Tempest in a Teapot

Anthony DiMaggio. The Rise of the Tea Party: Political Discontent and Corporate Media in the Age of Obama. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2011. 287 pp. $85.00, cloth, ISBN 978-1-58367-248-8. Reviewed by Andrew Salvati Published on Jhistory (July, 2012) Commissioned by Heidi Tworek (University of British Columbia) The Tea Party is not a social movement. This nated by corporate and Republican influence at is the resounding theme of Anthony DiMaggio’s the national level, and characterized by a lack of book, The Rise of the Tea Party. In the tradition of interest and organization at the lower--that, in Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky (by way of fact, “the Tea Party was always a direct outgrowth Walter Lippmann), DiMaggio confronts the Tea of Republican, pro-business politics” (p. 37). Party’s ersatz populism as an instance of “manu‐ DiMaggio attributes the fact that such an ar‐ factured dissent”--an “astroturfed” rather than au‐ gument would seem counterintuitive to main‐ thentic grassroots movement having been magni‐ stream media coverage of the Tea Party through fied by inordinate media coverage, and dominat‐ 2010, which, when not openly cheerleading the ed by Republican Party insiders and “pro-busi‐ “movement” (Fox News Channel and Wall Street ness” interests. Masquerading as a genuine popu‐ Journal), “frame[s] the Tea Party very positively lar referendum on the “broken” political system across the board” (p. 111). That is to say, drawing in Washington DC, “the power of the Tea Party to on a LexisNexis search, DiMaggio fnds that mass influence the public mind, then,” DiMaggio as‐ media outlets (the Washington Post, the New York serts, “is a product of corporate America and Re‐ Times, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS) publican institutional forces” (p. 9). Through an overwhelmingly tend to characterize the Tea Par‐ “extensive on-the-ground and national analysis” ty as a “movement,” as opposed to “astroturf.” of six national and 150 local groups, plus the con‐ Demonstrating that even progressive, noncorpo‐ gressional Tea Party caucus; an examination of rate media outlets (the Nation, CounterPunch, media content; and a multivariate regression Common Dreams, and Daily Kos) accede to main‐ analysis of nine independent, hegemonic flters stream trends, DiMaggio indicates that, while ex‐ (defined as constitutive of public political opin‐ pressing “dissident views found outside the bipar‐ ion), DiMaggio reveals that the Tea Party is domi‐ tisan spectrum of opinions ... most of these news H-Net Reviews outlets assumed that the Tea Party was a legiti‐ onto the Republican Party establishment. The mate social movement working against the politi‐ emerging picture is that of a limited, but dis‐ cal-economic system” (p. 121). Drawing on Lipp‐ cernible shift in a party that has been inching mann’s premise that mass media can set the agen‐ rightward for quite some time. da for what politicians and business officials dis‐ The meat of DiMaggio’s ethnographic analysis cuss and on Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda of local Tea Party meetings appears in chapter 2, model, which suggests that mainstream coverage co-written with the journalist and historian Paul tends to valorize pro-business protest groups, Street. The pair also teamed up in the new book DiMaggio depicts a media environment in which Crashing the Tea Party: Mass Media and the Cam‐ legitimate popular discontent with Washington paign to Remake American Politics (2011). Togeth‐ and with Wall Street have ironically been chan‐ er, they attended and observed Tea Party meet‐ neled into a reaffirmation of this very same sys‐ ings and events held in fve cities in the Chicago tem. For DiMaggio, the stakes are nothing less metropolitan area--the geographical region with than the continued hegemony of market funda‐ the most active Tea Party presence in the country, mentalism and consumerist ideology in American as well as the most congressional Tea Party victo‐ politics and culture. ries in the 2010 midterms. Despite these features, Although the Tea Party was once a glimmer in DiMaggio and Street observed that weak coordi‐ the eye of CNBC’s Chicago Mercantile Exchange nation and poor attendance bedeviled Tea Party correspondent Rick Santelli and the Seattle-based activities in the Chicago area. Those who did show conservative blogger Keli Carender, national Re‐ up seemed largely ignorant about political poli‐ publicans quickly adopted the tropes of antitax, cies--not to mention the logistical spadework and antiestablishment Tea Party barnstorming. They personal commitment required of social action. hoped to “rebrand” their party’s sullied image in Far from being diverse or mainstream, DiMaggio the wake of the Bush administration and the 2008 and Street note, the Tea Party message seems to election. Where an organic, decentralized move‐ appeal almost exclusively to white men, ages forty ment might be characterized by inconsistencies of to ffty. Indeed, the authors emphasize that this message (as is often alleged of Occupy Wall Street, demographic was overrepresented even in com‐ for example), or lack of