Office Hours: Reading the Tea Party


Uploaded by uwmadison on 25.10.2010

Transcript:
>> THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS A SPECIAL PRESENTATION OF THE BIG TEN NETWORK, PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH
THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
>> THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT MAY BE THE SPARK NEEDED TO MOBILIZE CONSERVATIVE VOTERS AND PROPEL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
TO A HOUSE MAJORITY. YET THIS SAME FORCE MAY BE TURNING OFF OTHER VOTERS, AND MAKING THE BATTLE FOR CONTROL
OVER THE U.S. SENATE MORE DIFFICULT. HAS THE TEA PARTY THROWN A REELING DEMOCRATIC PARTY
A LIFE LINE, OR WILL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RIDE THIS WAVE TO CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL? WE'LL DISCUSS WHO WILL BE
PARTYING IN NOVEMBER, NEXT DURING "OFFICE HOURS."
I'M KEN GOLDSTEIN PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON. THE TEA PARTY HAS ENERGIZED
FRUSTRATED VOTERS. WILL THIS GROUP HAVE A REAL IMPACT ON THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS, WILL THEY HAVE
A LASTING INFLUENCE OF THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE, OR WILL THEY FADE FROM THE PUBLIC EYE. JOINING ME TO DISCUSS THESE
QUESTIONS IS JOHN COLEMAN. THE CHAIR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, AND MY BOSS,
AND AN EXPERT ON POLITICAL PARTIES AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT. JOHN, WELCOME TO "OFFICE HOURS." >> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> THANKS FOR COMING BY. LET ME START BY ASKING YOU A BASIC QUESTION. WE HEAR THE TERM TEA PARTY,
TEA PARTY, TEA PARTY. IT'S THE LEAD ON EVERY NETWORK NEWSCAST, IN THE NEWSPAPERS. PEOPLE THROW THE TERM AROUND.
WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY MEAN WHEN WE'RE SAYING TEA PARTY? WHAT IS THIS THING WHICH WE CALL THE TEA PARTY?
>> ONE THING IT IS NOT IS A POLITICAL PARTY. IT'S NOT A PARTY IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE.
IT REALLY IS A POLITICAL MOVEMENT. THERE ARE SOME PARALLELS. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THOSE LATER.
BUT IT'S A VERY, I WOULD SAY, UNORGANIZED MOVEMENT. IT DOES HAVE SOME NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT CLAIM TO BE
SORT OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MOVEMENT. BUT REALLY, THERE'S NOT A SENSE OF HIERARCHY IN IT SO MUCH.
THESE ORGANIZATIONS, THERE'S A TEA PARTY FEDERATION, TEA PARTY PATRIOTS, TEA PARTY EXPRESS, AND A FEW
OTHERS THAT HAVE ESTABLISHED THEMSELVES SAYING THAT THEY ARE THE ORGANIZER, OR THE UMBRELLA GROUP FOR THE TEA PARTY.
IT'S A SIGN OF THE FACT THAT IT ISN'T A HIGHLY ORGANIZED MOVEMENT, IN THAT SENSE, THAT WE HAVE MULTIPLE COMPETING
MOVEMENTS OR ORGANIZATIONS. IT REALLY IS VERY MUCH A GROUND-UP ORGANIZATION. IT'S SPROUTED IN LOCAL AREAS
AROUND THE COUNTRY. IT'S GELLED A BIT MORE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL NOW. BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE STARTED
TO SEE EARLY IN MID-2009, WHERE THESE GROUP PROTESTS, AND SO ON, SPRANG UP. THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEY WERE
THE TEA PARTY AT THAT TIME. LATER, AS PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON WHAT IS THIS EXACTLY, THAT NAME CAME ALONG,
AND THESE VARIOUS GROUPS SORT OF USED THAT NAME TO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES. IT'S NOT AN ORGANIZATION,
CERTAINLY, IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE, THAT WE WOULD THINK OF A LOBBYING ORGANIZATION, OR EVEN AN ADVOCACY GROUP OF SOME KIND.
IT IS REALLY A COLLECTION OF GROUPS, AND A COLLECTION OF CITIZENS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY AT THIS POINT.
