Tea Party Activism and Scalar Politics in Campaigning for Public Office Nicholas Quinton

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2014 Conservative Social Movement Activism: Tea Party Activism and Scalar Politics in Campaigning for Public Office Nicholas Quinton

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PUBLIC POLICY

CONSERVATIVE SOCIAL MOVEMENT ACTIVISM: TEA PARTY ACTIVISM AND

SCALAR POLITICS IN CAMPAIGNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

NICHOLAS QUINTON

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Geography in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2014 Nicholas Quinton defended this dissertation on April 4, 2014. The members of the supervisory committee were:

Joseph Pierce Professor Directing Dissertation

Davis Houck University Representative

Victor Mesev Committee Member

Christopher Uejio Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank my advisor for his tireless work in helping me to finish this project. I also owe thanks to my department chair for his unwavering support for my work. Finally, I thank my wife and son for their sacrifices along the way.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... v List of Figures ...... vi Abstract ...... vii 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 7 The Geographical Aspects of Contentious Politics ...... 7 Situating Conservative Contentious Politics ...... 10 Tea Party Activism: Conservative Contentious Politics ...... 13 The Scale of Contentious Politics ...... 15 The Scale(s) of Contentious Politics: Singular and Plural Politics of Scale ...... 17 3. DEFINITION OF CASE AND METHODS...... 20 The Case...... 20 Tea Party Activism, Electoral Politics and Tennessee...... 20 Methodology: Defining the Objects of Research...... 30 Coding Results ...... 36 Campaign Politics and Conservative Orders of Discourse ...... 36 Neoliberal Order of Discourse ...... 37 Tea Party Order of Discourse ...... 40 4. ANALYSIS OF THE CASE ...... 44 Contentious Scalar Politics ...... 44 Tennessee’s Competitive Advantage and the National Threat ...... 44 The Tea Party Factor ...... 48 A Personal Solution ...... 50 The Contentious Politics of Campaigning for Public Office ...... 53 Partnership over Membership ...... 54 5. CONCLUSION ...... 57 Future Directions ...... 59 REFERENCES ...... 62 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 74

LIST OF TABLES

1 Table 3.1. Texturing Summary by Candidate ...... 37

2 Table 3.2. Neoliberal Order of Discourse by Candidate ...... 39

3 Table 3.3. Tea Party Order of Discourse by Candidate ...... 42

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Figure 3.1. Tennessee Grand Divisions and Data Collection Sites ...... 28

2 Figure 3.2. Fayette Tea Party “About” Statement ...... 35

ABSTRACT

This dissertation is an account of conservative social movement activism. Conservative political projects are characterized by advocacy of market-centric state policies. Conservative social movement activism is one variety of conservative politics distinguishable by the focus on the inclusion of more voices in democratic institutions. As a subject of academic research contentious politics in general and social movements in particular have spawned far-reaching and well-developed dialogue (see edited volumes by Aminzade et al. 2001; Leitner, Peck and Sheppard 2007; McAdam, McCarthy and Zald 1996a). Social scientists from the disciplines of Political Science, Sociology, History, Anthropology and Geography all contribute a wide array of theoretical constructs and methodological applications for a truly multi-disciplinary discussion on the topic. Noticeably underrepresented in this corpus of work is attention to conservative contentious politics. What follows is a case study of Tea Party activism as a variety of conservative contentious politics. This study approaches the role of Tea Party activism during the 2010 election cycle in what is arguable the height of Tea Party influence in United States’ politics. One of the locations where the influence of Tea Party activism was most evident is Tennessee. The question at the center of this project is how did Tea Party activism during the 2010 election cycle shape scalar politics in the Tennessee Republican gubernatorial primary? By applying MacKinnon’s (2011) scalar politics to public speeches made by the Republican candidates for governor in Tennessee, I find that Tea Party activism effectively increased the scale of movement participants’ influence in state politics. I conclude the candidates made normal the role of Tea Party activism in campaigning for public office in Tennessee. The implications of this study point to new fields of inquiry into contentious politics specific to electoral politics.

vii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

In their expansive work on the topic, Dynamics of Contention, McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (2001) characterize contentious politics as a powerful form of political redress for those excluded from positions of authority. Therein, participants construct organizational apparatus, circulatory systems and representational tropes that sustain their efforts in order to make new or unaccepted claims. The resultant collective and nonroutine acts include social movements, revolutions, democratization efforts, ethnic conflict, protests, rebellions, riots and strike waves, (McAdam 2001; Tarrow 2011). Through these acts of contentious politics ordinary people change government policy, alter the business practices of trans-national corporations, shape international trade agreements and otherwise exert their influence against powerful opponents (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 2001). The corpus of geographic scholarship on contentious politics involves three different sets of relationships. The first and most detailed are discussions of movement dynamics. The general designations of movement dynamics as such are actions amongst activists themselves such as negotiations of strategy (Routledge 2003), efforts to assign meaning to activism through enunciation of grievances and solutions (Kurtz 2003, Martin 2003) and the strategic actions that envelope the state and/or other targets of contention (Kitchen and Wilton 2003; Lessard- Lachance and Norcliffe 2013; Wainwright 2007). The second area of interest in contentious politics for geographic scholars is the state as either source of resistance to or support for social movement activism (Martin and Pierce 2013; Tresken 2011). The third aspect of geographic social movement scholarship is characterization of targets of opposition contra movement dynamics (Lessard-Lechance and Norcliffe 2013; Routledge 2003; Wainwright 2007). What is largely absent from McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly’s work and much of the discussion of contentious politics more generally are accounts of conservative social movement activism. A significant exception is Miller’s (2007) sweeping assessment of contentious politics and probing insight into conservative social movement activism. He develops an analytical system that involves the dynamic relationship between classes of people with divergent interests, a potent ideological predilection for market exchange amongst individuals and the unfolding

1 movement of state responsibilities between institutional levels. Central to Miller’s (2007) argument is a compelling theoretical portrait of activists as consumers largely interested in “support for measures that advance individual self-interest and purchasing power” (Miller 2007, 235). Therein, activists assume the role of individual consumers in society through personal experience in the system of dynamic social change driven by the relationship between class- based interests, ideology and institutional changes. These activists then form taxpayer and consumer rights groups to challenge the state during periods when the responsibilities and authority of that define the urban state scale are in flux. Beyond the ideological predispositions of individual activists, conservative social movement activism is different from other forms of conservative politics. Building on the work of Sayer (2001) and Steinfels (1988), I distinguish conservative politics more generally by advocacy of market-centric policies. The most conspicuous form of conservative politics is neoliberalism. Neoliberalism includes a class-centered redistribution of wealth (Harvey 2005, 160) where state institutions are employed to tilt the distribution of capital toward an elite minority and away from disempowered majorities (Peck 2001; Peck and Tickell 2002). Drawing on the work of scholars that distinguish contentious politics from neoliberalism (Lessard- Lechance and Norcliffe 2013; Routledge 2003; Wainwright 2007), I situate conservative contentious politics as those market-centric efforts that focus on the inclusion of more voices in democratic institutions. The result is tension between conservative social movement activism and the forces of neoliberalism over access to representative institutions, facilitating a wide array of capital-centric policy fields. To discuss the tension within conservative politics, I employ the geographic concept of scale. Scholars use scale to describe both a vertical system of areal units and the social relations bounding those units (Howitt 2003). The social construction of scale is also a profoundly political process (Brenner 2001); a process with deep implications for social movement activism. Authors apply social movement activism to both the expansion of influence into scales with greater areal scope (Boudreau 2006; Kitchen and Wilton 2003; Lessard-Lechance and Norcliffe 2013; Masson 2006; Wainwright 2007) or into those with smaller scope (Boudreau 2007; Kohl 2002). These studies are punctuated by movement dynamics and the politicization of scale ebbs and flows with the conduct of social movement activism. To read more consistent pressure from

2 social movement activism, especially in regards to the state, I employ the concept of scalar politics (MacKinnon 2011) to discussions of contentious politics. The case study is where I apply both conceptions of conservative politics and scale to unpack the links between movement dynamics and the state processes. As an example of conservative contentious politics, I focus on Tea Party activism. Based on the extant literature, it is the enunciation of grievances and solutions that distinguishes Tea Party activism as conservative. Still, Tea Party activism stands out for other reasons, not well covered in scholarship on contentious politics. This is especially true of electoral politics. Though acknowledged by scholars of contentious politics (Tarrow 2011), electoral politics is not a hot topic in the field. Still, participants in Tea Party activism engaged in electoral politics across the US in 2010. One of the locations where the influence of Tea Party activism is most evident for the 2010 election cycle is Tennessee. As such, participants in Tea Party activism ran headlong into gubernatorial campaign. Though affiliation with Tea Party groups is officially non-partisan, the participation by people involved in Tea Party activism was overwhelmingly in the Republican primary. To make sense of Tea Party activism in Tennessee during this time, I apply the concept of scalar politics to the campaign. My research question speaks directly to that point: How did Tea Party activism during the 2010 election cycle shape scalar politics in the Tennessee Republican gubernatorial primary? MacKinnon’s (2011) construction of scalar politics includes four propositions that clarify the elements of my case study. First, scalar politics is not a totalizing feature of any political project. I apply this to the tension between conservative contentious politics and neoliberalism in a the broader field of conservative politics. Second, a variety of actors employ conceptions of scale to meet political ends. The social agents in my field of research are the Republicans that ran for governor in Tennessee in 2010. There were three frontrunners vying for the Republican gubernatorial nomination; Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam, Congressman Zach Wamp and Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey. Through persistent observation and prolonged engagement (Baxter and Eyles 1997), I chose the public address delivered by the candidate at campaign stops for analysis. I also gathered website data specific to Tea Party groups. The speech and website data provide the raw material for me to fulfill MacKinnon’s (2011) third and fourth propositions of scalar politics; that scalar taxonomies from previous or ongoing political projects are available

3 for social agents to employ blending these existing conceptions of scale with newly imagined ones produce new scalar taxonomies, respectively. To read the speech and website data, I define orders of discourse as my objects of research. Orders of discourse limit linguistic variation (Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer 2002) and as such provide a means to account for the presence of both past and ongoing scalar taxonomies in the production of new ones. I construct two orders of discourse that theoretically limit the available terminology for the Republican candidates for governor in Tennessee. One I derive from my reading of Miller (2007) and Peck, Brenner, Tickell and Theodore (Brenner, Peck and Theodore 2010; Peck 2011; Peck and Theodore 2010; Peck, Theodore and Brenner 2012; Peck and Tickell 2002) specific to lifeworld colonization and neoliberalism, and the other from my reading of conservative contentious politics and Tea Party activism. I call these respectively the neoliberal order of discourse and Tea Party order of discourse. The candidates very clearly describe relationships between state and social movement scales in their speeches. At the very least, they assign responsibilities to various scales. There are four aspects of their scaled conceptions. First, is Tennessee’s position as a scion of competitiveness for both investment and consumer capital. Second, are the threats posed by the US federal government on the exercise of authority and responsibility of the Tennessee government. Third, participants in Tea Party activism are well aware of the issues with the federal government the candidates describe. Fourth, to rebuff the US federal government and protect Tennessee’s competitiveness each candidate positioned himself as an agent of social change. Application of the two orders of discourse to the candidates scaled conceptions provides the means to evaluate how inclusive or exclusive is each. In essence, reading the responsibilities the candidates assign to each scale sheds light on conservative scalar politics. When the candidates discuss both Tennessee’s competitiveness and threats from the federal government to the regional state’s agenda to attract capital, the references are entirely associated with the neoliberal order of discourse. The implication is that the candidates curtail accessibility to the capital centric agenda of policy formation. Mentions of Tea Party activism are, alternatively, inclusive. But these mentions are inclusive on specific terms. Particularly, the candidates include participants in Tea Party activism in their anxiety about the outcome of the struggle with the US federal government. It is the final element of the candidates’ conception of scale

4 relationships that is the most interesting for this study. In presenting a contentious agenda specific to the responsibilities and authority vested in the regional state, the candidates are simultaneously inclusive and exclusive. In terms of exclusivity, each candidate presents a strategy that only a governor could execute. These references have a close affinity to the neoliberal order of discourse. But there are elements of inclusivity as well. In particular the construction of the contentious strategy is one of a multi-site territorially based action, like those evident in the Tea Party order of discourse. By reading the candidates’ statements through the lens of scalar politics, I conclude the candidates formed a partnership with participants in Tea Party activism. Even in the absence of actual acts of contentious politics, the candidates maintained Tea Party presence in three ways. First, the candidates did not question the legitimacy of capital-centric policies at the heart of neoliberalism, particularly the competition amongst institutional scales for capital. Indeed, they candidates engaged some of the language associated with neoliberalism. Second, the candidates included participants in Tea Party activism in their own anxieties about the relationship between Tennessee and the US federal government. Third, the candidates positioned themselves as contentious actors. There were careful not to claim neither membership nor leadership, but rather kinship with Tea Party activists. They understood the anxiety behind the Tea Party movement and they would honor that appreciation with a contentious strategy of their own. But the result was an exclusive proposal for governors to take action. The implications of this finding are directly relevant to literature on the subject of contentious politics. First, the prevailing theory of partnership between conservative social movement activism and representatives of the state is Miller’s (2007). He suggests the connection is driven by state restructuring as read through the lens of neoliberalism. My results suggest the connection is also affected by social movement activism. Second, due to the nature of partnership between participants in contentious politics and representatives of the state in my case electoral politics is implicated in social movement dynamics. Electoral politics are commonly overlooked as a vehicle for the prosecution of social movement activism. I argue this oversight is due to scholastic attention to left-leaning contentious politics. A different relationship to neoliberalism characterizes conservative social movement activism than left- leaning contentious politics. The result is a different set of strategies for conservative social movement activism. Third, and finally, recent efforts (Martin and Pierce 2013; Treskon 2011)

5 indicate the state is not a neoliberal monolith, but variably available for the prosecution of contentious politics. My conclusions also point to the use of the strategic use of the state apparatus by participants in social movement activism.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

As a subject of academic research contentious politics in general and social movements in particular have spawned far-reaching and well-developed dialogue (see edited volumes by Aminzade et al. 2001; Leitner, Peck and Sheppard 2007; McAdam, McCarthy and Zald 1996a). Social scientists from the disciplines of Political Science, Sociology, History, Anthropology and Geography all contribute a wide array of theoretical constructs and methodological applications for a truly multi-disciplinary discussion on the topic. With that said, Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow and Charles Tilly (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 1996; Tarrow 1996; McAdam 2001; McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 2001; Tarrow 2001; Tarrow 2011) build theorizations that many scholars include in their conversations on social movement activism. McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly’s sustained engagement with contentious politics highlights the features of activist organization and the role of the state, while others insist on directing scholarly attention away from the state in favor of a more expansive characterization of opposition (e.g. Leitner, Sheppard and Sziarto 2008). Noticeably underrepresented in this corpus of work, however, is attention to conservative contentious politics. In what follows, I begin an explication of conservative social movement activism using the geographic concept of scale as an analytic to discuss contentious politics. The Geographical Aspects of Contentious Politics In their work McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 1996; Tarrow 1996; McAdam 2001; McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 2001; Tarrow 2001; Tarrow 2011) provide a thoughtful characterization of contentious politics more generally and social movements specifically. They define contentious politics as collective and nonroutine acts that impact the interests of at least one of the parties involved and engage state governments as either party to the claims or object of the claims (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 2001). Tarrow (2011) specifies that the terms contentious, collective and nonroutine apply to acts carried out by groups of people making new or unaccepted claims without reliable access to representative institutions. Particular manifestations of contentious politics in this reading include not only social movements, but revolutions, democratization efforts, ethnic conflict, protests, rebellions, riots and strike waves (McAdam 2001; Tarrow 2011). McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (2001) also

7 provide a list of those political actions that typically involve little collective contention and are not, then, acts of contentious politics that include registering for and casting votes, parliamentary elections, associational meetings, reporting for military service, paying taxes, implementing policies and enforcing laws, administrative work, reading newspapers, and asking officials for favors. Within the above definition McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly distinguish social movements as a type of contentious politics. Tarrow (1996; 2001; 2011) sharpens this distinction and defines social movements as persistent bouts of contentious politics sustained for days, weeks, months and occasionally years with the construction of organizational apparatus, circulatory systems and representational tropes. Though important for Tarrow in his independent work, this distinction is less evident in his collaborative work. In their expansive work on the topic, Dynamics of Contention, McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (2001) insist on blurring the lines between social movement scholarship and other types of contentious politics to improve general theoretical applicability. This book identifies similarities and differences, pathways and trajectories across a wide range of contentious politics – not only revolutions, but also strike waves, wars, social movements, ethnic mobilizations, democratization, and nationalism. In recent years, specialized scholars have made substantial advances in describing and explaining each of these important contentious forms. On the whole, they have paid little attention to each other’s discoveries. Students of strikes, for example, rarely draw on the burgeoning literature about ethnic mobilization. Students of ethnic mobilization return the compliment by ignoring analyses of strikes. Yet strong, if partial, parallels exist between strikes and ethnic mobilization, for example in the ways that actions of third parties affect their success or failure and in the impact of previously existing interpersonal networks on their patterns of recruitment (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 2001, 9). In short, they argue the structures constructed by activists to sustain social movement activism are essentially the same as those constructed in other types of contentious politics. By doing so they give explicit voice to a general sentiment amongst scholars of contentious politics (see the volume edited by Aminzade et al. 2001 for a collection of such work). Since McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly’s (2001) call, scholars focused on the subject have explicitly used the terms social movements and contentious politics interchangeably (e.g. Leitner et al. 2008; Martin and Miller 2003; Nicholls 2007; Wolford 2004). In this vein of scholarship I will use the terms contentious politics and social movement activism to represent the same phenomena.

