The Public Imperative: Civic Engagement, News Media, and Digital Politics in the Tea Party Movement Colin J. Lingle A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2015 Reading Committee: Dr. David Domke, Chair Dr. Kirsten Foot Dr. Philip Howard Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Department of Communication ©Copyright 2015 Colin J. Lingle i University of Washington Abstract The Public Imperative: Civic Engagement, News Media, and Digital Politics in the Tea Party Movement Colin J. Lingle Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor David Domke Department of Communication This dissertation explored a dimension of American political culture that is likely to be relevant to individuals and social movements seeking political change. I proposed that we share a familiar, yet mostly implicit, social construct that is deeply rooted in historical narratives and national identity. This construct suggests that, when facing some kind of oppression, people may feel compelled to come together, to voice their opinions, and to try to change the status quo. I called this “the public imperative” and described its three core elements: 1) meeting up, 2) speaking out, and 3) pushing back. To see if this functioned in practice, I conducted a series of qualitative in-depth interviews with members of the Tea Party movement, meeting at events in several Western states and Washington, D.C., and talking with members across five distinct regions of the country. My findings suggested that the public imperative was a powerful motivator in transforming isolated, frustrated individuals into a national movement. Through interviews and a detailed web analysis, I also examined how news media and digital platforms related to members’ public imperative expectations. This study has implications for how individuals and organizations might develop more meaningful and effective forms of civic engagement in the United States and elsewhere. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: National Mythology in Political Discourse and Civic Engagement ........................1 Chapter Two: Research Design .................................................................................................24 Chapter Three: The Public Imperative in Individual Tea Party Discourse..................................63 Chapter Four: The Public Imperative in Traditional and Digital Media ................................... 111 Chapter Five: The Public Imperative and Media Attitudes in Three Tea Party Websites.......... 164 Chapter Six: Conclusions and Connections ............................................................................. 249 References .............................................................................................................................. 285 Appendix: Interview Instrument.............................................................................................. 295 iii Acknowledgments This project is an expression of my own commitment to and hope for the transformative power of democratic participation. I am indebted to a great number of individuals and networks for whom this is a shared ideal, and I sincerely thank them all for their generous support. This research was made possible by The Daniel & Margaret Carper Foundation, which is instrumental in expanding Americans’ understanding of politics and society. I am tremendously grateful to Dan and Margie for creating a rare opportunity to explore and describe a crucial arena of political culture as it unfolded. Thank you both. It would have been impossible to complete this work without the enthusiastic cooperation of dozens of members of the Tea Party. Time and again, they were frank and forthcoming, willing to reach out and share their views and their cause. It was an adventure and an honor to speak with so many people as they forged new identities and a new movement. Over many years, I have depended greatly on the superb staff of the Department of Communication. I am grateful to Heather Werckle, Winnie Cao, Patrick Olsen, and Jessica Herzog, among others, as well as our technology staff (especially Nika, Nick, and The Dale). I am grateful to all the UW staff who made our building a fine place to dig in for the long haul. So many faculty members have offered me valuable guidance over the years. At the University of Colorado at Boulder, Dr. Robert Trager, Dr. Michael McDevitt, and Dr. Elizabeth Skewes helped me lay the foundation for this dissertation. At the University of Washington, Dr. Maria Garrido, Dr. John Gastil, Dr. Patricia Moy, Dr. Randal Beam, and Dr. Chris Parker, and many others, have all contributed in ways that I appreciate greatly. In particular, I extend my sincerest thanks and deepest respect to my committee. Dr. Phil Howard’s work is innovative and inspiring, and working with him has always been a pleasure. Dr. Kirsten Foot matches extraordinary intellectual insight with a profound commitment to her students’ development. Dr. David Domke has been a guide and a role model, weaving together rigor and persistence with passion and humanity, all in the service of a stronger, more accepting, more truthful society. I have been incredibly privileged to work with all of them, and my path forward is bolder and broader for it. I cannot imagine completing this process without the exceptional camaraderie of so many Com Grads and friends. I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude to Dr. Tabitha Hart, Dr. Laura Osburn, Dr. Sheetal Agarwal, Dr. Louisa Edgerly, and Dr. Jessica Beyer. I also owe tremendous gratitude to Dr. Sharon Nance, Erika Spence, and to Emily Kaseberg, who came along for the ride. Thanks, too, to L.K. and C.C. To all the members of the DRG, working with you was an irreplaceable part of this experience. Dr. Fahed Al-Sumait made me welcome as I began this process; it was my great fortune to connect with, and then work with, such a thoughtful, earnest, and generous scholar. Likewise, Dr. Jason Gilmore transformed this experience into an invaluable lesson about brotherhood, balance, and the proper pace of life. And finally, I get to thank Dr. Damon Di Cicco: my officemate, colleague, collaborator, and co-conspirator, my favorite Doctor, and an ironclad friend for life. That road—this road—would have been way too long without you. iv Dedication This work is dedicated three times… To my parents, whom I love beyond measure, and to whom I owe everything; To my teachers and my students; And to the public. v Chapter One National Mythology in Political Discourse and Civic Engagement Introduction A nation exists, at its deepest roots, not only in the land, laws, and wealth of a people, but in the collective imagination. A nation is a collaborative construction that reflects and reifies the beliefs of people within and beyond its borders; it is an entity that is conceived, maintained, and changed in countless actions and reactions of individuals connected through it (Anderson, 2006; Billig, 1995; Carey, 1989). At the center of modern democratic systems, three broad domains of social actors vie for influence over the flow of public meaning and political power: political officials, who claim to lead and represent the public; news media, which claim to speak for the public; and the public itself, which remains a notoriously slippery concept. Politicians and news media maintain a substantial social influence, transforming people’s lives through legislation and shaping the narratives that become history. And yet, the trump card in American politics belongs to neither of them: in the political imagination, both answer to the public. As imaginary as “the public” may be, it is nonetheless fundamental to the ebb and flow of American politics, and its influence suffuses political discourse. Consider, as just one example, a phrase familiar to virtually every American student and citizen: “We the people.” These words come at the opening of the Preamble to the United States Constitution, situated there by the document’s authors to establish the public as the sovereign of the new nation. Politicians are attuned to this idea of a powerful public, especially at crucial and contested moments. In early 2008, for example, Illinois Senator Barack Obama was navigating a precipitous stage of his presidential campaign: opponents had leveled charges of anti- 1 Americanism and race-baiting over controversial remarks by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the pastor at Obama’s Chicago church. It was a political crucible. At the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Obama began the speech many thought would make or break his campaign with the most powerful appeal to unity available in American politics. His opening words directly invoked the Preamble: “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union….” The speech became a pivotal moment for the campaign and an effective answer to critics (Kantor, 2008; Tapper & Venkataraman, 2009). Throughout the campaign, Obama built themes that tapped into citizens’ shared destiny through the campaign’s primary slogan, “Yes we can,” and another potent echo of the Preamble, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” In his victory speech in Chicago’s Grant Park, on November 4, 2008, Obama returned to these themes, capping his historic campaign and asserting that “in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people” (ABCNews.com, 2008). Obama’s campaign symbolized and embodied an extraordinary moment in American political rhetoric, one that would soon be answered by a conservative movement