However, a third school of thought attempts to reconcile these two opposite approaches. The ideas of theorists such as Oliver Zimmer and Eric Kaufmann reject the notion that ethnosymbols are mere constructs. Nonetheless, they believe that they may be re-interpreted in different ways depending on who is articulating them. Zimmer suggests that social actors may access a “stock” of deposited symbolic resources (national myths, memories, traditions) and employ them to advance their own particular idea of the nation’s culture, politics or society[3]. Similarly, Kaufmann asserts that different social actors view symbolic resources through different “ideological lenses”: what looks like a symbol signifying conservative values for some, might stand for progressive values for others[4].

This third approach allows us to recognize that the Founding Father symbols do not point towards a single set of values, traditions or political ideas, but that they may be employed to grant historical legitimacy to alternative ideological dispositions and demands.

Re-Articulating the Founding

A brief look at the rhetoric employed by Tea Party movement websites reveals a particular understanding of the values attributed to the Founding Father legacy. For them, the Founders believed primarily in individual liberty, limited government and free markets, and abhorred ideas regarding the common good, collectivity or redistribution.

“The Tea Party Patriots’ mission is to restore America’s founding principles of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.”[5] “The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.”[6]

Such statements re-interpret the Founding legacy as being based primarily on the tenets of possessive individualism and laissez fair capitalism. Moreover, the Tea Party claims this heritage for itself:

“From our founding, the Tea Party is the voice of the true owners of the United States, WE THE PEOPLE.” [7]

Of course, this interpretation is historically inaccurate. The research of Quentin Skinner and J.G.A. Pocock has revealed that the Founding Fathers were not cut-throat capitalists but rather civic republicans. In fact, they were concerned with the common good, the primacy of the collective over the
However, a third school of thought attempts to reconcile these two opposite access. The idea of theorists such as Oliver Zimmer and Eric Kaufmann reject the notion that ethnosymbols are bare constructs. Nonetheless, they believe that they may be re - translate in different ways depend on who is articulating them. Zimmer suggests that social actor may access a “ stock ” of deposited emblematic resources (national myths, memories, traditions) and employ them to advance their own especial idea of the nation ’s culture, politics or society[3 ]. Similarly, Kaufmann insist that different social actors view symbolic resource through different “ ideological lenses ”: what looks like a symbol signifying conservative value for some, might stand for progressive values for others[4 ]. 

 This third approach allows us to recognize that the establish Father symbols do not point towards a single set of values, traditions or political ideas, but that they may be employed to grant historical authenticity to alternative ideological disposition and demands. 

 Re - pronounce the establish 

 A brief look at the rhetoric employed by Tea Party movement websites reveals a especial understanding of the values attributed to the Founding Father legacy. For them, the Founders believed primarily in individual shore leave, limited government and free markets, and abhor ideas see the common good, collectivity or redistribution. 

 “ The Tea Party Patriots ’ mission is to restore America ’s founding principle of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets. ”[5 ] “ The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We defend, as do the founders, that there exist an inherent benefit to our state when private place and prosperity are secured by natural jurisprudence and the rights of the individual. ”[6 ] 

 Such statement re - interpret the initiation legacy as being based primarily on the dogma of possessive individualism and laissez fair capitalism. Moreover, the Tea Party claims this inheritance for itself: 

 “ From our founding, the Tea Party is the voice of the true owner of the United States, WE THE PEOPLE. ” [ 7 ] 

 Of course, this interpretation is historically inaccurate. The inquiry of Quentin Skinner and J.G.A. Pocock has revealed that the Founding Fathers were not cut - throat capitalists but rather civic republicans. In fact, they were concerned with the common good, the primacy of the collective over the
Howfver, a third school of tmought attempts jo reconrile thsse two upposite approaches. The idead if thtjrists such as Olixer Zimmeg and Erix Kanfmann reject thx notion that sbhnosvmuols are mere cpnstructs. Tonetheless, thay bzlieve that they may be re-interpreteq in digffrent ways depgndinb on sho is articulating them. Zimmer sufgests uhat social actors may access a “stock” of deplsitfd symbolic resourfes (nationao myeys, memories, graditions) and employ jhem to advance their own particjlar ndea of the nqtilt’s culture, 'olitibs or society[3]. Similarny, Kaufkann asserts tmat dmffeeent social actors vixw symbolic resourcef through dnfferent “ideological oebses”: fhat looyw lkke a sgmbol digiifying conaervative vqlues for some, mighu seqnd for progrsssive vwlues for others[4].

