TEA Parties Racist?

[Perchoutofwater]

Not according to a study by a UCLA graduate student.

 

 

New Study Debunks Myth about Racist Tea Partiers

 

by Autria Thuman | October 18, 2010

 

The Tea Party movement, and those within it, has been accused of being racist and inciting prejudice pretty much since its inception, but a new study conducted by UCLA graduate student Emily Ekins is showing just the opposite.

 

Ekins set out to photograph every single poster and sign at the 9/12 Taypayer March on Washington in September to see if the tens of thousands of Americans that make up the Tea Party movement are really running on racism.

 

After tediously combing through the crowd and over 250 photographs later, Ekins discovered, based on the signs, that the claims of rampant racism simply weren't true. "Over 50 percent were about limited government and lower spending, and only about 6 percent were controversial in nature," Ekins told Fox News.

 

And of the 6 percent that were controversial, Ekins said that didn't mean racist. "If it was related to outsider politics, an ‘us versus them' message, anything about Islam, or the mosque in New York, anything that could be construed as controversial then I included it."

 

There were plenty blasting the democrats spending pattern, and the new health care law championed by President Obama. With signs screaming "$top the $pending" and "A Government Big Enough to Give you Anything you Want, is Strong Enough to Take Everything You Have," the most common ethos was for lawmakers to get back to the ideals of the founding fathers.

 

One example of those she classified as controversial were the signs carried by "birthers." That is, those Americans that claim President Obama was not born inside the United States, and are demanding to see his birth certificate. Those signs made up just 1 percent of those dubbed controversial.

 

When asked, Ekins said she could only remember one specific sign that could be considered racist, but it wasn't targeted towards President Obama. "I'm not trying to incite any anger here, but I do remember one that said ‘I'm a Smart*ss Cracker and I Vote,' so it didn't say the word, but you got the point," she said.

Ekins went on to say that it was signs like that, and those comparing Obama to Hitler that riled fellow tea partiers. "The elderly people were like you shouldn't do that, you're making us all look bad. They were quick to call people out if there were signs that were counterproductive or unsophisticated."

Ekins said her study goes against what the mainstream media likes to cover when it comes to these rallies. Instead of focusing on just one or two outlandish signs, she took a more systematic approach which led to the overall message. A message, she said, that is pretty simple: "The overwhelming message is about limited government."

 

Emily Ekins is currently pursuing her PhD at UCLA and completed the study as part of research for her dissertation. Ekins also interned at libertarian think tank The Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

 

Pretty much mirrors what I said regarding the rally in D.C. in 2009 that I attended. Of course I doubt the MSM will ever cover this study.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[SEC=UGA]

I'm intrigued by one thing in the article... She notes that one of the signs may have been racist.. "I'm a Smartass Cracker and I vote"

 

How is that racist?

[Azazello1313]

by a guy named timothy dalrymple...

 

Critics of the Tea Party point to a smattering of racist signs at rallies around the country, to the low percentage of minorities involved in the movement, and to a study that purports to show high levels of "racial resentment" among tea party supporters. These arguments are, however, mere justifications for a position already taken. Liberals were inclined to believe Tea Partiers racist even before such "evidence" was available. That is, the belief that Tea Partiers are racist is not an evidence-based belief. It is a belief in search of evidence.

 

What I propose, then, is the Theory of the Missing Motive. Since the education establishment has failed to convey a thorough and unprejudiced perspective on differing political points of view, even highly educated liberals possess a cartoonish, easily-dismissed image of American conservative thought. Liberals cannot believe that Tea Partiers are actually motivated by the passions and the reasons that Tea Partiers claim motivate them, because liberals in general are alienated from those passions and insufficiently educated in those reasons.

 

It is essentially a failure of imagination. Liberals cannot imagine themselves into a way of thinking in which conservatives do what they do and believe what they believe for good reasons. And since they cannot believe that conservatives are motivated by rational beliefs and admirable motives, they must appeal to darker, more primitive impulses to explain their behavior. The racist motive presents itself as a natural and convenient explanation.

