The brand of conservatism embodied by the teabaggers is nothing but an adherence to a defined ideology. Andrew Sullivan has written many blog posts discussing conservatism’s movement from a pragmatic resistance to ideology to nothing but demagogic propaganda. His best definition of this new, strict ideology comes after reviewing Sarah Palin’s new book:
“In this, the book is emblematic of late degenerate Republicanism, which is based not on actual policies, but on slogans now so exhausted by over-use they retain no real meaning: free enterprise is great, God loves us all, America is fabulous, foreigners are suspect, we need to be tough, we can’t dither, we must always cut taxes, government is bad, liberals are socialists, the media hates you, etc etc.“
My sister, who belongs to this new movement, updated her facebook status a few days ago to say, “If being conservative means loving America, supporting capitalism, and being against terrorists, then I am proud to be a conservative!”. That’s her short definition of the new ideology – not very different from how Sullivan described it. The parts that I particularly find offensive are “loving America” and “being against terrorists”. Hidden in there is an implication that if you’re not a conservative, then you don’t love America and you’re not against terrorists.
If she had to add an amendment to her definition of conservatism, I’m sure she’d add something about loving the Constitution. Oh, the Constitution. The last resort of a teabagger who has no idea of what she’s talking about. Just a few weeks ago, my sister and I were having an argument over health care reform. While making my defense of HCR, she interjected, “I believe in the Constitution”, as though this non-sequitor was enough to defend her position. When I asked what this had to do with what we were talking about, she responded, “no, I’m just saying that”. I’m not making this shit up folks. She probably felt that she needed to define her underlying ideology, and having a solid ideology was a strong enough defense on its own.
Look, I too believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but I understand that when laws or policies do not violate the Constituion, they need to be evaluated on their own merits. My sister could not recognize that her ideology did not apply to this case. But that’s not the point. The problem is in having an ideology in the first place. There’s a serious problem when a group of people, the teabaggers in this case, can only view policy in terms of a strict code. Teabaggers believe that even in the face of objective evidence to the contrary, “free enterprise is great, God loves us all, America is fabulous, foreigners are suspect, we need to be tough, we can’t dither, we must always cut taxes, government is bad, liberals are socialists, the media hates you, etc etc.”.
My Sister Is A Teabagger: Ideology and Demagoguery
About a week ago, I went out to dinner with my mother and sister. My sister seemed to behave herself until the end of the meal, when my mom mentioned an interview she saw on CNN with former Microsoft CTO, Nathan Myhrvold. The interview discussed geoengineering, particularly the release of sulfur into the Earth’s stratosphere, as a measure in fighting global warming.
The mention of the term “global warming” must have flipped a switch in her teabagging brain, because she instantly blurted out, “You’ll never be able to solve global warming completely” (she has, in a previous encounter, mentioned that she doesn’t believe global warming is caused by CO2). Never mind the fact that geoengineering, as a solution to climate change, can be heralded in opposition to carbon-reducing legislation, or that global warming activists don’t particularly like Myhrvold and his “geoengineering-only approach”. My sister had already made the transformation to teabagger. It was now time for her to parrot the demagogic talking points of the right wing’s ideology (I wonder if teabaggers talk to each other in demagoguery, trying to out fear-monger each other).
Next, my mom mentioned that Myhrvold’s company, Intellectual Ventures, functions essentially as a firm of venture capitalists for inventors. Uh oh! Did someone say capitalist? We all know how much teabaggers love capitalism, and the teabagger sitting across from me was no different. She erupted with, “I’m sick of everybody saying these bad things about capitalism! If actors like Brad Pitt hate capitalism so much, why don’t they give away the $20 million they make on their movies!” (actually, she probably said it in ALL CAPS). I had to calm her down and explain that my mom wasn’t condescending capitalism, and “venture capitalist” is a term for an early investor in young companies.
As an aside, and maybe this is a topic for its own post, I hate how the right sees everything in black and white. Either you love capitalism, or you’re an evil socialist. You can only subscribe to one ideology.
Anyways, without any further provocation, my sister was ready to complete the teabagger circle and talk about how evil George Soros is. This topic could only be argued in hyperbolic demagoguery. “George Soros is evil. He’s betting against the US dollar. He’s trying to collapse the American economy.” Betting against the US dollar? Isn’t that what Glenn Beck’s doing when he tells people to put their money in gold?
Full Episodes