>> A LITTLE BIT LATER, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TEA PARTY INVOLVEMENT IN PRIMARIES. BUT WHEN YOU READ IN THE PAPER
THAT THE TEA PARTY GOT BEHIND A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE, OR PROPELLED A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE TO VICTORY,
WHAT DO WE MEAN? WHO DID WHAT? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. WHAT WE TYPICALLY MEAN IS THAT
THERE IS SOME COMBINATION OF PEOPLE LOCALLY WHO HAVE IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AS BEING ORGANIZERS IN THE TEA PARTY
MOVEMENT, WHO GOT BEHIND A CANDIDATE. USUALLY SOME, IN PARTICULAR RACES, SOME NATIONAL FIGURES AS
WELL, WHETHER IT'S SARAH PALIN OR OTHER FOLKS, WHO HAVE ENDORSED A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE IN A RACE.
WHAT IT MEANS I THINK, EVEN MORE THAN THOSE THINGS, IS THAT THE ENERGY OF THE GRASS ROOTS CITIZENS THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED
IN GOING TO RALLIES AND PROTESTS, AND SO ON, SEEMS TO HAVE SWUNG BEHIND ONE CANDIDATE OR ANOTHER.
IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO MEASURE THIS FRANKLY, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE-- EVEN IF YOU HAD A LIST OF GROUPS
THAT ARE ENDORSING A CANDIDATE, IT'S NOT CLEAR HOW MANY PEOPLE EACH OF THESE GROUPS REPRESENT, AND SO FORTH.
IT'S TENDS TO BE SOME COMBINATION OF THE THREE. WHEN YOU GET THIS TRIFECTA OF A LOCAL GROUP, NATIONALLY
SIGNIFICANT POLITICIANS LIKE A SARAH PALIN, OR A JIM DeMINT, AND THEN A SENSE THAT
THERE'S A KIND OF GROUNDSWELL AMONG LOCAL ACTIVISTS, LOCAL PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ENTHUSED ABOUT THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT.
AT THAT POINT, YOU START TO SAY, THIS CANDIDATE HAS BEEN ENDORSED BY THE TEA PARTY. PRIOR TO THAT, IT'S A CANDIDATE
THAT'S BEEN ENDORSED BY AN ORGANIZATION, OR A CANDIDATE THAT'S BEEN ENDORSED BY SARAH PALIN, OR A CANDIDATE THAT HAS
SOME ACTIVISTS INVOLVED. BUT WITH ALL THREE OF THOSE TOGETHER, THEN WE SAY, THIS PARTY HAS THE BLESSING
OF THE TEA PARTY. >> AS YOU WERE TALKING, I THINK IT'S ALMOST LIKE A WEATHER REPORT, WHEN YOU HAVE A COUPLE
OF THE FORCES COME TOGETHER, AND IT'S THE PERFECT STORM. AND IT TAKES ALL THREE TO IGNITE THAT.
>> ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S A GREAT ANALOGY. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN EVERYWHERE. AND WHERE CANDIDATES COME FROM,
MAYBE FROM PEOPLE IN ANY OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS, OR MAYBE FROM A SARAH PALIN OR JIM DeMINT, OR OTHER FOLKS
ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO RUN. OR SOMEBODY MAY SIMPLY EMERGE OUT OF ONE OF THESE GROUPS. AND WE HAVE EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE
WHO, IN A SENSE, NO ONE EVER HEARD OF BEFORE, SUDDENLY BECOMING HOUSEHOLD NAMES IN SOME OF THESE AREAS, AND SOME
OF THEM REALLY RIDING THE WAVE OF ENTHUSIASM OF THE ACTIVISTS. >> SO, IT'S NOT A COHERENT ORGANIZATION.
ALTHOUGH AS WE TALKED ABOUT, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT MORE, IT CAN BE VERY EFFECTIVE IN CERTAIN INSTANCES.
IS IT A COHERENT IDEOLOGY? >> I WOULD SAY IT IS. I WOULD SAY WHAT'S LINKING TOGETHER THE TEA PARTY IS
A SENSE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTRUSIVENESS AND SCALE, THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME TOO INTRUSIVE AND TOO LARGE.
I THINK IF YOU LOOK ACROSS ISSUES, THAT TENDS TO UNITE MOST OF THEM. NOW, DO THEY HAVE A LOT OF
AGREEMENT ON SPECIFIC, VERY DETAILED ISSUES? THERE, NOT SO MUCH. LET'S KEEP IN MIND,
THIS IS A MOVEMENT THAT STARTED 18 MONTHS AGO. SO THEY HAVEN'T HAD A LONG TIME TO SORT OF GO INTO THINK TANKS
AND GERMINATE THE POLICY IDEAS THAT THEY ALL AGREE ON. IT'S HAPPENING IN THE COURSE OF THE CAMPAIGN.