In support of their general theorization of contentious politics McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 1996; Tarrow 1996; McAdam 2001; McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 2001; Tarrow 2001; Tarrow 2011) focus explicitly on the characteristics of activist organization. Less detailed, but ever present is their attention to the state as a party to contentious politics as either opponent or partner. Importantly they express no general theoretical need to acknowledge non-state parties being challenged. Building on their definition, McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (2001, 14-15) assert that the corpus of key works on the topic of social movements has proceeded in four distinct directions: political opportunities, mobilizing structures, collective action frames and repertoires of contention. As part of the academic division of labor identified by McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly a number of scholars situate geographic theories of social movement activism (see Beaumont and Nicholls 2007; Bosco 2001; Davies 2012; Kitchen and Wilton 2003; Kurtz 2003; Lessard-Lachance and Norcliffe 2013; Martin 2003; Martin and Miller 2003; Nicholls 2007; Nicholls 2009; North and Huber 2004; Pierce, Martin and Murphy 2011; Treskon 2011; Wolford 2004). Evident in geographic theorizations of social movement activism in conversation with the works identified by McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly is the focus on movement dynamics and the state rather than targets of contention. There is also a field of geographic theorization related to contentious politics with little engagement with theories of social movement activism identified and developed by McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (see Escobar 2001; Featherstone 2003; Marston 2003; Miller 2007; Nicholls 2011; Pieck 2012; Routledge 2003; Sparke et al. 2005; Springer 2011). There are two general distinctions in this body of work. The first surrounds the use of different spatialities to theorize contentious politics (Leitner, Sheppard and Sziarto 2008; Lessard-Lachance and Norcliffe 2013). This body of scholarship includes place and networks (Beaumont and Nicholls 2007; Nicholls 2009; Nicholls 2011), public spaces (Springer 2011), territories (Halvorson 2012), scales (Boudreau 2006; Boudreau 2007; Kitchen and Wilton 2003; Kohl 2002; Masson 2006; Wainwright 2007) and assemblages (Davies 2012; McFarlane 2009) as theoretical vehicles to explicitly deploy geographic concepts in the explication of the conduct of contentious politics. The second is the specific work of Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel (Cumbers, Routledge and Nativel 2008; Routledge 2003; Routledge 2009; Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel 2006; Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel 2007; Routledge, Nativel and Cumbers 2006) on a convergence

9 space perspective. The convergence space perspective represents a negotiated process through which activists meet in a particular location where they compare, alter, and blend organizational structures, create communication, information and fiduciary networks and rearticulate representations of themselves and their opponents. Works engaging theories of spatiality and convergence space stretch the defining characteristics of contentious politics beyond dynamics of activism and engagement with the state to include some elements of their opposition. As Leitner, Sheppard and Sziarto (2008) argue, contentious politics is a periodic, collective and public challenge to pervasive systems of authority, exclusion, oppression, or exploitation. In this definition they purposefully avoid tethering contentious politics to the state. As such, they capture one of the common characteristics of studies employing spatiality and convergence space perspectives: the identification of contentious action with both the specific characteristics of activist organization and their opposition. While the characteristics of activist organization read onto these movements take on new dynamics associated with applications of alternative geographic theorizations they hold true to the periodic, collective and public characterization employed by McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly (2001). In this reading the specific definition of the targets of contentious politics is a novel introduction into the discussion of movement dynamics and the state. Situating Conservative Contentious Politics In the fields of social inquiry outlined in the previous section there are general fields of study that remain to be addressed in the application of geographic theories to contentious politics. A common oversight in each of these bodies of research is attention to activists who advance conservative politics. Sayer’s (2001) distinction between the politics of distribution and recognition is instructive in identification of conservative politics. He describes two axes of interpretation, one cultural/economic and the other lifeworld/system. Therein cultural and economic issues reflect the tension between mobilizing symbolic resources and practices for profit and exploitation of persons facilitated by market exchange, respectively. Alternatively, system issues revolve around the existence of structuring systems that have logic and momentum that is independent of the subjective experience of individuals. System dynamics are often attributed to market exchange. Opposite system dynamics, lifeworld issues flow from individual subjectivies formed through experience of inequality including those associated with gender,

10 ethnicity and sexuality. Conservative politics are those associated with extension of market exchange from system to lifeworld in an effort to subsume and address cultural issues. Conservative politics focused on the extension of market dynamics into new social realms are included by numerous authors in discussions of contentious politics (see Boudreau 2006; Boudreau 2007; Escobar 2001; Featherstone 2003; Featherstone 2005; Haarstad 2009; Haarstad and Floysad 2007; Halvorsen 2012; Kohl 2002; McCarthy 2004; McCarthy 2005; McCarthy 2006; McFarlane 2009; Miller 2007; Routledge 2003; Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel 2007; Routledge, Nativel and Cumbers 2006; Sparke et al. 2005; Springer 2011; Uitermark and Duyvendak 2008). However, advocacy of market exchange is the goal of the opponents of contentious politics, including at times the state, rather than social movement activism. The most persistent characterization of these social relations and actors is neoliberal, or some extension of neoliberal like neoliberalism or neoliberalization. A common deployment of neoliberalism in studies of contentious politics is to distinguish between the dynamics of social movement activism and neoliberalism (Cumbers, Routledge and Nativel 2008; Lessard-Lechance and Norcliffe 2013; Wainwright 2007). Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel offer details of movement dynamics that distinguish social movement activism from neoliberalism with the concept of convergence space (Cumbers, Routledge and Nativel 2008; Routledge 2003; Routledge 2009; Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel 2006; Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel 2007; Routledge, Nativel and Cumbers 2006). According to Routledge (2003), neoliberal globalization includes the global expansion of corporate power with the imposition of policies onto people around the world by government agencies, international banks, other international lending institutions and trade organizations like the WTO. Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel characterize this process as one wiping away alternatives to neoliberalism by centralizing access to the non-corporate institutions in charge of directing globalization (Cumbers, Routledge and Nativel 2008; Routledge 2003; Routledge, Nativel and Cumbers 2006). They present convergence space as a way to read negotiations amongst activists as an expansion of access to decision making in contentious politics that stands in stark contrast to the constriction of access to decision making bodies that defines neoliberal globalization. Lessard-Lechance and Norcliffe (2013) and Wainwright (2007) chronicle specific contentious engagements with opponents they characterize as neoliberal - the protests during negotiations of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in Quebec City, April 2001, and

World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerials in Seattle, 1999, and Cancun, 2003, respectively. Importantly, both accounts include the diversity of activists involved in contentious politics. From anarchists to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), labor unions to farmers and other classifications of activists, these works distinguish the inclusiveness of contentious politics from the exclusiveness of neoliberalism. Though neither work specifies with detail particular facets of neoliberalism both consider sequester of officials designated to negotiate the removal of international restrictions on the flow of capital to be the unifying issue for activists. Thus the way negotiations unfold between activists both designate the dynamics of contentious politics and distinguish their opponents. Conservative contentious politics is different from neoliberalism in terms of inclusiveness in representative bodies that influence the circulation of capital. Steinfels (1988) provides a reading of politics that characterizes the psychological antecedents of conservative sentiment. He argues conservative politics are built on the assumption that people respond straightforwardly to rewards and punishments. Sayer’s (2001) attention to market exchange in both the politics of distribution and recognition is one field over which rewards and punishments are administered. Under the auspices of conservative politics the provision of services, sale of commodities, or negotiation of labor contracts is governed by the system dynamics of market exchange rather than personal prejudice or structural discrimination. Conservative contentious politics in this reading are those involving advocacy for expanding the system dynamics of market exchange into new domains to rectify existing inequalities associated with gender, ethnicity, sexuality and even market processes. Alternatively, neoliberalism includes a class-centered redistribution of wealth (Harvey 2005, 160) where state institutions are employed to tilt the distribution of capital toward an elite minority and away from disempowered majorities (Peck 2001; Peck and Tickell 2002). The result is tension between conservative social movement activism and the forces of neoliberalism over access to representative institutions, shaping the production of a wide array of capital-centric policy fields. The state, then, is the institutional setting for conservative contentious politics. Readings of the state in the persecution of contentious politics further distinguish conservative social movement activism from neoliberalism. Miller (2007) argues in his theory of social movement activism in the context of neoliberalization that taxpayer and consumer groups only engage in the politics of scale during periods of institutional restructuring. Phrased differently, when

12 responsibilities are not being shuffled between institutional levels, social movements are analytically incapable of engaging in the politics of scale. This of course is a rather exclusive view of institutional arrangements. Treskon (2011) argues the legal structures that define institutional levels are open to challenge by social movements seeking legislative, bureaucratic and judicial decisions. As such, states are heterogeneous institutions that include means through which activists may challenge the responsibilities of individuals and agencies therein, whether in the midst of market oriented restructuring or not. Indeed, in their work on non-neoliberal residuals Martin and Pierce (2013) point to the presence of institutional arrangements (laws, policies and agencies) designed before the onslaught of changes associated with neoliberalization. In a sense, these are the remnants of the complex pre-neoliberal institutional arrangements that have been the target of market-oriented restructuring. But non-neoliberal residuals are not mere legal relics waiting passively to be swept away in the tide of institutional neoliberalization. Martin and Pierce (2013) demonstrate that non-neoliberal residuals are the focal point of resistance to market-oriented state restructuring associated with neoliberalism. Non-neoliberal residuals, then, provide sites of political struggle for social movements that fit within my characterization of scale, even without system wide institutional restructuring. Contra Miller (2007), the state is in both Treskon’s (2011) and Martin and Pierce’s (2013) readings a collection of laws, policies and agencies accessible, albeit unevenly, to the orchestration of contentious politics, including conservative social movement activism. Tea Party Activism: Conservative Contentious Politics Tea Party activism is a confluence of participants with various organizational affiliations like other types of social movement activism (e.g. Martin 2003), though membership is in Tea Party groups. Researchers at the Washington Post produced a survey of these groups in October of 2010, at what was arguably the height of Tea Party notoriety (Gardner 2010). They identified 1400 possible groups associated with Tea Party activism nationwide, but were only able to verify the existence of 647. Seventy percent of those groups contacted said they had little contact with other groups, little to no money on hand and were generally ambivalent about the prospect of political activism (Gardner 2010). Beyond self-described Tea Party groups there were a number of groups associated with Tea Party activism that maintained paid staff to coordinate resources and communication. These include groups like FreedomWorks, Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, Tea Party Nation, and the American Liberty Alliance.

Tea Party activism is also characterized by various organizational roles for participants. Specifically, those participating in activism occuy positions in the prosecution of contentious politics that impact their potential to negotiate in the build up to direct action (Cumbers, Routledge and Nativel 2008; Routledge 2003; Routledge 2009; Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel 2006; Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel 2007; Routledge, Nativel and Cumbers 2006). One of the most detailed cases of coordination comes from an account of the 9/12 March on Washington authored by the then chairman, Dick Armey, and president, Matt Kibbe, of FreedomWorks. The activists involved with FreedomWorks, however, did more than mobilize capital to orchestrate the event. They also applied an ideological purity test to potential speakers. Support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or any of the subsequent bailouts and stimulus, either with votes by elected officials or public advocacy by organizations and individuals, precluded participation as an endorsed speaker (Armey and Kibbe 2010, 104). Importantly, FreedomWorks, like any group associated with Tea Party activism, is not a faceless entity prosecuting contentious politics. Rather, FreedomWorks is an organization of individual activists. To that point, FreedomWorks’ Dick Armey and Brendan Steinhauser also spoke at the event (Rasmussen and Schoen 2010, 111). More generally, not all participants situated in both Tea Party groups and the processes of activism, including negotiation toward action, wield the same potential to direct Tea Party activism. At the end of the negotiation process are strategic actions (Routledge 2003). Social movement activism includes strategic action of two types; those actions conducted across multiple sites (Routledge 2003) and those conducted in a single location (Lessard-Lechance and Norcliffe 2013; Martin 2003; Wainwright 2007). One of the first instances of Tea Party activism was on April 15, 2009, the final day to submit tax-filings to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States (Biesk 2009; Reynolds 2009; Robbins 2009; Zernike 2010, 22-23). Tea Party activists also protested the suite of healthcare reforms in the Affordable Care Act three different times: during town hall meetings with national legislators (Clark 2009; Condon 2009; Hechtkopf 2009; Herszenhorn and Stolberg 2009) and the first (Dwyer 2009; FoxNews 2009; Hook and Levey 2009) and final (Cogan and Shiner 2010; Khan, Wong and Karl 2010; Madden 2010; Stein 2010; Werner 2010; Zernike 2010, 137-139) votes to pass the legislation in the US House of Representatives. Similarly, Tea Party activism made the Affordable Care Act a prominent issue in the special elections for New York’s 23rd Congressional seat (Rassmussen

14 and Schoen 2010, 129; Zernike 2010, 86-87) and Massachusetts’ Senate seat (Goodnough 2010; Zernike 2010, 91). Judging from the extant geographic literature on contentious politics, Tea Party activism is orthodox in terms of both negotiation and strategic action. It is the enunciation of grievances and solutions that distinguishes Tea Party activism as conservative. Through the work of Habermas (1984; 1987) on life-world colonization, Miller (2007) concludes that some people deeply internalize an ideological predisposition to market exchange, contra state management of capital, and assume the role of rational self-interested (individual) consumers. Tea Party activism lends credence to Miller’s (2007) characterization of activists if not to his ideological claims. The tax day and town hall 2009 actions, the 9/12 March on Washington, the struggle in New York’s 23rd Congressional race, Scott Brown’s run for US Senate in Massachusetts, and acts in Washington D.C. for the various legislative votes on the Affordable Care Act are all expressions of anxiety over state intervention in the personal lives of activists as taxpayers and consumers (Armey and Kibbe 2010; Rasmussen and Schoen 2010). It is in the relationship with neoliberalism that Tea Party activism is distinct from other modes of social movement activism. Scholarship on the subject is characterized by a distinct separation between participants in social movement activism and neoliberalism. Typical of this work is resistance through social movement activism to market-oriented reforms to state apparatus orchestrated internationally by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, transnational corporations, roving bands of consultants and armies of technocrats (Ahmed 2013; Harvey 1996). Groups like the Amazon Alliance, Tibet Support Groups, MST, indigenous rights groups, protestors at G8, G20, FTAA and other “free trade” summits, the Occupy movement and other social movements are characterized as the alter-globalization movement (Halvorson 2012). After the protests of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle, Washington, in 1999 some even claimed the alter-globalization movement was international in scope like those organizations that orchestrate neoliberalism (Lessard-Lachance and Norcliffe 2013). The Scale of Contentious Politics Applications of the geographic concept scale are amongst the few points of discussion that span readings of movement dynamics, the state and/or opposition. Leitner and Sheppard (2009) distinguish four uses of scale to read social movement activism. These include interactions with the state, strategies employed in social movement activism, including meaning

15 making through geographically informed collective action frames and the tensions amongst activists stemming from disagreements over non-congruent strategies and frames. Almost exclusively, scholars of contentious politics deploy scale to indicate an expansive, or upward, aim in the prosecution of social movement activism. Howitt’s (2003) work to distinguish between uses of scale by scholars provides a means to generalize the conception of expanding influence through social movement activism. He uses scale to identify three different social phenomena. The first is scale as a set of social relations with scope but no fixed boundaries. The second and third are scales as bounded spaces, either areal units in and of themselves or levels in a constellation of areal units connected by social relations. To build on Howitt’s (2003) reading of scale as a set of social relations, Paasi (2004) provides further guidance. He conceptualizes scale as not simply a set of social relations, but particular practices and discourses institutionalized through processes of de/reterritorialization. For Paasi (2004) scale serves as a term to characterize both acts of bounding social relations and the routinized and institutionalized constellation of practices and discourses that result. The state serves as a principle example of bounded and institutionalized social relations in scale literature (Leitner 1997; Swyngedouw 1997; Miller 2009). Leitner (1997) establishes the notion that the state is composed of multiple bounded scales of responsibility. Swyngedouw (1997) extends this concept by arguing state scales are linked together by ongoing social relations that are both effected by existing scales and remake them, simultaneously. Miller (2009) takes the argument a step further by conceptualizing each state scale as a specific set of laws, rules, bureaucracies and other institutions whose scope of services and authority are bound into identifiable and nested scales through a political process. The political process that gives scope to services and authority vested in the state is of particular interest for scale scholars. Brenner (2001) characterizes these practices and discourses as the politics of scale. He distinguishes two different conceptions of political struggles, either singular or plural, with scale. Therein, both the singular and plural applications of scale describe bounding social relations within areal units. He suggests the singular usage applies to readings of political struggles that distinguish areal units in and of themselves, while he reserves the plural usage for studies of a constellation of areal units. Leitner and Miller (2007) argue scale indicates a particular conception of power to understand social relations routinized into areal units. They distinguish between verticality and hierarchy as alternative

16 metaphors to describe how power is conveyed between state scales. Hierarchy signifies that the exercise of power moves in one direction from scales with larger areal scope to smaller scales. This is a top-down set of power relations most often cascading down from the nation-state scale. Alternatively, verticality signifies that power not only flows from the top down, but bottom to top from state scales with smaller areal extent to larger. Even with the concept of verticality, not all scale scholars are convinced of the potential for change through the politics of scale. Marsten et al. (2005) argue scholars that apply scale to read practices and discourses ossified into institutional constellations miss the persistence of political struggle inherent to those same scalar systems. Moore (2008) suggests the balance between an active political agenda and scaled social features hardened to the point of ossification is particularly evident in discussions of the state. MacKinnon (2011) develops the concept of scalar politics as an answer to critiques by Marsten et al. (2005) and Moore (2008). MacKinnon (2011) is deeply interested in the role of discourse in solidifying and maintaining scalar relationships. His use of discourse in this formulation is a generalized reference to acts of making meaning, predominantly spoken words. He argues that making meanings do not cease to be relevant even when responsibilities and authority are bounded through law and routinized in material practice across a variety of state scales into a scalar fix. Rather meanings serve to maintain stability in particular state scalar configurations. Therein, taxonomies of state scales with routinized responsibilities and authority are the tools employed by both advocates of the status quo and those vying to change it. This is not to suggest that material processes are irrelevant, but that conceived notions of the responsibilities and authority vested in various state scales inform political struggles that impact the designation of responsibilities and authority across state scales. The Scale(s) of Contentious Politics: Singular and Plural Politics of Scale Scale has been used to great effect in describing vertical relationships between social movement activism and the state and/or opponents. In these conversations the specter of ossification and depolitization of scale lingers only in discussions of the state (see Miller 2007). Typical of applications of scale to contentious politics is the politicization of scales in the verticality of social movement activism. Authors conceive verticality in social movement activism as either the expansion of influence into scales with greater areal scope or into those with smaller scope. Boudreau (2007) and Kohl (2002) are examples of one. They characterize

17 activist efforts as withdrawal of action into an area with established, if malleable, boundaries from an areal unit with more expansive boundaries. Alternatively, Boudreau (2006), Kitchen and Wilton (2003), Lessard-Lachance and Norcliffe (2013), Masson (2006) and Wainwright (2007) all employ the plural politics of scale to read contentious politics as an effort to expand social movement activism into units with larger areal scope. The distinguishing feature of studies that apply scale to contentious politics is application of the singular or plural politics of scale (Brenner 2001). In terms of negotiations, the plural politics of scale is the norm. Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel employ scale to distinguish the types of direct action that should result. They indicate that the durability of social inequalities formed before the start of negotiations predispose activists toward activity near at hand. Indeed, in their reading even the activists most deeply involved in planning and conducting activist meetings show a preference for more localized action (Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel 2007). Routledge (2003) identifies two types of contentious action associated with the local preferences of activists. One are localized global actions where activists from around the globe take up the political struggles of a select few activists in transnational unity. The other are globalized local actions, where activists contest sites and politics particular to them as other activists around the world do the same. In both localized global actions and globalized local actions, a preference for local activism maintains international scope. In terms of direct action, Lessard-Lechance and Norcliffe (2013) and Wainwright (2007) read two levels, the international level of trade policy and the local level of contentious politics and trade negotiations. In both readings, activists spread out across multiple city blocks during local contention to effect negotiations set to change international regulations on capital. Therein, contentious politics unfold both at the local and international scale, simultaneously. The outcome of contentious politics on the local scale effects the orchestration of trade policy on the international scale. The meanings attached to direct action are also multi-scaler. Routledge (2003) classifies both globalized local actions and localized global actions as acts of solidarity, wherein activists demonstrate their collective identification of a common opponent. Spatial imaginaries are the representations of these acts of solidarity (Cumbers, Routledge and Nativel 2008). Routledge, Nativel and Cumbers (2006) and Routledge (2009) both indicate spatial imaginaries serve to counteract the effects of inequality on the process of negotiation amongst

18 activists binding local activism to international activism through the meaning assigned to contentious politics. The use of scale to understand the enunciation of grievances and solutions is split between singular and plural applications of the politics of scale. Martin (2003) demonstrates a clear example of the plural politics of scale in her work. She describes community groups that issue challenges to multiple levels of institutional responsibility by formulating grievances and solutions that wrest responsibility into the neighborhood. In Martin’s (2003) work, multiple scales of the state are challenged simultaneously. Alternatively, Kurtz (2003) elaborates a formulation of the singular politics of scale in her assessment of the enunciation of grievances and solutions. Therein, she confines activists’ problems to one scale and the potential solution in another that are linked by proposals for action. Temporally only one level of experience is the target of contentious politics at a time. This analytical move is an application of the singular politics of scale. In terms of changes to state responsibilities and authority associated with contentious politics, the most significant application of scale is the singular politics of scale. Miller (2007) presents a relationship between state scales that include the national-state divesting responsibilities to the urban state. Therein, some residents respond to changes in the distribution of responsibilities across state scales with social movement activism. Following the initiation of activism, representatives of the state either partner with activists or not depending on the perceived parity between the distribution of responsibilities and the material means to meet them to the urban state scale. The status of this partnership positions social movement activists in opposition to the urban state scale or the national-state scale. Given the change in status between social movement activists and the state occurs on either the national or urban scale, this is as an application of the singular politics of scale.

