Is the tea party really a big deal?

Judging by media reports, the tea party could play a big role in the upcoming midterm elections. The tea party, which developed largely in response to the Wall Street Bailout, stimulus package, and healthcare reform, is not a registered party and does not have a fixed ideology, but it tends to represent far-right positions, both socially and fiscally.

Despite the attention the tea party has received, this front-page article in The Washington Post questions the movement’s effectiveness. First, The Post spent months contacting every known tea party organization. In all The Post was able to verify 647 groups, a number short of the thousands of groups some tea party organizations claim exist. Furthermore, 70 percent of the groups that The Post contacted said they have not participated in any political campaigning; they don’t have platforms, don’t support specific candidates, and don’t have a lot of money on hand. So, The Post suggests the tea party’s real power may be inflated.

The claim that the tea party’s power is overstated appears to fit with Downs’ model of voting and party ideology. If we assume the US electorate has a unimodal and symmetric distribution of preferences, it means the majority of the electorate is near the middle of the political spectrum, which is far from the far-right tea party ideologies. Simply put, the tea party represents a small portion of the population, meaning their influence is already muted.

Nevertheless, what if tea party activists turn out en masse on Election Day, while moderates abstain from voting? Downs would still be skeptical of the tea party’s impact, because even if voters abstain, his model suggests the sheer number of moderates would outnumber the tea party, even if a lot of moderates don’t vote.

Additionally, the tea party’s lack of organization embodies a situation where there are many small firms and individuals. It appears the individual cost of organizing is higher than the individual benefit, even if the total group activity would be beneficial in the long run. Perhaps this explains why tea party activists don’t have a clear blueprint for government, but appear to be simply united by their opposition to President Obama and the Democratic agenda, which throws the tea party’s effectiveness on Election Day into further doubt.

Nobody questions that the tea party has altered the political landscape and contributed to the rise of a new generation of conservative politicians. But if the empirical data suggests the tea party’s effectiveness is overstated, why does it continue to get heavy media attention? Is the media spending too much time focusing on the people who are simply the most vocal? Is some other factor at work?