 

Liberals, in other words, were always going to believe that a movement dominated by white conservatives is racist.

 

this sort of bad-faith inference is true of people across the political spectrum. "beliefs in search of evidence". man, we see that in so many ways. every side of every debate is guilty of this to some extent or another.

[gbpfan1231]

This study is useless - the Tea Party is racist - just go by the facts people....

 

Tea Party is against most of what Obama is for - FACT

 

Obama is African American - FACT to most people

 

If you are against anything Afican Americans are for you are racist - FACT

 

Using the logic above the Tea Party HAS to be racist - FACT

[Azazello1313]

karma

 

kind of an interesting read.

[Ursa Majoris]

I don't think the vast majority is racist. I do think they aren't particularly well informed.

[redrumjuice]

I don't think the vast majority is racist. I do think they aren't particularly well informed.

 

 

Well informed compared to what?

 

90%+ of a certain group work vote lockstep based on skin color only?

 

Unemployed who vote simply for the next check?

 

Welfare queens who live in trailer parks and receive disability?

 

Or people who actually own business, employ people and wish for less government intrusion on their lives? Read Az's link and be enlightened.

[redrumjuice]

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson

[redrumjuice]

Compare these quotes:

 

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance,"

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared,"

 

One sounds like a leader, the other some kind of organizer.

[wiegie]

I found this an interesting read:

 

The New Fundamentalists

The tea party movement is not just a reaction to Obama. It's also a reaction to George W. Bush.

by Bill Schneider

Saturday, May 29, 2010

 

Fundamentalists are taking over the Republican Party. Not religious fundamentalists. The Religious Right has gained influence in the GOP but has never quite managed to take it over. Now it's political fundamentalists -- the tea party movement -- and their successes are mounting.

 

Religious fundamentalists have a total commitment to faith: Any wavering or compromise is unacceptable. Political fundamentalists have a total commitment to principle: Any politician who wavers or compromises is cast out as a heretic. That's exactly what happened to Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah. He was rejected by tea party fundamentalists who took control of Utah's Republican convention. Bennett's sin? His opponents taunted him with shouts of "TARP! TARP!" as he addressed the delegates, deriding his vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

 

Religious fundamentalists scorn unbelievers. So do political fundamentalists. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist was forced out of the Republican Party for embracing President Obama, who tea partiers see as the anti-Christ. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is in a race for his political life because he has collaborated with Democrats, i.e., unbelievers.

 

Religious fundamentalists have revival meetings. Political fundamentalists have rallies. Religious fundamentalists believe in the total inerrancy of the Bible. Tea party supporters believe in the total inerrancy of the U.S. Constitution -- as written in 1787.

 

Tea party supporters were horrified to learn that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan once wrote a law review article in which she seemed to agree with the late Justice Thurgood Marshall that "the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was 'defective.'" To them, she was attacking Scripture! Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele advised the Senate to investigate Kagan for heresy. Only, it turns out that the "defect" Marshall was referring to was slavery.

 

Rand Paul is the new tea party hero. In Kentucky's Republican Senate primary, he slew the establishment candidate. Paul caused an uproar when he raised doubts about whether the federal government may outlaw discrimination by private businesses. Asked if a business should have the right to refuse to serve African-Americans, Paul responded, "Yes." He insisted that he personally opposes discrimination, but added, "One of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized."

 

The episode was reminiscent of another Republican fundamentalist, the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, who in 1964 voted against the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds. Goldwater was personally not a racist either. But his view that civil-rights legislation was an unwarranted expansion of federal power won him a lot of racist votes. The only states that Goldwater carried in 1964, in addition to his own state of Arizona, were in the Deep South, at a time when only Southern whites could vote.