CHAPTER THREE

DEFINITION OF CASE AND METHODS

This chapter is an account of my work to assess the significance of conservative social movement activism in discussions of contentious politics. To do so, I present a case study specific to Tea Party activism during the 2010 election cycle in the US. My specific interest is in how candidates for public office navigate the competing pressures of state restructuring and contentious politics. I focus on the Tennessee Republican gubernatorial primary to make this assessment. To read the candidates’ efforts as reconciling competing interests, I employ the concept of scalar politics. To apply scalar politics I develop characterizations of both state restructuring and social movement activism specific to conservative politics. These are, respectively, the neoliberal and Tea Party orders of discourse. Orders of discourse are theoretical constructs developed by Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer (Fairclough 1992; Fairclough 2001; Fairclough 2002; Fairclough 2003; Fairclough 2005; Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer 2002; Jessop 2004; Sayer 1997) that provide me a consistent means to read the variations in the candidates’ dialogue specific to conservative politics, both neoliberal and contentious. The Case Tea Party Activism, Electoral Politics and Tennessee As I indicate in the previous chapter, Tea Party activism, as a type of conservative contentious politics, opens new fields of social inquiry in the extant literature specific to electoral politics. My interest in Tea Party activism stems from my scholastic engagement of electoral politics in Tennessee. Much of my study of elections in Tennessee is an effort to distinguish spatial patterns in voting results with quantitative approaches, though in the led up to the 2010 election I began to archive media coverage of the statewide governor’s race to contextualize my statistical findings. During this effort I identified Tea Party activism as a consistent topic of conversation amongst news agencies across the state. The first of these articles was an account of activists protesting President Obama’s proposed stimulus plan at Tennessee’s State Capitol on Friday, February 27, 2009 (AP 2009; News Channel 5 2009). This action was part of the earliest bout of Tea Party activism. Initially, I found the wave of Boston Tea Party themed contestations intriguing because it had come seemingly from nowhere . But through further research it became increasingly clear

20 that what was happening across the country was the culmination of a long-standing effort to engage the United States’ citizenry in another type of Revolution. Indeed, the Boston Tea Party had been actively used to make anti-tax, limited government and market fundamentalist arguments well before 2009. In 1994, Sharon Cooper authored a story that was illustrated by Chuck Asay of a revolt against the “taxing class.” The Taxpayers’ Tea Party begins with an introduction authored by Rush Limbaugh, prominent radio host for the “conservative movement.” He set the tone for the publication when he called upon the electorate to “THROW THE RASCALS OUT” (Cooper and Asay 1994, 8). The book itself tells the story of Sally Jefferson, an everyday citizen who becomes fed up with tax increases when she checks her tax bill one evening. Through her routine the next day, Sally encounters other people who are equally upset about their taxes and encourages them to gather at her house for a meeting that night to plan a Tea Party. One of the attendees brought her friend Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform. In their meeting, the group members shared stories relating how elected officials institute tax increases to pay for harmful social programs. Each of those in attendance to the meeting agreed that something should be done to stop wayward politicians. They decided to contribute something to oppose a “tax and spend” congressman in an adjacent district. These donations included radio advertisements, billboards, newspaper ads, computer bulletins and door-to-door house calls. Through their efforts they successfully unseated this congressman and in the process started a nationwide movement that ended with the repeal of the income tax amendment to the US Constitution. At the conclusion of the illustrated story, Cooper authored an action guide to bring this fictional account of a taxpayers’ tea party to reality. She included sections on writing letters to newspaper editors and congresswomen and men, how to contact the president, lists of congresswomen and men that fell into categories like “the filthiest 50” and also advice on holding your own tea party (Cooper and Asay 1994). In short this was a story of taxpayers turning on members of Congress in a “second revolution” and an instruction manual for getting it done. Cooper, Asay, and Limbaugh were not alone in their attempts to co-opt the U.S. Revolution for political ends. In 2002, FreedomWorks launched a website for the U.S. Tea Party (Zernike 2010, 33). The site asked, “Do you think our taxes are too high and our tax code too complicated? We do!” (Zernike 2010, 33). FreedomWorks took the Revolutionary imagery further and used the original Revolution as a model for a present day revolution. In 2007, Dick

Armey, FreedomWorks chairman and former House majority leader from Texas, and Matt Kibbe, FreedomWorks president, wrote an op-ed article that used the Boston Tea Party as a model for citizen activism. While their call to change government did not move the masses that year, FreedomWorks did not give up on their Revolutionary rhetoric or their zeal for social organizing (Zernike 2010, 34). In my research on Tea Party activism the earliest example of individuals successfully using Boston Tea Party imagery to rally significant support to achieve political aims I found weresupporters of Congressman Ron Paul’s (R-TX) bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. They used the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, December 16, 2007, as an opportunity for a one day internet fundraising “money bomb” that eventually brought in over $6 million (AP 2007). Supporters gathered in Boston on the steps of the State House and they marched to Faneuil Hall where they listened to speeches from libertarian leaning activists including Congressman Paul’s son Rand Paul (Levenson 2007). Congressman Paul was not in Boston for the fundraising rally, but did attend a Tea Party in Freeport, TX that day. After boarding a ship docked in the city’s port, Congressman Paul chose to throw a large plastic barrel labeled IRS into the water from a host of options that included the Iraq War, United Nations, NAFTA, and the Federal Reserve (eenkmouse2311 2007). It was the financial crisis that began in early 2008 that provided the political opportunity for residents of the US to apply Tea Party imagery in full scale bouts of activism. In early 2008 the shock of millions of foreclosures in the US yielded crisis in financial markets. Shortly after Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in September, credit markets froze, the US government went into action with a $700 billion bailout to Wall Street investment banks and other institutions deemed “too big to fail” (Harvey 2010, 1-11). The politicians that presided over the crash were faced with a crisis of legitimacy. In the 2008 US presidential election voters were resentful and turned away from the party in power. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) attracted millions of votes from disaffected members of the US electorate in his victory over Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Candidate Obama received votes from across the political spectrum indicating a mass desire for a new type of leadership. According to exit polls conducted by CCN (2008), President Obama won 52% of voters not affiliated with the Republican or Democrat Parties, 60% of self-identified moderates, 20% of self-identified conservatives, and 69% of first time voters. Many of these voters would later identify themselves as members of the Tea Party movement. Indeed,

Rasmussen and Schoen contended that up to one-third of Tea Partiers in 2010 were once supporters of President Barack Obama (2010, 8). President Obama’s popularity amongst disaffected voters soon waned, and political action shifted from the campaign to replace President Bush to public demonstrations opposed to President Obama’s proposed budget. One of the first public protests was held in Fort Meyers, Florida by Mary Rakovich. On February 10, 2009, Mary, her husband Ron, and Julie Flynt turned out to protest at President Obama’s town hall meeting at the convention center in Fort Meyers (Montgomery 2010). While President Obama and Florida’s Governor Charlie Crist appeared on stage to promote the stimulus bill, the small group of protestors waved signs that read, amongst other things, “real jobs not pork” (Armey and Kibbe 2010, 14). A few days later Keli Carender organized the “Porkulus Protest” of President Obama’s agenda in Seattle, Washington. With the help of her blog, Liberty Belle, Ms. Carender turned out 120 people on February 16, 2009 (Rasmussen and Schoen 2010, 151). The angst necessary for a mass citizen upheaval was palpable, but it lacked Revolutionary zeal. On the February 19, 2009, CNBC morning broadcast, Rick Santelli suggested a course of action with far reaching ramifications. Mr. Santelli, reporting from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, was upset over proposed mortgage bailouts and delivered the “rant heard round the world.” He declared “the government is promoting bad behavior” and asked how many people wanted “to pay for your neighbors mortgages that have an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” At the peak of his rant, Mr. Santelli urged “capitalists” to join him for a tea party in Chicago (HeritageFoundation 2009). In the midst of his outburst he added that these bailouts would “make Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin roll over in their graves.” With this statement, Mr. Santelli attached brewing frustration in the U.S. to imagery of the U.S. Revolution by suggesting a reenactment of the Boston Tea Party was the solution. From these early actions and Santelli’s call to action, the Tea Party image grew in national significance when activists identifying themselves with the Tea Party staged large public demonstrations throughout 2009 and 2010. As various people participated in these Tea Party events, they shared organizational practices, planned strategies and enunciated their grievances and solutions. This is not to suggest that negotiations in Tea Party activism eliminated differences between those that participated, or united them under a singular organizational structure. Rather, the different Tea Party groups therein became similar to one another in some

23 respects while maintaining very real differences in tone and tactics. One area of agreement was certainly on the importance of electoral politics. While Tea Party activism from the beginning relied on flamboyant displays in the streets, over the course of 2009 movement dynamics were expanded by participants to exercise their influence in elections. Beginning with the challenge to Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate for Congress in the special election for New York’s 23rd district in late 2009, and culminating with support for Scott Brown in the race for US Senate in Massachusetts in early 2010 Tea Party activism was brought to bear on electoral processes. By the late summer of 2010, the inclusion of electoral politics in Tea Party activism was a national trend. Conservative Marco Rubio had driven moderate Charlie Crist from the Republican Senate primary in Florida (Armey and Kibbe 2010, 162-164). Randal Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul and self-professed Tea Party candidate, was running even with establishment candidate Trey Grayson in the Republican Senate primary in Kentucky (Zernike 2010, 161-181). The Tea Party Express targeted Mark Kirk, the pick of Republican Party leaders for Senate in Illinois, in the primary. And “RINO” (Republicans in name only) hunters were springing up across the nation to challenge GOP incumbents in their reelection bids (Przybyla 2009). What is important in my assessment is that the participants in Tea Party activism had cut their teeth in New York and Massachusetts. Following on they were ready to take Tea Party activism to races across the country and depose establishment candidates in Republican primaries, with the Democrats sure to follow in the general election. The impact of Tea Party activism in US electoral politics was far more intense in some sites than others. Tennessee was one of the places where Tea Party activism was most intense. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, one of the leading women of the Tea Party movement alongside Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, represented Tennessee’s 7th Congressional district throughout the Tea Party’s long year of action. Tea Party Nation was founded in Tennessee and organized the first National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, the state capital. Further, Tennessee was one of a handful of state’s that returned a higher percentage of votes for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in 2008 than for Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush in 2004, indicating early disillusionment with then candidate Obama. Further, this large pool of disaffected voters mobilized early in the movement protesting President Obama’s proposed stimulus plan at Tennessee’s state Capitol on Friday, February 27, 2009 (AP 2009; News Channel 5 2009). In April 2009, a group called the Tennessee Tea Party launched a website that

24 provided access to a searchable database of Tea Party groups in the state. Also in April 2009, over sixty Tax Day Tea Parties were held across Tennessee (Sumerford 2009). In January 2010, many of these Tea Party groups formed a statewide alliance with a public statement of purpose, vision, platform and by-laws complete with signatures from representatives of each group (Tennessee Tea Party Coalition 2009). As part of the national trend of participation in electoral politics, Tea Party groups were active and engaged in Tennessee’s primary election in 2010. The direction of Tea Party activism to electoral politics was particularly important given the orchestration of primary elections in Tennessee. There primaries are open, meaning that a voter does not need to be registered as a member of a political party to cast a ballot in a party’s primary. Candidates, then, must be mindful of not only their party’s registered supporters, but crossover voters from the other party as well as voters independent of either major party. Given most people that identified with the Tea Party in 2010 considered themselves political independents, Tennessee’s open primary rules set the stage for Tea Party activists to more easily exert their influence in the gubernatorial primary than if they had to register with a political party before casting a primary ballot. With that said, Tea Party activism in Tennessee during the 2010 gubernatorial primary was not evenly distributed between parties. Their activity was particularly evident in the Tennessee Republican gubernatorial primary. In late May 2010, the Tennessee Tea Party Coalition hosted a meeting with a gubernatorial candidate forum (Carlson 2010). Though the Democratic candidates were invited they did not attend (Bates 2009). Individual Tea Party groups across the state hosted the Republican gubernatorial candidates at meals, picnics, town halls, public forums and question and answer sessions. Tea Party groups in Tennessee also endorsed Republican candidates for governor (Humphrey 2010). To read the relationship between conservative social movement activism and electoral politics, I employ the concept of scalar politics developed by MacKinnon (2011). He proposes scalar politics as a means to read how social agents conceive relationships amongst various state scales. MacKinnon (2011) defines four key propositions to read scalar politics in empirical fields. One, scalar politics is not a totalizing feature of any political project. Two, a variety of actors employ conceptions of scale to meet political ends. Three, scalar politics implies conceptions of scale produced in prior political struggles. Four, active scalar political projects involve mixing representations of existing conceptions of scale and newly imagined ones.

The first aspect of MacKinnon’s (2011) work is specific to the complexity of political struggles that occur alongside scalar politics. In terms of conservative politics this includes characterizations of the state that reflect competing pressures from both the dynamics of neoliberal state change and contentious politics. To speak to this issue, I focus on the relationship between representatives of the state and contentious politics. Miller (2007) indicates that the relationship between social movement activists and the state is dynamic. In particular, representatives of the state either partner with activists or not depending on the perceived parity between the distribution of responsibilities and the material means to meet them to the urban state level. Miller (2007) ignores the dynamics of contention in his formulation of this relationship in favor of a systematic account of ideology and motivations behind social movement activism. To address the possibility contentious politics may also impact representatives of the state, I read the pressures on them with the concept of scalar politics. The social agents in my field of research are the Republicans that ran for governor in Tennessee in 2010. MacKinnon (2011) insists that a variety of actors employ conceptions of scale. There were three frontrunners vying for the Republican gubernatorial nomination. The first candidate was Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam. He was the Mayor of Knoxville from 2003 to 2010 and was a businessman before that. His business experience includes helping to run the family business, the Pilot chain of gas stations and travel centers that his father started. In 2010 Pilot Travel Centers acquired the Flying J chain of truck stops to become the largest such chain in the US (Brewer 2010). Second was Congressman Zach Wamp. Until 2010 Congressman Wamp represented Tennessee’s 3rd district, which includes Chattanooga and the majority of southeast Tennessee. The Congressman was first elected to represent the 3rd district in 1994 when he rode into Washington on the same wave that took Newt Gingrich to the speaker’s chair. Third was Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey. Lieutenant Governor Ramsey became only the second Republican Lieutenant Governor in Tennessee’s history in 2008 and the first since Reconstruction. He owned an auction and real estate company in the Tri-Cities area in far northeast Tennessee as his full-time job. Following on Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer’s (2002) construction of agents, Bill Haslam, Zach Wamp and Ron Ramsey were intentional and practically skilled. As such they made meaning through the administration of their respective campaign infrastructures. They ran TV commercials and bought print advertisements like newspaper ads. They flooded people’s

26 mailboxes with glossy flyers and inundated email inboxes with messages. They interacted with media outlets through interviews and press releases. They used volunteers that canvassed neighborhoods and put up signs. They maintained an online presence with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Flicker, and Jogglebug. The candidates also made a point to appear at Tea Party events, solicited endorsements from Tea Party groups and accepted donations from the fundraising network associated with Tea Party activism. Through persistent observation and prolonged engagement (Baxter and Eyles 1997), I chose the public address delivered by the candidates at campaign stops for analysis. During the gubernatorial primary the candidates or their proxies made several public appearances across the state of Tennessee. These appearances rarely made statewide news, but the candidates and campaigns continued to make room for them in their schedules. By the end of the 18 month campaign in August of 2010 the candidates had appeared together in public and spoke upwards of 140 times (Ramsey 2010). This was in addition to the number of stops the candidates made independent of one another. From June 18th, 2010, until July 26th, 2010, I attended seven campaign stops and was denied access to one more, though I did watch it on television. At five stops all three candidates appeared together, while at the remaining two only one candidate, Ron Ramsey, was present. I consider the campaign stops I attended a sample of campaign stops in total, which I conceive as a series of events in the process of campaigning for public office. All the campaign stops made by the candidates that I attended were either in Middle or East Tennessee (Figure 3.1.). To put this statement into geographic context, the state of Tennessee has a varied historiography associated with land conquest during white-male dominated settlement, the establishment of statehood and expansion of state influence over territory and people, various crises of capital, rural to urban population change, and race and gender politics. The results of these and myriad other changes have yielded geographic cleavages. Officially these geographical differences are acknowledged as the three Grand Divisions of West, Middle, and East Tennessee(s). The Grand Divisions are taught in schools across the state (Tennessee Department of Education 2010). They are represented as three stars on the state flag (http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/homework/symbols.html). The geographic extent of the Grand Divisions has been defined by the legislature (Tennessee Code 4-1-2), and the state constitution mandates that all three Grand Divisions must be represented on the state supreme court (Article VI, Section 2). But this distinction goes beyond official state recognition.

