3.5Summary

The analysis of polarizing rhetorical strategies in tea party communication provided here sought to illustrate two primary things: 1) to establish and analyze the tea party phenomenon as a coherent oratorical network, 2) to describe and illustrate the use of polarizing strategies and textual structures involving the makers vs. takers dichotomy in concrete instances of communication across the network. The case study also detailed the real-world effects of these polarizing strategies for each individual orator and for the network as a whole.

Drawing on preexisting research, it was shown that the tea party oratorical network consisted of an intertwined group consisting four main nodes: libertarian political action groups, the conservative media, conservative Republican politicians, and grassroots activists. Each of these nodes had its own internal structures, motivations, and real-world goals, and each followed polarizing rhetorical strategies for its own reasons. At the same time, the mirroring and matching of polarizing strategies and texts that occurred, particularly around the makers vs. takers framework, helped constitute a common group identity around which individuals could coalesce. To put it bluntly, polarizing frameworks created the common tea party identity, and in order to be accepted as a member of the tea party in-group, an orator or orator complex had to mirror and match such rhetoric. From this perspective, the utilization of polarizing rhetorical strategies surrounding the makers vs. takers framework served two purposes: it helped individual orators, complexes, and entire nodes within the network meet their real-world goals and it allowed them to publicly associate themselves with—and thus become a part of—the tea party network.

Whether explicit (such as Rick Santelli’s rant in 2009 or the Romney/Ryan campaign in 2012) or implicit (such as in conservative media discussions about taxpayers vs. non-taxpayers, or grassroots activists worries about their money going to the “undeserving”), the polarizing makers vs. takers framework was central to tea party ideology and identity. It is thus little wonder that it can be found in a wide array of texts produced by tea party orators across the network and over time. As the analysis in this chapter showed, such texts clearly integrated the textual structures of polarization discussed in Chapter 2: they identified a dichotomous in-group and out-group, exaggerated the positions and moral standing of each, and used provocation to evoke an emotional reaction in audience members.

At the same time, there were noticeable variations in the level of provocation different nodes of the network produced in their texts. Broadly speaking, conservative media orators used significantly more provocative language surrounding the makers vs. takers dichotomy than other nodes in the network, followed by grassroots activists, Republican politicians, and political action groups. Given that provocation is central to generating the necessary emotional reaction in recipients to drive opinion polarization, it may be legitimate to say that the conservative media was the ‘most’ polarizing element of the tea party. This may have been due to the attention-getting function of polarizing rhetoric the media’s central goal of grabbing and sustaining their audience’s attention. The more ‘subtle’ polarizing textual structures often used by politicians and representatives of political action groups may also have been tied to the conditions of electoral politics and their target audiences: while conservative media orators were largely “preaching to the choir” (and could thus perhaps afford to use more provocative language), politicians in particular typically needed to appeal to a broader audience to win general elections.498 As evidenced by the many losses by tea party candidates considered by voters to be too extreme, and by the public reaction to Mitt Romney’s “47-percent” remarks in the 2012 presidential election, being seen as too polarizing was still dangerous for tea party politicians.

Finally, it is clear that the polarizing rhetorical strategies used by the oratorical network as a whole were wildly successful in meeting its real-world goals. The use of the makers vs. takers dichotomy shifted political discourse in the United States and allowed orators associated with the tea party to describe issues on their own terms. Whether it was Obamacare, foreign affairs, bailouts, or immigration, tea party orators continually framed the issues as one of makers vs. takers—of the undeserving wanting to take from members of the virtuous in-group. This directly drove the debate and discussion about government policies, earned widespread attention from the broader American public for the tea party network and its orators, and continually reconfirmed and strengthened the constituted group identity of the tea party network.

Polarization also drove the resistance to Democratic policies by increasing solidarity among those who associated with the tea party in-group and by motivating grassroots activists to organize. This, in turn, led to increased enthusiasm and electoral participation by GOP voters who had been demoralized after 2008. Over time, and with continual media coverage, polarizing rhetorical strategies (and the makers vs. takers framework) helped increase ideological polarization in the American public, and especially in Congress. During the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections, Republican politicians were compelled to take more conservative positions and to mirror and match tea party rhetoric or face challenges from the right, while Democrats and those Republicans already seen as the out-group establishment were met by derision and anger at public events. With historical electoral successes in 2010, and continued success in 2012 and 2014 (and arguably even 2016), the polarizing rhetorical strategies—and the makers vs. takers framework in particular—helped the tea party oratorical network drive U.S. politics sharply rightward, and helped its members assume leadership positions across the government.