 

Fundamentalists emerge whenever they believe that establishment Republicans have failed -- or betrayed them. The Goldwater movement felt betrayed by Eisenhower Republicans after 20 years of Democratic rule. The Reagan movement emerged after the failed presidencies of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. The tea party movement is not just a reaction to the sins of Obama. It's also a reaction to the failures of George W. Bush and his "Big Government" Republicanism. When "moderation" fails, fundamentalism rushes in.

 

How do we know it's taking over the Republican Party? Because Republicans are refusing to commit the cardinal sin of collaborating with Democrats.

 

With the impending passage of the financial regulation bill, Obama will have achieved three major legislative breakthroughs: the economic stimulus, health care reform, and financial reform. None of them has gotten more than a few Republican votes. Obama's achievements are all partisan. Fundamentalist Republicans can't wait to undo them.

 

In the end, the only force that can defeat fundamentalism is pragmatism. Religious fundamentalists fail because they seem out of date in the modern world. Political fundamentalists fail because they seem out of touch with reality. Like Paul, who said it was "un-American" for Obama to hold BP responsible for the Gulf oil spill.

 

Most Americans are religious but not fundamentalists. Most Americans agree with the principle of limited government but are not tea party activists. Still, Obama's achievements may not be safe. Only one thing can protect them: the perception that they are working. Pragmatism. So far, that perception has not taken hold for either the economic stimulus or health care reform. Until it does, Obama's legacy remains vulnerable to fundamentalist damnation.

[Azazello1313]

there is truth in the thing wegie posted, though it is obviously cast in an extremely negative spin. the other way of looking at it, is that a lot of those "establishment republicans" have demonstrated over the past many years that they NOT fiscal conservatives. that they had become the party of tax-and-spend-lite. the size of government increased massively during the bush administration, and the whole tea party thing is as much a reaction against that as it is against obama. remember, it was TARP, under bush, that really got the whole tea party thing moving. and isn't that what the lefty critics were always shouting during the bush administration? that republican leaders didn't truly give a chit about limited government or deficits or personal reponsibility? that they gave lip service and that's it? so the tea party comes along and agrees with them about those establishment republicans, and now those same lefties are wringing their hands over these poor establishment republicans, crying, "ZMOG Fundamentalists!!!!"

[Ursa Majoris]

now those same lefties are wringing their hands over these poor establishment republicans, crying, "ZMOG Fundamentalists!!!!"

Good post until this last part. I for one certainly don't wring my hands over ANY Republican, least of all an establishment one. Like I said, the Tea Party folks are, IMO, ill-informed and extremely simplistic but establishment Republicans are slimy weasels.

[driveby]

Good post until this last part. I for one certainly don't wring my hands over ANY Republican, least of all an establishment one. Like I said, the Tea Party folks are, IMO, ill-informed and extremely simplistic but establishment Republicans are slimy weasels.

How very condescending of you. Sounds like Obama explaining why the health care bill is so unpopular. Cause we to stoopid to understand it.

[Ursa Majoris]

How very condescending of you. Sounds like Obama explaining why the health care bill is so unpopular. Cause we to stoopid to understand it.

I didn't say Tea Partiers are too stupid to understand things, I said they are ill-informed and simplistic. If I had been you, I would have taken the "simplistic" piece as a compliment.

[tosberg34]

I didn't say Tea Partiers are too stupid to understand things, I said they are ill-informed and simplistic. If I had been you, I would have taken the "simplistic" piece as a compliment.

 

With all due respect I think redrumjuice posted it appropriately:

 

Well informed compared to what?

 

90%+ of a certain group work vote lockstep based on skin color only?

 

Unemployed who vote simply for the next check?

 

Welfare queens who live in trailer parks and receive disability?

 

Or people who actually own business, employ people and wish for less government intrusion on their lives? Read Az's link and be enlightened.

 

Does it get any simpler than voting for skin color?

Edited October 18, 2010 by tosberg34

[BeeR]

This study is useless - the Tea Party is racist - just go by the facts people....