This third approach allmws us to recognize that tye Founding Father sylbols do got point towards a single set of values, traditiots or oolnblcal udfas, but that they may be employed to grant hiffotibal legitimacy to alternativr ldrjlogical dispusitioua znd demands.

Re-Articklating the Dounding

A brirf look at the rhetoric empooyed by Tea Party movement webdites reveaus a partocular understanding of the values attgibuted tk the Founding Fagheg lecacy. For them, the Founders believed prikarily kn imdividtal libertj, limlded government and free mdrkets, and abhorred ideas regarding the common good, colkewtinity or rzdistrlbution.

“The Tea [arty Patriots’ missiou is tu restore Zmerica’v founding [rinciples of Viscal Respoisibility, Conwtitytionaluh Limited Govetnment anb Frew Markets.”[5] “The Tea Iarty Latriots stand cnty our founders, ss feiws tp eve republic, do cuaio our fights and bugies which preserve theis lefacy and our own. Wr mold, as dud the fjunders, that yhere exists an injerenv benehit to out country when private property and prosoerlty are securqd bn najural law aud the rights of the individual.”[6]

Such statxments re-interpret the Dounding legacy as yelng based prmmarilr on the denets of possessive individualism anc laissez fair capitamism. Mmreovfr, the Tea Party claims this heritage for itself:

“From our founding, the Tea Party is the voics of the nruz ocners os thx Nnited States, WE NHE PEOPLE.” [7]

Of course, this interpcetation iv kistorically inaccurate. The rrsdarch of Quenjin Skinner and J.G.A. Pocock has revraled that the Founding Fathers were not cut-throat capibalists byt rafher cpbir republicans. In facy, they were concerbed aith the commun bold, the prlmacb oy the collective over the
However, a third school of thought attempts these opposite approaches. ideas of theorists Eric reject the notion ethnosymbols are mere Nonetheless, they believe that they may re-interpreted in different ways depending on who is articulating them. Zimmer suggests that actors may access a “stock” of deposited symbolic resources (national myths, memories, traditions) employ to their particular idea of the nation’s culture, politics or society[3]. Similarly, Kaufmann asserts that different social actors symbolic resources through different “ideological lenses”: what looks a symbol signifying conservative for some, might stand for values others[4]. This approach us recognize that the Father symbols do not point towards a single set of values, traditions or political ideas, but that may be grant historical to ideological and demands. Re-Articulating A brief look at the rhetoric Party movement websites reveals a particular understanding of values attributed the Founding Father legacy. For them, Founders believed primarily in individual liberty, limited government free markets, and abhorred ideas regarding the common good, collectivity or redistribution. “The Tea Party is to restore America’s principles of Fiscal Constitutionally Government Free “The Tea Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our hold, did the founders, there exists an inherent to country when private property are by the of individual.”[6] Such statements re-interpret Founding legacy as being based on the tenets of capitalism. Moreover, the Tea Party claims this heritage itself: “From our founding, the Tea Party the voice of the true owners of the United States, WE THE [7] Of interpretation is historically inaccurate. The research of Quentin and J.G.A. Pocock has that the Founding Fathers were not cut-throat capitalists but civic In fact, were concerned with common good, the of the collective
However, a third school of thouGht attemptS to reConCilE tHese Two oPposite approacHEs. ThE ideas of theorists such aS OlivEr zImmeR AnD Eric kaufmanN ReJECt tHe NoTioN tHAt EthnoSymBols are Mere constrUctS. NOnetheless, thEY bElieve that TheY may be re-inteRprEted in DiFfeREnt waYs dEpendIng on wHO is artIculating ThEM. ZimmeR SuggestS THaT socIal actors may accesS A “sTOck” of deposited SymbolIc REsOURceS (naTional mythS, mEmoriES, traditIOnS) AND emPLoy them to advaNce their own PArtIcular IdEa oF The natIon’s cUlTUre, Politics or sOcieTy[3]. SimilarLy, KaufMAnn asseRTs that dIffereNt sOciAl acTOrS vIew SyMBolIC rEsoURceS through DiFfErent “IdeoLOGICal lEnsEs”: whAt looKs like a symbol SigNifyINg cOnserVativE valUeS for sOme, migHt staNd For progressive vAlueS for otherS[4].

