Top critical review
49 people found this helpful
Interesting description, but with little anlaysis,
on January 12, 2012
The combination of considerable research of published materials, plus personal visits to Tea Party members and their meetings, provides an intriguing portrait of what that organization amounts to: A combination of grassroots populism, conservative, wealthy elitists and a cheering gallery consisting of the right-wing media. That the authors are confessed liberals has not prevented them from presenting a broad and compelling portrait of the Tea Party movement. What's lacking is the answer to the question, "Why has the Tea Party been so influential, unlike simmilar movements in like times in America's past?" I can remember the Roosevelt Era, when conservative figures regarded the then President much as individulas with similar political leanings look upon President Obama, and yet there was no effective attack on his political programs. Yes, he was called a socialist. With antisemitism then the fad rather than the current anti-Islamist movement, it's interesting to recall that Roosevelt's enemies referred to "that man" as Rosenfeld, just as Obama is rumored in conservative circles as being a Muslim. And, of course, the then right-wing was constantly fuming over "pump priming" and an "enormous" national debt that would be a crushing burden on future generations. Oh, yes, there were also contemporary Becks and Limbaughs, with Father Coughlin heading the charge. So, why has the Tea Party done so well with essentially the same materials and politcal atmosphere that the right-wing experienced back in the Thirties and yet accomplished so little? This otherwise excellent book barely ventures into these waters to answer that question, and that is a disappointment.