 

Tea Party is against most of what Obama is for - FACT

 

Obama is African American - FACT to most people

 

If you are against anything Afican Americans are for you are racist - FACT

 

Using the logic above the Tea Party HAS to be racist - FACT

 

You got street cred

[Yukon Cornelius]

as written in 1787 . goood i hope we rescind all those stupid child labor laws.

[Jackass]

I'm intrigued by one thing in the article... She notes that one of the signs may have been racist.. "I'm a Smartass Cracker and I vote"

 

How is that racist?

 

fwiw, i don't think you're a racist.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

Not according to a study by a UCLA graduate student.

 

 

 

 

Pretty much mirrors what I said regarding the rally in D.C. in 2009 that I attended. Of course I doubt the MSM will ever cover this study.

 

I will not answer to tea partiers being racist or not racist, but I will answer to this 'study' 'debunking' myth about racist tea partiers.

You go out to count how many racist signs a rally has, and that is your basis for judging how racist a group of people is?

I'm pretty sure this study did not use the scientific method....

I will also note that there has been a great deal of welcome self policing by the tea party groups now that they have achieved real political clout and viability to push out the extremists of their group, be it people like Beck imploring them not to wear goofy outfits and brand racist signs, to certain tea party groups explicitly banning birthers.

 

6 percent of signs being 'controversial' is not a lot for a ploitical rally from any side of the aisle. So I am indeed surprised by the tepid signs from the tea party, but to use that as a basis for judging what is in a person's heart is really stupid.

[bushwacked]

Wow, every black person that voted for Obama solely voted for him based on skin color? What an enlightening piece of" "logic" from rumdum and tosberg. Can I watch you guys teabag?

[SEC=UGA]

I will not answer to tea partiers being racist or not racist, but I will answer to this 'study' 'debunking' myth about racist tea partiers.

You go out to count how many racist signs a rally has, and that is your basis for judging how racist a group of people is?

I'm pretty sure this study did not use the scientific method....

I will also note that there has been a great deal of welcome self policing by the tea party groups now that they have achieved real political clout and viability to push out the extremists of their group, be it people like Beck imploring them not to wear goofy outfits and brand racist signs, to certain tea party groups explicitly banning birthers.

 

6 percent of signs being 'controversial' is not a lot for a ploitical rally from any side of the aisle. So I am indeed surprised by the tepid signs from the tea party, but to use that as a basis for judging what is in a person's heart is really stupid.

 

Seriously, what do you expect from a PHD candidate?

[wiegie]

I will not answer to tea partiers being racist or not racist, but I will answer to this 'study' 'debunking' myth about racist tea partiers.

You go out to count how many racist signs a rally has, and that is your basis for judging how racist a group of people is?

I'm pretty sure this study did not use the scientific method....

I will also note that there has been a great deal of welcome self policing by the tea party groups now that they have achieved real political clout and viability to push out the extremists of their group, be it people like Beck imploring them not to wear goofy outfits and brand racist signs, to certain tea party groups explicitly banning birthers.

 

6 percent of signs being 'controversial' is not a lot for a ploitical rally from any side of the aisle. So I am indeed surprised by the tepid signs from the tea party, but to use that as a basis for judging what is in a person's heart is really stupid.

yep--how this "study" didn't get torn apart immediately is beyond me.

[driveby]

I didn't say Tea Partiers are too stupid to understand things, I said they are ill-informed and simplistic. If I had been you, I would have taken the "simplistic" piece as a compliment.

You're too kind.

 

Since you voted for and still support Obama, do you really want to play the ill-informed and simplistic card?

[SEC=UGA]

yep--how this "study" didn't get torn apart immediately is beyond me.

 

She's a PHD candidate, that's how...

[wiegie]

She's a PHD candidate, that's how...

when I was in grad school if a grad student proposed some sort of nonsense our professors would DESTROY it with glee

 

I did some quick research into the "study"'s author and it appears that she is pretty fair right wing (supported Ron Paul, went to a CATO institute, etc.). In her defense, she is pretty hot.