I my research on the state of Tennessee the three Grand Divisions also differ in matters of opinion regarding partisanship; West Tennesseans are Democrats, East Tennesseans are Republicans, and Middle Tennesseans are somewhere in the middle (Quinton 2009).

Figure 3.1. Tennessee Grand Divisions and Data Collection Sites

The campaign stops I attended were a cluster of activity. In the midst of the turmoil, each candidate presented an account of their vision for the state of Tennessee either with prepared remarks or as participants in a question and answers session with a moderator at all the events I attended. Given the wealth of activity at each campaign stop these speeches were a consistent feature in the fact that there was a public address at each. Each public address took up relatively large segments of time during each campaign stop. In the one televised debate between the candidates they spoke collectively for around an hour. When they were part of a panel answering questions from a moderator the total time ranged from 30 to 45 minutes. When asked to speak in succession as part of a program the candidates each took around 10 minutes to deliver their remarks. During each stop I attended, I recorded each public address digitally as well as

28 took handwritten notes of content. I also made recordings of the televised debate and an additional candidate forum at the state Tea Party Convention posted to the Tennessee 10th Amendment Center’s website. This discussion featured not only the three leading Republican candidates, but another Republican candidate and three candidates with no party affiliation. In all I have speech data from six campaign stops where all three candidates appeared together and two more where only one candidate appeared. Each occurred during the final three months of the primary campaign between May 23rd, 2010, and July 26th, 2010. I chose a convenience sampling strategy with repetition until saturation in collecting this speech data (Baxter and Eyles 1997). As a text for analysis, I also use speech data to discuss each candidate’s effort to convey meaning. MacKinnon (2011) suggests with his third element that scalar conceptions of the state from previous or ongoing political projects are available for advocates of conservative politics to use. With his fourth proposition, he positions new scalar taxonomies at the intersection of existing and emergent scalar conceptions. To aide identification of Tea Party specific vocabulary available to the candidates, I also conducted an analysis of website data. One well- chronicled aspect of Tea Party groups is their on-line presence (see Rasmussen and Schoen 2010 for examples). From the very beginning Tea Party activism has been carried out over the internet (Zernike 2010). As such, an online presence is important for many Tea Party groups. Of course, there are Tea Party groups that were not and are not concerned with establishing and maintaining an internet presence. Still, many Tea Party groups did indeed start websites. Other groups that did not make their own website used the platforms provided by Tea Party Nation (http://www.teapartynation.com/) and Tea Party Patriots (http://www.teapartypatriots.org/) to establish a web presence. On both websites, group members provide basic information about their particular Tea Party group including declarations of their core beliefs in “mission” or “about” statements. It is from Tea Party Nation and Tea Party Patriots that I gathered the mission or about statements from each Tea Party group from Tennessee registered on either site. I consider this data a typical case sample of Tea Party activism (Bradshaw and Stratford 2005). For those groups that do not maintain a separate website I gathered only the information posted on TPN and TPP. From the groups that did maintain a public website apart from TPN and TPP, I gathered the mission or about statements directly from their websites. Of the 62 unique Tea Party groups listed on both the TPN and TPP websites (some groups used both) 42 had mission

29 or about statements when I gathered this data in the fall of 2012. Importantly, this phase of data collection began almost two years after my initial collection of speech data. While the length of time between initial data collection and this may seem long, many of the Tea Party groups that used TPN and TPP in 2009 and 2010 ceased much of their online activity on these websites in 2011 as determined by my assessment of the public update record for the information on each. This lack of activity indicates that many of the about and mission statements have not been updated since around the end of the 2010 gubernatorial race. As such, I consider each about or mission statement as source material for my work to define vocabulary used by Tea Party groups in Tennessee prior to and during the Republican gubernatorial primary in 2010. Methodology: Defining the Objects of Research To analyze the speech and website data I collected, I utilize the conception of orders of discourse defined by Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer (Fairclough 1992; Fairclough 2001; Fairclough 2002; Fairclough 2003; Fairclough 2005; Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer 2002; Jessop 2004; Sayer 1997). Orders of discourse limit linguistic variation and as such are helpful to write MacKinnon’s (2011) third and fourth elements of scalar politics. Before that step, I will clarify the use of the term discourse in the context of orders of discourse. Dittmer (2010) follows Gee (1999) to draw a distinction between discourse (purposefully lower case) and Discourse. The former is a reference to the language used in everyday encounters. As such it is "the most empirically observable aspect of language's impact on, and constitution of, the social world." It is the later, however, that encompasses the causal dynamic of discourse. Dittmer characterizes Discourse as, "a culturally-specific mode of existence" (2010, 276). Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer (2002) utilize discourse as a reference to the general applicability of orders of discourse in reading spoken and written texts. Alternatively, the upper case Discourse is a specific reference to a conceptual part of orders of discourse. Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer (Fairclough 2001; Fairclough 2002; Fairclough 2003; Fairclough 2005; Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer 2002; Jessop 2004) partition three ways of limiting linguistic variation with an order of discourse – genres, styles and Discourses. Genres correspond to the author’s identification of ways social agents interact. More specifically, genres are the behaviors and actions agents share in common. Styles are constructed to read ways of being, like social or personal identities. These are the embodied aspects of agent behavior that set them apart, one from another. Finally, themes to be included in discourses are

30 representations of the world informed by perspectives and positions therein. Discourses in Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer’s (Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer 2002) work are indicative of the lower case application of the term. As such, Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer define Discourse as the terminologies shared by social agents that convey broad understandings of the world around them in a single word or phrase. I construct two orders of discourse that theoretically limit the available terminology for the Republican candidates for governor in Tennessee. One I derive from my reading of Miller (2007) and Peck, Brenner, Tickell and Theodore (Brenner, Peck and Theodore 2010; Peck 2011; Peck and Theodore 2010; Peck, Theodore and Brenner 2012; Peck and Tickell 2002) specific to lifeworld colonization and neoliberalism, and the other from my reading of conservative contentious politics and Tea Party activism. I call these respectively the neoliberal order of discourse and Tea Party order of discourse. Conceptually both the neoliberal and Tea Party orders of discourse are conservative. I use both to reflect on constellations of meaning surrounding the ideological predisposition for private instead of public management of capital. Similarly, I conceive both to involve a fetish for market exchange. But, these two orders of discourse are not the same. In particular there are actions and meanings specific to social movement dynamics that set conservative contentious politics apart from the mode of social transformation Miller (2007) and Brenner, Peck, Tickell and Theodore (Brenner, Peck and Theodore 2010; Peck 2011; Peck and Theodore 2010; Peck, Theodore and Brenner 2012; Peck and Tickell 2002) associate with neoliberalism. With regard to style, I counterpose the two in terms of access to positions of influence in state policy decision making processes. Both Lessard-Lechance and Norcliffe (2013) and Wainwright (2007) indicate efforts to limit participation in negotiations of international trade agreements are an aspect of neoliberal social change. Alternatively, these authors characterize contentious challenges to neoliberalism as an effort to interject more opinions and propositions into the negotiation process. I read a similar faultline in genre between identification with either hierarchical or vertical projection of power through the state. Miller (2007) describes a scenario where the dynamics of neoliberal social change begin at the nation-state level and cascade down through the regional-state and metropolitan levels to the individual. Alternatively, Martin (2003) characterizes social movement activism by the projection of power across multiple levels of the state. The designation I make between alternative discourses in each order of discourse requires clarification between general meaning making and discourse in the extant literature on social

31 movement activism. With that said, I do identify specific semiotic features in discussions of neoliberalism to include as discourses in the colonization order of discourse. Given Miller (2007) does not include specific actions that facilitate lifeworld colonizatation, I turn to his source material for neoliberal state change to formulate the neoliberal order of discourse. The work of Brenner, Peck, Tickell and Theodore (Brenner, Peck and Theodore 2010; Peck 2011; Peck and Theodore 2010; Peck, Theodore and Brenner 2012; Peck and Tickell 2002) provides guidance. They formulate a very specific account of meaning making to accompany their reading of social relations with the concepts of neoliberalization. In particular they identify language and actions that depoliticize the deleterious social effects of neoliberalization (Brenner, Peck and Theodore 2010; Peck, Theodore and Brenner 2012). There are three features in their account that I separate into designations of genre, style and discourse. One is the application of policies across myriad state levels around the world. Policies in this regard are specific to nation-states where the responsibility for the regulation of capital has been divested to regional-state and metropolitan scaless by policy makers. Therein, a variety of regulatory approaches to improve the profitability of private enterprise provide an ever growing field of “ideologically sanctioned” policy solutions (Peck 2011, 172). I consider these specific changes to the organization to states as the source material for genre. The second feature of neoliberalization I attribute to making meaning is the lauded role of technocrats, both public and private, in the development of policies. Therein, growing pools of technocrats ply “scientific” methods to assess results and guide institutional experimentation (Peck and Tickell 2002). The increasing importance of social agents that specialize in the development, dissemination and application of policies are the distinguishing marks of styles. The third aspect of neoliberalization is specific to Discourse. As a type of shorthand amongst a global policy making elite, these policy models are increasingly given place names like the Barcelona model or Vancouverism. Their association with particular places “evokes a grounded form of authenticity, implies feasibility, and signals an ideologically palatable origin story” (Peck and Theodore 2010, 170-171). Place-names in this regard carry broad meanings about the effectiveness of complicated policy models developed in particular (and complex) regulatory contexts. The confluence of all three elements effectively narrows debate to the policy itself and not the underlying issues associated with market orchestration of society (Peck 2011). The

32 neoliberal order of discourse, then, is a specific complex of conservative political meanings that facilitate the orchestration of neoliberal social change. Alternatively, the movement dynamics I associate with Tea Party activism are my source material for the Tea Party order of discourse. I draw style in this instance from the work to differentiate participants in contentious politics by Martin (2003) and Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel (Cumbers, Routledge and Nativel 2008; Routledge, Cumbers and Nativel 2006). As I note above, differentiation as an analytical move opens new paths for discussion to the author regarding the organized tumult that is at the heart of social movement activism. As such, my reading of Tea Party activism is a complex of activity with different participants playing different roles. These are in general as members of Tea Party groups or as organizers of the action. I associate genre with a different aspect of movement dynamics. In this instance I focus on direct action. Lessard-Lechance and Norcliffe (2013), Martin (2003), Routledge (2003) and Wainwright (2007) demonstrate that drawing out specific actions taken and the meaning associated with that action provides a concept of group identification to theoretically pull different activists back together. My reading of Tea Party activism, then, also includes single and multi-site action directed at various conceptual formulations of the federal government. To code the neoliberal and Tea Party orders of discourse, I follow the axial coding strategy described by Cope (2005, 2010). Axial coding is the identification of author defined themes in the research documents. In my case, I code for the distinct elements of each order of discourse in the speech data I present above. Specifically I include in the neoliberal order of discourse, references to technocratic policy formulation and dissemination as genre, references to competition between state levels for capital as style, and the use of place-names to validate policy options for discourse. My codes for the Tea Party order of discourse include references to either Tea Party groups or the work of activists the candidates explicitly associate with Tea Party activism for genre, positioning the federal government as the opposition for direct action for style. With that said, I do not identify discussions of movement dynamics that capture Discourse in the way Fariclough (Fairclough 2001; Fairclough 2002; Fairclough 2003; Fairclough 2005) positions the term in an order of discourse. Discourse in terms of social movement dynamics is the author’s account of how activists represent the world apart from contentious politics. Discourse, then, is different than either genre or style as it is not necessarily an explicit account of group dynamics specific to

33 participants in contentious politics. I read the closest comparable concept in Benford and Snow’s (Benford and Snow 2000; Snow and Benford 2000) formulation of amplification as part of a collective action frame. Amplification is the conceptual tool to read complex meanings through movement specific terminology. To identify Discourse specific to Tea Party activism I introduce the analytical formulation of technical vocabulary to the discussion on movement dynamics. Nation (2001) argues technical vocabulary is one classification of terminology in a taxonomy that also includes high frequency words, low frequency words and academic vocabulary. High frequency words are the 2,000 most frequently used in English, academic vocabulary is common across academic fields, technical vocabulary is of interest to people working in a specialized field and low frequency words are those left over after the first three classifications (Chung and Nation 2003). What makes technical vocabulary particularly apropos for this dissertation is its utility for selection of terminology specific to a group of practitioners in a particular subject area that distinguishes them from practitioners in other subject areas (Chung and Nation 2004). Following, I interpret Discourse in the Tea Party order of discourse as the vocabulary shared by movement participants that juxtaposes Tea Party activism with the wider world of social relations. Chung and Nation (2004) prescribe three ways to identify technical vocabulary that include use of a technical dictionary compiled by subject specialists, clues that the author used to note significance, and a comparison of the frequency of words in a subject text versus a text not designed for that particular subject. Since there is no technical dictionary for Tea Party terminology and there are not comparable texts, I have chosen to use author clues. This part of the coding of technical vocabulary is straightforward. Chung and Nation (2003) indicate that authors of technical texts purposefully draw the reader’s attention to technical vocabulary by bolding, italicizing or parenthetically noting significance. This is particularly true for Tea Party websites. On the Tea Party group websites a common tactic is to enumerate the most important facets of their organizing principles or agenda with bulleted lists, clearly highlighted words or both. I have provided a sample from the Fayette Tea Party group’s website (Figure 3.1). As evident, the Fayette Tea Party signifies terminology they want the reader to be aware of by italicizing, bolding, typing in all caps, capitalizing terms mid-sentence and underlining words or phrases. I code each of these terms as technical vocabulary with a simple search of the relevant method of identification, such as bolded or italicized text. Further, I parse the high

34 frequency and low frequency words. The terms I identify from the Fayette Tea Party using this method are United States Constitution, rule of law, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, creator, our vision and values, state, fellow citizens, elected representatives to act. Kwary (2011) indicates the selection of technical terminology by its identification from the author does not provide a complete list of key vocabulary. To supplement this method I employ systematic classification. Citing the work of Bergenholtz and Tarp (1995), Kwary (2011) provides three steps of systematic classification: subject-field classification, internal subject classification and terminological classification. Subject-field classification is the most general of the three. As such, internal subject classifications are a subset of the term identified by subject-field classification. Similarly, terminological classification is a subset of the internal subject classification. Systematic classification, then, is essentially a tiered classification scheme.

Figure 3.2. Fayette Tea Party “About” Statement (Fayette Tea Party 2012)

Coding Results Campaign Politics and Conservative Orders of Discourse As I indicate previously in this chapter, campaigning for public office is a complicated affair. With that said, there are particular features of campaign politics that provide scope to my project. Amongst these are public addresses made by the candidates for public office. While collecting speech data, I employed a convenience sampling strategy (Bradshaw and Stratford 2005). I attended campaign stops given personal constraints of time and capital, and did so until I could verify saturation through repetition (Morse 1991). I found repetition of themes in each candidate’s public address by the third event I attended. Specifically, the policy decisions the candidates advocated and the stories they told about themselves were largely the same at each event. Even when the public address was not a pre-written speech, but a question and answers session with a moderator, the respective issues addressed and stories behind them were similar respective to each candidate. The remaining four public addresses I chronicled were further validation of redundancy and indication I had reached the saturation point of themes addressed by the candidates. As such, I consider themes the candidates present across multiple stops as representative texts associated with a series of events in the gubernatorial campaign. There are a small number of themes the candidates address at each stop. These were of three kinds – specific policy issues, describing themselves to the electorate and references to Tea Party activism. The specific policy issues the candidates addressed were decreasing public (state) expenditures, immigration, education, tax policy and business development. Unemployment, too, was a consistent theme, but the candidates subsumed issues of employment within discussions of business development. When describing themselves, the candidates related specific stories of both their professional and personal experiences. Bill Haslam discussed his time as mayor of Knoxville and business experience with Pilot Oil Corp. and Saks Fifth Avenue. Ron Ramsey consistently referenced his time in the Tennessee Legislature, both as a state senator and Lieutenant Governor, and how he started two small businesses. Zach Wamp was less verbose about his work in the US Congress than either Haslam or Ramsey were about their public service. Wamp, however, was keen to identify his efforts to forge regional coalitions of policy makers as a member of the Chattanooga Area Chamber of Commerce and public official. Wamp also spoke often of his personal study of issues, including religion and geopolitics. When the candidates discussed Tea Party activism they were all glad for the movement. They were

36 particularly excited for the potential of Tea Party activism to address their respective concerns with the exercise of responsibilities and authority at the national state level. I read each theme with the designations of genre, style and discourse in both the colonization and Tea Party orders of discourse (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1. Texturing Summary by Candidate Haslam Wamp Ramsey Style Specific Policies NOD NOD NOD/TPOD Self-description NOD/TPOD NOD/TPOD NOD/TPOD Tea Party TPOD TPOD TPOD

Genre Specific Policies NOD/TPOD NOD/TPOD NOD/TPOD Self-description NOD/TPOD NOD/TPOD TPOD Tea Party TPOD

Discourse Specific Policies NOD NOD/TPOD NOD Self-description TPOD TPOD TPOD Tea Party TPOD TPOD Note: NOD indicates coding at Neoliberal Order of Discourse and TPOD coding at Tea Party Order of Discourse

Neoliberal Order of Discourse In campaigning to become representatives of the state, all three candidates vying for the Tennessee Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2010 employed the neoliberal order of discourse (Table 3.2). One of the novel applications of the neoliberal order of discourse was specific to the ways each candidate traced the origins of state policy formulation and outlined policy applications. Contra the distinguishing role of cosmopolitan technocrats in an international process of policy development and mobilization (Peck and Tickell 2002), the candidates positioned themselves as policy innovators and application specialists with sub- national experience and appeal. This distinction is evident in my application of style as part of the neoliberal order of discourse. Bill Haslam drew from both his experience as mayor of Knoxville and executive in Pilot Oil Corp. to situate himself as an expert capable of officiating Tennessee as chief executive. Zach Wamp rarely mentioned his work in the US Congress and

37 instead related experience facilitating negotiations amongst policy makers in Tennessee and his time studying issues. Ron Ramsey discussed his efforts as a state legislator and Lieutenant Governor in Tennessee to change existing legislative statutes, create new laws or intercede in efforts from other lawmakers. In a more orthodox application of style in the neoliberal order of discourse the candidates did reference innovations and ideas derived from other policy makers. Wamp was the most explicit in this regard, while Haslam and Ramsey spoke in vague terms of policies that originated from outside their own expertise. Wamp referenced the work of policy development firms or other experts in policy fields, though he only did so in discussions of reducing state expenditures. Another innovation to the neoliberal order of discourse is evident through my application of genre to the campaign. As I indicate in the previous chapter, when the candidates employ the neoliberal order of discourse in their campaigns they should reference the imperative for the regional state of Tennessee to compete with other sub-national state levels for capital (Peck 2011). Indeed, they did so with comments either in reference to Tennessee in competition with other regional states or state levels within Tennessee in competition with one another. The candidates, however, did not simply describe competition for capital in terms of private business. They also demonstrated concern for individuals with capital. In these conversations the most consistent notion of competition the candidates conveyed was between regional states. Both Bill Haslam and Ron Ramsey expressed concern with tax policy for both firms and individuals. Haslam made his case to be an active salesman for the state, while Ramsey was more concerned about getting the environment right to attract firms and individuals to Tennessee. They both expressed interest in retirees and discussed changes in the tax code to attract them to Tennessee. Zach Wamp proposed zones of capital investment within Tennessee with specific strengths. Importantly, Wamp differentiated Tennessee into zones that do not compete with one another for capital investment, but make the regional state as a whole more competitive. Alternatively, the only issue the candidates consistently associate with competition between state levels within Tennessee is education. Each candidate expressed their desire for public schools to compete with charter, private and home schooling.