representation at the na‐ munities whose populations are predominantly tional level, DiMaggio notes a uniformity of black or Hispanic. rhetoric across local Tea Party events and groups. Together, these twin analyses--the Tea Party This lock-stepped chorus bristled with hackneyed as a hierarchically organized group representing partisan themes--the fscal irresponsibility of elite interests whose local membership is sparse Democratic policies; the “socialist” agenda of the and at best apathetic--sharpen DiMaggio’s core Obama administration--suggesting to DiMaggio criticism of the Tea Party as a manufactured so‐ that “the ideology driving the Tea Party is a direct cial movement. He suggests that the Tea Party manifestation of the conservative political appa‐ fails on the criterion of collective identity as fun‐ ratus, originating from Republican Party mem‐ damental to social movements, established by the bers and trickling down to right-wing media, and scholars Donatella Della Porta and Mario Diani. In finally to the public itself” (pp. 51-52). By way of their comprehensive introductory work Social elaborating this derivation, DiMaggio devotes a Movements, Della Porta and Diani maintain that good chunk of his frst chapter to detailing the formation of collective identity is a thoroughly so‐ kinship of Tea Party elites (Dick Armey, Michelle cial process by which actors “recognize them‐ Bachman, and Sarah Palin) with pro-business selves--and are recognized by other actors--as part policies, and by superimposing Tea Party doctrine 2 H-Net Reviews of broader groupings, and develop emotional at‐ public opinion polls exists; he notes that “the na‐ tachments to them.”[1] Against this rubric, DiMag‐ tional political debate over healthcare did not gio fnds the Tea Party’s professed Randian ethic take place independently of [media] coverage” (p. of ardent individualism diametrically opposed to 194, emphasis in original). Still, a more detailed conventional definitions of a social movement. account of how and where this framing turned up For DiMaggio, this ethic manifests itself in the evi‐ in specific news outlets may have helped his dent apathy and disorganization of local Tea Party cause. groups, in which activism is reduced to online ex‐ As part of an emerging cohort of Tea Party pressions and intermittent, poorly attended pub‐ books--Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson’s lic events (which are often themselves convenient The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican platforms for national Tea Party politicians). Conservatism (2012); Kate Zernike’s Boiling Mad: DiMaggio persuasively demonstrates the insuffi‐ Inside Tea Parsty America (2010); and Jill Lepore’s ciencies of a collective Tea Party identity; howev‐ The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party’s Revolu‐ er, one wonders how the (admittedly few) Tea tion and the Battle over American History (2010)-- Party “activists” and supporters might be engaged The Rise of the Tea Party adds a careful and thor‐ or sustained by an alternative national (perhaps ough analysis of the impact on public policy creat‐ mythical) American identity, as historical subjects ed by an elite-manufactured discourse of dissent. acting out the legacy of the Founding Fathers. Where it seems rather conventional for critics to Though this form of identity may not be effective bridle at the evident hard-right radicalism and at organizing social activism in the present case, it anger intoned by Tea Party rhetoric, DiMaggio may open up directions for understanding politi‐ makes a more nuanced point, revealing this pop‐ cal action. ulism as the contrivance of publicity-minded Re‐ Congressional candidates campaigning under publican operatives, and ultimately supportive of the Tea Party banner were particularly successful a pro-business agenda. With the 2012 election sea‐ during the 2010 midterm elections and, as DiMag‐ son approaching, and with corporate interests gio demonstrates in his fnal chapter, in manipu‐ playing a conspicuous role in the political process lating public opinion against healthcare reform. through Citizens United and corporate-owned me‐ Symptomatic of a larger “schizophrenic pattern in dia, The Rise of the Tea Party should serve as an public opinion,” DiMaggio asserts, a current of op‐ important commentary and guide to the intersect‐ position to “corrupt” or “big government” has ing developments of media narrowcasting, well- soured public opinion on healthcare and other in‐ marketed ideology, and political polarization, all struments of social welfare generally, even as within a moment of palpable political-economic members of the public might embrace such pro‐ crisis. grams in particular. DiMaggio contends that in Note the context of “Obamacare” however, the Tea Par‐ [1]. Donatella Della Porta and Mario Diani, So‐ ty-Republican messaging apparatus--bleeding cial Movements: An Introduction, 2nd. ed. from the “echo chamber” of conservative media (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 91. into the mainstream--was extremely effective at setting the agenda of what turned out to be not so much public deliberation as directed ignorance.

Load more