Features » May 27, 2009

Teabags vs. Douchebags

Why this may not be the second coming of the New Deal after all.

By David Sirota

With stagecraft defining so much of contemporary politics--and with such a powerful media machine behind the image of conservative teabaggery--the truth doesn’t really matter.

When Time editors fused Barack Obama’s head on the famous parade photo of Franklin Delano Roosevelt for a November 2008 cover, comparisons between 1932 and the present day were already a shopworn cliche.

If you were a working journalist in Washington worth your weight in banality, you had made at least 10 giddy references to “nothing to fear but fear itself” and the prospects for a “new New Deal.”

The FDR-Obama comparisons seemed so appropriate—here was another Democrat elected during an economic emergency created by decades of conservative mismanagement. But to make such a direct comparison in 2008 meant you didn’t know your ass from your teabag, or, more precisely, the difference between a teabag and a douchebag, and how that difference explains why all the New Deal nostalgia may prove foolish.

Teabaggery takes its name from the Boston Tea Party of 1773. Mythologized high-school history texts tell us that colonists tossed British tea into Boston Harbor in America’s first populist revolt. Today, as evidenced by the April 15 protests, the original Boston Tea Party has become a transcendent icon of pugilistic radicalism—a symbol of patriotic resistance against unresponsive government and elite douchebags.

Which brings us to douchebaggery, defined by the Urban Dictionary as a philosophy “holding that no one other than [oneself] matters in the least bit, and thus that others can and should be treated like excrement for little or no reason.” In Washington, douchebaggery has become synonymous with milquetoast political platforms, soulless candidates and anti-populist Establishmentarian politics. To wit, Comedy Central’s South Park substituted an oversized douchebag (named “Giant Douche”) for John Kerry in an episode about the 2004 presidential campaign.

The birthing of the most famous political periods and the success of their transformative agendas almost always hinge on struggles between Radical Teabaggers and Establishment Douchebags. And typically, the teabaggers of a prior era have defined the next epoch’s politics.

The Manichean history of teabags and douches

It’s easy to think that the revolutionary birth of America materialized from the momentary benevolence and foresight of colonial aristocrats gathered in Philadelphia. But that break from the monarchy of King George III, and the populist Jeffersonian and Jacksonian eras that succeeded it, came from the first of the Manichean struggles between Teabags and Douches that mark American history.

Through pamphleteers like Thomas Paine and rabble-rousers like Samuel Adams, the radical colonial teabaggers who fought the British douches during the Revolutionary War sowed the political terrain for independence, adoption of the Bill of Rights, and then for the (relatively) radical pre-Civil War eras.

Likewise, decades of activism by abolitionists (teabaggers) forced the president to take on the South’s agricultural oligarchy (douchebags) and begin the process of ending the institution of slavery. Teabaggers like William Jennings Bryan, rural populist parties and labor activists railing against “crosses of gold” set the stage for Theodore Roosevelt to break from fellow Republicans and begin trust-busting the corporate douchebags of the early 20th century. And those same teabaggers helped set the stage for Franklin Roosevelt’s transformative douchebag rout in the 1930s.

Though the 30-year period between the two Roosevelts’ presidencies is portrayed as a halcyon era of country club Republican douchebaggery, the decades were also marked by teabaggers organizing on the left. Reactionary forces like the Ku Klux Klan and the right-wing nativists made their presence felt, but the zeitgeist of the period was embodied in militant labor activism, socialist and communist agitation for a bigger welfare state, Bonus Army revolts for veterans benefits, and feminist activism for suffrage and equality.

Thus, when the Great Depression hit, a political infrastructure and ideological ferment had already created the conditions that would channel the cataclysm’s angst through the prism of a progressive economic program. Progressives had laid the groundwork during the 1920s for the kind of political dynamic that moved the debate leftward and led to the New Deal.

Hiding douchebaggery inside a teabag

Progressives remained the dominant rabble-rousing teabaggers from the Great Depression until the 1970s, winning battles not only for the New Deal, but for civil rights legislation and the end of the Vietnam War. Slowly, however, through icons like William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater and ultimately Ronald Reagan, conservatives figured out how to package their Establishment agenda of tax cuts, deregulation and privatization in the argot of outsider populism. By claiming “extremism is no vice,” railing on “welfare queens,” and insisting “government is the problem,” the Right discovered how to wrap corporate douchbaggery in a teabag.