Table 3.2. Neoliberal Order of Discourse by Candidate Haslam Wamp Ramsey Style Decreasing One of the things I learned as I have 6 former commissioners on We actually cut several aor is ou do’t ake or ig my statewide steering committee departments by 18 to 22%, but Public cuts, you make a thousand small and every one of them say that aross the oard uts do’t ork. Expenditures ones. The specific program we do everyone of these 20 agency The’re goig to hae to e can better in Tennessee is looking leaders will say to their team targeted cuts rethinking and at the way we do purchasing. You whatever you do ask for more restructuring state government as know we spend 28 billion dollars a money because then if they cut e ko it. I’e ee aiting for year in Tennessee other states you we still have more money than years, just chomping at the bit to have done purchasing reform the we had last year (2010b). be able to do this (2010b). process and have saved hundreds of millions of dollars (2010d). Business We figured out, hey having UT and Years ago, 16 years ago, I had read I’ a sall usiessa self. . . Oak Ridge National Lab and certain a lot, I was elected, I'm from The reason Business Tennessee Issues different assets that we have in Chattanooga, I wanted our Magazine named me the most Knoxville, let's sell those (2010b). manufacturing base to come back, pro-business legislator in Nashville I was put in office, and I said we was because I get it. I understand need to regionalize our economy some basic premises. Number 1 between Huntsville, Alabama, and goeret does’t reate jos, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and create usiesses reate jos. That’s this technology corridor to bring number 1 (2010c). new manufacturing growth back in (2010c). Genre Education We a’t sta d out of the But the state has a responsibility of If I’ the ol real estate ad states i eduatio. We a’t keep public education and we're near auction company in Northeast having 28,000 kids a year dropping the bottom and we've been near Tennessee, I can charge whatever I out of school, like did last year. . . . the bottom my whole life. And if want and provide a lousy product If we want to compete for those we're going to have a dynamic ad that’s hat’s happeig. jobs, if we want to have a citizenry economy for the future we've got There’s o opetitio. I’ i that’s read for the oig deade to improve education (2010c). faor of harter shools ad I’ i we have to change that in favor of a voucher system on a Tennessee (2010e). limited basis in places like Memphis (2010b). Tax Policy I was in Fairfield Glade retirement Ok, so, if e’re goa e a real Teessee’s a great plae to lie, a community in Crossville last night dynamic economy, states that do terrible place to die. That’s here talkig to a lot of folks. It’s a lot of the best at recruiting new we have our people moving out of people that have moved here from investments are gonna be the the state of Tennessee and going somewhere else, uh lot of people states with the lowest tax to Florida and other places from the upper mid-West, and, uh, oligatio. Uderstad that, that’s (2010b). actually a lot of people from the new world we live in in this California (2010b). recession (2010b). Discourse Immigration The federal government has not And I would be an Arizona state in I'm proud of Governor Jan Brewer done their job and the states are a New York second because all and what she did in Arizona. And paying the price for that. Arizona Arizona is doing is allowing their yes, when I'm governor I'll enact a reacted in a way to their situation state to enforce existing federal law just like that (2010d). because they see so much of it. In la. Ad ou’e gotta do that i Tennessee we need to do the Tennessee (2010b). same thing (2010d). Business Creating jobs here is very different I founded this technology corridor And when those businesses are than creating jobs in metropolitan between Huntsville, Alabama, and driven out of New Jersey, driven Issues Nashville, and very different than Oak Ridge, Tennessee, trying to out of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Bristol or Memphis . . . Same thing capitalize on technology to bring Illinois, California, they'll come in Northwest Tennessee (2010c). new manufacturing to our state here to the state of Tennessee (2010b). (2010b). Note: The excerpts in this table are quotations from the candidates. They were chosen as representative of the themes used repeatedly in public addresses throughout the campaign. Sources cited here are listed in the references section under the name of the candidate in the column heading.

In reference to Discourse in the neoliberal order of discourse, I read multiple uses of place-names to support policy recommendations. But as with the other elements of the neoliberal order of discourse, the candidates innovated in their use of place-names. In this case all three candidates provided place-names as examples to not only follow, but also avoid. The most orthodox application of discourse in this regard was their use of regional state names as a point of warning in the competition for capital. Haslam and Ramsey both made references to states, like Florida, that do a better job of attracting individuals with capital, like retirees. Both candidates also made references to states losing capital investment in general like New Jersey, California and Illinois. In a twist on the theme, the candidates used place-names to convey policy solutions that they did not directly relate to capital returns. Conspicuous amongst these was Arizona. Haslam, Wamp and Ramsey all referenced Arizona as a scion of opposition to the US federal government by way of immigration law and enforcement, hinting at the influence of Tea Party activism. Another innovation on the theme of Discourse is that all three candidates used place-names within Tennessee to demonstrate successful applications of their policy proposals. Cities including Nashville, Chattanooga and Knoxville were all used as examples to follow in terms of business development. Alternatively, Memphis was a continual point of reference for dysfunctional schools and a unique site for the imposition of extraordinary measures, especially school vouchers. Tea Party Order of Discourse The candidates also employed the Tea Party order of discourse throughout the campaign (Table 3.3). Just as with the neoliberal order of discourse, the candidates did not simply use the raw linguistic materials of the Tea Party order of discourse. In general terms, the candidates innovated around themes in the cultural aspects of conservative politics (Sayer 2001). This includes references to symbolic resources imbued with meanings not specific to market exchange and capital accumulation. There were in this regard very real innovations on the themes of Tea Party activism including the characterization of participants, the modes of strategic action and the vocabulary of activism. With that said, the candidates did not question the logic of market exchange or capital accumulation in their declarations of conservative politics. Rather their efforts indicate conservative politics driven by resistance to higher order state scales as opposed to willing acceptance of state change from the international and national state scales typical of the neoliberal order of discourse.

Applications of style as part of the Tea Party order of discourse suggest that Tea Party activism itself shaped the candidates’ subjectivities. Bill Haslam, Zach Wamp and Ron Ramsey each recognized Tea Party activism and were thankful for the work activists were doing. The candidates did not mention individual activists by name, though Ramsey and Haslam both use the general term “grassroots”. In this sense, the candidates distinguished themselves from participants in Tea Party activism. Indeed, none of the candidates included themselves as either members of self-described Tea Party groups or organizers of specific actions. Amongst the three candidates, Ron Ramsey was the only one to recount his experience as a participant in Tea Party activism. With that said, he was careful not to claim any leadership role in activism. The application of genre to the campaign clarifies grievances and strategies the candidates proposed to address them in their bid to become contentious political figures. While Tea Party activism in general was in opposition to the national state level, the candidates characterized their resistance as a response to two aspects of the relationship between Tennessee and the US federal government. One was to address the failure of the national state level in the prosecution of state responsibilities, and the other as a bulwark against a more general shift in national values evident in changes to the responsibilities and authority vested in the national state level. The candidates all considered application of immigration laws to be the primary policy failure of the national state to meet its responsibilities and exert its authority. Alternatively, all three candidates expressed concern that the federal government had overextended its authority by adopting erroneous responsibilities. Bill Haslam and Zach Wamp demonstrated concern with federal funds dispensed to regional states with mandatory spending obligations. Ron Ramsey referenced specific issues such as healthcare reform, citizen identification laws and education instead of funding concerns. For all three the regional state was the site for addressing concerns with the national state level. Further, the candidates were in consensus that multiple governors of regional states should work together in opposition to the federal government.

Table 3.3. Tea Party Order of Discourse by Candidate Haslam Wamp Ramsey Style Self- I thik hat ou’e see i the tea Just want to thank you for what I’ proud of the edorseets party movement is a real response you are doing and what you stand I’e gotte fro aross the state of description to a concern about where the for, because we are losing our Tennessee. Gun Owners of outr is goig. . . . It’s soe country. I have felt freedom America have endorsed me. The people that are legitimately slipping through our fingers. The Tea Party groups, literally from concerned about where the most radical left-turn in the history Mountain City to Memphis outr’s goig . of our country (2010a). uderstad that I’ the ol oe that knows that this country is in a heck of a shape (2010d). State When I show up to that first Thank you. And I want to thank national governors meeting you all for what you are doing out sovereignty sovereignty and the 10th here. I mean that. Cause the next amendment will be issue number governor is going to be willing to 1. A full involvement agenda for stand up the federal government our governor to stand on the 10th and say the 10th amendment is amendment prerogative to push the 10th amendment and state the federal government back into sovereignty is real (2010a). its proper role (2010e). Genre Immigration The federal government has not Frankly, if the federal government How dare the people in done their job and the states are o’t efore iigratio las i Washington D.C. in their ivory paying the price for that. Arizona this country the state government towers criticize Arizona when reacted in a way to their situation aught to have the right to do it Phoenix has the second highest because they see so much of it. In (2010d). kidnapping rate in the world. And Tennessee we need to do the it's going to take states standing same thing (2010d). up, we've done it in Tennessee (2010a). State So we have to always make certain The warning sign should have been Ad I’ oied that that e’re ot goa, as uh as last year when the stimulus money Washington D.C. just flat out sovereignty e’d like to, e’re ot goa came to the states with a mandate does’t get it. . . . Ad it’s goi to totally swear off that 12 billion that you had to change your e up to people just like e, it’s dollars. What we have to make unemployment compensation law goin to be up to people just like certain is that when you take to allow part time workers to me to join with conservative federal funding it comes without receive unemployment benefits. governors across this state and strings attached (2010c). The states should have stood push back on the federal against it together (2010c). government (2010e). Discourse Self- Everywhere I go campaign, people We need to nominate a And I want to thank the Tea Party are saying, "well what do you think conservative. Someone who has a Movement too. What a great description about the Tea Party?" My answer record of limited government, low movement. I have spoken to is always quick, it's a direct taxes, never advocating a state dozens of Tea Party groups across grassroots response to a real income tax, strong constitutional the state now. This is a grassroots concern about the direction of our principles (2010e). driven group that truly is not country (2010a). concerned about Republicans and Democrats (2010a). Tea Party And there are gonna be times we I love the tea party movement. hae to eplai h e’re doig I’ ith the ause the agree i something. Because the the same things I believe in. They ostitutio ol allos it that’s believe in protecting the why. People will understand Constitution (2010c). eause the do’t at to lose our way of life. And they feel like the’re losig it . Note: The excerpts in this table are quotations from the candidates. They were chosen as representative of the themes used repeatedly in public addresses throughout the campaign. Sources cited here are listed in the references section under the name of the candidate in the column heading.

Application of Discourse as part of the Tea Party order of discourse to the campaign further distinguishes the role the candidates played in relation to Tea Party activism. My initial analysis includes 287 key terms spread over subject field, internal subject and terminological classifications. I narrow these key terms to those used by Bill Haslam, Zach Wamp and Ron Ramsey in the campaign. There are four subject field classifications the candidates reference that were included by authors of Tea Party group websites in nearly all of the about and mission statements: Constitution, government, grassroots and liberty. I account for the use of key terms by the candidates as evidence of referential adequacy (Baxter and Eyles 1997). Referential adequacy is one means to establish rigor by identifying the constructs of analysis from one field of data in another, separate field of data.

CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

In the campaign to represent the Republican Party in Tennessee’s 2010 gubernatorial race the presence of Tea Party activism was conspicuous. But this simple answer to my research question is complicated by the influence of various and myriad other factors on the campaign. Of the impacts most evident were those associated with political imperatives of a conservative nature. These included but were not limited to the realities of state restructuring and the demands on state operations that emerged from participants in Tea Party activism. Those tasked with interpreting these competing demands during the campaign were the candidates themselves. Each candidate responded to the myriad pressures of running for public office with unique applications of existing meanings to appeal to the electorate. These meanings included preconceived notions of what responsibilities and authority should be vested in particular state scales. Using the concept of scalar politics (MacKinnon 2011), I tease out the how the candidates blended existing scaled conceptions of state responsibilities and authority to create newly imagined ones. My application of scalar politics sheds light on how the candidates forwarded a market centric policy regime for Tennessee simultaneously informed by Tea Party activism and the dynamics of neoliberal social change. The result is an explication of the relationships the candidates conceive between the responsibilities and authority vested in Tennessee’s government, those held by the US federal government and the movement dynamics of Tea Party activism. Contentious Scalar Politics Tennessee’s Competitive Advantage and the National Threat To begin, I read the construction of Tennessee’s competitiveness and threats from the US federal government as exclusive. References to competition amongst regional states for capital are central to readings of neoliberalism (Peck 2011). To that point, Haslam, Wamp and Ramsey all reference Tennessee’s competitive advantage over regional states in attracting investment and consumer capital. Wamp attributes Tennessee’s winning formula to taxes: Ok, so, if we’re gonna be a real dynamic economy, states that do the best at recruiting new investments are gonna be the states with the lowest tax obligation. Understand that, that’s the new world we live in in this recession. If you have the lowest most limited government model they’re

gonna come to you. That’s what they’re looking for. I know, I’ve been there recruiting these industries. So, you’re exactly right. As soon as you can see any daylight get rid of the Hall Tax. As soon as we see any daylight, now that’s probably two years from now. But I would rather reduce the taxing burden than come up with any new way to spend the money. And the inheritance tax is real disincentive. I want more seniors to move to Tennessee. You know why? Because we don’t have to educate their kids and they have to pay taxes, other taxes. They’re good for the state. They don’t cost us as much as they generate. But we don’t need a disincentive by having an inheritance tax. And the one I hear the most about from small businesses, franchise and excise tax. So as much as we can, as soon as we can roll back the tax burden on small businesses. 80% of our new jobs gonna be created by small business. And then you can grow this economy (Wamp 2010b). For Wamp, low taxes provide the right incentive for retirees to move to Tennessee. In his assessment this group of migrants provides nothing but benefit for the regional state. Haslam too emphasized competition specific to tax rates between regional states to attract individuals with capital to spend in consumer markets. I think this one you will find us all pretty much in total agreement on. They are taxes that I think are a disincentive. I was in Fairfield Glade retirement community in Crossville last night talking to a lot of folks. It’s a lot of people that have moved here from somewhere else, uh lot of people from the upper mid-west, and, uh, actually a lot of people from California. Said, “well why’d ya come?” Said, “well no income tax is why I came.” They say, “but ya know what, with the estate tax we’re thinking a might move when it gets, when I get a few years further down the road.” So it is a disincentive, but I think Zach and Ron are right when we’re a billion and a half in the whole I don’t think I can sit here today a tell you my first year as governor we’re gonna take that out. We need to work toward that because it’s not the right economic structure. We’re a little bit away, I don’t know if Zach’s two years is right or not, but I think it’s realistically it’s not next year, it might be two years, might be three years before we can take on something like that (Haslam 2010b). Ramsey took the argument about consumers with capital a step further than either Wamp or Haslam. He was clear that if Tennessee did not cut taxes, they would lose residents with expendable capital. The next governor is gonna be doin’ what I been doin’ for the last 4 or 5 years the reason we’re doing so much better than other states, and Zach mentioned this, cause I’m convinced there gonna be states that no one’s gonna want to live in very soon. You look at New Jersey, you look at Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, California for goodness sakes nobody wants to live there now, and I want this welcome sign here in the state of

Tennessee that says “Mr. businessman bring your small business here. Locate here and we’ll grow the jobs.” The governor tried to pass a huge tax increase on small businesses last year. This year he proposed it on Wednesday morning, I killed it Wednesday afternoon. I signed the front of the paycheck and I’m proud of it (Ramsey 2010c). For Wamp it is clear that capital investment in Tennessee is not simply a product of the tax code. Values of liberty and freedom are closely related to the success of regional states. Just want to thank you for what you are doing and what you stand for, because we are losing our country. I have felt freedom slipping through our fingers. The most radical left turn in the history of our country. . . . States' values are wrong. Their infrastructure is in decay. They are irrepuedly in debt. Our founding fathers are rolling over in our graves, because they warned us, Lincoln even said "no one will ever defeat us from another country, but we will be at risk from within" and we are seeing that play itself out. And I really believe we are entering an era where there are going to be places that are worth living in this country and places not worth living in (Wamp 2010a). The candidates also reference a scaled dynamic specific to Tennessee’s competitiveness for capital. In particular their focus is on the federal government frustrating Tennessee’s success in this endeavor. Pressure from the real and rhetorical transfer of state power to smaller political units is associated with neoliberalism (Peck 2001). The movement of responsibilities from the national to regional state scale is not devoid of political struggle. The specific form of struggle is a state of affairs Miller (2007) describes as the scalar mismatch that is endemic to neoliberal restructuring. The scalar mismatch is evident in the tension the candidates describe between the Tennessee and the US federal government. Haslam discussed stress the loss of federal capital would have on Tennessee’s budget: Zach and Ron talked a little bit about it, but it’s true. Our next governor is going to face the most difficult time to be governor of any governor ever. We face, uh, Ron and the others in the senate did a great job of battling a very tough budget. But next year’s quite frankly will be a lot more difficult. Gone will be a billion dollars in stimulus plan money that we’ve had in our operating budgets. Gone will be four or five hundred million dollars in rainy day funds that we’ve been relying on. It will be more important than ever that we have a governor that is prepared to deal with tough budget challenges without raising taxes. We don’t have an income tax in Tennessee that’s a good thing. We’re not gonna raise the sales tax like what has historically happened because we’re too high already. Our only choice is to drastically downsize state government. I’ve been doing that for years in business learning how to control cost. I’ve brought that skill set from there. It became very helpful in understanding how do we control costs and make government smaller while keeping it effective. Thank you very much (Haslam 2010b).

