Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Reading the Tea Leaves: Understanding Tea Party Caucus Membership in the US House of Representatives

  • Bryan T. Gervais (a1) and Irwin L. Morris (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

In the summer of 2010, 52 Republican members of the US House of Representatives joined the newly formed Tea Party Caucus, bringing the first institutional voice to the Tea Party movement. To understand both the policy orientations of the organized Tea Party (in its caucus manifestation) and the institutional strength of the caucus's membership, we assess the extent to which caucus members are distinctive from their fellow Republicans in the US House of Representatives. Our results suggest that membership in the caucus is primarily driven by ideology and economics. Specifically, we find that Tea Party Caucus members are Republicans who are ideologically oriented toward limited government and lower taxes and who hail from particularly prosperous congressional districts. We find no evidence that Tea Party Caucus members serve safer districts or have greater seniority or institutional stature than their Republican colleagues who are not members of the caucus. These findings, we believe, speak not only to the nature and orientations of the Tea Party Caucus, but to the wider Tea Party movement itself.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Achen Christopher H. 1977. “Measuring Representation: Perils of the Correlation Coefficient.” American Journal of Political Science 21: 805–15.
Achen Christopher H. 1978. “Measuring Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 475510.
Ainsworth Scott H., and Akins F.. 1997. “The Informational Role of Caucuses in the U.S. Congress.” American Politics Research 25: 407–30.
Ansolabehere Stephen, and Jones Philip Edward. 2010. “Constituents' Responses to Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 54: 583–97.
Bafumi Joseph, and Herron Michael C.. 2010. “Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members of Congress.” American Political Science Review 104: 519–42.
Carson Jamie L., Lebo Matthew J., and Young Everett. 2010. “The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 54: 598616.
Fenno Richard E. Jr. 1978. Homestyle: House Members in Their Districts. New York: Scott Foresman & Company.
Hammond Susan Webb. 1998. Congressional Caucuses in National Policy Making. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Herzenhorn David. 2010. “Congress Now Has a Tea Party Caucus.” The Caucus: The Politics and Government Blog of the Times, July 20. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/congress-now-has-a-tea-party-caucus/.
Mayhew David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Menard Scott. 2001. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences). 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milbank Dana. 2010. “ComPost: Mulligan: Bachmann and Scalia, Together at Last.” The Washington Post, January 16. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/compost/2010/12/mulligan_bachmann_scalia_toget.html.
Miller Arthur, and Stokes Donald. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57: 56.
The New York Times. 2011. “Times Topics: Tea Party Movement,” topics.newyorktimes.com. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier. Last updated: January 4. [Accessed January 5, 2011].
Peltzman Samuel. 1984. “Constituent Interest and Congressional Voting.” Journal of Law & Economics 27: 181210.
Poole Keith T., and Rosenthal Howard. 1991. “Patterns of Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 228–78.
Poole Keith T., and Rosenthal Howard. 2001. “D-Nominate after 10 Years: A Comparative Update to Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll-Call Voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (1): 529.
Victor Jennifer, and Ringe Nils. 2009. “The Social Utility of Informal Institutions: Caucuses as Networks in the 110th United States House of Representatives.” American Politics Research 37 (5): 742–66.
Zernike Kate. 2010a. “Tea Party Disputes Take Toll on Convention.” The New York Times, January 25. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26teaparty.html.
Zernike Kate. 2010b. “Unlikely Activist Who Got to the Tea Party Early.” The New York Times, February 27. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/us/politics/28keli.html/.
Zernike Kate. 2010c. “Tea Party Comes to Power on an Unclear Mandate.” The New York Times, November 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03repubs.html?_r=1.
Zernike Kate, and Thee-Brenan Megan. 2010. “Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated.” The New York Times, April 14. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

PS: Political Science & Politics
  • ISSN: 1049-0965
  • EISSN: 1537-5935
  • URL: /core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 36 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 184 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.