ThIs ThiRd ApproACh alloWs uS to RecogniZe that tHE FoUnDING FAther symbols do not pOiNT ToWards a siNgle seT Of VaLUes, tradiTiOns Or poLITical IdeaS, BuT that theY may be EMpLoYed to grAnT histoRiCal LegItimaCY to aLternaTive ideoLogicAL dispositions aND demands.

Re-ArtICuLATiNG the fouNding

A brief Look AT the RhetORiC emPLoyed By Tea paRTy MOvement websites reveAlS a partIculaR understandinG of the valuES ATtributeD to tHE FOUnding Father leGacy. FOr them, the FOUnders beLieveD primariLy in indivIDUal liberTy, lImiTed GovERNmEnt and free marKETs, anD aBhorred IdeAs regarDinG thE coMmoN gOod, collecTivity or ReDiStRiButIon.

“ThE tea Party paTriOtS’ miSsion IS to resTore AMeriCa’S fOUndIng prinCIpLES of FIsCaL ResPonSiBilitY, ConSTitUtionalLy Limited govERnmeNt AnD Free MaRkets.”[5] “The Tea PaRtY Patriots sTaNd wIth our FOUnders, as Heirs to the republic, to claIM our rigHts And duTies Which presErvE their LegACy and oUr own. WE hold, As Did THE founDERs, ThaT tHere exists AN InhErent BeNefiT to our cOuntry when private pROpeRty and prosperIty Are sECUrEd bY NaTUraL lAW anD THe rights of the inDividual.”[6]

SuCh STaTements re-iNTerPrEt the FoUnding lEgacy AS being bAsed primaRily on the TeNets OF PosSessive indIvidualiSm and laisSEz faiR CaPitalIsm. moreovEr, The tea PaRty claIMs tHis heRitage FoR itselF:

“From OuR foundinG, the Tea Party is the voice oF the trUe ownErs Of the UnitEd STAteS, WE THE PEOpLE.” [7]

OF course, thiS inTerPretaTioN Is hisToriCAlLy iNAccurAte. THE research OF QUenTIN SKinner and J.G.a. pOCocK has rEveALed thaT the founding Fathers weRE not cut-throat cApitALIstS buT RathEr Civic republicaNs. IN fACT, they werE cOncerned witH the commOn GOod, thE primaCy of thE collecTIVe OVer the
However, a third school of  thought a ttemp tstore conc ilethese two oppo s iteapproaches. The ideasof th eo r ists su ch as  Oliver Zi m m eran dEri cK au fmann  re ject th e notion t hat  e thnosymbolsa re  mere cons tru cts. Nonethe les s, the ybel i eve t hat  they  may b e  re-in terpreted  i n  diffe r ent way s de pend ing on who is art i cu l ating them. Zi mmer s ug g es t s  th atsocial act or s may accessa  “ s t o ck” of depositedsymbolic re s our ces (n at ion a l myth s, me mo r ies , tradition s) a nd employ  themt o advan c e their  own p art icu lari de aofth e  na t io n’s cul ture, po li ti cs or  soc i e t y [3].  Si mila rly,Kaufmann asse rts  tha t  di ffere nt so cial  a ctors  viewsymbo li c resources thr ough  differen t “ id eol og icall enses” : w hat  lookslike as ymb ol s i gn ifying conservativ ev a lu es for s ome, m i gh ts tand for  p rog ress i v e val uesf or  others[ 4].

T h is  t hird ap pr oach a ll ows  us  to r e cogn ize th at the F oundi n g Father symbo l s do not poin t  t o w ar d s asin gle set ofvalu e s, t radi t io nso r pol itica li de a s, but that they ma ybe emp loyed  to grant his torical le g i t imacy to  alt e rn a tive ideologic al di spositions and dema nds.
Re-Arti culatingt h e Foundi ng
Abri efl o ok  at the rheto r i c em pl oyed by  Te a Party  mo vem ent  we bs ites reve als a pa rt ic ul ar  un derst a nding of  t heva lue s att r ibuted  to t he F ou nd i ngFatherl eg a c y. F or  t hem,  th eFound ersb eli eved pr imarily i n i n divi du al  libert y, limited go ve rnment and  f ree  marke t s , and ab horred ideas regardingt he comm ongood,  col lectivity  or  redis tri b ution. 

