TRUTH: The TEA Party Is Not Who The Media Says They Are

Yale Professor Discovers He Suffers From Refusal To Accept Objective Reality

The media, President Obama and his political operatives, as well as members of both the “establishment” Parties have all been telling lies about the people who identify with the TEA Party movement.  It’s possible that we should excuse the layman who doesn’t bother to learn who the TEA Party is or what they believe – especially given that the average person gets their information from one or more of the above named sources.  But for those above named sources – sources who know full well who the TEA Party is and what they believe – there is no excuse.  They are simply lying to the American people.  And now, a Yale professor has discovered he has been lying to himself and what has he concluded?  He has decided that it doesn’t change anything; he’s still going to hate the TEA Party.

Here’s the story:

Yale Professor ‘Embarrassed’ to Discover Tea Party Members are Scientifically Literate

You know that line liberals love to lob at the Tea Party: you’re stupid.  Well, obviously that’s not the case, nor has it ever been true.  Now, a Yale professor has released some new research showing that the so-called “Tea Party radicals” are actually scientifically literate.

Professor Dan M. Kahan of the psychology department at Yale says he was surprised to discover a positive correlation between science comprehension and members of the Tea Party:

There is a lot to digest in this story.  First, notice that the professor admits he went into his study expecting to find what he already “knew” to be true: that the TEA Party was scientifically illiterate (in the professor’s circles, this is a euphemism for mentally inferior). If this were not the case, then why would the professor admit to being “surprised” by his findings?  The answer is simple: the professor had a pre-conceived bias even before he started his study.  However, there is a bright spot.  The professor admitted his findings disagreed with his bias, which does indicate some level of intellectual honesty.  But before we grant him too much credit, let’s look first at the results of Professor Kahan’s study:

Some data on education, religiosity, ideology, and science comprehension

More specifically, look at the comments at the bottom of the story.  You will notice many of them deal with ways the professor could run the study again only with different criteria by which to measure ‘scientific literacy.’  In other words, the commenter’s are suggesting ways to confirm their bias by structuring the study to produce the desired result.  Mind you, these are the people who present themselves as ‘scientists.’

In truth, one cannot be a scientist if one first draws a conclusion and then conducts a study.  This is the exact opposite of how the scientific method works.  A real scientist develops a hypothesis; then constructs a balanced test by which to measure that hypothesis; conducts the test as neutrally and honestly as possible; evaluates the data in like vein; and only then does the real scientist draw a conclusion.  And having drawn that conclusion, the true scientist goes in whatever direction the data indicates the truth lays.  So, did professor Kahan go in the direction that his data suggested?  Well, if we return to the first story, we’ll find the answer is no:

“I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.”

“Of course, I still subscribe to my various political and moral assessments–all very negative– of what I understand the “Tea Party movement” to stand for. I just no longer assume that the people who happen to hold those values are less likely than people who share my political outlooks to have acquired the sorts of knowledge and dispositions that a decent science comprehension scale measures.”

In other words, the professor still holds to his previous bias about the TEA Party, even though his study indicates the average TEA Party member is more scientifically literate (i.e. more intelligent) than the non-TEA Party person.  Only now the professor thinks of himself as a better person because he no longer thinks of the TEA Party as scientifically ignorant.  No, now he thinks of them as scientifically literate but still stupid.  It’s too bad the professor didn’t bother to do some simple research on the internet before he started his study.  Had he done so, he might have found this:

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public,…

Or he may have found this:

Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe


Or he may have found this:

Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics

Skew right politically, but have typical profile by age, education, and employment


This is why I say that the people in the media, government and both Parties are deliberately lying about who the TEA Party is and what they want.  They know better, they just have to destroy the movement.

Now, one might think that, if you have a movement that is smarter, better educated and informed and more successful than the average American, you wouldn’t dismiss it, you would listen to it.  After all, the data would indicate the members of that movement are doing something correctly, so why not try to learn from it.  But is this what we are seeing from the establishment?  No!  And why not?  Well, there’s the rub.  The truth is this:

The TEA Party represents something the establishment honestly fears: a credible threat to their hold on power from a true grass-roots movement that is not beholden to or controlled by either Party front and which does not respond to any of the established propaganda mills controlled by the establishment.