>> SO, THEY'RE ANGRY AT CURRENT FEDERAL POLICY? >> EXACTLY. BUT I THINK THERE'S A GENERAL
PHILOSOPHICAL LINK TO FOLKS IN THIS MOVEMENT. THEY DO BELIEVE GOVERNMENT HAS GOTTEN TOO EXPANSIVE.
AND THEY SEE THE LAST TWO YEARS OF BEING THEIR EXAMPLE OF THAT. WHEN YOU GET TO PARTICULAR DETAIL POLICIES, NOT REALLY.
BUT IN THAT SENSE, THEY'RE LIKE A LOT OF MOVEMENTS. YOU THINK OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT, OR THE WOMEN'S
MOVEMENT, EVEN CIVIL RIGHTS. A LOT OF THESE STARTED OUT WITH SOME GENERAL IDEAS, AND THEN THE POLICY DETAILS
GOT WORKED OUT ALONG THE WAY. THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LOT OF DISAGREEMENTS ON SOME OF THE POLICIES, AS WELL.
>> JOHN, THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK, AND I WANT TO TALK MORE ABOUT WHO EXACTLY IS THE TEA PARTY, AND
HOW THEY MIGHT DIFFER FROM OTHER PARTISANS IN THE UNITED STATES. PLEASE STAY WITH US ON "OFFICE HOURS," WITH JOHN COLEMAN
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. WE'RE DISCUSSING THE TEA PARTY IN THE 2010 ELECTION.
>> THIS PROGRAM IS A PRODUCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON. IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS
ABOUT THIS BROADCAST, PLEASE EMAIL THEM TO: PROGRAMMING@UC.WISC.EDU
>> WHERE OTHERS SAW LUMBER, WE RECOGNIZED A TREASURE. WHERE OTHERS SAW THE NIGHT, WE CHOSE THE STARS.
WHERE OTHERS SAW PIECES, WE UNLOCKED THE PUZZLE THAT COULD BRING THE END TO PARALYSIS AND CANCER.
SINCE 1848, THINKERS AND ACHIEVERS AT WISCONSIN HAVE FEARLESSLY SOUGHT IDEAS THAT TRANSFORMED THE WORLD.
KEEP ON, WISCONSIN, KEEP ON.
>> WELCOME BACK TO "OFFICE HOURS." JOINING ME TODAY IS JOHN COLEMAN CHAIR OF THE POLITICAL SCIENCE
DEPARTMENT HERE AT UW-MADISON. WE'RE DISCUSSING TEA PARTY POLITICS AND THE 2010 ELECTIONS. LET ME READ YOU A QUOTE
BY HALEY BARBOUR, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI, FORMER HEAD OF THE RNC, PERHAPS POTENTIAL REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 2012. HE SAID, "REPLACE 'TEA PARTY' WITH 'REPUBLICAN' IN EVERY INSTANCE ABOVE, AND EACH
DESCRIPTION WILL REMAIN TOTALLY ACCURATE." HE WAS TALKING ABOUT A DESCRIPTION OF THE TEA PARTY,
AND WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT PARTICULAR ISSUES, AND HE'S BASICALLY SAYING JUST, YOU KNOW, PUT "REPUBLICAN" IN THERE,
AND IT'S THE SAME DEAL. IS THAT TRUE? >> HE'S MOSTLY RIGHT, I WOULD SAY.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT SURVEYS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE, AND PEOPLE BREAK DOWN TEA PARTY VERSUS REPUBLICANS,
TEA PARTY FOLLOWERS ARE CERTAINLY MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN THE AVERAGE REPUBLICAN. NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.
