Four University professors participated Thursday in a public discussion with Theda Skocpol P'10, a prominent Harvard political scientist, about her recent book on the Tea Party movement. Though the panelists consistently expressed their contempt for the Tea Party's political goals - a smaller federal government, a reduction of the welfare state and strict anti-immigration laws - Skocpol applauded the movement's grassroots birth and far-reaching influence.
Skocpol preceded the discussion with a lecture on the Tea Party Wednesday. A winner of the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science, she published "The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism" in January 2012. Skocpol said she went beyond national polling data when researching for the book and spoke to members of the Tea Party, which provided her unusual insight into the group's political motivations and interests.
The meeting began with five minutes of comments from each professor, during which they could ask Skocpol any questions about the Tea Party or her work. Professor of EcoNewnomics Glenn Loury opened by asking, "Where is the left?" He said he does not understand how the right side of the political spectrum has formed such a powerful movement with grassroots support, media encouragement and billionaire backing - the key underpinnings of the movement, according to Skocpol - while the left remains seemingly immobile.
The left has shown it has the power to mobilize its members several times in past years, Skocpol responded, citing the 2008 presidential election and the battles over collective bargaining power for public sector unions in Wisconsin and other states. The problem, she said, is that these movements are not new, so they do not receive the same attention from the media as the Tea Party. Billionaires who support Democratic policies also often focus a lot of their donations on encouraging discussion and increasing participation instead of "cracking the (ideological) whip" like conservative donors - for example, the Koch brothers - often do, she said.
Peter Evans, senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies, said he was concerned with some of the Tea Party's economic policies' potential to pose a threat to democracy. He framed the issue as the "capitalism problem," in which a government can be so constrained by capitalistic financial demands, such as the repayment of debts, that it becomes unresponsive to the needs of its citizenry. He added that capitalism sets up an unequal distribution of wealth that results in billionaires becoming the only individuals with clout in government.
As a result of these institutional problems, Evans said the left needs to coalesce around an agenda focused on reversing the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, employing strict regulation of campaign contributions and instituting a comprehensive public election funding procedure.
In response to Evans' questions, Skocpol admitted to not having spent too much time on the foundational aspects of the capitalist system while researching for her book, though she agreed that there can be significant tension between the forces of capitalism and democracy.
Both Professor Emeritus of Sociology Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Professor of Sociology Patrick Heller asked about the Tea Party's role in the recent growth of far-right, anti-immigrant movements around the world. In particular, political parties in Finland, Germany and India have all received significant electoral support for policies restricting immigration. Heller asked Skocpol how she interprets the rise in identity politics that has occurred even after political regime changes in the late 20th century seemed to signal the triumph of social democracy.
Support for the Tea Party derives from generational resentment and not necessarily anti-immigrant sentiment, Skocpol said. The older generation supporting the Tea Party has paid into welfare programs their entire lives and now perceives President Obama as threatening these benefits. When she spoke to individual members of the Tea Party, she said they were frustrated by the current administration's advocacy for young people and immigrants to the detriment of older generations.
Tea Party members are less concerned about the role of government and spending than they are about the government's perceived indifference to their plight, Skocpol said. The true danger, she said, arises when a third-party "nativist resentment party" takes over a major party, because traditional Republicans do not realize the party they have always voted for has turned so extreme. Voters in 2010 did what they always do during economic downturns - they gave the other party a chance to be in charge - but they did not realize how far right today's Republican Party has shifted, she said. Women are waking up and realizing this new version of the party, instead of just offering a contrast to the Democrats, is threatening to take away their birth control, she added.
After the discussion with the panelists, Skocpol and the professors fielded questions from the audience. In response to one question about the effect of the coming presidential election on the Tea Party movement, Skocpol said she thought Mitt Romney is the perfect Tea Party candidate.
"The media won't treat him like (a member of the Tea Party movement), but he will govern like one," she said. But if Obama wins the presidential election, Skocpol predicted the Tea Party could push the Republicans even further to the right.