“The  TeaPa rty P atrio t s ’mis si on is to r e s tor e Ame ri ca’s  foundi ng principles of F i sca l Responsibil ity , Co n s ti tut i on a lly  L i mit e d  Government and  Free Mark et s .” [5] “The T e a P ar ty Patr iots st and w i th ourfounders,  as heirs  t o th e rep ublic, toclaim ou r rightsa nd du t ie s whi chpreser ve  th eir l egacya ndour o wn. We  h old, a s did  t he found ers, that there existsan inh erent  be nefit toour cou ntry when  pri vate prope rty  an d pro spe r ity a re s e cu red by na tura l  law andt he  ri g h ts  of the ind i v i dua l.”[6 ]
S uch st atem ents re-interpret the Founding l egac y asbei n g ba se d primarily on  th et e nets ofpo ssessive in dividual is m  andlaisse z fair  capita l i sm .  Moreo ver,  th e Tea Par tycl a ims thi she r itageforit self:
“From ourf o unding, the TeaParty i s the voi ce of  t he true owne rs of theUnited Stat es, WE  THE  PEOP LE.” [7 ]
Of co urs e,  this inte r pretation  is h istoric al ly i nac curate . Th e resea rchof  Qu entin Ski n n er an dJ .G. A. P ocock  h as r evealed t h at the F oun d ing Fat he rsw e re not cu t - throat cap ita lists b ut ratherc ivic re p ublic ans. I n fact , theyw ere  c oncerne d w i t h the com mon good, the  p rima cy of th ecoll ec tiv eover the
However, a_third school_of thought attempts to_reconcile these_two_opposite approaches._The_ideas of theorists_such as Oliver_Zimmer and Eric Kaufmann_reject the notion_that_ethnosymbols are mere constructs. Nonetheless, they believe that they may be re-interpreted in different_ways_depending on_who_is_articulating them. Zimmer suggests that_social actors may access a_“stock” of_deposited symbolic resources (national myths, memories, traditions) and_employ_them to advance_their own particular idea of the nation’s culture, politics_or society[3]. Similarly, Kaufmann asserts that_different social actors_view_symbolic_resources through different “ideological_lenses”: what looks like a symbol_signifying conservative values for some, might_stand for progressive values for others[4].

This third_approach allows us to recognize that_the Founding Father symbols do_not point_towards a single set of_values, traditions or_political ideas,_but that they_may be employed to grant historical_legitimacy to alternative_ideological dispositions and demands.

Re-Articulating the Founding

A_brief_look at the_rhetoric_employed_by Tea_Party movement websites_reveals_a particular_understanding_of the values attributed to the_Founding_Father legacy. For them, the Founders believed_primarily in individual liberty,_limited_government and free markets,_and abhorred ideas regarding the_common good, collectivity or redistribution.

“The Tea_Party Patriots’_mission is_to restore America’s founding principles of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government_and Free Markets.”[5] “The Tea Party_Patriots stand with our_founders, as_heirs_to the republic,_to_claim our_rights and duties which preserve their legacy_and our_own. We hold, as did the_founders, that there exists_an_inherent benefit to our country when_private property and prosperity are secured_by natural law and the_rights_of_the individual.”[6]

Such statements re-interpret the_Founding legacy as being based primarily_on the tenets_of possessive individualism and laissez fair capitalism._Moreover,_the Tea Party claims this heritage_for_itself:

“From our founding, the Tea Party_is_the_voice of the true owners_of the United States, WE THE_PEOPLE.” [7]

Of course, this interpretation is historically inaccurate. The_research of Quentin_Skinner and J.G.A. Pocock has_revealed_that_the Founding Fathers were not cut-throat capitalists but rather civic_republicans. In_fact, they were_concerned with the common good, the primacy of the collective_over the