Ramsey pointed to the accrual of sovereign debt by the US federal government as a threat to his way of life. I want to spend a little time with y'all this weekend, but I have something important going on back home that reminded me of why I'm running for governor here in the state of Tennessee. I had a daughter that got married last night. I have another daughter getting married August 28th. I'll have grandkids soon and I am concerned about the direction of our country, because I am convinced that they, my grandkids, are not going to have the same country to grow up in that I grew up in. You can't borrow 1.4 trillion dollars last year. 1.6 trillion dollars this year like the federal government is doing and expect this country to stay the same. It just can't happen. Washington D.C. is absolutely out of control (Ramsey 2010a). Ramsey also identified federal healthcare legislation as a new complication in a longstanding effort to cut state expenditures. We’ve balanced the budget this year, our revenue’s down some, we actually drew down on the rainy day some fund some but we left enough to have at least a little bit of a cushion when the next governor comes in. I want to make sure of that cause I want to be the next governor of the state of Tennessee. So, what the next governor will have to think outside the box. The last several years we’ve kind of nitpicked around the edges as the economies turned down. We actually cut several departments by 18 to 22%, but across the board cuts don’t work. They’re going to have to be targeted cuts rethinking and restructuring state government as we know it. I’ve been waiting for years, just chomping at the bit to be able to do this. For example I think we’re gonna have to look at the way we deliver healthcare in the state of Tennessee. Especially as Obamacare has pushed down on us from the federal government. As governor I’ll be willing to push back. We’re gonna have to rethink the way we do this. We have 95 health departments in our state. When I was young that was the frontline that was where you went to first when people had a healthcare problem as opposed to going to the emergency room right now. We have three medical schools across the state; one in each Grand Division. I think we need take that primary care put it back in those local 95 health departments so people don’t show up with a runny nose at the emergency room and we as tax payers pay for that expensive care when they show up these emergency rooms. This is a program that works in other states, I’ve been studying this and I can’t wait to implement things like this (Ramsey 2010b). Beyond overreaching in both sovereign debt and healthcare legislation, the candidates pointed out lapses in the orchestration of the federal government’s responsibilities and authority in terms of immigration enforcement. The consistent example was Arizona’s experience. Ramsey characterized Arizona’s immigration control efforts as a means to address failure on the part of the US federal government. Now, I applaud, this is another place where the federal government has failed us. Another place where the federal government has failed us. We as states are going

to have to start standing up, just like Arizona. How dare the people in Washington D.C. in their ivory towers criticize Arizona when Phoenix has the second highest kidnapping rate in the world. And it's going to take states standing up, we've done it in Tennessee. We repealed a crazy law that passed a few years back that allowed illegal immigrants to get a driver's license in Tennessee. I led the charge to get rid of that law in the state of Tennessee. We passed . . . man a minute isn't very long. So yes I applaud Arizona for what they are doing and I want to stand up just like they are doing in Tennessee (Ramsey 2010a). Wamp suggested the US federal government was purposefully avoiding the issue with the term “won’t.” Legal immigration has made our nation great and strong, but illegal immigration is a rule of law issue. You can’t say that the law applies over here, but not over here. And the word illegal, we just can’t get around it. Arizona has done the right thing. Frankly, if the federal government won’t enforce immigration laws in this country the state government aught to have the right to do it. They can’t profile they have to have probable cause, but if in the course of doing law enforcement, carrying it out, they find someone’s here illegally they can remove em. I would do the same thing and make Tennessee an e-verify state (Wamp 2010d). Haslam did not place the same normative distinction on the federal government as either Ramsey or Wamp by suggesting that they just did not do their job as opposed to refusal or failure. We are a nation of immigrants, but we’re also a nation that’s founded on the legal immigration process. As mayor I go to naturalization ceremonies all the time where you see people come into the country legally. But illegal immigration is a problem in our country. The federal government has not done their job and the states are paying the price for that. Arizona reacted in a way to their situation because they see so much of it. In Tennessee we need to do the same thing. I propose approaching it at the level of the employer. If we cut off the job source I think you’ll see folks turn and go home (Haslam 2010d). The Tea Party Factor Alternatively, I read the candidates’ anxiousness over the general direction of the country as inclusive. The use of terminology associated with Tea Party activism by the candidates indicates an affinity between them. Building on the work of Benford and Snow (2000) movement specific vocabulary is one means to read the motivations for action without appeals to elaborate explanations constructed through the course of activism. As such, the concerns, hopes and actions the candidates express are emblematic of Tea Party activism. Wamp and Ramsey both discuss the Constitution and issues of constitutionality to support their view of state responsibilities and authority. Haslam and Ramsey use the term grassroots to describe Tea Party activism. Therein, they embed the hope of change to an overly aggressive federal government.

Similarly, Wamp uses both limited government and liberty multiple times in strings of items he associates with Tennessee’s strength that include no state income tax, right to work status, pro- free enterprise, faith and values. The candidates indicated that the people of Tennessee were anxious about the US federal government beyond the pressure of mismatched funds and failure to execute its responsibilities and authority. Ramsey considered issues with the federal government to be a general sentiment. Now jobs and economy still number one, no doubt about that, on people’s mind. We have double digit unemployment rates, that’s gonna be what’s number one on our mind. But I want to talk to ya’ll about something. Cause I’m gonna tell ya this is inching up and may be even more important than jobs and economy in peoples minds. You go down to, ya’ll are here at a political event tonight, you’re kind of politicos or you wouldn’t be here. Go down to on the streets of Crossville, go down in the streets of Cookeville, walk up and down anywhere you are and start talking to people. People have gone from being upset about their federal government, to concerned about their federal government, to now folks, truly frightened about the direction of this country. And I’m convinced that Washington D.C. just flat out doesn’t get it (Ramsey 2010e). Haslam identified participants in the Tea Party movement as particularly attuned to issues of sovereign debt accrued by the US federal government.

Let me add comment. I think what you’ve seen in the tea party movement is a real response to a concern about where the country is going. And so the people talk about the tea party; who is it, what is it, is it a, uh you know, is it manufactured. It’s not. It’s some people that are legitimately concerned about where the country’s going. They’re legitimately concerned about the debt being taken on in our country. And I did any problem can be taken care of with government spending. So I think that what you’re seeing. And the other thing I’ve noticed, people who say “well, I run the tea party here” or “I, ya know, I’m the person over the tea party.” My sense is it’s not that at all. It’s a lot of people concerned and a very natural reaction to the concern with the country that’s going on out there (Haslam 2010b). Ramsey considered participants in Tea Party activism to be more than a group of people with particular beliefs about the US federal government. He considered Tea Party activism as a corrective measure for the country’s misdirection. So yes I love the tea party movement. I’m glad they’re out there pushing back on this, and want to defend our constitution rights, our second amendment rights, our tenth amendments. So I am embracing them and the movement is larger than the groups themselves, the membership of the group. But you have the people that think like they do right now that aren’t a member of any group. And so I am glad they’re formed and glad they’re hopefully, hopefully changing the direction of this country (Ramsey 2010b).

Wamp directly affixed the brevity of Tea Party activism to a definitive system of rules. He described the US Constitution as a document that defines the relationship between scales of government within the US and participants in Tea Party activism to be the ones enforce those rules. We’re sliding into third world status. And the tea party movement is this natural phenomenon saying “what about the Constitution?” And that holds true at the federal level, the state level, and at the local level. And the governments need to quit telling each other what to do. Stick to your role under the Constitution; it’s defined. That’s the only way back ya’ll. It’s gonna to be hard and tough, but if these leaders will commit to stand on the Constitution. And there are gonna be time we have to explain why we’re doin something, because the Constitution only allows it that’s why. People will understand because they don’t want to lose our way of life. And they feel like they’re losing it (Wamp 2010b). A Personal Solution What is perhaps most interesting is that I read the proposed solution offered by each candidate as governor specific and exclusive with hints of inclusiveness. The resistance to the national state each candidate proposed was contentious, but different than Tea Party activism more generally. Critically, the candidates all made reference to technocratic management as the solution for Tennessee. Reliance on technocrats to guide institutional experimentation is indicative of neoliberalism (Peck and Tickell 2002). All three candidates proposed a strategy to engage in the political struggle between Tennessee and the US government. Wamp made it clear that in order for Tennessee to deal with this emerging dynamic between national and regional state scales, policy experts were of critical importance. The reform state government Ron touched on a little, but I went down and meet with Sonny Perdue last fall and I talked to him again a couple of weeks ago, because that’s an amazing story here. He’s in his eighth year they didn’t think he would get reelected when he was first elected being outspent 19 million to 3 million he won sort of by surprise, but he’s turned into an excellent governor. But he brought Jim Lentz in as the COO of the state of Georgia and said “follow the Pew Center’s recommendations they study government inefficiency nationwide for all 50 states and then make recommendations.” I talked to them after I meet with Sonny, they said Tennessee is a textbook case in the need for procurement and contract reform (Wamp 2010b). In this instance, Wamp references an analysis conducted by the Pew Research Center, a “non- profit fact tank” that employs “public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research” to make policy decisions (Pew Research Center 2013).

More than relying on outside resources, all three candidates positioned themselves as policy experts. Haslam drew from both his experience as mayor of Knoxville and executive in Pilot Oil Corp. to situate himself as an expert capable of officiating Tennessee as chief executive. Zach and Ron talked a little bit about it, but it’s true. Our next governor is going to face the most difficult time to be governor of any governor ever. We face, uh, Ron and the others in the senate did a great job of battling a very tough budget. But next year’s quite frankly will be a lot more difficult. Gone will be a billion dollars in stimulus plan money that we’ve had in our operating budgets. Gone will be four or five hundred million dollars in rainy day funds that we’ve been relying on. It will be more important than ever that we have a governor that is prepared to deal with tough budget challenges without raising taxes. We don’t have an income tax in Tennessee that’s a good thing. We’re not gonna raise the sales tax like what has historically happened because we’re too high already. Our only choice is to drastically downsize state government. I’ve been doing that for years in business learning how to control cost. I’ve brought that skill set from there. It became very helpful in understanding how do we control costs and make government smaller while keeping it effective. Thank you very much (Haslam 2010b). Wamp and Ramsey both positioned themselves as policy experts worthy of officiating Tennessee into competitive advantage for capital. Wamp rarely mentioned his work in the US Congress and instead related experience facilitating negotiations amongst policy makers in Tennessee and his time studying issues. Ron Ramsey discussed his efforts as a state legislator and Lieutenant Governor in Tennessee to change existing legislative statutes, create new laws or intercede in efforts from other lawmakers. The candidates did propose multi-site resistance to a higher order state level in the vein of Tea Party activism. Beyond couching themselves as policy experts, all three candidates proposed strategies to confront the application, or lack, of authorities and responsibilities by the US federal government. Haslam suggested that like-minded governors should model responsible government and set the standard for the rest of the US. The first thing in the state’s budget, over 12 billion of our 28 billion dollars is federal funding. So we have to always make certain that we’re not gonna, as much as we’d like to, we’re not gonna totally swear off that 12 billion dollars. What we have to make certain is that when you take federal funding it comes without strings attached. As a mayor I’ve turned down federal funds before, because they came with strings attached that obligated the city long term for things I didn’t think were right. So, that’s number 1. Number 2 as a state we have to make certain that we model out what responsible government looks like. You know the federal government’s on an unsustainable path. We can’t keep going the way we are going or we are going to end up like

one of the European countries or Greece. The state has a unique chance now with a Republican governor, a Republican legislature to show what responsible conservative government looks like (Haslam 2010c). Both Wamp and Ramsey referenced their role as Tennessee’s head of state in a coalition of governors resisting the federal government. Both indicated they would from day one in office resist the federal government. Wamp was concerned about specific expressions of US federal government authority and responsibilities: The third thing we need is strong governors that understand that states and their leaders are the best weapon to put the federal government back in its proper role in our lives; claiming their sovereignty under the 10th amendment. Three things have happened in the last two years. Three things have happened in the last two years. First the stimulus money came down that if the state takes the money they have to change their unemployment compensation laws to allow part time workers to receive unemployment benefits. That was always a state issue, direct violation of the 10th amendment prerogatives of the states; should have been a warning sign. The second thing, the health care mandate which basically just dumps 250000 people into Tennessee’s TennCare system without the money to pay for it. We gotta have a strong governor to push back on every front, to fight that. To repeal those onerous mandates in that bill before they’re enacted and they come down on us in 2014. And now the federal government is suing the governor of Arizona for just passing a law to allow them to enforce federal law. These are warning signs y’all. We gotta have strong determined decisive, gritty leaders as governors of our respective states. When I show up to that first national governors meeting sovereignty and the 10th amendment will be issue number 1. A full involvement agenda for our governor to stand on the 10th amendment prerogative to push the federal government back into its proper role (Wamp 2010e). Ramsey was less specific than Wamp in elaboration of his issue with the US federal government, though he was equally as resolved that Tennessee be a focal point of resistence. Now, onto what's important, who is supporting me? It is Tennesseans across this state that are wanting to see a change is what's going on with Washington D.C.. They are proud of our state of Tennessee, love our state of Tennessee. I'm born and raised here and I' proud of this state. And I'm going to make it that island of sanity we spoke about a minute ago. My support comes from groups just like this Tea Party groups, other groups that want to take back our country. That believe that states have the sovereignty. That we need to be standing up for the 10th amendment. It's groups like the second amendment rights. Like the Tennessee Firearms Association and others that believe in the second amendment that we have the right to keep and bear arms here in the state of Tennessee. It is groups like Right to Life that believe in the sanctity of life. The life of the unborn is important. The small business people just like me. You want to know what I want out of government. Absolutely nothing. Leave me along and I'll create the jobs. That's my supporters (Ramsey 2010a).

Though the forms of resistance were different, all three candidates positioned themselves at the center of efforts to challenge the US federal government. The language of action serves a deeper purpose than simply conveying the reasons for action (Routledge 2003). References to specific direct action inform future social movement activism (Martin 2003; Cumbers, Routledge and Nativel 2008). In this sense, the candidates were simultaneously identifying with activists and validating their claim to new modes of contestation. But their contentious strategies were derived from the responsibilities and authority vested in the regional state level not public contestations. The Contentious Politics of Campaigning for Public Office During the Tennessee Republican gubernatorial primary in 2010, the tension between contentious politics and state restructuring was evident. By my definition of conservative politics this tension was over access to representative institutions. My application of scalar politics to candidate dialogue presents a very particular characterization of exclusive and inclusive tendencies. Exclusion in my reading is associated with the hierarchical dynamics of neoliberal social transformation. Inclusion, alternatively, is encased in the movement dynamics of Tea Party activism. The orders of discourse, neoliberal and Tea Party respectively, provide me the means to separate the connotations of access presented by the candidates. The candidates carefully partitioned Tea Party activism and neoliberalism in their discourse. On one hand, they consistently wove Tea Party activism into the fabric of their campaign discourse. Haslam recognized that participants in Tea Party activism understood the implications of sovereign debt for prosperity in the United States. Wamp characterized Tea Party activism as a movement about the Constitution of the United States and a return to Constitutional principles. Ramsey stated that Tea Party activism was a corrective measure for ills perpetrated by the US federal government. But on the other hand, tthere were instances particular to certain relationships between Tennessee and D.C., the candidates excluded Tea Party activism through more traditional neoliberal discourse. This was particularly true of the governor specific, and technocratic, focus on competition for capital. The implication is that Tea Party activism is not directly important to the Tennessee’s competitiveness with other regional states for capital. The candidates also blended discursive elements of Tea Party activism and neoliberalism for new formulations of conservative politics. Drawing from neoliberal discourse, each

53 candidate positioned themselves as technocrats able to resolve Tennessee’s competitiveness issues. Haslam referenced his experience as mayor of Knoxville, Wamp mentioned his time as a business liaison for the Chattanooga area, Ramsey often cited his time as Lieutenant governor of Tennessee. Given their different areas of experience the candidates’ proposed strategies were also different. Haslam was explicitly concerned with budgetary issues and modeling government for both the national state scale and other regional states. Wamp and Ramsey were not as concerned with making Tennessee an example, but rather a focal point of resistance to the federal government. To do so, they proposed a strategy that implicitly drew together fundamental aspects of Tea Party activism, particularly multi-site activism fueled by similar purposes and coordinated for a common outcome. In this instance, both Wamp and Ramsey positioned themselves with other like-minded governors in a coalition of regional states frustrating policy initiatives emanating from the US federal government. Partnership over Membership In his enlightening work, Byron Miller (2007) describes both the origins and mobilization of neoliberal ideology relative to social movements. Through the work of Habermas (1984; 1987) on life-world colonization, Miller (2007) concludes that some people deeply internalize neoliberal ideology and assume the role of rational self-interested (individual) consumers. Caught in the midst of neoliberal institutional restructuring, taxpayer and consumer rights groups are formed by clusters of these rational self-interested individuals. Contentious politics, then, progresses along two fronts directly related to scaled dynamics of neoliberalism. In instances where it seems that institutional responsibilities have been rescaled without the material means to accommodate them, representatives of the state join in contentious politics. When there is perceived parity between rescaled institutional responsibilities and the material means to address them, contentious politics proceeds apart from state sponsors. In each case, contentious politics form into social movements during periods of market-oriented institutional restructuring and in their own ways further neoliberal state changes (Miller 2007). My case points to more than an alliance formed between participants in contentious politics and representatives of the state to rectify unfunded mandates. To that point, the candidates were not simply appealing to existing regional state powers, but were also seeking to wrest powers away from the national state and establish a new constellation of responsibilities and authority for the regional state. This distinction lends further credibility to the

54 characterization of alliance between the candidates rather than activists themselves. Therein Miller (2007) portrays the strategic alliance between representatives of the state and activists as one dimensional – as either a challenge to the representatives at the urban level or a coalition against other state levels. But the relationship between Tea Party activism and the gubernatorial candidates in Tennessee was more complex. In particular, the candidates related multiple levels of resistance to the national state level including the efforts associated with Tea Party activism. They also proposed a multi-site strategy with other governors similar to the localized global actions as described by Routledge (2003). As such, the candidates’ strategy was one of a singular focus on the national-state level indicative of Tea Party activism more generally, but launched from their specific locales of contestation, the regional-state. In my reading, the candidates were not simply blending conventional wisdom of conservative politics. They were responding to alternative conservative pressures on their campaigns with propositions forged in the throes of both state restructuring and social movement activism. The political connotations of each are neoliberal and Tea Party, respectively. Included amongst these propositions is Tennessee’s competitiveness for capital and threats to that endeavor emanating from the US federal government, the recognition of anxieties amongst participants in Tea Party activism, and strategies to resist the national state government with the regional state apparatus. The implication is that the candidates were indeed influence by Tea Party activism. That is not to say that the balancing act between both forms of conservative politics was easy for the candidates. Rather all of them developed a similar approach to reconcile the apparent conflict. They did so by positioning themselves as the source of solutions to social problems. This included efforts in line with the broader dynamics of neoliberal social change. In this regard the candidates were part of a class-based alliance that officiated changes to state authority and responsibility that ensure the profitability of a particular subset of capital investments (Brenner, Peck and Theodore 2010; Peck, Theodore and Brenner 2012). But they also characterized the role of regional-state governors as contentious. With a play on the notion of an overbearing federal government derived from Tea Party activism, the candidates positioned the regional state of Tennessee as a vehicle for resistance. Tennessee was simultaneously a bastion of values, including an ideologically approved mix of responsibilities and authority vested to the regional state, and a locus of resistance to the national-state scale. These strategies

55 carry particular territorial applicability reminiscent of other instances of contentious politics (Lessard-Lachance and Norcliffe 2012; Wainwright 2007). The most relevant claim made by Miller (2007) about conservative social movement activism for this dissertation deals specifically with the relationship between participants in contentious politics and representatives of the state. He indicates that representatives of the state ally with activists when they perceive that responsibilities and authority have been given to the urban state level without the material means to support them. His argument, then, revolves around an alliance forged through common perceptions of state change as opposed to the candidates’ indications that the alliance is in part based on Tea Party activism. I argue Miller’s (2007) account of lifeworld colonization on individual activists denies the key theoretical position underpinning studies of movement dynamics; that social movement activism does impact individual subjectivities. To do so he ignores the movement dynamics of conservative activism in favor of a systematic reading of participants’ ideology and motivations. My case points to the active role of contentious politics in altering the perceptions held by representatives of the state.

