How Tea Party rumors gain traction
Ostensibly, the Tea Party meeting I attended Tuesday night in Peachtree City was about the “cap-and-trade” climate change bill that Congress is now considering.
But a passing reference to an unrelated rumor was more interesting. And it said a lot more about the way the Tea Party rank-and-file gets worked up over things that aren’t even happening.
This week’s baseless rumor apparently is that President Obama is planning to ban protests on the National Mall. “Treason,” one Tea Partier responded when he heard that. Another yelled something about “revolution.”
Here’s the video. Below’s my explanation of why the rumor appears to be totally baseless.
The actual cap-and-trade portion of the meeting was boring. A retired CEO of the local electric membership corporation offered a one-sided account on climate change legislation: a lot of suspect numbers and scary misrepresentations. Of course, it was a article of faith that climate change actually isn’t actually happening. Basically, it was the climate change briefing you’d expect at Tea Party meeting.
But then an audience member asked for more information on “the plan to, quote, shut down all gatherings on the Washington Monument mall after this year, not allowing any more demonstrations or protests or whatever on the Washington mall after this year.”
Whoaa, I hadn’t heard that one! And, judging from the howls, neither had a lot of the audience members.
Jim Richter, who led the meeting, told the crowd the rumor was true: “Trust me. It is in the works. By executive order by our, uhm, great leader, he’s going to try to push it through. I’ve already seen a copy of the proposed regulations. … It’s against our First Amendment Rights, but they don’t give a damn what we think.”
That really got the crowd going. “Treason.” “Revolution.” And lots of jeers and cheers.
One problem, of course. There’s no evidence for the rumor.
I sent an e-mail to Richter two days later: “Do you have any more information about the ban on National Mall protests. I’d love to get a copy of that Executive Order.”
His answer: “I sent a question to the National group yesterday to see what the status of this is. I will pass the info on as soon as I receive an answer.”
So I did my own research. I sent my note straight to the source — the National Park Service, which manages the National Mall. Here’s the answer I got from an NPS spokesman:
We have no idea where that rumor came from.For nearly 100 years, it has been the mission of the National Park Service to not only preserve and protect our nation’s natural and historic resources, but also to make those areas available for use by all Americans.
On occasion, that use transcends mere education or recreation, as evidenced by the numerous First Amendment activities on the National Mall. National Park areas provide a forum in which citizens can exercise their constitutional rights, including the freedom of speech and assembly. The United States Constitution guarantees everyone the right to speak freely and to assemble peaceably, regardless of the content of their message.
In approving requests to demonstrate on the National Mall, the National Park Service is not condoning the message being delivered by their members. Rather, we are providing an arena in which they can deliver their message, the validity of which will ultimately be decided by those who hear it.
And of course we are providing the opportunity for those with a dissenting point of view to make their beliefs known as well.
The National Park Service hosts hundreds of First Amendment activities each year at nearly 400 sites across the country. Though the messages delivered are as diverse as the parks that host them, the one constant is that each of those assemblies is a living, breathing example of our nation’s democratic ideals and freedoms.
We host numerous first amendment demonstrations on the National Mall each and only ask that organizations obtain a permit and abide by the various rules and regulations.
We have no restrictions or “bans” on any groups.
Gee, that sounds pretty unequivocal. When I sent Richter a copy of the spokesman’s note, however, the story changed. This time, he wrote back that, “If I remember correctly it was the Capitol police that were proposing this restriction and I was told they report to Nancy Pelosi!”
OK, so Bogeyman #1 (Obama) isn’t involved because he’s in the Executive Branch, right? So it’s gotta be Bogeyman #2 because she supposedly controls the Capitol Police.
Richter now says he’s waiting for information from “the source” — but he’s not saying who that source was. We can all form our opinions about where the rumor came from. Somebody could have made it up whole. Somebody could have misunderstand some innocuous document somewhere. Who knows?
What’s more disturbing is the crowd’s gullibility. Two-hundred or so people left a meeting on climate change this week convinced that President Obama was signing an executive order designed to shut them up, and they were pretty darned incensed about it. It never seemed to occur to them that they were basing their fury on no evidence.
Will they ever be told their anger was founded on a baseless rumor? Would anything ever convince them it was a baseless rumor anyway?
Related posts:
- Copenhagen Day 1: EPA sends a message I’m closely following the the Copenhagen climate change summit at...
- Top 5 tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009 t was a banner year for myth making about climate...
- The top 9 non-climate-change eco-stories of 2009 My wife, my editor, my family, my dog — they...
