http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/tea-party-jacobins/?pagination=false

This, I think, is one of the best analyses I’ve read on the subject.

To continue my explanation of my previous post, let me expand on the issue of the inevitability of rising energy costs and the environmental movement.
I do not agree with your assertion that energy costs must rise. The recent breakthrough in the use of “fracturing” has greatly increased the amount of natural gas available if we choose to use it. Unfortunately, Congressman Waxman is holding committee hearings looking for an “impact” to use as a reason to ban the practice. In the 1950′s every science fiction writer was dreaming of unlimited cheap energy from nuclear power. The limits on its use are political rather than technical. Senator Reid and President Obama have blocked the use of the extensively studied Nevada nuclear waste storage facility which continues to hamper the nuclear industry.
It is a favorite conspiracy theory to argue that big business is blocking some kind of miraculous discovery to keep building what it currently builds. In reality, it is usually the government working on behalf of some special interest (which, in this case, includes the environmentalists) to make sure the status quo is unchanged.
I would suggest that part of the economic anger of the Tea Party movement comes from a fear that the environmental bills will add to their costs and produce no real benefits, at least for them.
I have written a longer article on my blog where I cover the fact that environmental regulation has very disparate impacts on people at different economic levels.
http://dalesideas.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/the-environment-and-the-poor/

Thanks very much for the pointer to the full NYT poll. I found it really interesting and read it differently.

My basic take is this: The broad public outrage over the financial death spiral may well have been the initial impetus for the movement. It can explain Polemarchus’ question about timing, raised in response to your last post. But I’m personally cautious of concluding that the TP as a movement focused purely on the economy. Keep in mind that the first big wave of anti-Congressional activism was exclusively focused around Medicare reform … and there’s the continuing sidelight on gun rights. Looking ahead, anything can happen. I’m not prepared at all to discount this movement as one that will be exhausted by the 2010 midterms, or even an eventual Republican takeback of Congress. I think this movement is something new — effectively a product of Fox, and as a result, here to stay. Fox is netroots on steroids.

I’d like to raise two issues.

1) Do you concur, based on this poll, that the TP movement is closely aligned with more conservative Republican voters, and is not a cross-partisan movement like you may have suggested Perot’s was in 1992?

Have another look at question 20:

“Some people say the country needs a third political party…. Do you agree or disagree?”
TEA PARTY: 40 YES / 52 NO
ALL POLLED: 46 YES / 48 NO

This response signals that the TP is relatively comfortable with the Republican establishment. Note also that the poll shows the TP are predominantly Americans who are comfortable calling themselves not just Republican, but “very” conservative. (See p.41.) Is this the answer to the issue you alluded to in your comment about “whether independent voters truly are independent”?

2) Do you view this poll as indicative of strong media effects behind the mobilization of this movement?

According to the poll (question 80), the TP to a large extent have a mistaken impression of how broadly popular the movement is. 84% of TPers think the members of the movement “reflect the views of most Americans,” whereas only 25% of all Americans view the movement that way. Now, while this response doesn’t necessarily mean much in isolation, let’s view it also in the context of one of the major themes of the contemporary American political scene. It’s a potential marker of media echo chamber effects, where the partisan voices in the media have begun to convince their viewers that they are more in tune with broader American views than they actually are. We have vaguely lamented the “echo chamber” effect – or polarizing effect — heretofore as having coarsened American political discourse. The poll actually offers a fair amount of evidence that this media echo chamber has strengthened and is now a full-blown Fox network-driven social movement.

Nearly every relevant question in the poll implies that Fox network’s political advocacy is a fount of the TP’s political views. Indeed, it’s hard not to believe that there are plenty of people affiliated with the TP who would be proud to tell you their favorite TV network provides a steady diet of inspiration.

Take a look at the results to poll questions 35-39. They ask about the favorability of particular public figures. It shows Glenn Beck of Fox is far better known than the “Ross Perot” of 2008 — Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul. Only 17% say they “don’t know enough” about Glenn Beck to form an opinion of him, whereas 36% say the same of Ron Paul. That certainly indicates an attentive audience surrounding the network’s spokesmen. Even more remarkable, the Fox network’s Glenn Beck has the LOWEST negatives of all the Republican figures asked about in the TP poll (only 6% have formed a negative opinion of him). I have a hard time imagining numbers like that for nearly any other recent American TV commentator. (Bill Moyers anyone?)

The poll indicates 47% of TP supporters — by a very wide margin this is the largest proportion of respondents — get their info about the movement from television. 63% say they primarily watch Fox for their political information. Further, 53% consider Glenn Beck’s show to be a news show. (See questions 86, 95 and 96. Did the pollsters even identify PBS as a network choice in the question? Nope. Sigh.)

If Fox is the nerve center of the movement, the rhetorical platform of the TP can shift with the wind, and once people are mobilized, political activism won’t be constrained to any traditional ideological anchors. This presents a contrast to older thinking on “voter issue attention” predating Fox, by which I mean political communication theories that assumed a nonpartisan media, with issues relatively difficult to ignite in the media. Nowadays, Fox has made it much easier to permanently mobilize around any concatenation of policy positions.

There’s a rival theory – that the TP marks the ascendancy of Libertarianism. But questions 57 and 59 cast doubt on it. It’s more likely that Libertarianism just doesn’t sit comfortably with TP activists, except insofar as they can seize on its tropes to flaunt their own patriotism. ONLY 1/3 of those with Tea Party allegiances say Medicare and Social Security are NOT worth the costs to taxpayers. ONLY 1/3 of them say that the government should NOT require insurance companies to cover Americans who have pre-existing conditions. My read of the poll is, again, that there is just an “elective affinity” between the movement and its adopted Libertarian rhetoric, rather than a consistent matter of conviction.

I don’t know what if anything it portends that Gingrich is the most popular figure among the TP movement (see question 34), but the Republican insurgency of 2010 would really have to screw up badly for the TP to disperse or ratchet down the pressure on Democrats in Congress.

I also think that for this movement to dissipate after 2010, Fox News would simply have to abruptly vanish from the scene. That’s not going to happen. Nor is David Brooks poised to launch his own Communitarian infotainment channel to lead the Republicans in a brainier direction. (Still, sure looks like there’s an opening here….)