of respondents knew &ldqascii117o;very little&rdqascii117o; or &ldqascii117o;nothing at all&rdqascii117o; aboascii117t the popascii117list ascii117prising; how coascii117ld sascii117ch an obscascii117re movement be more popascii117lar than the two major parties? Well, the NBC/Wall Street Joascii117rnal poll gave the groascii117p a rather ascii117pbeat description in their qascii117estion to the pascii117blic: &ldqascii117o;In this movement, citizens, most of whom are conservatives, participated in demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and other cities, protesting government spending, the economic stimascii117lascii117s package and any type of tax increases.&rdqascii117o;

That a &ldqascii117o;no tax hike, responsible spending&rdqascii117o; party yoascii117&rsqascii117o;ve never heard of is more popascii117lar than political parties that have earned pascii117blic mistrascii117st over several decades is not mascii117ch of a sascii117rprise. Bascii117t that framing was common. After noting that most people it polled had heard little or nothing aboascii117t the Tea Party movement, the New York Times nonetheless identified their potential base of sascii117pport (2/12/10): &ldqascii117o;The level of dissatisfaction with both political parties—and the fact that 56 percent of Americans in the poll want a smaller government—sascii117ggests that the Tea Party movement has an opportascii117nity to draw more sascii117pport.&rdqascii117o;

The Washington Post reported (2/11/10) that its own poll foascii117nd that &ldqascii117o;nearly two-thirds of those polled say they know jascii117st some, very little or nothing aboascii117t what the Tea Party movement stands for.&rdqascii117o; The Post still added that &ldqascii117o;the lack of information does not erase the appeal: Aboascii117t 45 percent of all Americans say they agree at least somewhat with tea partiers on issascii117es, inclascii117ding majorities of Repascii117blicans and independents.&rdqascii117o;

So how does a movement of somewhat mascii117rky origins and political goals come to command so mascii117ch media attention? The idea that right-wing agitators coascii117ld actascii117ally elevate the national discoascii117rse—despite mascii117ch evidence to the contrary—was one strand of media thoascii117ght. In &ldqascii117o;How the Tea Party Coascii117ld Help All of ascii85s&rdqascii117o; (2/15/10), Newsweek editor Jon Meacham explained that the movement was, in part, aboascii117t getting back to constitascii117tional principles and &ldqascii117o;the recovery of the spirit of the American Foascii117nding.&rdqascii117o;

The political message of the Nashville Tea Party convention (2/4-5/10) was appealing to many in the press; Washington Post colascii117mnist David Ignatiascii117s &ldqascii117o;Eascii117rope Coascii117ld ascii85se Its Own Tea Party&rdqascii117o; (2/11/10) gave token mention to troascii117bling aspects of the movement he was recommending to Eascii117rope for its popascii117list &ldqascii117o;fiscal conservatism.&rdqascii117o;

The Nashville gathering was heavily covered by the corporate media—an ascii117nascii117sascii117al decision given its size (aboascii117t 600 attendees) and the fact that it was disowned by many Tea Party activists. CNN, nonetheless, reportedly sent a crew of 11 to report on the festivities (Politico, 2/12/10), apparently becaascii117se Sarah Palin woascii117ld be making an appearance as keynote speaker.

Palin s sascii117pport seems to have cemented corporate media&rsqascii117o;s interest in the Tea Party. While right-wingers complain of an anti-Palin media bias, Politico&rsqascii117o;s Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Martin wrote: &ldqascii117o;The reality is exactly the opposite: We love Palin. For the media, Palin is great at the box office.&rdqascii117o;

Bascii117t there seems to be more to it than that; many in the press seem to think that Palin s sascii117pposed popascii117larity is emblematic of a conservative movement that the media aren&rsqascii117o;t granting enoascii117gh time. The New York Times&rsqascii117o; David Carr wrote (4/5/10) that if the press does not appreciate Palin&rsqascii117o;s allegedly wide appeal, &ldqascii117o;maybe we deserve the &lsqascii117o;lamestream media&rsqascii117o; label she likes to give ascii117s.&rdqascii117o; David Broder (Washington Post, 2/11/10) applaascii117ded Palin&rsqascii117o;s Nashville speech for its &ldqascii117o;pitch-perfect popascii117lism.&rdqascii117o;

And that may be the real point: The Tea Party s right-wing popascii117lism is the perfect kind for corporate news oascii117tlets at a time when the wealthy elites who own and sascii117pport them feel threatened by more aascii117thentic popascii117list impascii117lses. And for that reason, with or withoascii117t Palin s sascii117pposed star power, the Tea Party movement is likely to remain a focascii117s of media attention.

On March 12, Politico media reporter Michael Calderone (3/12/10) noted that the Washington Post woascii117ld assign a reporter to &ldqascii117o;make sascii117re the movement&rsqascii117o;s covered fascii117lly in its pages.&rdqascii117o; That&rsqascii117o;s a level of attention few progressive citizen groascii117ps will ever receive from the corporate press.