It’s tea time again! A quick Tea Party refresher

The Tea Party is once again making news in the election cycle, this time with stories of American slavery denial, a party-wide affinity for Newt Gingrich, and the launch of the party’s pet vessel, the S.S. Beaver in Gloucester Harbor. In light of this (and in fair anticipation for Herman Cain’s rebuttal to the State of the Union address tonight), I thought it wise to go ‘back to basics’ with a refresher on America’s nascent third political party.

Below are a few key excerpts from an interview with Anthony DiMaggio, author of The Rise of the Tea Party: Political Discontent and Corporate Media in the Age of Obama (Monthly Review Press, 2011), aimed at giving you and yours a crash course on the Tea Party movement.

[Portions of this extended interview have been omitted for the sake of brevity. You can check out this content in its entirety on the MRP blog here: monthlyreview.org/press/interviews/thoughts-on-the-tea-party/]

MRP: Do you consider the Tea Party to be a real grassroots movement or purely orchestrated by elite institutions? Or a little of both?

AD: I think the rage driving the Tea Party—at least with regard to the 25 percent of Americans who claim to sympathize with it—is quite real and very understandable. The Tea Party is largely comprised of white, over 40-50, middle to upper income Americans who have generally done pretty well for themselves over the years, but are being pressured by the neoliberal attack on working Americans. They’re rightly angry at being excluded from the tremendous economic prosperity that has taken place over the last three decades. As corporations have grown enormously more profitable, and worker productivity and the size of the economy have grown dramatically, the median family wage has stagnated… In short, the American middle class has been getting squeezed for decades, and the Tea Party “rebellion” (on some level) is a manifestation of real public anger at this phenomenon. That anger is understandable, even predictable.

[However, this] anger gets manipulated by a small group of partisan and media elites who are essentially Republican Party operatives. This is the dirty little secret of the Tea Party; it’s not really a social movement, but a cluster of elitist interest groups operating locally and nationally, which is quite lacking in participatory elements, and largely driven by a top-down approach, determined and dictated by Republican partisan officials and business elites of the Koch variety.

MRP: How would you describe the ideological outlook of the Tea Party?

AD: It’s the same group of Americans—the 20-25 percent of the public—who are essentially Bush dead-enders. Ideologically speaking, I describe the Tea Partiers as packaging old wine into new bottles. On one level, there is an extremely strong overlap between the Tea Party and the traditional religious right that emerged in the 1980s; on a second level, the Tea Party is representative of the same extreme economic right that has long supported deregulation and an assault on the social welfare state. There is nothing controversial about these claims, as public opinion polling (and analysis of these polls) demonstrates these points very clearly. I document these basic patterns in more detail in Crashing the Tea Party (co-authored with Paul Street).

A major problem with the Tea Party, in terms of “building a bridge” between its members and Occupy Wall Street, is that very few Tea Partiers (only 15%) even blame Wall Street for the current problems we are facing today. While their rage at the stagnation of American prosperity is very legitimate, their attribution of responsibility for this stagnation is so childishly naïve, staggeringly ignorant, and disturbingly proto-fascistic that it makes working with them difficult, if not impossible… what we need now are legitimate criticisms of the bi-partisan, pro-business system, not fantastic propaganda that actively misinforms and confuses the public. Tea Party supporters increasingly cling to romantic and ignorant notions that if we could somehow return to the “good old days” of “free market,” deregulatory capitalism, we would put ourselves back on the path to prosperity. They seem totally unwilling or unable to recognize that it was this very deregulation, and the corresponding assault on the welfare state, that put us on the path to economic ruin. They want the Republican Party to move further to the right, failing to recognize that this right-ward drift is the primary cause of America’s problems, not the solution to them.

MRP: What is the state of the Tea Party today, and what can we expect from them in the coming years?

