Tea Party types are marked by four character qualities:
“Authoritarianism, ontological insecurity, libertarianism and
nativism.” That’s according to
a new study from researchers at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill and Vanderbilt University.
OK, it makes a good headline for the Left. Those crazy “tea
baggers” are paranoid, authoritarian, libertarian (anyone else see
the contradiction between those last two?), and racist. But teasing
out the specifics of the study paints a different picture — and a
bizarre one at that.
For example, the report measures affinity for authoritarianism
with three questions:
- “Would you say it is more important that a child obeys his
parents, or that he is responsible for his own actions?”
- “Would you say it is more important that a child have respect
for his elders, or that he thinks for himself?”
- “Would you say it is more important that a child follows his
own conscience, or that he follows the rules?”
In the political context of 2011 — where politicos are fighting
a battle over the most significant piece of authoritarian
legislation in years, ObamaCare — it’s odd that researchers would
select questions about parenting to ask. I mean, tea partiers
aren’t exactly rallying in the streets because children are obeying
their parents, are they?
Similarly, on the libertarian question, researchers opted to ask
questions about regulating television content, the Internet, and
what people can wear in public. Although the former two issues are
pertinent, they’re hardly center stage in our contemporary
political debate; and the last one is a non-issue much of the
time.
Later in the study, the authors posit a disconnect between tea
partiers’ views of the U.S. Constitution and their political
beliefs (emphasis mine):
Support for Constitutional principles is not
absolute. [Tea party] supporters were twice as likely than others
to favor a constitutional amendment banning flag burning; many also
support efforts to overturn citizenship as defined by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
That [tea party] supporters simultaneously want to honor the
founders’ Constitution and alter that same document highlights the
political flexibility of the cultural symbols they draw
on. The [tea party] supporters inconsistent views of the
Constitution suggests that their nostalgic embrace of the document
is animated more by a network of cultural associations than through
a commitment to the original text.
That researchers would highlight support for a flag-burning
amendment to the Constitution as evidence of tea party hypocrisy is
curious. After all, it’s constitutional to amend the Constitution.
Article V lays out the stringent parameters: a proposed amendment
must be passed by a two-thirds majority of Congress and ratified by
three-fourths of the states. (Two thirds of the states also may
call a constitutional convention to consider amendments).
Ergo, support for an amendment prohibiting flag burning isn’t
counter to support for the Constitution itself. Citizens might
disagree about the wisdom of such an amendment, but support doesn’t
entail disrespect for the document. Interpreting the Constitution
however we see fit, regardless of what the text actually means and
original intent? Now that’s disrespect for the document. Amending
it through a constitutionally specified process isn’t.
Following the researchers’ line of reasoning, any amendment to
the Constitution save those contained in the Bill of Rights is out
of order, including those freeing the slaves and giving women the
right to vote. Huh?
Last of all, the study’s methodology is shaky at best. Its
findings are based on two survey methods: the first, two telephone
calls of registered voters, conducted by the Democratic-aligned
Public Policy Polling; the second, “observations” at a tea party
rally in Washington, North Carolina.
