Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-xbbwl Total loading time: 0.264 Render date: 2021-03-04T09:44:18.770Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Has the Tea Party Era Radicalized the Republican Party? Evidence from Text Analysis of the 2008 and 2012 Republican Primary Debates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Juraj Medzihorsky
Affiliation:
Central European University
Levente Littvay
Affiliation:
Central European University
Erin K. Jenne
Affiliation:
Central European University

Abstract

Much ink has been spilled to describe the emergence and likely influence of the Tea Party on the American political landscape. Pundits and journalists declared that the emergence of the Tea Party movement pushed the Republican Party to a more extreme ideological position, which is generally anti-Washington. To test this hypothesis, we analyzed the ideological positions taken by candidates in the 2008 and 2012 pre-Iowa caucus Republican presidential-primary debates. To establish the positions, we used the debate transcripts and a text-analytic technique that placed the candidates on a single dimension. Findings show that, overall, the 2012 candidates moved closer to an anti-Washington ideology—associated with the Tea Party movement—and away from the more traditional social conservative Republican ideology, which was more salient in the 2008 debates. Both Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, the two candidates who ran in both elections, shifted significantly in the ideological direction associated with the Tea Party.

Type
Features
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2011. “Partisan Polarization and the Rise of the Tea Party Movement.” 2011 APSA Annual Meeting Paper.
Arceneaux, Kevin, and Nicholson, Stephen P.. 2012. “Who Wants to Have a Tea Party? The Who, What, and Why of the Tea Party Movement.” PS: Political Science and Politics 45(4): 700–10.Google Scholar
Barreto, M., Cooper, B., Gonzalez, B., Parker, C., and Towler, C.. 2011. “The Tea Party in the Age of Obama: Mainstream Conservatism or Out-Group Anxiety?Political Power and Social Theory 22: 105–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceron, Andrea. 2012. “Bounded Oligarchy: How and When Factions Constrain Leaders in Party Position-Taking.” Electoral Studies 31(4): 689701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceron, Andrea. 2014. “Gamson Rule Not for All: Patterns of Portfolio Allocation among Italian Party Factions.” European Journal of Political Research 53(1): 180–99.
Feinerer, Ingo. 2013. “tm: Text Mining Package.” R Package Version 0.5–8.3.
Gervais, Bryan T., and Morris, Irwin L.. 2012. “Reading the Tea Leaves: Understanding Tea Party Caucus Membership in the US House of Representatives.” PS: Political Science and Politics 45(2): 245–50.Google Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, and Stewart, Brandon M.. 2013. “Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts.” Political Analysis 21(3): 267–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2011. “The President, the Tea Party, and Voting Behavior in 2010: Insights from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.” Available at Social Science Research Network 1907251.
Karpowitz, C., Monson, J., Patterson, K., and Pope, J.. 2011. “Tea Time in America? The Impact of the Tea Party Movement on the 2010 Midterm Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44(2): 303–9.Google Scholar
Klüver, Heike. 2009. “Measuring Interest Group Influence Using Quantitative Text Analysis.” European Union Politics 10(4): 535–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klüver, Heike. 2011. “The Contextual Nature of Lobbying: Explaining Lobbying Success in the European Union.” European Union Politics 12(4): 483506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klüver, Heike. 2012. “Biasing Politics? Interest Group Participation in EU Policy-Making.” West European Politics 35(5): 1114–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libby, Ronald T. 2013. Purging the Republican Party: Tea Party Campaigns and Elections. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Livne, A., Simmons, M. P., Adar, E., and Adamic, L. A.. 2011. “The Party Is over Here: Structure and Content in the 2010 Election.” Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM 2011.Google Scholar
Louwerse, Tom. 2012. “Mechanisms of Issue Congruence: The Democratic Party Mandate.” West European Politics 35(6): 1249–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, Will. 2013. “Austin: Do Things with Words.” R Package Version 0.2.
Mead, , Russell, Walter. 2011. “Tea Party and American Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 90(2): 2844.Google Scholar
Meyer, David, Hornik, Kurt, and Feinerer, Ingo. 2008. “Text Mining Infrastructure in R.” Journal of Statistical Software 25(5): 154.Google Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B.. 2009. “How to Avoid Pitfalls in Statistical Analysis of Political Texts: The Case of Germany.” German Politics 18(3): 323–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver. 2010. “Position Taking in European Parliament Speeches.” British Journal of Political Science 40(3): 587611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sven-Oliver, Proksch, Slapin, Jonathan B., and Thies, Michael. 2011. “Party System Dynamics in Post-War Japan: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Electoral Pledges.” Electoral Studies 30(1): 114–24.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2013. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Slapin, Jonathan B., and Proksch, Sven-Oliver. 2008. “A Scaling Model for Estimating Time-Series Party Positions from Texts.” American Journal of Political Science 52(3): 705–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Vanessa, Skocpol, Theda, and Coggin, John. 2011. “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.” Perspectives on Politics 9(1): 2543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zernike, Kate. 2010. Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America. New York: Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar

Medzihorsky supplementary material

Supplementary table 6

File 14 KB

Medzihorsky supplementary material

Supplementary table 5

File 15 KB

Medzihorsky supplementary material

Supplementary data

File 16 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 67
Total number of PDF views: 266 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 4th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Has the Tea Party Era Radicalized the Republican Party? Evidence from Text Analysis of the 2008 and 2012 Republican Primary Debates
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Has the Tea Party Era Radicalized the Republican Party? Evidence from Text Analysis of the 2008 and 2012 Republican Primary Debates
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Has the Tea Party Era Radicalized the Republican Party? Evidence from Text Analysis of the 2008 and 2012 Republican Primary Debates
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *