Paradigm

12 years ago, the Senate of the 111th Congress had 11 Democrats representing states won

by Republican John McCain in the most recent presidential election and 10 Republicans

representing states won by Democrat Barack Obama. On the other hand, the Senate of the

currently serving 117th Congress has 3 Democrats representing states won by Donald Trump in

the most recent presidential election and 3 Republicans representing states won by Joe Biden. In

a span of 12 years, then, the number of Senators representing a state that voted for a different

party in the presidential election decreased by 15, from 21 to 6. This comes at the same time as

news that America is becoming increasingly politically polarized. Anyone who has paid attention

to American politics over the last few years knows how incredibly polarized it is. Despite having

scientific consensuses on one side, topics like climate change and coronavirus vaccines become

political opinions. Political polarization is incredibly dangerous. Just earlier this year,

insurrectionists attempted a coup on the federal government in response to the 2020 presidential

election, and deaths from the coronavirus have recently crosses 770,000. Not only is American

democracy in danger due to intense polarization, but so are American lives. How did we get to

this point? Let’s examine the 111th Congress again, assuming that there is a connection between

the ”crossover” states and political polarization. The Congress was elected concurrently with

Barack Obama in 2008. Therefore, we can conclude that the change happened sometime after

Obama’s election. Due to the Senate’s long 6-year terms, change in membership happens slowly.

It took until after the 2014 elections for every member of the Senate to have been elected after

the 2008 elections. Since these Senators’ terms finally expired in 2020, we can assume that the

major change from 2008 to 2020 can be localized between 2008 and 2014. The most important

political change over this time period was the Tea Party Movement, a conservative reaction to
the election of Barack Obama. Therefore, the increase in political polarization in recent

American history can be tied to the Tea Party movement that occurred during the early years of

Obama’s presidency.

The Tea Party primarily began as a fiscally conservative movement within the

Republican Party, focused on lowering taxes and reducing government spending. In fact, the

name itself is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already. However, the roots of the movement go

deeper than fiscal conservatism or a reaction to Obama. It was also a rejection of the Republican

establishment embodied by previous presidential candidates George W. Bush and John McCain.

In this way, it was also a libertarian movement, prioritizing escaping big government more than

any ideological goals. This can be seen by how even though members of the movement were

more likely to identify as Republican, 43% still had an unfavorable view of Republicans. In

addition to this, the movement’s membership had similar demographic trends: they were older,

whiter, more Evangelical, and more wealthy than the average population (Zeskind 2011). These

were all people who had much in common before the movement picked up steam. Social

conservatism also seemed to be a common factor among tea party identifiers. They also tended to

have white nationalist and anti-immigrant views (Zeskind 2011). With these factors in mind, it

makes sense that they would unite against Barack Obama, a black President with goals of

government funded economic stimulus and healthcare reform. And indeed, the Tea Party largely

was a reaction to President Obama. The former president ran his campaign on change, adding

young and minority votes to his base, promoting egalitarian policies to reduce economic

inequality. This type of change threatened to unsettle the socioeconomic status quo and unsettled

the Tea Party base, eventually convincing them to coalesce into a unified movement against him.

Support for the president among Congresspeople newly elected in the wake of the Tea Party in
2010 was far lower than expected compared to past presidents. Tea Party supporters have

consistently held more negative opinions about Obama than any other group, and have attacked

his name, family, patriotism, and his nationality. In addition, it is important to note that fiscal

conservatism, while being the stated primary goal of the movement, was not always valued.

Since members of the Tea Party tend to be older than the average American, they benefit more

from social welfare programs such as Medicare and Social Security, and this is mirrored by Tea

Party support for those institutions despite their cost (Fisher 2015). Therefore, there is an

argument to be made that the Tea Party was more of a social conservative and anti-Obama

movement than a fiscal conservative movement. Nonetheless, it is clear that the movement did

help Republicans win elections. After the 2010 midterm elections, the peak of Tea Party electoral

success, in which Republicans won control of the House of Representatives and gained a net of

63 seats, there were 53 members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House and 4 in the Senate.

Having members in the Senate at all is quite a notable feat, given the Senate’s less reactionary

and more moderate politics. And a 53-member caucus is quite notable in the House, as it was

more than 1/5th the entire Republican caucus and was one of the largest ideological caucuses in

the House itself. In fact, a statistical analysis of Tea Party activity in Congress by Ragusa and

Gaspar found that the Tea Party often acted like its own distinct political party in how it

consistently voted as a bloc and was able to set its own agenda, separate from the Republican

Party. In fact, the Republican Party often times followed the agenda set by the Tea Party Caucus.

And this change was not a temporary one that only lasted for the duration of the Tea Party

movement. What we saw was a noticeable shift in the amount of power wielded by the right

wing of the party compared to the more moderate establishment wing. The Tea Party movement

had a lasting effect on shifting Republican politics to the right, turning the Tea Party ideology
into the mainstream Republican ideology (Medzihorsky et al. 2014). Therefore, it is clear that the

Tea Party movement was a coalition of older, whiter, Evangelical Americans over social

conservative, fiscal conservative, and libertarian ideals that permanently influenced the

mainstream ideology of the Republican Party.

There is no doubt that the Tea Party and its remnants have affected the Republican Party

to this day. The US debt ceiling is a great example of the short- and long-term effects of the Tea

Party on the Republican Party. The limit on how much the federal government can borrow has

historically been raised over a hundred times, almost always on a bipartisan basis. Many of the

partisan fights over it have occurred since the Tea Party Era though. In 2011, the Republican

Party negotiated a budget decrease as part of a debt ceiling increase. This fight was extremely

bitter and one of the early examples of political brinkmanship in this new era of political

polarization. The United States’ credit was lowered for the first time, and the stock market took a

large hit. Just 2 years later, there was another crisis as Republicans demanded the Affordable

Care Act, Obama’s landmark healthcare initiative, be defunded in exchange for another debt

ceiling increase. While the debt ceiling was again increased, the US’ credit rating was once again

downgraded, and this event was the beginning of the end for the Tea Party. While the Tea Party

had not been as active since 2010, they were still a major force in American politics. However,

most Americans disapproved of the way Republicans handled the debt crisis, and the Tea Party

began to reach new lows in popularity. Finally, in 2021, once the official Tea Party movement

was long dead, there was yet another debt ceiling crisis. While this crisis is yet unresolved, it is

another example of how Republicans became the party of “fiscal responsibility” during the Tea

Party movement. Even though the movement was long dead, fiscal conservatism was still an

important part of Republican ideology, hence the fight over the debt ceiling yet again. More
aspects of the Tea Party have stuck around than just the fiscal conservatism. Anti-establishment

and anti-immigration views are both key hallmarks of the Republican Party today. President

Trump won the primary and the general election running as an outsider that would “drain the

swamp” of the corrupt Washington establishment. In addition, Trump also used heavy

xenophobic rhetoric, winning lots of support among ex-Tea Party members who shared his anti-

immigrant views. And as we know, Trump practically has an iron grip on the Republican Party

today, so his views are the views of the Republican Party. Even Trump, to a certain extent, is a

product of the Tea Party Movement. A Democrat until 2009, Trump shares the social

conservative views common among Tea Party members even if he is not truly a fiscal

conservative. Nonetheless, he harnessed the Tea Party base and used similar strategies such as

populism to be elected. However, it is interesting to point out the demographic changes that

occurred during Trump’s reign over the Republican Party. While older and whiter voters are still

very Republican, wealthier individuals shifted to Democratic voters during this time, while

poorer individuals became Republicans. This is the opposite of the Tea Party demographic, as

members of the Tea Party movement were for the most part wealthier than the general

population. While we are seeing a reversal in election results so far since Trump’s departure, it is

still too early to say if this is a pattern. Either way, Trump would have caused the most notable

demographic shift of Republicans since the Tea Party movement itself. The point remains,

however, that the Tea Party movement has shifted the Republican Party to the right. In doing so,

it has also shifted the Democratic Party to the left. After the 2008 elections, Democrats

controlled both the ideological left and the ideological center, as well as a little of the ideological

right (Bohrer 2009). However, the Tea Party movement allowed Republicans to take back the

ideological right, pushing Democrats further left. This has led to less political crossover between
parties. With less common ground between parties, it is only natural that there is more

partisanship between them. An important point is that these changes start at a national level and

work down to a more local level. For example, in the Senate, the most conservative Democrat,

Joe Manchin from West Virginia, is still more liberal than the most liberal Republican, Susan

Collins from Maine. However, if we look at state governors, Massachusetts’ Republican

governor Charlie Baker is most likely more liberal than Louisiana’s Democratic governor John

Bel Edwards. This effect will be even more magnified at more local levels. This is not

particularly good news, however. State politics is still very polarized, just slightly less so than

national politics.

There is absolutely no doubt that American politics is extremely polarized. There is very

little bipartisanship on a party level, and individuals truly believe that the other party is trying to

destroy the country. This bitter partisanship began with the Tea Party movement in 2009. As a

coalition of older, whiter, more Evangelical, and wealthier voters than the rest of the country, the

Tea Party attempted to oppose President Obama’s agenda with fiscal conservative, social

conservative, and libertarian ideologies. The Tea Party began the streak of partisanship by

strongly opposing Obama, stronger than any other group in Congress, and taking control of the

Republican Party. Though they only lasted for a few years, their effect on politics was long

lasting. They left a “fiscally responsible” mindset on the Republican Party, leading them to

become the main opposition to Democrats’ spending plans. It also started an anti-establishment

and anti-immigrant strain in the Republican Party that was exacerbated by President Trump’s

2016 campaign. It also contributed to intense polarization by defeating conservative Democrats

and primarying liberal Republicans. With this system, both parties were left more ideologically

divided than ever before. What is the solution to this problem? It is hard to believe, but it could
be for more independents to join political parties. According to a 538 article by Geoffrey

Skelley, moderates with an ideological tilt not belonging to a political party actually contributes

to polarization. If moderates are independent, only the most radical partisans are actually party

members, which pushes the party to the wing. In addition, a common enemy could also serve to

unite Americans. Some of the few widely bipartisan bills passed by Congress have been in

response to China, whether it is censuring them or investing in science so America can compete

better with China. Either way, it is a clear sign that there are indeed ways to escape the political

polarization imposed on America after the Tea Party movement in 2009. If we can overcome this

and begin to work with others again, America will be able to focus on fixing domestic problems

as well as international threats, and our reputation among the rest of the world will finally be

restored to levels not seen in decades. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we stop

seeing the other side as the enemy and start trying to work with our fellow Americans instead.
 Works Cited

Bohrer, John R. “Because Bipartisanship Is Dead until 2011: A Defense of Senate Moderates.”

HuffPost, HuffPost, 30 November 2009, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/because-

bipartisanship-is_b_305366.

Fisher, Patrick. “The Tea Party and the Demographic and Ideological Gaps Within the

Republican Party.” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, vol. 7, no. 2,

Addleton Academic Publishers, 2015, pp. 13–31, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26805940.

Medzihorsky, Juraj, et al. “Has the Tea Party Era Radicalized the Republican Party? Evidence

from Text Analysis of the 2008 and 2012 Republican Primary Debates.” PS: Political

Science and Politics, vol. 47, no. 4, [American Political Science Association, Cambridge

University Press], 2014, pp. 806–12, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43284650.

Ragusa, Jordan M., and Anthony Gaspar. “Where’s the Tea Party? An Examination of the Tea

Party’s Voting Behavior in the House of Representatives.” Political Research Quarterly,

vol. 69, no. 2, [University of Utah, Sage Publications, Inc.], 2016, pp. 361–72,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/44018016.

Skelley, Geoffrey. “Few Americans Who Identify as Independent Are Actually Independent.

That's Really Bad for Politics.” FiveThirtyEight, FiveThirtyEight, 15 Apr. 2021,

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/few-americans-who-identify-as-independent-are-

actually-independent-thats-really-bad-for-politics/.
Zeskind, Leonard. “A Nation Dispossessed: The Tea Party Movement and Race.” Critical

Sociology, vol. 38, no. 4, 2012, pp. 495–509., https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920511431852.