By Leonard Pitts Jr.
Sunday, Apr. 25 2010
The numbers are in.
Thanks to a new CBS News/New York Times poll, we now have a statistical picture
of the tea party movement. There are few surprises.
It turns out that not quite 20 percent of Americans are tea party supporters.
They tend to be white, Republican, male, over 45 and wealthier than the rest of
us. Fifty-seven percent hold a favorable opinion of George W. Bush. And where
most Republicans describe themselves as "dissatisfied" with Washington, tea
partiers are apt to use a different term. They say they're angry.
It is a telling word, especially in light of another survey, this one from the
University of Washington's Institute For the Study of Ethnicity, Race &
Sexuality. That poll offers strong evidence that, contrary to the denials of
tea party enthusiasts, President Obama's race plays a big role in their
outrage. Indeed, researchers found a significant correlation between racial
resentment and tea party zeal.
Respondents were read loaded statements such as this: "It's really a matter of
some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder, they could
be just as well off as whites." Among those skeptical of the tea party, only 33
percent agreed with that statement. Among whites in general, 56 percent did.
But among the tea party's most rabid followers, the number spikes to 73
percent.
As Dr. Christopher Parker, who led the study, observed via e-mail: "[I]f one
believes that blacks don't try hard enough, use slavery as an excuse, and ...
have received more than they deserve (racial resentment), they are 37 percent
more likely than those who don't believe this ... to support the tea party."
Yes, he says, ideology plays a part. Yes, politics does, too. But as he put it
in a follow-up conversation by phone, "once you control for partisanship, party
identification and ideology, there's still a significant, robust effect for
race."
Some of us needed no polling data to know this. Some of us needed only to
observe the timing of the tea party's rise.
After all, if the tea partiers truly were concerned only about so-called
"tyranny," they'd have started howling when President Bush claimed he need not
be bound by laws with which he disagreed.
If they were truly only worried about a "socialist" takeover of private
industry, they'd have yelped when he took over troubled financial institutions.
If they were truly only anxious about the budget, they've have hollered when he
spent a $128 billion surplus into a $407 billion deficit.
If they were truly outraged over their income taxes, they'd have screamed at
Bush first, given that their taxes are the same as when he was in office.
It is telling that they "discovered" their burning concern over these things
shortly after Barack Obama came to power.
And contrary to what some in the movement would argue, it is not the case that
any criticism of Obama brings charges of racism. Columnist George F. Will
accuses Obama of timidity, columnist Charles Krauthammer calls certain of his
policies "terminally naive," columnist Jonah Goldberg charges him with dirty
politics. Yet there's been no national hue and cry accusing those conservatives
of racial bias.
The reason is simple. Unlike certain tea partiers, they did not claim Obama
favors white slavery. Or depict him as a witch doctor with a bone through his
nose.
Or cry, "I want my country back."
For those of us trying to build a country that does not fear difference, a
country where access to opportunity is not a function of skin color; for those
of us seeking an America that will finally live out the true meaning of its
creed, that battle cry of the tea partiers says all that need be said about the
differences between them and the rest of us.
They are looking for the America that was.
We're searching for the one that ought to be.
Copyright The Miami Herald