- Georgia Tech prof engages skeptics on climate dispute The last time Georgia Tech hurricane expert Judith Curry drew...
- Tech’s Meyer: South lags on climate change plans OK, it’s not exactly a news flash. But Georgia Tech...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Comments
14 Comments on How Tea Party rumors gain traction
-
Jay Bookman on
Fri, 29th Jan 2010 3:49 pm
-
Jay Bookman on
Fri, 29th Jan 2010 3:55 pm
-
Trey Alverson on
Fri, 29th Jan 2010 6:16 pm
-
Ken Edelstein on
Fri, 29th Jan 2010 10:15 pm
-
Jay Bookman on
Sat, 30th Jan 2010 11:31 am
-
Marcy Eisenburg on
Sat, 30th Jan 2010 1:23 pm
-
Matt J. Duffy on
Sun, 31st Jan 2010 1:19 pm
-
Ken Edelstein on
Mon, 1st Feb 2010 7:53 am
-
Matt J. Duffy on
Mon, 1st Feb 2010 8:31 am
-
Trey Alverson on
Mon, 1st Feb 2010 9:26 am
-
Ken Edelstein on
Mon, 1st Feb 2010 11:18 am
-
Matt J. Duffy on
Mon, 1st Feb 2010 11:25 am
-
Ken Edelstein on
Mon, 1st Feb 2010 12:27 pm
-
Matt J. Duffy on
Tue, 2nd Feb 2010 9:09 am
Ken, they were angry before they even walked into that room. The rumor’s only purpose was to give them an excuse for it.
But of course you know that … :>)
Jay’s right of course. I’ve covered Tea Party events in Peachtree City before (but not this last one you attended). They’re always well attended and well received by the audience. And they’re always filled with incendiary half truths and baseless rumor.
The tea party movement fits well with Peachtree City’s demographics: an older, overwhelmingly white and wealthy community that has always voted strongly Republican. It has flourished thanks to white flight from south Fulton and Clayton counties.
What’s a little more confusing is that the city is extremely well served by some of the best public schools and public amenities (such as the golf cart path system and strict green space/ code enforcement) in the state. The populace is highly educated and much of the city’s residents have roots outside of the south.
That’s interesting, Trey. Sounds like you’ve got a lot more experience going to these things than I.
Regarding what Jay wrote: I’m sure it’s true that the audience was angry to the start. At the same time, it’s the endless flow of one falsehood after another that keeps the anger brewing.
Again, I’d argue for the reverse, Ken. It’s the endless flow of anger that keeps the rumors brewing.
If the rumors CAUSED the anger, you could debunk the rumors and the anger would ease. Yet that never ever happens.
The rumors are a symptom of something much deeper going on.
Trey, why is it so confusing that an educated, and diverse community, like Peachtree City, has conservative views? Peachtree City and Fayette county is about quality of life, low crime, and good schools. People of all races and backgrounds desire those things. I am a conservative, Atlanta native living just outside of Peachtree City. Where you come up with the idea that this comunity is a result of white flight, I don’t know. My next door neighbor is black, the chairman of the board of elders in my church is a black man, and Fayette county has a represenative number of black and Asian citizens. I would say that the standard of living for residents of Fayette county is one of the highest in the country, black, white and Asian. We all live here for some of the same reasons. My view of the Tea Party is one that is getting people off of their duffs and becoming more involved in the poilitical process. Maybe next time your down, you should have a look around and spend some time with some of the citizens here. We don’t bite.
Nice job, Ken.
My only caveat is to point out that extremists on both sides of the isle tend to get upset about baseless rumors. The vast majority in the middle take a much more reasoned approach to what they choose to believe.
Jay: My point is that the misinformation and anger feeds on one another.
Matt: Thanks for the compliment. I do think, however, that it it’s a bit easy to make a sweeping assertion of unsubstantiated moral equivalence between both ‘extremes.’ Some on the left have their moments of ‘baseless rumors’ (actually, some in the middle do, too). But there is no natural law ensuring a similar dose of misinformation and anger across the spectrum.
The Tea Parties are what they are: a powerful, emotional mass movement built upon ‘getting upset about baseless rumors,’ and it’s a movement that’s been adopted and prodded on at the very highest levels of the Republican Party. You show me as SIGNIFICANT and well-organized a force in the center or on the left that is built on baseless rumors.
Marcy: Thanks for your comment as well. Just one point of information. Fayette County may be increasingly diverse but the Tea Party audience I attended wasn’t. No blacks or Asians, as far as I could tell (see video). Nothing inherently wrong with that but I did want to correct the impression that may have been left by your comment.