In other words: the TEA Party represents true Americans looking to take their country back, and the establishment simply cannot deal with the fact that this means they and their ideas have been rejected.  Nor can they accept that the people who are demanding the return of their country demonstrate by their success that their ideas are – in fact – superior to those of the establishment’s self-proclaimed elite.  It’s that simple, and that’s why this professor refuses to follow the data from his own study.  He would rather hold the delusion of his own superiority than accept objective reality.  And this is why they have to destroy the movement: because they cannot accept that they are wrong.

The really frightening (and sobering) part here is that this man is a professor at Yale University, and that Yale and Harvard have produced most of the people who now control and run this nation.


7 thoughts on “TRUTH: The TEA Party Is Not Who The Media Says They Are

  1. Well, I never assumed anything about the literacy, education or wealth of Tea Party supporters. I merely observe that members of Congress that align with that movement are less willing to accept the process of compromise and consensus required for any democracy to function. That’s a refutation of the rule of law.

    So, I consider Tea Party supporters to be ethically deficient, either intentionally or out of ignorance. The tone of disrespect communicated by using phrases like “taking the country back”, as if someone stole it, as opposed to winning elections legally, is unavoidably offensive.

    1. Mickey,

      The problem with your comment is that it is not the Republican side that has boasted it will not compromise and then followed it up with action, it is OBAMA who has done this.

      Also, it is NOT a negation of the rule of law to not compromise. In fact, compromise is actually the negation of PRINCIPLE! So, from your own words, are we safe to assume you have no principles — since you express a desire for compromise?

      Which then means that it is not the TEA Party which is ethically deficient, it is the American Left.

      And it is difficult to claim that the Left won elections when they have so many dead voters and voters who brag about voting many times. There is clear and persistent evidence that — in a truly fair election — most Leftists would lose their elections. Which then means that the nation has been stolen, and again, the Left is the guilty party.

      Besides, the last national election placed the TEA Party in office to do exactly what they are trying to do, and the polls show the majority of American approve. Which means the Left is — again — opposing the democratic principle (i.e. the will of the people)

      None of this is “my opinion;” it is all logical extension derived from the proper understanding of definitions.

  2. You misread and/or misunderstood my reaction. I said “less willing to accept the process of compromise and consensus”. Less. I didn’t say Obama or any other party wasn’t also guilty of being hard-headed. But the Tea Party guys were, are, and have been LESS willing to compromise IN ORDER TO REACH CONSENSUS.

    Saying that a willingness to compromise is a negation of principle is easily dismissed. It depends on what your principle is! If your principle is to maintain ideological purity and orthodoxy, even above doing the job of making and passing laws, that is evidence of bad faith and a violation of the contract a public servant has with voters and constituents.

    It’s consensus you must have for anything to move forward, and compromise is a prerequisite to reach it. You give something, and then the other side gives something. The Tea Party wasn’t willing to accept that “Obamacare” was passed, adjudicated, and was a core topic of three national elections. The President and the Dems compromised by accepting a lower spending level than they wanted. The senate compromised and passed a budget months ago. It was ONLY the Tea Party members, not even the majority of Republicans, who would not compromise their “principle” (it’s a law, but we don’t like it so we will obstruct normalcy any way we can) to disburse funds and continue governing. Every member of Congress involved in that heinous action deserves the loss of their job, at minimum.

    Perhaps they should be tried for sedition. Nah, I’ll compromise. I’m willing to wait until the mid-terms and let the matter be settled in elections.

    1. Once again: compromise and consensus are the negation of principle; the negation of principle is how we got here. Thus, you are advocating more of how we got here. So count me among those who will not compromise to reach consensus of wrong with you.

  3. ” I merely observe that members of Congress that align with that movement are less willing to accept the process of compromise and consensus required for any democracy to function” mickey

    This belief is where this country has run-a-foul.
    Firstly, compromise is needed, but I refuse to give it when it goes against my principles and as Joe said, paraphrase- too much of that has happened and that’s why we are where we are.
    Secondly, I firmly believe we can “function” just fine with a lot less government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s