THEY ARE MILES AWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATS. NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT EITHER. BUT THAT DOESN'T SAY
THAT EVERY TEA PARTY ACTIVIST AND FOLLOWER IS A DYED IN THE WOOL REPUBLICAN. I THINK THIS HAS REALLY BROUGHT
OUT OF THE PUBLIC, SOME FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN DISENGAGED FROM POLITICS, WHO MAYBE THEY THOUGHT OF THEMSELVES
AS REPUBLICANS, BUT FRANKLY, THOUGHT OF THEMSELVES MORE AS PART OF THE PARTY OF NON-VOTERS, AND THE PARTY OF PEOPLE THAT
LOST FAITH IN THE SYSTEM AT ALL. SO, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY'RE ACTIVATED BY THIS MOVEMENT AND MOMENT, AND THEY'VE COME BACK.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE TRADITIONAL REPUBLICANS IN THE SENSE OF ALWAYS
VOTING REPUBLICAN, THOUGH PROBABLY THEY DO. MOST PEOPLE THAT THINK THEY'RE INDEPENDENT TEND TO BE
PRETTY PREDICTABLY PARTISAN. BUT I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. WHAT WE'VE REALLY SEEN THAT IS
OBVIOUSLY IN THE DISPUTES, IN TERMS OF CANDIDATES, WHERE WE HAVE THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY, OR THE STATE PARTIES
ENDORSING PARTICULAR CANDIDATES, AND THE TEA PARTY FOLKS SAYING, NO, NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH. SO THERE IS AN IDEOLOGICAL
DIFFERENCE. BUT HALEY BARBOUR IS RIGHT IN THE SENSE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE MANY LONG-TIME DEMOCRATS
IN THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT, THAT'S FOR SURE. >> IT'S A REALLY INTERESTING QUESTION.
DO WE KNOW THE ANSWER? WE'VE ALL READ ABOUT THIS ENTHUSIASM GAP THAT'S DRIVING THE CURRENT
REPUBLICAN LEAD. REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES ARE JUST MORE INTERESTED, MORE LIKELY TO VOTE IN 2010.
WERE THESE PEOPLE SITTING ON THE SIDELINES IN 2008 AND 2006? ARE THEY COMING BACK IN? ARE THEY WHAT YOUNG VOTERS WERE
FOR OBAMA IN 2008? DO WE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, OR IS THAT UNCHARTED WATERS? >> IT'S A BIT
OF UNCHARTED WATER. WE CAN LOOK BACK, AND CERTAINLY LOOK THROUGH POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH.
WE KNOW THAT THIS HAPPENS. EVERY TIME THERE'S A BIG WIN IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, THAT'S CALLED THE SURGE.
THEN YOU HAVE THE DECLINE. ALMOST INEVITABLY, THE PRESIDENT'S PARTY LOSES ENTHUSIASM OVER THOSE
FIRST TWO YEARS. AND THE OPPOSITION PARTY RISES UP AND DOES PRETTY WELL IN THE MID-TERM ELECTION.
SO, THE REPUBLICANS LIKELY WOULD HAVE DONE OKAY THIS YEAR, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT.
BUT I THINK WHAT THE TEA PARTY GIVES IS MAYBE A BIT MORE CERTAINTY AND CONFIDENCE THAT THE REPUBLICANS WILL DO WELL,
AND PROBABLY HAS PUSHED SOME OF THEIR CANDIDATES IN A MORE CONSERVATIVE DIRECTION THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN
LIKELY TO DO ON THEIR OWN. THE PARTY WOULD HAVE DONE OKAY, I THINK, IN 2010. WE WOULD HAVE HAD AN ENTHUSIASM
GAP TO SOME DEGREE, ANYWAY, WITH THE TWO PARTIES. THE TEA PARTY CERTAINLY HAS ELEVATED THAT ENTHUSIASM GAP.
AND ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, YOU HAVE FOLKS WHO ARE DISPIRITED, SOME WHO ACTUALLY DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE DEMOCRATS
HAVE DONE, THINKING IT IS TOO AGGRESSIVE. OTHER DEMOCRATS ARE FEELING IT'S NOT NEARLY AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH,
YOU'VE COMPROMISED AND CAVED IN TO MUCH. WE HAVE THAT MIX ON THAT SIDE. THE REPUBLICAN SIDE,
ENTHUSIASM IS ACROSS THE BOARD. I THINK THE TEA PARTY IS A BIG REASON WHY THAT'S TRUE. >> BEFORE WE CONTINUE ON OUR
DISCUSSION OF CURRENT POLITICS, WHICH WE COULD DO FOREVER, SPEAK BACK TO ME ABOUT WHAT SOME HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS ARE
FOR THE TEA PARTY. YOU MENTIONED EARLIER ON THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS IN AMERICAN POLITICS.