With the help of conservative think tanks, columnists, television pundits and talk radio hosts, this sleight-of-bag created the politics of perpetual outrage predicated on the contradictions detailed by Thomas Frank in What’s the Matter With Kansas?,: impoverished rural states electing Senators on promises to cut inheritance taxes on millionaires and blue-collar workers supporting lawmakers who back job-killing trade deals—as Frank puts it, a country “nailing itself to that cross of gold.”

Today, Republican congressmen champion a flat tax and embrace anti-immigrant xenophobia, media voices like Glenn Beck infuse their rhetoric with violent themes, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) endorses the concept of secession—all while a so-called “tea party” movement against government is manufactured via Fox News and a team of lobbyists from FreedomWorks, a corporate front group in D.C.

This might be unimportant during times of relative prosperity. But if, as many economists predict, the current financial crisis becomes the second Great Depression, the period between 1980 and today will have been a crucial pre-depression era—the era whose teabaggers, like those of the pre-depression 1900-1932 period, could drive the policies that emerge from the crisis.

The road to Douchedom could be paved with teabags

In terms of tactics, yesterday’s pre-New Deal labor organizers, Bonus Army marchers and communist agitators have become the militias, tax deniers, Ron Paul-followers and Minutemen who populate the right. And these new voices are being amplified by a powerful Fox News/talk radio noise machine that no teabagger ever had before.

The first 100 days of the Obama administration, the main target of the teabaggers ire has been punctuated by persistent establishment douchebaggery. Specifically, the new White House has supported another bank bailout, considered an attempt to undermine autoworkers’ unions, resisted implementing tough Roosevelt-esque financial regulations, and competed with Republicans to see who can float the biggest tax breaks.

Certainly, President Obama’s budget includes some progressive priorities, but the framing and overall direction of the policy debate reflects the pull of right-wing populism. The administration is still trying to out-tax-cut the GOP, still citing defense budget increases as proof of “toughness,” and still laughing off criminal justice reform proposals for fear of losing “tough on crime” battles.

In the lead up to and aftermath of the April 15 tea parties, progressives used their limited media resources (MSNBC programs, Air America shows, blogs, newspaper columns, etc.) to make fun of the conservative protestors. Many voices lamented that in railing on government and demanding more tax cuts, conservatives continue to champion the Establishment’s wish list—not genuine teabag populism.

On its merits that is true. The April tea parties were organized by corporate lobbyists and backed by the same moneyed Republican douchebags that drove the economy into the ground. But with stagecraft defining so much of contemporary politics, and with such a powerful media machine behind the image of conservative teabaggery, the truth doesn’t really matter.

That means until progressives stop spending their time ridiculing teabaggery and start co-opting it through their own brand of full-throated populism, we will continue to be portrayed as the inept douchebags in the Manichean struggle—and we may see any “new New Deal” opportunity pass us by.

GET INVOLVED:

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Sirota finds it inconvenient, that the party of the KKK and Jim Crow for that matter, were the same party that was the party of slavery, the democrat party, and that the klan, Jim Crow and slavery were leftist constructs. Just as fascism, nazi-ism and communism/socialism are slave based, left wing constructs. Sirota has had people banned at openleft, for stating the truth, that Obama is a third term of the Bush administration, because Sirota is complicit in fascism. Sirota is playing both sides against the middle, he’s allied with the neo-cons and the far leftist extreme.

  Is he now inferring that communist and socialist “activism” was truly in aid of lifting the burden of the poor? I guess that trip he took to Beijing was a job offer, after all? Sirota, the voice of the Red Army and forced enslavement. All one has to examine, is the results of communism and socialism, there’s plenty of facts known about that. No freedom, no rights, no free speech, no individual liberties. Forced labor, as the late Dr. Martin Luther King stated, he’d studied both Marx and Engels and recognized in both communism and socialism human beings were reduced to slaves, because without the right to self determination, a man was a slave.