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

The relationship between movement participants and representatives of the state offers the potential to extend discussions of movement dynamics into recognized, but underdeveloped areas, including electoral politics. The application of scalar politics (Mackinnon 2011) allows me to distinguish between varieties of conservative politics. While maintaining an emphasis on market exchange, the contentious and neoliberal varieties of conservative politics demonstrate a new axis for exploration of conservative politics, inclusiveness of representative institutions. In that sense, Tea Party activism lends credence to Miller’s (2007) characterization of activists’ predisposition for market exchange though not to his claims specific to activist ideology. The tax day and town hall 2009 actions, the 9/12 March on Washington, the struggle in New York’s 23rd Congressional race, Scott Brown’s run for US Senate in Massachusetts, and acts in Washington D.C. for the various legislative votes on the Affordable Care Act are all expressions of anxiety over state intervention in the personal lives of activists as taxpayers and consumers (Armey and Kibbe 2010; Rasmussen and Schoen 2010). The argument that individuals’ support for market centric policy changes does not necessitate that those beliefs are only derived through experience with changes associated with neoliberalism. To that point, Republican Party officials clearly responded to Tea Party activism. During tax day rallies in 2009, Republican officials were denied the chance to speak including John Huntsman, Republican governor of Utah, in Salt Lake City (Biesk 2009) and Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, in Chicago (Reynolds 2009). In the special election to fill the seat in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, powerful members of the Republican Party, including House minority leader John Boehner and Chairman Steele, supported Dede Scozzafava by directing considerable financial resources to her campaign (Rasmussen and Schoen 2010, 129; Zernike 2010, 86-87). Tea Party activists supported Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, in New York’s 23rd and mobilized both financial resources and volunteer labor in support of his campaign (Peters 2009; Rasmussen and Schoen 2010, 129). The antagonism in these engagements is a challenge to bureaucrats and elected officials that designate state responsibilities and authority to facilitate profitability for select private interests, particularly those that benefitted from TARP and the Affordable Care Act.

The relationship between participants in Tea Party activism and neoliberalism implicates engagement with the state apparatus typically missed, though not unrecognized, in literature on contentious politics. I attribute this oversight to scholastic focus on left-leaning social movement activism. This is particularly true of electoral politics and campaigning for public office. Tarrow (2011) argues elections are one element of the state apparatus designed to mitigate social movement activism by enabling specific modes of popular participation in affairs of state. He does not, however, define the specific dynamics of the relationship between processes of electoral politics and social movement activism. Alternatively, Varsanyi (2005) speaks to the dynamic between popular participation and campaigning for public office without reference to specific dynamics of social movement activism. Therein, she relates the efforts to organize undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles, California, to influence political campaigns. Even without specific details of movement dynamics indicative of research on contentious politics, Varsanyi (2005) establishes a theoretical link between organized activism and electoral politics. Beginning with the challenge to Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate for Congress in the special election for New York’s 23rd district in late 2009, and following with support for Scott Brown in the race for US Senate in Massachusetts in early 2010 electoral politics was a distinguishable facet of Tea Party activism. Conservative Marco Rubio had driven moderate Charlie Crist from the Republican Senate primary in Florida with the help of Tea Party activists (Armey and Kibbe 2010, 162-164). Randal Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul and self- professed Tea Party candidate, was running even with Trey Grayson in the Republican Senate primary in Kentucky (Zernike 2010, 161-181). The Tea Party Express targeted Mark Kirk, the pick of Republican Party leaders for Senate in Illinois, in the primary. By the late summer of 2010, the engagement of Tea Party activism in electoral politics was a national trend. Recognition of Tea Party activism in electoral politics is important because state and social movement activism are typically considered separate and distinct processes. This is particularly true in scale literature on the subject. Social movements have taken contestation from one institutional scale to another in order to achieve their goals by scale-jumping (Kitchen and Wilton 2003). Similarly, social movements have organized action around an emerging institutional scale to exert their demands before a coherent set of rules can be established (Masson 2006). Other instances of contentious politics indicate that social movements also focus their efforts on multiple institutional scales at the same time. This has been accomplished both

58 in particular locations, like a handful of city blocks (Wainwright 2007; Lessard-Lachance and Norcliffe 2013), and with strategies that envelope variously scaled institutional contexts within regions (Boudreau 2006). Still at other times, institutional restructuring leads to scale retrenchment as social movements withdrawal their opposition to neoliberalization into smaller discreet institutional contexts (Boudreau 2007; Kohl 2002). The scalar politics discussed in each of these studies reifies the distinction between state and social movement activism. Recent advances in theory point to the state as a complex apparatus open to direction through social movement activism. Treskon (2011) argues the legal structures that define institutional scales are open to challenge by social movements seeking legislative, bureaucratic and judicial decisions. As such, states include institutional contexts from which to challenge variegated neoliberalization. Indeed, in their work on non-neoliberal residuals Martin and Pierce (2013) point to the presence of institutional arrangements (laws, policies and agencies) designed before neoliberalization. In a sense, these are the remnants of the complex pre-neoliberal institutional arrangements that were the target of neoliberal restructuring. But non-neoliberal residuals are not mere legal relics waiting passively to be swept away in the tide of institutional neoliberalization. Martin and Pierce (2013) demonstrate that non-neoliberal residuals have been the focal point of resistance to neoliberalism. Both the work of Treskon (2011) and Martin and Pierce (2013) indicate the state is not a neoliberal monolith and social movement activism may indeed mobilize through existing institutional arrangements. The implication is a new scope of social movement integration with the state in the context of neoliberalism, similar to that associated with electoral politics. Future Directions The research I present in this dissertation introduces interesting issues pertinent to the extant literature on contentious politics that I do not address. For instance, the use of inflammatory protest signs and flamboyant dress as part of Tea Party activism was replaced by more traditional lobbying efforts and business attire in the effort to stop health care reform in 2009 and 2010. This shift in approach has direct applicability to repertoires of contention and the specific acts that constitute a continuous event (Tarrow 2011). Similarly, Tea Party activism was more intense in some locations and outcomes were also varied through space. Geographic variation is of some import in deciphering the geographic structure of contentious politics (Arampatz and Nicholls 2012).

Of those issues I do address in the extant literature on contentious politics this dissertation weaves connections between two different approaches to writing social movement activism. The first approach positions the machinations of the state in a dominant role in relation to social movement activism. The most coherent line of discussion in this approach surrounds political threats and opportunities (Aminzade et al. 2001), but scholars have also made similar claims to the role of the state in providing a foothold for contentious politics without reference to threats and opportunities (Martin and Pierce 2013; Treskon 2011). My research raises important questions relative to this state-first approach to writing contentious politics that I do not address. Amongst these questions are at what point do representatives of the state begin to actively court participants in contentious politics to achieve their policy goals? To answer this question involves the identification of movement dynamics with the greatest import for representatives of the state. Therein, what contentious strategies are most effective and what organizational approaches to social movement activism return success? In geographic terms, questions of the impact of movement dynamics on representatives of the state should also explore if organizational structures and strategies can be replicated outside of the particular social milieu of the research project in question. Specific to my focus on electoral processes, state-first readings of social movement activism have characterized elections as a means to defuse contentious politics (Tarrow 2011). As of this writing in 2014, Tea Party activism had only abated slightly despite significant electoral successes in 2010. This development in Tea Party activism may be read off as either an outgrowth of conservative contentious politics, or a direct challenge to readings of elections as a disincentive for social movement activism. Judging by the empirical evidence, I believe the continuation of Tea Party activism beyond the electoral successes of 2010 is certainly a product of the former. But I am not willing to rule out the later. With that said, to decide if elections have any impact on the longevity of social movement activism would require a more extensive study of contentious politics in many other institutional contexts both within the US and in other national states. The alternative to the state-first approach applied by scholars to writing contentious politics is to position social movement activism as the source of changes to the origination and organization of the responsibilities and authority vested in the state. Here my dissertation opens new lines of inquiry specific to social movement tactics. The social movement first line of

60 reasoning too often leaves the conduct of elections outside the corpus of contentious behavior and scholarship in the field is largely devoid of discussions of electoral politics. Specific to movement dynamics and electoral politics scholars have yet to consider what campaign functions participants in contentious politics serve? Also critically important are how the people in the fiduciary networks that support political parties and social movement activism cooperate to fund specific campaigns for public office? More expansively, my research also points to questions about a fundamental assumption in much work on the subject of contentious politics; that state processes and social movement dynamics are two separate social spheres. Under this assumption contentious politics and state processes only overlap during periods of contestation, but remain two distinct sets of social processes. The processes of electoral politics, however, are integral to both contentious politics and state machinations. The telltale signs of this mutually constitutive process are in the ramifications that result from intersections between the two. Specifically, in what ways do movement dynamics change after engagement in electoral politics? Similarly, in what ways to electoral processes change after the participation of those involved in contentious politics? Both of these questions points to a departure of the state/contentious politics dualism pervasive in the extant literature. If the overtures from the candidates in the Tennessee Republican gubernatorial primary in 2010 are any indication, we must rethink what it means to be a participant in social movement activism.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, W. (2012). “From Militant Particularism to Anti-neoliberalism? The Anti-Enron Movement in India.” Antipode 44(4): 1059-1080.

Arampatzi, A. and W.J. Nicholls (2012). “The urban roots of anti-neoliberal social movements: the case of Athens, Greece.” Environment and Planning A 44: 2591-2610.

Aminzade, R., J. Goldstone, D. McAdam, E. Perry, W. Sewell, S. Tarrow and C. Tilly, eds. (2001). Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics. New York, Cambridge University Press.AP (2007). “Presidential hopeful Ron Paul raises $6 million in 24-hour 'money bomb'.” Associated Press Archive.

AP (2009). “Protesters Bemoan Stimulus Funds at Tennessee Capitol.” Chattanooga Time Free Press online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/fed/29/protesters-bemoan-stimulus-funds- tennessee-capitol/

Armey, R. and M. Kibbe (2010). Give Us Liberty : a Tea Party Manifesto. New York, William Morrow.

Bates, C. (2009). “Candidate forum.” Tennessee Tea Party Coalition Convention, Gatlinburg Convention Center. Gatlinburg, TN. May 23, 2010. Moderator.

Baxter, J. and J. Eyles (1997). “Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: establishing ‘rigour’ in interview analysis.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22(4): 505-525

Beaumont, J. and W. Nicholls (2007). “Between relationality and territoriality: investigating the geographies of justice networks in The Netherlands and the United States.” Environment and Planning A 39(11): 2554-2574.

Benford, R. and D. Snow (2000). "Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment." Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611-639.

Bergenholtz, H. and S. Tarp (1995). Manual of Specialised Lexicography: The Preparation of Specialised Dictionaries. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Biesk, J. (2009). “Thousands in US Protest Tax Day with ‘Tea Parties’.” The Boston Globe online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/16/thousands_in_us_protest_tax_da y_with_tea_parties/

Bosco, F. J. (2001). "Place, space, networks, and the sustainability of collective action: the Madres de Plaza de Mayo." Global Networks 1(4): 307-329.

Boudreau, J. (2006). “Intergovernmental Relations and Polyscalar Social Mobilization: The Cases of Montreal and Toronto.” In Municipal-Federal-Provincial Relations, eds. Young, R. and C. Leuprecht, 161-180. Kingston, ON, The Institute of Intergovernmental Relations.

Bourdreau, J. (2007). “Making New Political Spaces: Mobilizing Spatial Imaginaries, Instrumentalizing Spatial Practices, and Strategically Using Spatial Tools.” Environmental and Planning A 39(11): 2593-2611.

Bradshaw, M. and E. Stratford (2005). “Qualitative Research Design and Rigour.” In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, 2nd edition, ed. I. Hay, 67-76. Oxford, New York.

Brenner, N. (1999). “Beyond State-Centrism? Space, Territoriality, and Geographical Scale in Globalization Studies.” Theory and Society 28(1): 39-78.

Brenner, N. (2000). “Building ‘Euro-Regions’: Locational Politics and the Political Geography of Neoliberalism in Post-Unification Germany.” European Urban and Regional Studies 7(4): 319-345.

Brenner, N. (2001). “The Limits to Scale? Methodological Reflections on Scalar Structuration.” Progress in Human Geography 25(4): 591-614.

Brenner, N. (2002). “Decoding the Newest ‘Metropolitan Regionalism’ in the USA: A Critical Overview.” Cities 19(1): 3-21.

Brenner, N. (2004a). “Urban Governance and the Production fo New State Spaces in Western Europe, 1960-2000.” Review of International Political Economy 11(3): 447-488.

Brenner, N. (2004b). New state spaces. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Brenner, N., J. Peck and N. Theodore (2010). “Variegated Neoliberalization: Geographies, Modalities, Pathways.” Global Networks 10(2): 182-222.

Brewer, B. (2010). “Pilot, Flying J Merger Get OK from FTC.” From Knoxnews.com. Accessed 2010 from http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/jul/01/pilot-deal-gets-ftc-ok/

Carlson, F. (2010). “A Look Inside the Tennessee Tea Party Coalition’s Inaugural Convention.” Metro Pulse online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.metropulse.com/news/2010/may/26/look-inside-tennessee-tea-party- coalitions-inaugur/

Chung, T.M. and P. Nation (2003). “Technical Vocabularly in Specialsed Texts.” Reading in a Foreign Language 15(2).

Chung, T.M. and P. Nation (2004). “Identifying Technical Vocabularly.” System 32(): 251-263.

Clark, S. (2009). “Angry Protesters Confront Democratic Lawmakers at Health Care Town Halls.” Fox New online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/05/angry-protesters-confront-democratic- lawmakers-health-care-town-halls

CNN (2008). Local exit polls. Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com. Accessed 2011 from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

Cogan, M. and M. Shiner (2010). “Barney Frank: ‘Mass hysteria’ on Capitol Hill.” POLITICO. Accessed 2010 from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34765.html

Condon, S. (2010). “More Americans think Obama, Not Bush, Enacted Bank Bailouts, Poll Shows.” CBS News online. Accessed 2011 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301- 503544_162-20013452-503544.html

Cooper, S. and C. Asay (1994). Taxpayers’ Tea Party. Baen Publishing Enterprises, Riverdale, New York.

Cope, M. (2005). “Coding Qualitative Data.” In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, 2nd edition, ed. I. Hay, 223-233. Oxford, New York.

Cope, M. (2010). “Coding Transcripts and Diaries.” In Key Methods in Geography, eds. Clifford, N., S. French and G. Valentine, 440-452. Los Angeles, SAGE.

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design, 3rd edition. Los Angeles, SAGE.

Cumbers, A., P. Routledge, et al. (2008). "The entangled geographies of global justice networks." Progress in Human Geography 32(2): 183-201.

Cupples, J., K. Glynn and I. Larios (2007). “Hybrid Cultures of Postdevelopment: The Struggle for Popular Hegemony in Rural Nicaragua.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(4): 786-801.

Davies, A. (2012). “Assemblage and Social Movements: Tibet Support Groups and the Spatialities of Political Organisation.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37(2): 273-286.

Delaney, D. and H. Leitner (1997). “The Political Construction of Scale.” Political Geography 16(2): 93-97.

Dittmer, J. (2010). “Textual and Discours Analysis.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography, eds. DeLyser, D., S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang and L. McDowell, p. 274- 286. Los Angeles, SAGE.

Dwyer, D. (2009). “’Tea Partiers,’ House Republicans Rally Against Health Care Bill.” ABC News online. Accessed 2010 from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-protesters- republicans-rally-health-care-bill/story?id=9004635

Education, T. D. o. (2010). "Curriculum and Standards." Retrieved June 25, 2010, from http://www.state.tn.us/education/ci/ss/index.shtml.

Gardner, A. (2010). “Gauging the Scope of the Tea Party Movement in America.” The Washington Post online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102304000.html

Goodnough, A. (2010). “Democrats Fight to Hold Crucial Seat: Kennedy’s.” The New York Times online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/us/politics/14massachusetts.html

Escobar, A. (2001). "Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern Strategies of Localization." Political Geography 20(2): 139-174.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, Polity.

Fairclough, N. (2001). “Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method in Social Scientific Research.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, eds. Wodak, R. and M. Meyer, 121-138. London, SAGE Publications.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London, Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2005). “Critical Discourse Analysis.” Marges Linguistiques 9(5): 76-94.

Fairclough, N., B. Jessop and A. Sayer (2002). “Critical Realism and Semiosis.” Journal of Critical Realism 5(1): 2-10.