ONE, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE EBB AND FLOW, BUT ALSO THE SOCIAL MOVEMENTS COMING UP. WHAT WERE OTHER SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS? WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM? >> LET ME GIVE YOU THE ONES THAT I THINK ARE THE BEST
PARALLELS IN OUR RECENT HISTORY. I MENTIONED THREE ALREADY. PARALLELS IN THE SENSE OF LARGE MOVEMENTS, THAT IT WOULD
BE HARD TO SAY THERE IS ANY ONE LEADING ORGANIZATION, FOR EXAMPLE. BUT EVENTUALLY, THEY DO DEVELOP
SOME THAT PEOPLE REFER TO AS DEFINING THE MOVEMENT. SO, WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, YOU GET THE NAACP, FOR EXAMPLE,
WHICH HAD ALREADY EXISTED, BUT BECAME SORT OF A DOMINANT, EVEN MORE NOTED ORGANIZATION. THE NOW, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
FOR WOMEN, AND ITS MOVEMENT. WITH THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS, THE SIERRA CLUB, OTHER GROUPS, AND SO FORTH, THAT
HAVE BECOME SORT OF THOUGHT OF AS THE LEADING EDGE OF THOSE MOVEMENTS. IT TOOK A WHILE FOR THAT
TO BE CLEAR AND TO SORT OUT. I THINK THE TEA PARTY IS IN THAT EARLY STAGE THAT THESE MOVEMENTS ARE IN, TOO.
IT'S NOT CLEAR WHO'S UP, WHO'S DOWN, WHO WILL ULTIMATELY EMERGE. ONE WAY THAT THE TEA PARTY
IS I THINK QUITE INTERESTINGLY DIFFERENT-- >> LET ME HAVE YOU HOLD THAT THOUGHT.
WE'RE GOING TO KICK TO A BREAK HERE, AND COME BACK AND LET YOU FINISH UP THAT THOUGHT. STAY WITH US ON "OFFICE HOURS."
TEA PARTY POLITICS, 2010.
>> WELCOME BACK TO "OFFICE HOURS" WITH JOHN COLEMAN, CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
HERE AT UW-MADISON. JOHN, I INTERRUPTED YOU THERE. LET ME LET YOU FINISH YOUR THOUGHT ABOUT OTHER
PREVIOUS HISTORICAL SOCIAL MOVEMENTS. >> I HAD TALKED ABOUT THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT, CIVIL RIGHTS
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT, AND SOME ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES THAT YOU COULD COMPARE THE TEA PARTY TO.
ONE WAY IN WHICH THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT, IS THOSE THREE MOVEMENTS COULD BE SUCCESSFUL THROUGH THE COURTS,
THROUGH FILING CASES. THEY DIDN'T ALWAYS HAVE TO BE WINNING ELECTIONS. THE TEA PARTY IS MUCH HARDER
TO IMAGINE HOW A COURT STRATEGY WORKS WITH THE TEA PARTY. YOU CAN'T GO IN AS A TAXPAYER AND FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE HOW THEY'RE SPENDING YOUR MONEY. IT'S JUST NOT A WAY
YOU CAN PROCEED. I THINK THEY'LL HAVE LESS OF A LEGAL COURT OPTION IN THE TEA PARTY.
THEY REALLY HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM, EVEN MORE SO THAN THOSE OTHER MOVEMENTS DID.
I THINK THERE WE HAVE AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE. ONE OTHER PARALLEL I'LL MAKE JUST QUICKLY IS WITH
THE DEMOCRATIC REFORMERS IN THE 1960s AND '70s. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAD THIS HUGE INTERNAL SPLIT, AND
YOU HAD FOLKS WHO FELT LEFT OUT, WHO FELT THE PARTY HAD MOVED TOO FAR, IN SOME WAYS, TO THE RIGHT, CERTAINLY IN FOREIGN POLICY.
BIG SPLITS ON THE WAR, AND THAT YOU COULDN'T GET INSURGENT KIND OF LIBERAL CANDIDATES IN.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAD A BIG BLOW UP IN THE LATE '60s, EARLY '70s. >> A LOT OF THAT LEADERSHIP
COMING FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON. >> ABSOLUTELY. AND YOU HAVE THIS REFORM
THAT'S INSTITUTED, AND YOU GET A CANDIDATE LIKE GEORGE McGOVERN, WHO MANY DEMOCRATS AROUND THE COUNTRY,
ORGANIZED LABOR WOULDN'T EVEN ENDORSE HIM, VIEWING HIM AS JUST TOO FAR OUT ON THE FRINGE, AND SO ON.