AD: The Tea Party hit a plateau as of mid to late 2011. As of October 2011, about one quarter of Americans consider themselves to be Tea Party supporters. This number has barely changed over the last year. Opposition, however, has increased by somewhere between 10 to 25 percentage points among the general public within the same period… [T]he Tea Party has had its day in the sun, now it will likely continue at least through the 2012 elections (perhaps further), greatly mobilizing and energizing the conservative base. It is unlikely to do much else, however, since its support base is no longer growing, and public opposition has increased significantly.

Still, the Tea Party has been an incredibly important phenomenon for a few reasons: 1. It was instrumental in derailing what could have been historic health care reforms in the form of a public option (or even universal health care); 2. It has demonstrated that the only way the Republican Party can get back into power is through the manufacturing of false populism from the top down. The Republican Party is so unpopular today that it can only gain power by default, fostering anger against the Democratic Party, and sitting back and falling into electoral victories due to growing public disenfranchisement with the Democrats. I expect the Tea Party will serve as a lesson for the future. Expect plenty of other false populist narratives and “movements” to emerge on the right in coming years, in line with the predictions of progressive William Greider, who warned of the ever growing “rancid populism” of the right which now seems to be standard fare in American political discourse.

What are your thoughts on the future of the Tea Party? Leave a comment – we’d love to hear from you!

Again, check out the full interview on the Monthly Review Press blog here: http://monthlyreview.org/press/interviews/thoughts-on-the-tea-party/

 

Size acceptance at every size

by Tom Sullivan, Marketing Assistant at NYU Press

The only kind of scale you should own.

In recent years, the size acceptance movement has blossomed from a tiny academic circle into a burgeoning force set to demolish standards of beauty and stigma towards the fat body. However, it seems that a lot of people are still struggling in regards to what the idea of “acceptance at every size” means.

Combatting sizephobia and fatphobia is much more than patting Tim Gunn on the back for saying that there should be more clothing in a size 10.  If you support the movement, you do it at every size, even when it stops conforming to what’s conventionally attractive, heartwarming or “sexy.” If someone is 400 pounds or 90 pounds, you accept the way their body is because, for goodness sake, it’s their body and they can do whatever they want with it and it’s none of your damn business to begin with.

As Amy Farrell notes in her book Fat Shame: Stigma and the Fat Body in American Culture, in the early 19th and 20th centuries the fat body was (and still is) linked to inferiority and considered a mark of an uncivilized and barbaric human being. Many folks today try to preach in favor of the “civilized body,” but at the same time cannot seem to stop flailing their arms about in fear of the so-called “obesity epidemic” that’s sweeping the nation as we speak (hide your children!). We rant and rave about obesity, but in the end you have no idea about someone’s health habits and lifestyle choices from what they look like. We all know someone who is tall, thin and eats a ton of junk food yet never gains weight. We also know someone who is short, fat and exercises daily, but doesn’t lose a pound. Body size simply does not equal health.

For an example of how to not approach size acceptance, let’s turn to this recent article on the New York-based website Thought Catalog. One of the site’s many personal essays, “Big Girl, You Are Beautiful (Within Reason),” praises the size acceptance movement while at the same time drowns in a sea of classic body policing and sizeist thought. The author opens the piece by stating that she thinks that weight has nothing to do with one’s health. All right, fine. But as she continues onward she begins to completely contradict herself, criticizing the “morbidly obese” and “dangerously underweight.” Because size acceptance is clearly about accepting a person’s weight, unless they look really icky and gross, then it’s not okay because they’re clearly on the verge of death.

What the author of this essay tries to do is draw a line for what is acceptable and what isn’t in terms of body size, something she has no right to do. Your weight falls under the umbrella of health, which is highly personal. Dictating what is and isn’t a healthy size for others is the exact opposite of what size acceptance is. The key to acceptance at every size is to decide what is healthy for you and only you, and to leave everyone else well enough alone.

