One of the most difficult things about the Tea Party has been defining its core constituency. Pundents say that the Tea Party is the manifestation of anger in America, but anger is not a constituency, it is an emotion. Now that the Tea Party has elected one of it's own, the Tea Party has come into better focus
The Tea Party has always had for basic elements, although the percentage of strength of each of these elements has been subject to debate:
- Very simple people. In this sense, "simple" means people who find it too difficult to think and they would rather outsource that to people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Thinking may be too hard, but feeling comes naturally. The "Fair and Balanced" crowd doesn't want a detailed analysis of health care reform. They want "Grandma's not shovel ready". I think this constituency is a rather high percentage of the Tea Party movement.
- Republican partisans. A certain percentage of the Tea Party movement are committed Republicans who want to channel the anger that they find into electoral victory. Republican consultants such as Sal Russo in California have turned Tea Party activism into political gain. Obviously, there is not a one to one relationship between the GOP establishment and the Tea Party, but you certainly don't see Tea Party activists making points within the Democratic Party.
- Racists. In looking at the images of Tea Party events from last summer it is clear that a part of the movement is racists. I don't believe it is driven by racism and I cannot assign a percentage of racist to the Tea Party movement, but obviously it is there.
- Fiscal and economic conservatives. A certain percentage of the Tea Party movement are sincere economic and fiscal conservatives who believe that the size and scope of the Federal government is just too large and that only through angry protests can we reign in it's growth rate. These people believe not only that taxes are too high, but that the debt is too high and that spending is too high. These are the same people who vigorously and vocally protested the excessive spending during the Bush Administration and who protested the wasteful and unnecessary war in Iraq. Don't you remember their heartfelt protests? I don't either.
Now Rand Paul, a product of the Tea Party movement, has an interview with the lovely and talented Rachel Maddow (isn't she wonderful?). He makes it clear that, in his world, businesses ought to have the right to discriminate against anyone. If a diner doesn't want to serve blacks, they should not be forced to do so under the Civil Rights Act.
He repeatedly said that he opposed institutional racism--that is the kind of racism that segregated schools or prevented voting or reduced government services to any racial minority. In addition, he said that he would not want to patronize a business that discriminated against racial minorities. However, he did not believe that a diner that refused to serve blacks should be forced to under the Civil Rights Act.
So, I guess that brings the Tea Party into sharper focus. I had believed that racism was only a minor part of the movement. I guess I was wrong.