Well, perhaps “baseless rumors” are in the eye of the beholder. Off the top of my head, I’d say baseless rumors that President Bush was going to reinstate the draft were spread by a palpable portion of the Democratic Party (a significant movement.)
Don’t get me wrong, Ken. I’m no right-wing ideologue. I just think it’s important to note that this type of behavior appears in all camps. No political ideology can claim complete freedom from nutjobs.
Marcy, I do not find it confusing that Peachtree City is home to conservatives. I do find it confusing that some of those well-educated, well-served, public education supporting conservatives seem to embrace the emotional rumor mill / anger that fuels the Tea Party movement. Remember, Fayette County voted for Romney in the 2008 primary — not Huckabee. The latter candidate won Georgia and those that supported Huckabee in ‘08 tend to more wholly embrace the 9-12/Tea Party crowd. It’s not the Austin Scott campaign signs in PTC that makes one scratch her head. It’s the Ray McBerry ones.
I do spend quite a bit of time in Peachtree City. I grew up in Fayetteville and recently moved to the Tyrone/Palmetto /Fairbrun area. While Peachtree City has some diversity, it is far whiter than its neighboring communities in Fayetteville, Tyrone, south Fulton and Clayton counties. That is not meant as an indictment. Peachtree City is certainly a nice place to live and visit, but it is naive to suggest that white flight had no part in its growth and development.
Matt: Do you really think that some politicians cudgeling Bush with the bogeyman of the draft was comparable to the entire Tea Party movement?
One was a blip of a side issue for all but a tiny fraction of people. The other is a powerful political force that has dominated the largest cable station for half a year, gets vast amounts of mainstream media attention and is bent on using any number of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to harden extreme views for millions of people. Counting the two as similar is like saying a traffic speeder is pretty much like a rapist, because they both broke the law.
I consider myself fairly moderate. But “moderation” has found itself lumped to the left in this country because of such a huge heap of extreme immoderation on the right. I think centrists perform a disservice on the public square when they strain for a false sense of “balance” as a shortcut to a true fairness.
Yes, I do think the two are comparable — they represent beliefs from the fringe element of the respective movements. To think that everyone that subscribes to the Tea Party movement must clearly embrace baseless rumors is rather stereotypical. It’s all part of a constructed “other” — those people are just so irrational, unlike “us” who are consistently well-reasoned.
This is an interesting debate, Matt. I really do appreciate the strong value you on tolerance and fairness.
By the same token, it isn’t fair to draw a false equivalence between one bit of demagoguery (of the sort that truly is practiced by both sides) and an entire powerful movement being driven by the repeated demagoguery of media figures and politicians. They’re two different things and, by my book, the leaders of the latter are through their acts more invested in unethical behavior than are leaders who occasionally stretch an argument in an unremarkable way.
Pointing out specific lies isn’t stereotyping. It’s fact checking. And raising concerns about what it’s doing to our democratic environment isn’t stereotyping either.
At what point, are all active citizens obliged to unequivocally condemn demagoguery? And must that condemnation always be followed by an equal and opposite condemnation of less reprehensible behavior on the other side?
It is an interesting debate.
I agree that fact checking is not stereotyping — and you’ve done a wonderful service to point out how *some* of these Tea Partiers want to believe that the federal government is out to get them and squelch their freedom.
That said, I think you’re making value judgments about the perceived level of demagoguery that not everyone would agree to — probably because of respective ideologies. You seem to be arguing that telling people that the government is going to end protests on the National Mall is at X level of demagoguery, while telling people that Bush is going to reinstate the draft is at X level minus ten. I’m arguing that no one would agree which one of those baseless rumors is worse than the other. It all comes down to our individual perceptions.
This reminds me of my favorite quote from Walter Lippmann which can be read here:
http://mattjduffy.com/2008/09/on-stereotypes/
I don’t think the entire Tea Party movement is being driven by demagoguery, although I’m sure that part of it is. (A point you’ve demonstrated rather effectively.) Admittedly, I haven’t been paying that much attention, but from what I understand, much of their concern is with mounting federal deficits. That is a valid concern. So, I don’t think it’s proper to dismiss the entire movement because some of its adherents hold beliefs that don’t jibe with reality. In the same vein, I would never dismiss any left-wing organizations because some of their beliefs are similarly devoid of factual grounding. I think it’s important to recognize that no political ideology holds a monopoly on purely rational thinking.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Our new website!
