After its emergence in 2009, the Tea Party rapidly became a significant force in American politics. Yet, by 2014, multiple signs pointed to a significant decline in activism. What happened to the Tea Party? This chapter provides an overview of the Tea Party, its activities, and central actors, followed by a summary of our theoretical approach to understanding the movement. The chapter also details the main research questions and provides chapter summaries. The Tea Party is characterized as an insurgent social movement that was split across three main actors: elite conservative groups that facilitated the Tea Party’s emergence, grassroots activists who staged protests and founded local chapters, and Republican politicians who gave voice to the institutionalized faction of the movement.

Given the deterrent effects of transnational repression and conflict transmission in the United States and Britain before 2011, what brought anti-regime Libyans, Syrians, and Yemenis together for the Arab Spring? Chapter 4 describes how the Arab Spring mobilized members of the anti-regime diaspora by upending the normative operation and effects of transnational repression and conflict transmission in the diaspora. The Arab Spring did so by reducing the costs of activism, making members willing to take risks, and creating new solidarities against common threats. The extent to which diaspora groups experienced these quotidian disruptions determined whether or not they converted preexisting organizations to the cause and maintained solidarity over time.

Given the deterrent effects of transnational repression and conflict transmission in the United States and Britain before 2011, what brought anti-regime Libyans, Syrians, and Yemenis together for the Arab Spring? Chapter 4 describes how the Arab Spring mobilized members of the anti-regime diaspora by upending the normative operation and effects of transnational repression and conflict transmission in the diaspora. The Arab Spring did so by reducing the costs of activism, making members willing to take risks, and creating new solidarities against common threats. The extent to which diaspora groups experienced these quotidian disruptions determined whether or not they converted preexisting organizations to the cause and maintained solidarity over time.