BUT YOU'VE SEEN THIS KIND OF SENSE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, TOO, OF THE FOLKS FEELING THAT THE ELITES, THE MODERATE FOLKS
IN THE PARTY, THE PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT TO GO ALONG TO GET ALONG, WHO WERE HAPPY WITH POWER,
HAVE TAKEN OVER TOO MUCH, AND WE, THE FOLKS WHO HAVE THE IDEOLOGIC IDEAS DON'T HAVE AS MUCH INFLUENCE AS WE WANT.
AND WE SEE THAT NOW WITH THE TEA PARTY, AS WELL. >> THAT'S A REALLY INTERESTING POINT.
WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS TRYING TO HARNESS THE ENERGY OF THE TEA PARTY WITHOUT DEALING WITH
SOME OF THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT. BUT YOU MENTIONED THAT UNLIKE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT, OR THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, TEA PARTY CAN'T REALLY FOLLOW A LEGAL STRATEGY,
THEY'VE GOT TO WIN ELECTIONS. >> RIGHT. >> BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT WE MEAN BY WIN.
THEY CAN WIN A BUNCH OF PRIMARIES. BUT DO THEY HAVE TO WIN GENERAL ELECTIONS?
WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER THE TEA PARTY ENERGY HAS PUT THE BEST REPUBLICAN OR BEST CONSERVATIVE FORWARD
IN MANY OF THESE CONTESTS. THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE CARING ABOUT THAT, IF ELECTIONS ARE WHAT THEY NEED TO WIN.
THEY'RE NOT MAKING THAT STRATEGIC CALCULATION. >> I DON'T THINK THAT THEY ARE COMPLETELY.
THE MOOD SEEMS TO BE, WE NEED TO GET THE PARTY TO MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND WE MAY NOT DO IT ALL
IN THIS ELECTION. IT MAY TAKE TWO OR THREE ELECTIONS. IF WE HAVE A CHRISTINE O'DONNELL
IN TO REPLACE A MIKE CASTLE, WHO WE THINK IS FAR TOO LIBERAL, AND HAS VOTED THE WRONG WAY ON TOO MANY ISSUES, IF WE
LOSE THAT, THAT'S THE PRICE THAT WE PAY FOR LOSING, BUT AT LEAST WE DON'T HAVE HIM IN. THERE'S NO POINT OF HAVING A
LIBERAL OR MODERATE REPUBLICAN. THAT'S SEEMS TO BE THE DOMINANT MIND SET RIGHT NOW. SO IN THAT SENSE,
YOU DO HAVE THIS STRUGGLE. IT'S EXACTLY THE WAY YOU PUT IT. THE PARTY LOVES THE ENTHUSIASM OF THESE FOLKS,
JUST LIKE THE DEMOCRATS IN THE '60s AND '70s LOVED THE ENTHUSIASM OF THE ANTIWAR FOLKS, AND ALL THAT.
BUT THEY'RE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE ARE YOU GOING TO TRY TO NOMINATE OR GET INTO OFFICE, BECAUSE WE
HAVE TO WIN ELECTIONS AFTER ALL. WE'RE REALLY IN THAT STRUGGLE RIGHT NOW. AND MY SENSE IS THAT TEA PARTY
ACTIVISTS ARE FINE WITH LOSING ELECTIONS, IF THEY'VE PUSHED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
THAT'S ULTIMATELY THEIR GOAL, TO PUSH THE PARTY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. >> IT'S GOING TO BE VERY
INTERESTING ON NOVEMBER 3, WHAT THE SPIN IS GOING TO BE, AND WHAT THE ELECTION BAR IS FOR THEM.
IF HARRY REID ENDS UP WINNING IN NEVADA, BEATING SHARON ENGLE, MOST PEOPLE THOUGHT HE WAS
A DEAD MAN WALKING, IF THE REPUBLICANS HAD NOT NAMED SOMEONE ELSE. MOST PEOPLE ASSUME THAT THE
REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO LOSE THE DELAWARE SEAT, WHICH WOULD HAVE ALMOST BEEN A SURE VICTORY.
