More like disingenuous. To try and inject regionalism into the debt debate reflects both an understanding of history and a willingness to distort it to make a contrived point.
Obviously Tea Party types were more likely to actually win elections in districts that were solidly Republican from the outset, as all they had to do was win primaries - which requires more enthusiasm but fewer votes. The fact that a majority were elected from the solid South reflects the dominance of the Republican party more than any special enthusiasm for the Tea Party. The same phenomenon can be seen in the Northeast where extremely liberal lawmakers often represent conservative, working class districts. Voting (D) is so engrained in the culture - usually because of past or present union activity - that all a liberal has to do to win is win the primary.
The Tea Party is based far more in Southwestern libertarianism than traditional Southern conservatism, which is more concerned with social rather than fiscal issues. The fact that Tea Party candidates were able to win elections more easily in the South doesn't actually demonstrate a stronger concentration of support, but a stronger Republican establishment. Nationally, about 40% of voters in the 2010 elections nominally supported to the movement, and the intensity of that support had no real regional correlation.
Definitely an interesting read though. It's never a bad thing to look at a situation from a completely different perspective.
Bookmarks