Should the “Tea Party” be considered a social movement?

The answer to this depends on what aspect of the
definition of a social movement you think is most important.  There are many ways in
which the Tea Party is a social movement, but there is one very important way in which
it is not.

One aspect of social movements is that they are
generally a bottom-up phenomenon.  The Tea Party qualifies on this score since it was
not a creation of the political leaders of the country.  Instead, it arose spontaneously
from the grassroots.

A second aspect of social movements is
that they arise among people who have a shared sense of grievance.  The Tea Party
qualifies on this score since the people who make it up generally feel that the
government has abandoned them and their values.  They are very angry about the way that
the country is going.

Another aspect of social movements is
that they are generally used by political outsiders.  This is more ambiguous. Tea Party
members would generally characterize themselves in this way because they are not
typically upper-class people.  However, it is hard to say that middle class white people
are political outsiders in America.  It is also hard to argue that any group that has
presidential candidates vying for its approval is made up of
outsiders.

This brings us to the last aspect of social
movements, the fact that they tend not to use conventional tactics to advance their
agenda.  Here, the Tea Party clearly does not fit the definition.  The major Tea Party
tactics have been electoral, which is one of the most mainstream of political actions. 
This is not a protest movement in the vein of the Civil Rights
Movement.

Overall, then, I would argue that the Tea Party
is not a social movement because its members are not enough of outsiders and because its
major tactic is centered around getting people to vote.