DO PEOPLE THEN TURN ON THE TEA PARTY AFTER THAT WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT? ARE THEY THEN THOUGHT OF AS
MORE IMPORTANT, MORE CREDIBLE? OR IF THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW AN ELECTION STRATEGY, IS THAT A LOSS?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I THINK THERE WILL BE SOME BACK BITING, IF YOU WILL, AND SOME DENUNCIATIONS
OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT FOR COSTING US OUR CHANCE OF HAVING EVEN MORE VICTORIES. BUT ULTIMATELY, IF WE'RE ONLY
TALKING ONE OR TWO VICTORIES, EVEN IN THE CASE OF THE SENATE, I THINK IF THE REPUBLICANS ARE UP TO 48 OR 49 SEATS,
THE PARTY WILL SAY, WE WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE THAT 50th OR 51st SEAT, NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK THAT WHAT THE BALANCE WILL BE IS THE TEA PARTY HAD AT LEAST SOMETHING TO DO WITH US GETTING
UP TO 45, 46, 47, 48, AND WE CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT THEIR EFFECT ON THAT LAST MARGINAL ONE THAT WE LOST, OR DO WE WANT TO
SAY, LOOK AT THE ENTHUSIASM, MONEY, ORGANIZATION, AND SO ON, THAT THEY BROUGHT IN. THAT MAY NOT HAVE ULTIMATELY
CAUSED THE OTHER FOLKS TO WIN, BUT CERTAINLY DIDN'T HURT, AND MAY HAVE HELPED IN SOME WAY. >> GREAT.
STAY WITH US ON "OFFICE HOURS," WE'LL CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION OF TEA PARTY POLITICS OF 2010.
>> THIS PROGRAM IS A PRODUCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON. IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS,
ABOUT THIS BROADCAST, PLEASE EMAIL THEM TO: PROGRAMMING@UC.WISC.EDU
>> WELCOME BACK TO "OFFICE HOURS" WHERE WE'RE TALKING TEA PARTY POLITICS AND ELECTION 2010 WITH JOHN COLEMAN,
CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT UW-MADISON. SO, ON SEPTEMBER 14, WHICH WAS THE LAST SET OF PRIMARIES HERE,
AND CHRISTINE O'DONNELL WINS IN DELAWARE; KARL ROVE DESPONDENT; THE WHITE HOUSE
POPPING CHAMPAIGN CORKS, BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT, WOW, NOW WE HAVE SOMEONE WE CAN DIRECT OUR FIRE ON, TRY AND
NATIONALIZE THESE ELECTIONS, MAKE THE TEA PARTY A TARGET. WHY WERE THEY HAPPY? IS THAT POTENTIALLY EFFECTIVE?
>> THEY'RE HAPPY FOR TWO REASONS. ONE IS, THEY DON'T THINK SHE HAS MUCH CHANCE OF WINNING THAT SEAT
AND KARL ROVE DIDN'T EITHER, FOR THAT MATTER. THEY DID THINK THAT CASTLE WOULD WIN.
MOST FOLKS WERE ASSUMING THAT CASTLE WOULD WIN. SOME OF THE PROJECTIONS WENT FROM A 95% PROBABILITY
OF REPUBLICANS WINNING THAT SEAT, TO A 95% PROBABILITY OF THEM LOSING IT.
THAT'S ONE REASON THE WHITE HOUSE WAS HAPPY. THE OTHER IS THAT ANYTIME YOU GET A MOVEMENT LIKE THIS,
THERE'S ALWAYS THE POTENTIAL, AND NOT JUST THE POTENTIAL, BUT THE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND ODD STATEMENTS
THAT SOMEONE HAS MADE, OR JUST SOMETHING STRANGE, AND YOU'LL TRY TO TIE THAT AROUND AND LINK THAT TO EVERYONE ELSE
IN THAT PARTY, OR THAT ORGANIZATION, AND SO ON. THERE'S BEEN SOME THINGS ABOUT CHRISTINE O'DONNELL
THAT HAVE GOTTEN SOME ATTENTION. THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU TRY TO TAKE THOSE THINGS, OR THINGS THAT SHARON ENGLE AND OTHER
PEOPLE HAVE SAID, DO YOU TRY TO TAKE THOSE AND REALLY SPREAD THEM OUT AND MAKE THEM NATIONAL ISSUES?
