Professor Andrew Rojecki's Lecture on the Politics of Insecurity

When Professor Rojecki's lecture started I was immediately interested. Since President Obama's election in 2009 there have been many changes; the Tea Party is one of them. My beliefs prior to this lecture was that movements like the Tea Party did not exist prior to Barack Obama's election, and that the nature of the rhetoric and beliefs being sent from the Tea Party are heavily based on right-wing Evangelical Christian beliefs and the president's race.

Professor Rojecki's lecture related to several topics we have already discussed in class. He started out his lecture by breaking down societal functions such as work, bureaucracy, and politics. These three societal functions have built up American's perception of how they should function in our country. With our country growing and changing rapidly with technology, perception changes as well. Differences in perception results in the growth of politics. Movements like the Tea Party have grown because one side of the political spectrum perception of what the bureaucracy should look like and do differs from what was elected in 2009. The Tea Party has mastered the politics of insecurity by using salience, interpretation, framing, schemas, and stereotypes to grow and last as a movement. For example, Tea Party leaders use framing techniques in order to make voters vote for them out of fear. Conservative politicians often use lingering anxiety from 9/11 to build themselves up as terrorism fighters and believers in strong national defense. Right-wing politicians also use salience to frame opposing ideas as "socialism" or "communism" even if those labels are falsehoods. Even though they are falsehoods, they have been successful because most Tea Party supporters are older citizens who have lived through the Cold War when communism was a popular ideology across the globe. The labeling of opposing ideologies go hand-in-hand with stereotypes and prejudices as well. A possible reason why more centrist or left-leaning policies are being labeled that way is because their goal is to help people of ethnic groups who are seen as threats by the Tea Party's core. This is where the lecture gets into verbal communication.

The Tea Party's use of verbal communication centers mainly on codes. Professor Rojecki repeatedly brought up how minorities are never mentioned by name, but rather as "poor people" or "illegal immigrants." This relates to codes because if they were to come out and blatantly say Black people and Mexicans, even individuals outside of the movement would know exactly who they are talking about and would be angered and inclined to do something about that. He also brought up the fact that any policies that involved sacrifice from others to benefit everyone was immediately labeled "socialism." The growth of the internet has also done no justice itself. It has allowed anyone to say anything and spread it instantly, and has created an atmosphere where you can't be in the middle. Now it is just people attacking others instead of everyone coming together for a solution. The part that struck me the most was when Rojecki brought up the "culture wars." Culture wars brings me to ethics.

The idea of big government, and any culture war, whether it be gay marriage or women's rights, all boils down to ethics. The Tea Party is a group mainly composed of old Caucasian men who are used to a country that is governed by their ethics and their past generation's ethics. Now that a new generation is coming under them, they are very insecure that the future governments controlling America will not be governed by their ethics. This is how the Tea Party as a movement is a giant contradiction down to every single one of their ideologies; mainly their opposition to "big government." They are not entirely against big government. Many in the movement are at or past retirement age, so they are pro-Social Security and pro-Medicare, both big government programs. They are anti-welfare, yet many of them are rural and dependent on it. They are against government telling its citizens what to do, unless it is telling them who to marry and what religion is the correct one. So as long as big government benefits them, it is not a problem. When it benefits others, it is a problem.

-Calvin Nichols