Origins and character
Bob Zadek first addressed the Tea Party movement on a show about the credit crunch, confessing that he had been ignoring it during its early phase and had thought it had little to do with him, a group of people out on the fringes. After paying attention to the principles that drive the movement, he said he found a lot more substance in it than he had expected. He described the movement as comprising, according to a recent New York Times poll, 18% of the population identifying with it, a figure he put in perspective by noting historians’ estimate that only a third of colonists were sympathetic to independence at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, with a third identifying with the Tories and a third undecided. He found remarkable similarities between the Tea Party movement and the movement for independence that created the country, while cautioning that the Tea Party is not a monolith and that he did not think there was an intentional decision to adopt the principles that drove America to independence The Credit Crunch (2010).
Zadek characterized the movement as not conservative per se, in that it does not adopt many of the socially conservative issues that are so divisive, and as not anti-government, but rather a small government movement seeking to reduce taxes. He said Americans just want to be left alone and crave independence The Credit Crunch (2010).
In a later episode, Zadek returned to the movement’s structure, describing it as not a top-down movement and naming Bill Bennett, Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich as figures who did not get together to produce a master plan. He said it sprang full-grown from the DNA of a whole lot of Americans with unusual spontaneity, and that it was the spontaneity of the movement that encouraged him. Guest Matt Welch, editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, said the movement was driving people batty because they could not find the snake’s head to cut it off, and described an American tradition, citing Thomas Jefferson’s observation that that government which governs least governs best, as having been ignored and obscenely violated over the previous 10 years at the federal and state levels, with state governments on average doubling their budgets during the period from 2002 to 2007 A Libertarian Plan (2010).
Spending, elections and the parties
Welch contrasted the “Pledge to America,” which he called a piece of crap document the Republicans tried to pass, with what he described as the very terse and 10-point, 10-sentence contract from America that emerged from Tea Party organizations, saying the little 10-point document is all about spending and restraining the size of government. He said that what was getting Tea Party participants out in the streets and mobilized in most cases was the idea that the country is spending too much money, is putting itself at risk, and is the next Greece except with a house in even worse financial order. Zadek replied that the force is not the Tea Party but the philosophy behind it, which was percolating in Americans and could not be restrained anymore, and that whichever party signs onto it first — with the Republicans having the edge — would be successful in upcoming elections. He described the parties as marketing cooperatives which only exist to get humans elected A Libertarian Plan (2010).
On a show about Afghanistan, guest Jonathan Bydlak said that during the Tea Party wave there was a strong segment of the population increasingly concerned about the national debt, growth in government and growth in spending, and that Rand Paul, when he first ran for the Senate in Kentucky in 2010, rode the coattails of the Tea Party wave, with views on growth in government a major distinguishing characteristic between Paul and his opponent. Bydlak said that for members who care about the issue it is often hard to distinguish themselves because everybody pays lip service even if they do not follow through, and that people inclined to vote for big spending often use more limited government rhetoric Rethinking Afghanistan with Jonathan Bydlak (2020).
The farm subsidy test
Zadek said he had been encouraged by the ascendancy of the Tea Party and its promise to eliminate governmental waste and cut the budget, and that the farm subsidy is a very clear target that should be cut instantly. He noted that peanut farmers in Georgia get massive subsidies, and quoted Don Kohler, executive director of the Georgia Peanut Commission, as saying that some Georgia figures talk like Tea Party candidates but that if you are from a district that has peanuts, you will not stay in Congress long if you start voting against farm bills or create problems for peanuts. Zadek asked whether Tea Partiers would cave and look to their own self-preservation in Congress and surrender their principles, calling farm subsidies the perfect litmus test because they can be cut totally with no harm to anybody except maybe the checks from the food lobbyists Farming Subsidies (2011).
Federalism and the Boston Tea Party
On a show about California and federalism, guest Frank Buckley said that much of politics is a reaction against bigness, and that the Tea Party movement during the Obama administration was an extraordinarily peaceful and neat revolt against government from Washington. He said that progressives unhappy with President Trump were mounting the left’s version of the Tea Party, and that in both cases what is objected to is a winner-take-all kind of politics in which it matters terribly who the president is because the administration wields so much power over daily life. Buckley argued that the heat and anger of politics would disappear if power were withdrawn from the federal government to the states Did California Just Declare Itself a Nation-State? (2020).
Separately, Zadek devoted the opening of a show to two events he called twin birthdays: the Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773, which he described as one of the sparks that led to armed conflict called the American Revolution, and the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. He said the Constitution would be merely the shell of a document without the Bill of Rights, and that those who defend rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom of assembly in court cite the Bill of Rights rather than the Constitution as the source of those protections Capitalism and Morality: Twin Pillars of the West (2017).
Across episodes
The excerpts show the same question — whether the Tea Party is a durable force or a spontaneous expression of a pre-existing philosophy — argued in more than one episode, with the treatment shifting over time. In 2010 Zadek framed the movement through the 18% poll figure and the analogy to colonial support for independence, and Welch supplied the contrast between the Tea Party contract and the Republican “Pledge to America” The Credit Crunch (2010) A Libertarian Plan (2010). By 2011 Zadek was testing the movement against the peanut subsidy, asking whether Tea Partiers would surrender their principles to self-preservation Farming Subsidies (2011). In 2020 Bydlak treated the Tea Party wave as a past electoral phenomenon that carried Rand Paul into the Senate, and Buckley treated it as one instance of a recurring revolt against rule from Washington, paired with progressive opposition to Trump Rethinking Afghanistan with Jonathan Bydlak (2020) Did California Just Declare Itself a Nation-State? (2020).
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not give a founding date, founding figures or formal organizational structure for the Tea Party, and Zadek explicitly says it is not a monolith and was not a top-down movement. They do not state the outcome of the 2010 elections, the contents of the Tea Party contract beyond its emphasis on spending and restraining government, or the fate of the peanut subsidy. The New York Times poll is cited only through Zadek’s description, without further detail. The show’s treatment of the Boston Tea Party of 1773 is limited to Zadek’s opening remarks and his reference to a book by Harlow Unger.