AND IN A SENSE, A BROAD BRUSH, THAT IF YOU'RE IN A GROUP WITH PEOPLE WHO SAY THINGS LIKE THAT, DO YOU WANT TO TRUST PEOPLE
WHO ARE IN THAT GROUP? THAT'S THE QUESTION NOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, DO WE WANT TO NATIONALIZE
OR THE TYPICAL STRATEGY IN A YEAR LIKE THIS IS YOU DON'T NATIONALIZE, YOU LOCALIZE.
YOU HAVE YOUR LOCAL INCUMBENTS EXPLAINING HOW GOOD THEY'VE BEEN TO THE DISTRICT, AND HOW WELL THEY'VE REPRESENTED,
AND ALL THE SERVICES THAT THEY'VE DONE. AND YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IN OHIO, OR
INDIANA, OR IN NEVADA, TRYING TO EXPLAIN, OR TRYING TO TALK ABOUT SOMEBODY FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND SOME ODD THING
THAT THEY SAID. YOU TALK ABOUT, WHAT DID THEY DO TO MAKE SCHOOLS BETTER HERE, AND DID THEY DO TO HELP
THE ROADS, WHAT DID THEY DO TO HELP YOUR FAMILY WHEN THEY ARE NEED, AND SO ON. THAT'S THE TRADITIONAL STRATEGY
IN A DIFFICULT ELECTION YEAR LIKE THIS. MY GUESS IS THAT THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT THE PARTY
WILL END UP DOING, BECAUSE THOSE INCUMBENTS AND THE CANDIDATES, I THINK THEY REALLY WANT TO LOCALIZE THE RACES.
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS SOME OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, OBVIOUSLY. FOR THEM, THE NATIONALIZING STRATEGY MAY BE
A LITTLE MORE ATTRACTIVE. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE HOW THAT WORKS IN THE LONG RUN, REALLY, IF THE NATIONALIZING
IS SIMPLY TO POINT TO, KIND OF, WHAT YOU CHARACTERIZE AS ODD CANDIDATES HERE AND THERE. SOMEONE IN MASSACHUSETTS,
OR WASHINGTON, OR FLORIDA, DO THEY REALLY CARE WHO THE CANDIDATE IS OUT ACROSS THE COUNTRY
THAT'S SAYING SOME ODD THING? I'M NOT SO SURE THEY DO. >> WE HAVE A MINUTE LEFT, JOHN. IN FIVE YEARS, IN TEN YEARS,
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A TEA PARTY MOVEMENT? THEY SEEM TO BE MORE THAN SIMPLY THE DEMOGRAPHIC MONIKER
OF THIS YEAR, MORE THAN SOCCER MOMS OF 2010. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN?
>> WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL BE STILL CALLED THAT IN TEN YEARS.
BUT WHAT WE'LL SAY IN TEN YEARS IS THERE WAS A CONSERVATIVE ASCENDANCY WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT TRIED TO RE-DO WHAT
RONALD REAGAN AND CONSERVATIVES DID 20 YEARS, 30 YEARS EARLIER. AND WE'LL LOOK BACK AND SAY THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL, AND THEY PUSHED
THE PARTY MORE IN A CONSERVATIVE DIRECTION, OR THEY DIDN'T, THAT THE SORT OF MODERATES IN THE PARTY PUSHED BACK,
OR THEY DIDN'T MOVE. BUT I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT AN INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION.
WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT, DID THEY MOVE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THE IDEOLOGICAL DIRECTION THEY WANTED,
AS HAPPENED 30 YEARS AGO, WITH RONALD REAGAN AND THAT CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT. >> THEY'RE GOING TO SWALLOW
THE PARTY, OR THE PARTY WILL SWALLOW THEM? THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS? >> RIGHT
>> JOHN, THANKS FOR JOINING US. >> THANKS FOR HAVING ME. >> TEA PARTY POLITICS IN 2010. THANKS TO ALL OF YOU
FOR JOINING US TODAY. DON'T FORGET, "OFFICE HOURS" IS ON THE WEB VIA OUR UNIVERSITY WEB SITE, FACE BOOK OR TWITTER.
TAKE A LOOK AND LET US KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS. FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON,
THIS HAS BEEN "OFFICE HOURS." THANKS FOR STOPPING BY.
>> THE PRECEDING PROGRAM WAS PRODUCED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE BIG TEN NETWORK.