Does Trump's rise prove the tea party was about race?

[Hindsight was 2020]

Jonathan Chait was on the daily show and was talking about Trump's rise and said that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is he right?

[Deblano]

The TEA Party was about very, very, very, very, very, very confused right-wing populism.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Hillary Clinton is White. So was George McGovern, who won more counties in Tennessee (to name a state WJC won and won a majority of counties in) than she did. Barack Obama was Black. He also won more counties in Tennessee than HRC2016 did, both in 2008 (during the height of the PUMA backlash) and 2012.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Indeed.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If we are going to have any hope of decent race relations in this country we have to dispel the notion that wanting less taxing has anything to do with racism.  Calvin Coolidge fought for civil rights while also being very fiscally conservative.  

[Hindsight was 2020]

If we are going to have any hope of decent race relations in this country we have to dispel the notion that wanting less taxing has anything to do with racism.  Calvin Coolidge fought for civil rights while also being very fiscally conservative.  

Okay clearly missed the point as Jonathan was arguing that it had nothing to do with taxes or gov't size and it just was about race

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

From my experience, most Tea Partiers just hated blacks who were democrats

They love Herman Cain type blacks

-Indeed. Look at Ben Carson's vote patterns in the Georgia primary. Very rural, not Black-belt focused. Same type of people who voted for Trump.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The Tea Party is fundamentally based around the ideas of the Jacksonian Democrats, which were developed before race was even a partisan issue.

[Indy Texas]

If we are going to have any hope of decent race relations in this country we have to dispel the notion that wanting less taxing has anything to do with racism.  Calvin Coolidge fought for civil rights while also being very fiscally conservative.  

If you advocate cutting programs that help the poor when non-white people are disproportionately more likely to be poor than whites are, the burden of proof is on you to prove your intentions are not racist.

[pbrower2a]

If we are going to have any hope of decent race relations in this country we have to dispel the notion that wanting less taxing has anything to do with racism.  Calvin Coolidge fought for civil rights while also being very fiscally conservative.  

Regional difference ninety years ago.

Northern industrialists had no stake in the brutal treatment of Southern blacks by Southern agrarian Democrats. The Democratic Party in the 1920s was basically a coalition of northern industrial workers (including practically all non-WASPs in the day) and Southern agrarians. The Republicans were a coalition of northern industrialists, small businessmen, and small farmers and such few blacks who actually had the vote. For blacks, the Republican party was still the Party of Lincoln, as it had been for the short era of genuine democracy in the post-Confederate South.

By 1920 Southern blacks had no say in the political process.  They could only comply, die, or flee.   

[Lincoln Republican]

No

[Adam Griffin]

From my experience, most Tea Partiers just hated blacks who were democrats

They love Herman Cain type blacks

-Indeed. Look at Ben Carson's vote patterns in the Georgia primary. Very rural, not Black-belt focused. Same type of people who voted for Trump.

Arguing that you can't be racist because you voted for a black man to represent your political cause is like arguing that you can't be racist because you hired black house-servants rear your kids.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think the fact that the TEA PARTY DOMINATED GOP nominated first ROMNEY and then TRUMP proves . . . that Jonathon Chait should stay away from analyzing Republican politics.

[BlueSwan]

The Tea Party is a protest movement and hence, at its core, it is about being angry. Who or what they are angry at is less clear, but it is clear that it is "they" not "us". "They" might be people of a different race, and often are, but not exclusively. "They" might also be gays or liberals changing the way things used to be. "They" are very often immigrants, as they are a very easy target. "They" are often those who are perceived as the "cultural elite".

Similarly, on the protest wing of the left, "they" are the "economic elite" or the "bigots".

Generally speaking, protest movements are usually, but not always, bad news for democracy. Because they are usually more about being against something which is rarely clearly understood, rather than actually being for anything. The protest movements that are beneficial for society are those that fight for something, usually for equal rights for groups who are being discriminated against.

Pragmatic Progressivism is and has always been the best way to proceed. Listen to Obama. I currently think there is very good reason to fear that the democrats will go the way of the republicans and succumb to populism.

[Intell]

The Tea Party is a protest movement and hence, at its core, it is about being angry. Who or what they are angry at is less clear, but it is clear that it is "they" not "us". "They" might be people of a different race, and often are, but not exclusively. "They" might also be gays or liberals changing the way things used to be. "They" are very often immigrants, as they are a very easy target. "They" are often those who are perceived as the "cultural elite".

Similarly, on the protest wing of the left, "they" are the "economic elite" or the "bigots".

Generally speaking, protest movements are usually, but not always, bad news for democracy. Because they are usually more about being against something which is rarely clearly understood, rather than actually being for anything. The protest movements that are beneficial for society are those that fight for something, usually for equal rights for groups who are being discriminated against.

Pragmatic Progressivism is and has always been the best way to proceed. Listen to Obama. I currently think there is very good reason to fear that the democrats will go the way of the republicans and succumb to populism.

Populist Rhetoric, is good if used in the appropriate way.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I think the fact that the TEA PARTY DOMINATED GOP nominated first ROMNEY and then TRUMP proves . . . that Jonathon Chait should stay away from analyzing Republican politics.