Fayette Tea Party (2012). Accssed 2010 from http://www.fayetteteaparty.com/?page_id=11.

Featherstone, D. (2003). "Spatialities of Transnational Resistance to Globalization: The Maps of Grievance of the Inter-Continental Caravan." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 28(4): 404-421.

Featherstone, D. (2005). "Towards the Relational Construction of Militant Particularisms: Or Why the Geographies of Past Struggles Matter for Resistance to Neoliberal Globalisation." Antipode 37(2): 250-271.

FoxNews (2009). “Health Care Protesters Run Up Against Wall of Momentum as Bill Nears Vote.” Fox News online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/05/republicans-protesters-try-derail-healthcare/

Gee, P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London and New York, Routledge..

Haarstad, H. (2009). “Globalization and the New Spaces for Social Movement Politics: The Marginalization of Labor Unions in Bolivian Gas Nationalization.” Globalizations 6(2): 169-185.

Haarstad, H. and A. Fløysand (2007). “Globalization and the Power of Rescaled Narratives” A Case of Opposition to Minin in Tambogrande, Peru.” Political Geography 26(3): 289- 308.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1 Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston, Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2 Lifeworld and System: A critique of functinalist reason. Boston, Beacon Press.

Halvorsen, S. (2012). “Beyond the Network? Occupy London and the Global Movement.” Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest 11(3-4): 427- 433.

Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature, and the geography of difference. Cambridge, Mass., Blackwell Publishers.

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Harvey, D. (2011). The enigma of capital and the crises of capitalism. New York, Oxford Press.

Haslam, B. (2010a). “Candidate forum.” Tennessee Tea Party Coalition Convention, Gatlinburg Convention Center. Gatlinburg, TN. May 23, 2010. Speaker.

Haslam, B. (2010b). “Gubernatorial Forum.” Hendersonville Area Chamber of Commerce meeting, Bluegrass Yacht and County Club. Hendersonville, TN. June 8, 2010. Speaker.

Haslam, B. (2010c). “Gubernatorial Forum.” Lincoln Day Dinner hosted by the Franklin and Coffee County Republican Women, Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center. Manchester, TN. June 18, 2010. Speaker.

Haslam, B. (2010d). “Gubernatorial Debate.” News Channel 4 and Belmont University statewide debate, Curb Event Center at Belmont University. Nashville, TN. July 12, 2010. Speaker.

Haslam, B. (2010e). “Gubernatorial Forum.” Cumberland County Republican Party BBQ, Obed River Park. Crossville, TN. July 31, 2010. Speaker.

Hechtkopf, K. (2009). “Rally Interrupts Dem Rep.’s Health Care Town Hall.” CBS News online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5209291- 503544.html

Heritage Foundation (2009). CNBC's Rick Santelli's Chicago Tea Party. Accessed 2011 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k

Herod, A. (2011). Scale. New York, Routledge.

Herszenhorn, D. and S. Stolberg (2009). “Health Plan Opponents Make Voices Heard.” The New York Times online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/health/policy/04townhalls.html?_r=0

Hook, J. and N. Levey (2009). “Health Bill Battle Nears Fever Pitch: Conservative protesters blast proposal ahead of House vote this weekend.” Chicago Tribune online. Accessed 2010 from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-11-06/news/0911060156_1_health- care-health-bill-house-vote

Howitt, R. (2003). “Scale.” In A Companion to Political Geography, eds. Agnew, J., K. Mitchell and G. Toal, 132-157. Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Humphrey, T. (2010). “Ramsey Claims Tea Party Endorsements.” Blog, Humphrey on the Hill at Knoxnews online, posted June 23, 2010. Accessed 2010 from http://blogs.knoxnews.com/humphrey

Jessop, B. (1997). “Capitalism and its Future: Remarks on Regulation, Government and Governance.” Review of International Political Economy 4(3): 561-581.

Jessop, B. (2002). “Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State-Theoretical Perspective.” Antipode 34(3): 452-472.

Jessop, B. (2004). “Critical Semiotic Analysis and Cultural Political Economy.” Critical Discourse Studies 1(2): 159-174.

Kahn, H., K. Wong and J. Karl (2010). “’Kill the Bill’: Health Care Protestors Descend on Capitol Hill.” ABC News online. Accessed 2010 from http://abcnews.go.com/WN/HealthCare/health-care-battle-protestors-descend-capitol- hill/story?id=10114987

Kitchen, R. and R. Wilton (2003). “Disability Activism and the Politics of Scale.” The Canadian Geographer/Le Geographe canadian 47(2): 97-115.

Kohl, B. (2002). “Stabilizing Neoliberalism in Bolivia: Popular Participation and Privatization.” Political Geography 21(4): 449-472.

Kurtz, H. (2003). “Scale Frames and Counter-Scale Frames: Constructing the Problem of Environmental Injustice.” Political Geography 22(8): 887-916.

Kwary, D.A. (2011). “A Hybrid Method for Determining Technical Vocabularly.” System 39(): 175-185.

Leitner, H. (1997). “Reconfiguring the Spatiality of Power: The Construction of a Supranational Migration Framework for the European Union.” Political Geography 16(2): 123-143.

Leitner, H. and E. Sheppard (2009). “The Spatiality of Contentious Politics: More than a Politics of Scale.” In Leviathan Undone? Towards a Political Economy of Scale, eds. Keil, R. and R. Mahon, 231-246. Vancouver, UBC Press.

Leitner, H., J. Peck and E. Sheppard, eds. (2007). Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers. New York, The Guilford Press.

Leitner, H., E. Sheppard, K. Sziarto and A. Maringanti (2007). “Contesting Urban Furtures: Decentering Neoliberalism.” In Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers, eds. Leitner, H., J. Peck and E. Sheppard, 1-25. New York, The Guilford Press.

Leitner, H., E. Sheppard and K. Sziarto (2008). "The Spatialities of Contentious Politics." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33(2): 157-172.

Lessard-Lachance, M. and G. Norcliffe (2013). “To Storm the Citadel: Geographies of Protest at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, April 2011.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103(1): 180-194.Levenson, M. (2007). Ron Paul backers stage Boston Tea Party, raise millions. Boston Globe, The (MA): 12A.

MacKinnon, D. (2011). “Reconstructing Scale: Towards a New Scalar Politics.” Progress in Human Geography 35(1): 25-36.

Madden, M. (2010). “Live from Capitol Hill: Healthcare vote nears.” Salon.com. Accessed from http://www.salon.com/2010/03/21/healthcare_debate/

Marston, S. (2003) “Moblizing Geography.” Mobilization: An International Journal 8(2): 227- 233.

Marston, S., J.P. Jones and K. Woodward (2005). “Human Geography without Scale.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30(4): 416-432.

Martin, D. (2003). ""Place-framing" as place-making: Constituting a neighborhood for organizing and activism." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(3): 730-750.

Martin, D. and B. Miller (2003). "Space and Contentious Politics." Mobilization: An International Journal 8(2): 143-156.

Martin, D. and J. Pierce (2013). “Reconceptualizing Resistance: Residuals of the State and Democratic Radical Pluralism.” Antipode 45(1): 61-79.

Masson, D. (2006). “Constructing Scale/Contesting Scale: Women’s Movemetn and Rescaling Politics in Quebec.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 13(4): 462-486.

McAdam, D., J. McCarthy and M. Zald, eds. (1996a). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. New York, Cambridge University Press.

McAdam, D., J. McCarthy and M. Zald (1996b). “Introduction: Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Framing Processes – Toward a Synthetic, Comparative Perspective on Social Movements.” In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, eds. McAdam, D., J. McCarthy and M. Zald, 1-20. New York, Cambridge University Press.

McAdam, D., S. Tarrow and C. Tilly (1996). “To Map Contentious Politics.” Mobilization: An Interantional Journal 1(1): 17-34.

McAdam, D., S. Tarrow and C. Tilly (2001). Dynamics of Contention. New York, Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, J. (2004). “Privatizing Conditions of Production: Trade Agreements as Neoliberal Environmental Governance.” Geoforum 35(3): 327-341.

McCarthy, J. (2005). “Devolution in the Woods: Community Forestry as Hybrid Neoliberalism.” Environment and Planning A 37(6): 995-1014.

McCarthy, J. (2006). “Neoliberalism and the Politics of Alternatives: Community Forestry in British Columbia and the United States.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(1): 84-104.

McFarlane, C. (2009). “Translocal Assemblages: Space, Power and Social Movements.” Geoforum 40(4): 561-567.

Miller, B. (2007). “Modes of Governance, Modes of Resistance: Contesting Neoliberalism in Calgary.” In Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers, eds. Leitner, H., J. Peck and E. Sheppard, 223-249. New York, The Guilford Press.

Miller, B. (2009). “Is Scale a Chaotic Concepts? Notes on Processes of Scale Production.” In Leviathan Undone? Towards a Political Economy of Scale, eds. Keil, R. and R. Mahon, 51-66. Vancouver, UBC Press.

Montgomery, D. (2010). One party, steeped in singular discontent - Mary Rakovich's protest against the stimulus erupted into a national movement. Washington Post, The (DC): C1.

Moore, A. (2008). “Rethinking Scale as a Geographical Category: From Analysis to Practice.” Progress in Human Geography 32(2): 203-225.

Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

News Channel 5 (2009). “Dozens Protest Against Obama Stimulus Package.” WTVF, Nashville CBS affiliate online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.newschannel5.com/story/9920304/dozens-protest-against-obama-stimulus- package

Nicholls, W. (2007). "The Geographies of Social Movements." Geography Compass 1(3): 607- 622.

Nicholls, W. (2009). "Place, networks, space: theorising the geographies of social movements." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 34(1): 78-93.

Nicholls, W. (2011). “Cities and the Unevenness of Social Movement Space: The Case of France’s Immigrant Rights Movement.” Environment and Planning A 43(7): 1655-1673.

Oberschall, A. (1996). “Opportunities and Framing in the Eastern European Revolts of 1989.” In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, eds. McAdam, D., J. McCarthy and M. Zald, 93-121. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Oldfield, S. and K. Stokke (2007). “Political Polemics and Local Practices of Community Organizing and Neoliberal Politics in South Africa.” In Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers, eds. Leitner, H., J. Peck and E. Sheppard, 139-156. New York, The Guilford Press.

Peck, J. (2001). “Neoliberalizing States: Thin Policies/Hard Outcomes.” Progress in Human Geography 25(3): 445-455.

Peck, J. (2011). “Global Policy Models, Globalizating Poverty Management: International Convergence or Fast-Policy Integration?” Geography Compass 5(4): 165-181.

Peck, J. and N. Theodore (2010). “Mobilizing Policy: Models, Methods, and Mutations.” Geoforum 41(2): 169-174.

Peck, J., N. Theodore and N. Brenner (2009). “Postneoliberalism and its Malcontents.” Antipode 41(S1): 94-116.

Peck, J., N. Theodore and N. Brenner (2012). “Neoliberalism Resurgent? Market Rule After the Great Recession.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 111(2): 265-288.

Peck, J. and A. Tickell (2002). “Neoliberalizing Space.” Antipode 34(3): 380-404.

Pew Research Center (2013). “About” statement. Accessed 2013 from http://www.pewresearch.org/about/.

Peters, J. (2009). “Right Battles G.O.P. in a Pivotal Race in New York.” The New York Times online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/nyregion/27upstate.html?_r=0

Pierce, J., D. Martin and J. Murphy (2011). "Relational place-making: the networked politics of place." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36(1): 54-70.

Przybyla, H. (2009). “Republicans Risk Aiding Democrats by Battling Their Own in 2010.” Bloomberg Businessweek online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=21070001&sid=aVCq6GbSwoeQ\

Quinton, N. (2009). “Regionalism and Elections in Tennessee,” research presentation Southeastern Division of the Association of American Geographers, Knoxville, Tennessee, November 2009.

Rasmussen, S. W. and D. E. Schoen (2010). Mad as hell : how the Tea Party movement is fundamentally remaking our two-party system. New York, Harper.

Ramsey, R. (2010a). “Candidate forum.” Tennessee Tea Party Coalition Convention, Gatlinburg Convention Center. Gatlinburg, TN. May 23, 2010. Speaker.

Ramsey, R. (2010b). “Gubernatorial Forum.” Hendersonville Area Chamber of Commerce meeting, Bluegrass Yacht and County Club. Hendersonville, TN. June 8, 2010. Speaker.

Ramsey, R. (2010c). “Gubernatorial Forum.” Lincoln Day Dinner hosted by the Franklin and Coffee County Republican Women, Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center. Manchester, TN. June 18, 2010. Speaker.

Ramsey, R. (2010d). “Gubernatorial Debate.” News Channel 4 and Belmont University statewide debate, Curb Event Center at Belmont University. Nashville, TN. July 12, 2010. Speaker.

Ramsey, R. (2010e). “Gubernatorial Forum.” Cumberland County Republican Party BBQ, Obed River Park. Crossville, TN. July 31, 2010. Speaker.

Reynolds, G. (2009). “Tax Day Becomes Protest Day: How the tea parties could change American Politics.” The Wall Street Journal online. Accessed 2010 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html

Robbins, L. (2009). “Tax Day is Met with Tea Parties.” The New York Times online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/politics/16taxday.html

Routledge, P. (2003). "Convergence space: process geographies of grassroots globalization networks." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 28(3): 333-349.

Routledge, P. (2009). "Transnational Resistance: Global Justice Networks and Spaces of Convergence." Geography Compass 3(5): 1881-1901.

Routledge, P., A. Cumbers and C. Nativel (2007). “Grassrooting network imaginaries: relationality, power, and mutual solidarity in global justice networks.” Environment and Planning A 39(11): 2575-2592.

Routledge, P., C. Nativel and A. Cumbers (2006). “Entangled logics and grassroots imaginaries of Global Justice Networks.” Environmental Politics 15(5): 839-859.

Rucker, P. (2010). “Fractious first Tea Party Convention gets underway - Opposing Obama agenda Profiteering allegations overshadow gathering.” Washington Post, The (DC): A3; 2/5/2010.

Sayer, A. (1997). “Essentialism, Social Constructionism, and Beyond.” The Sociological Review 45(3): 453-487.

Sayer, A. (2001). “For a Ciritical Cultural Political Economy.” Antipode 33(4): 687-708.

Snow, D. and R. Benford (2000). “Clarifying the Relationship between Framing and Ideology.” Mobilization: An International Journal 5(1): 55-60.

Sparke, M., E. Brown, D. Corva, H. Day, C. Foria, T. Sparks and K. Varg (2005). “The World Social Forum and the Lessons for Economic Geography.” Economic Geography 81(4): 359-380.

Springer, S. (2011). “Public Space as Emancipation: Meditations on Anarchism, Radical Democracy, Neoliberalism and Violence.” Antipode 43(2): 525-562.

Stein, S. (2010). “Tea Party Protests: ’Ni**er,’ ‘Fa**ot’ Shouted at Members of Congress.” Huffington Post. Accessed 2010 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/tea- party-protests-nier-f_n_507116.html

Steinfels, P. (1988). “Liberal Politics, Conservative Sentiment.” Dissent (Winter): 81-87.

Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its Discontents. New York, W.W. Norton & Company.

Sumerford, H. (2009). “Dozens of Tax Day Tea Parties Planned for Tennessee.” WATE, Knoxville ABC affiliate online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.wate.com/story/10183305/dozens-of-tax-day-tea-parties-planned-for- tennessee

Swyngedouw, E. (1997). “Neither Global nor Local: ‘Glocalization’ and the Politics of Scale.” In Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local, ed. Cox, K., 137-166. New York, the Guilford Press.

Tarrow, S. G. (2011). Power in movement : social movements and contentious politics. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Tea Party Nation (2011). "Tea Party Nation." Accessed 2011, from http://www.teapartynation.com/. http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/homework/symbols.html. Retrieved 10/20, 2009, from http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/homework/symbols.html.

Tennessee Tea Party Coalition (2009). “Tea Party Movement in Tennessee Unifies.” Press release. Accessed 2010 from http://www.teapartycoop.com/tn-tea-party-coalition.html

Treskon, M. (2011). “Contesting Scales of Justice: Law and the Geogarphy of the US Antipredacory Lending Movement.” Mobilization: An International Journal 16(4): 417- 438.

Uitermark, J. and J.W. Duyvendak (2008). “Citizen Participation in a Mediated Age: Neighbourhood Governance in The Netherlands.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32(1): 114-134.

Varsanyi, M. (2005). “The Paradox of Contemporary Immigrant Political Mobilization: Organized Labor, Undocumented Migrants, and Electoral Participation in Los Angeles.” Antipode 37(4): 775-795.

Wainwright, J. (2007). “Spaces of Resistance in Seattle and Cancun.” In Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers, eds. Leitner, H., J. Peck and E. Sheppard, 179-203. New York, The Guilford Press.

Wamp, Z. (2010a). “Candidate forum.” Tennessee Tea Party Coalition Convention, Gatlinburg Convention Center. Gatlinburg, TN. May 23, 2010. Speaker.

Wamp, Z. (2010b). “Gubernatorial Forum.” Hendersonville Area Chamber of Commerce meeting, Bluegrass Yacht and County Club. Hendersonville, TN. June 8, 2010. Speaker.

Wamp, Z. (2010c). “Gubernatorial Forum.” Lincoln Day Dinner hosted by the Franklin and Coffee County Republican Women, Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center. Manchester, TN. June 18, 2010. Speaker.

Wamp, Z. (2010d). “Gubernatorial Debate.” News Channel 4 and Belmont University statewide debate, Curb Event Center at Belmont University. Nashville, TN. July 12, 2010. Speaker.

Wamp, Z. (2010e). “Gubernatorial Forum.” Cumberland County Republican Party BBQ, Obed River Park. Crossville, TN. July 31, 2010. Speaker.

Werner, E. (2010). “Dems Defend House Health Care Strategy.” Business Week online. Accessed 2010 from http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9EFSSQG2.html

Wolford, W. (2004). "This land is ours now: Spatial imaginaries and the struggle for land in Brazil." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(2): 409-424.

Zdravomyslova, E. (1996). “Opportunities and Framing in the Transition to Democracy: The Case of Russia.” In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, eds. McAdam, D., J. McCarthy and M. Zald, 122-137. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Zernike, K. (2010). Boling Mad: Inside Tea Party America. New York, Henry Holt and Company

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

This dissertation is an outgrowth of my intense interest in electoral politics and desire to approach them with geographic methods and theories. At present I am the president of a small tech company that specializes in data tools for political operatives. The motivation of my private sector work is to apply the concepts and methods I present in this dissertation, as well as other geographic advances in scholarship to situations where individuals seek public office.