  I’m no republican, I was a liberal democrat all my life until recently. I am now an independent, just as now, the vast majority of Americans are now idependents (70%). We reject Sirota’s lies now, as we did in the past. Sirota couldn’t get hired by neo-con MSNBC, and now he’s on the payroll of one of the most despotic nations on the face of the earth, communist China. Obama, too is in service of the same forces, corrupt corporate neo-con controlled interests, that ally with communist China to reduce the American citizenry, and in deed what free people remain in the west, into forced servitude, slavery. They are planning on buying up control of our resources, and Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, and the rest of the democrat controlled congress are planning on selling them, and us as well.

  We see their neo-McCarthyism at play. Censor free speech, the reemergence of the blacklist, an enemies list, the far leftist demand that the citizenry that rejected communism/socialism being deprived of their jobs, so as to break the backs of the free American citizenry, and force them into what they refused to embrace, slavery and totalitarianism.

  David Sirota is like the writers who helped bring Hitler to power, and for the same reason. He hates what he can’t force to conform.

  Posted by m m on May 27, 2009 at 5:17 PM

  I am not sure what Mr. Sirota’s point is.

  He is disappointed that all he wants - President Obama can’t deliver.

  President F.D. Roosevelt couldn’t deliver everything he wanted either. And when elected, was about at same point on Liberal-Conservative range as President Obama is now.

  I am more interested in what people are for. What are you for Mr. Sirota and what is it you would like the new administration to do?

  Posted by Ned Hamson on May 27, 2009 at 7:03 PM

  “Just as fascism, nazi-ism and communism/socialism are slave based, left wing constructs”

  —wrote m m

  What??!! Fascism is a “lefwing construct” (your spelling)? No, no, no, no. Bush was a fascist. Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.

  And what is this bullshit about 70% of Americans are now independent? Where did you pull that fake number from??

  Go back to your Glen Beck show, troll.

  Posted by neilyou on May 28, 2009 at 1:42 PM

  I must agree with the following remarks posted.  This article finds me going from one side to the other.  It doesn’t matter what side of the Tea Parties you are on,  everyone has a right to yea or nay on it.  I do have a problem with both dem’s and rep’s when it comes to were they stand any more.  I grew up in the south throught the 70’s and 80’s.  George Wallace was “The Man” you could say with the south.  He was a Democrate.  Every person that is labeled now as racist in politics were Democrates.  The people that were for equal rights and everyone loving each other were Republicans.  Now after reading this article and listening to Democrates and Civil Rights leaders it’s the other way around.  The party that freed and fought to free slaves were the Republicans.  Now our President A Democrate took the oath on Abe’s bible,  Democrates compare him to Abe,  and Bush is Being compared to George Wallace.  I think both parties are confused,  and they are confusing us.  It has got to the point to were when a person states I’m a Democrate or Republican,  you have to ask them for how long and what year was it.  For the Tea Parties,  they are no differnt than the gay rights people,  the protesters against the war,  the civil rights groups.  They are all Americans that have a right to speak and be heard.  And the President has the responsibility to listen to everyone,  Because he now is not a Democrate,  He is the President of the United States,  President for everyone.  As soon as everyone in Washington grasp this,  including President Obama he will have acomplished a real change.  He will be the first President that has done this in several on top of several years.

  Posted by JEFFERY LEE WELLS on May 29, 2009 at 9:20 AM

  Dear David, sometimes a metaphor, that initially struck one as clever, becomes confusing. Although, the author may have the connection well fixed in his mind ,it becomes cumbesome for the reader and blurs the message. For myself, trying to distinguish between bags and their parts destroyed any meaning in this essay.

  Posted by bstr on May 29, 2009 at 1:27 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 10 posts.

Also featured Unraveling Afghanistan
Shilling on the Corporate Dollar
Skewed Debate

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by David Sirota

• We Are What We Trade and How We Trade It
  Trade and globalization--when not referencing blockbuster sports transactions or raucous street protests, debates… morePosted on November 7, 2009
• TARP on Steroids
  I recall that September day like it was yesterday--the explosion so stunning, so… morePosted on October 31, 2009
• A Party With No Punch
  Three parables for progressives and the Grand Old (Democratic) Party. Posted on October 26, 2009
• A Tale of Two Supermen
  For better or worse, our American Idiocracy has come to rely on athletes… morePosted on October 24, 2009
• Say It Ain’t Snowe
  I don't get it. I know that's the simplistic refrain of every 10-year-old,… morePosted on October 17, 2009