-The Tea Party first nominated Santorum and Gingrich, not Romney.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

From my experience, most Tea Partiers just hated blacks who were democrats

They love Herman Cain type blacks

-Indeed. Look at Ben Carson's vote patterns in the Georgia primary. Very rural, not Black-belt focused. Same type of people who voted for Trump.

Arguing that you can't be racist because you voted for a black man to represent your political cause is like arguing that you can't be racist because you hired black house-servants rear your kids.

-Both are legitimate lines of evidence for the claim.

[Lief 🗽]

Guys, if you're arguing that the only way racially-motivated voting manifests itself is whether you vote for a black or a white guy then you're being incredibly obtuse. The fact is that Trump ran a campaign founded and centered on white racial resentment. Romney did not, McCain did not.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If we are going to have any hope of decent race relations in this country we have to dispel the notion that wanting less taxing has anything to do with racism.  Calvin Coolidge fought for civil rights while also being very fiscally conservative.  

If you advocate cutting programs that help the poor when non-white people are disproportionately more likely to be poor than whites are, the burden of proof is on you to prove your intentions are not racist.

I really want to help people.  I'm just convinced that capitalism is the right way to go about doing this.

If we are going to have any hope of decent race relations in this country we have to dispel the notion that wanting less taxing has anything to do with racism.  Calvin Coolidge fought for civil rights while also being very fiscally conservative.  

Regional difference ninety years ago.

Northern industrialists had no stake in the brutal treatment of Southern blacks by Southern agrarian Democrats. The Democratic Party in the 1920s was basically a coalition of northern industrial workers (including practically all non-WASPs in the day) and Southern agrarians. The Republicans were a coalition of northern industrialists, small businessmen, and small farmers and such few blacks who actually had the vote. For blacks, the Republican party was still the Party of Lincoln, as it had been for the short era of genuine democracy in the post-Confederate South.

By 1920 Southern blacks had no say in the political process.  They could only comply, die, or flee.   

That is certainly true, but I feel confident in saying that if the 14th and 15th amendments were fully enforced in 1920, you wouldn't have found very many blacks in Mississippi voting Democrat.  And the people who cared about civil rights at that time were much more likely to be Republicans than Democrats.  The Republicans were clearly the better party on civil rights at the time.  Of course, many Democrats stood up to their party on civil rights in the following decades, and many Republicans shamefully took advantage of the split between Northern and Southern Democrats.

[JerryArkansas]

Guys, if you're arguing that the only way racially-motivated voting manifests itself is whether you vote for a black or a white guy then you're being incredibly obtuse. The fact is that Trump ran a campaign founded and centered on white racial resentment. Romney did not, McCain did not.

This.  It really doesn't matter if you voted for a black guy.  You can still be a racist pos.  They aren't mutually exclusive things

[Comrade Funk]

Considering that the supposed "libertarians" in the Tea Bagger (lol) movement willingly support a toddler with fascist tendencies these days, it's likely the only reason there was so much vitriol in 2009 was probably Obama's race.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Considering that the supposed "libertarians" in the Tea Bagger (lol) movement willingly support a toddler with fascist tendencies these days, it's likely the only reason there was so much vitriol in 2009 was probably Obama's race.

The only reason some libertarians voted for Trump was because they thought he would end the neocon foreign policy of his predecessors.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Guys, if you're arguing that the only way racially-motivated voting manifests itself is whether you vote for a black or a white guy then you're being incredibly obtuse. The fact is that Trump ran a campaign founded and centered on white racial resentment. Romney did not, McCain did not.

This.  It really doesn't matter if you voted for a black guy.  You can still be a racist pos.  They aren't mutually exclusive things

I mean, maybe this is proof I'm an amoral political type, but does it really matter what they think deep down if they at least vote the right way?  Like, in a level that is personal to me, a lot of Labour's traditional, elderly voters probably think transpeople are gross or weird, but I would be beyond furious if the leadership effectively wrote them off as UKIP voters or whatever. It's the nature of political coalition building.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Considering that the supposed "libertarians" in the Tea Bagger (lol) movement willingly support a toddler with fascist tendencies these days, it's likely the only reason there was so much vitriol in 2009 was probably Obama's race.

The only reason some libertarians voted for Trump was because they thought he would end the neocon foreign policy of his predecessors.

Causally talking about dropping nukes in Isis don't tip them off?

[Comrade Funk]

Considering that the supposed "libertarians" in the Tea Bagger (lol) movement willingly support a toddler with fascist tendencies these days, it's likely the only reason there was so much vitriol in 2009 was probably Obama's race.

The only reason some libertarians voted for Trump was because they thought he would end the neocon foreign policy of his predecessors.

More hawkish on Iran, Cuba, China. Bullsh**t.

Only dovish with Putin and his lackey Assad. Wonder why

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Considering that the supposed "libertarians" in the Tea Bagger (lol) movement willingly support a toddler with fascist tendencies these days, it's likely the only reason there was so much vitriol in 2009 was probably Obama's race.

The only reason some libertarians voted for Trump was because they thought he would end the neocon foreign policy of his predecessors.

More hawkish on Iran, Cuba, China. Bullsh**t.

Only dovish with Putin and his lackey Assad. Wonder why

-Compare the runner-up for the Republican nomination, lyin' Ted Cruz, on these issues. No wonder I voted Trump.