Want to learn more? Here’s a short list of recommended links:
http://www.broadist.com/
http://f–kyeahfatpositive.tumblr.com/
http://fatacceptancefrenchie.tumblr.com/
http://riotsnotdiets.com/
http://corpulent.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/new-to-fat-acceptance/
http://margitteleah.com/2010/03/01/im-coming-out-as-fat/
https://yrwelcome.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/losing-weight-staying-fat-positive/

Catch Tom tweeting about this & more! @versayce

Occupy the primaries: Sarah Sobieraj examines activist attempts to shape the 2012 election

With primary season underway, we checked in with Sarah Sobieraj whose book, Soundbitten: The Perils of Media-Centered Political Activism, examines activist groups trying to shape public political discourse during presidential campaigns.

NYUP: When it comes to activism, what do you think will be interesting to watch during this presidential election cycle?

SS: Well, it’s a fascinating cycle already. The rotating popularity levels of the Republican primary candidates have made these early months far more interesting than most primaries. But, in terms of activism, I think there will be a lot of striking differences between 2008 and 2012.

NYUP: How so?

SS: Well, in 2008, the Obama campaign was profoundly mobilizing, especially for young people, but their efforts were largely channeled through the Democratic Party and ancillary organizations such as Move On.  Young people were making get-out-the-vote calls, canvassing in swing states, and that sort of thing. But in 2008 there was no Tea Party. There was no Occupy Movement. The thing to watch this time around is the way these new social movement groups relate to the electoral process.

NYUP: Care to make a prediction?

SS: The 2010 midterm election showed us that the Tea Party sees electoral involvement as a key strategy.  With the stakes even higher, it’s hard to imagine they would sit it out. I think it’s safe to assume that they’ll be quite active, though probably more through campaign work for specific candidates than on the street with protest signs and chants. That is a strategy that has worked well for them.  The Occupy movement, on the other hand, is less enamored with electoral politics, having offered sharp critiques about the influence of wealth in politics. They are skeptics.  Many – though certainly not all – of these activists were Obama supporters in 2008.  In a sense, they got what they wanted in 2008 and many don’t think things have played out very well.  That’s not to say that they blame Obama for the uneven distribution of wealth, but rather, that they haven’t seen reason to believe his reelection will address the issues they are raising.

NYUP: So then, do you think they’ll sit it out this time around?

SS: Definitely not. They are already involved. In Manchester, New Hampshire there is still an encampment, and it was right in the thick of things yesterday, directly across from the hotel where the staffers and members of the news media were clustered. The activists, though, reportedly didn’t spend a lot of time at the camp itself, but instead showed up at the dozens of speaking events across the state. It was one potential protest opportunity after another, and quite activist-friendly since all the campaign activity was clustered in such a small geographic area. Romney actively engaged the protesters on more than one occasion. Not everyone handled the disruption that way, though. Newt Gingrich, for example, cancelled one event because of security issues presented by the number of protesters – in that case the protesters were Occupiers and Ron Paul supporters. Occupy was busy in Iowa as well. There are news accounts that detail their protests at events for Bachmann, Romney, Gingrich… I think we can expect much more of this decentralized sort of involvement.

NYUP: But if Occupy isn’t invested in elections, why are they bothering?

SS: Because, like the groups I describe in Soundbitten, the Occupiers are approaching this as a chance to be heard. They want to change how people talk and think about what matters.

NYUP: Will it work?

SS: “Occupy” was just chosen as the 2011 word of the year!

NYUP: Really?

SS: Yes! But, more seriously I think that the movement’s effort to shape the discussion has already worked to some degree. Listen to the candidates. Listen to the questions posed by the press. It sounds softer and more oblique than the activists would probably like, but it’s there.

NYU Press books named Outstanding Academic Titles by Choice

We’re excited to announce three (3!) NYU Press books have been named Outstanding Academic Titles by Choice: After the Crime by Susan Miller; The Net Effect by Thomas Streeter; and Mexican Americans Across Generations by Jessica Vasquez.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honoring the best in scholarly publishing, Choice’s annual Outstanding Academic Titles list contains approximately ten percent of some 7,000 works reviewed in Choice each year—or, simply, “the best of the best.” The Choice editors base their selections on the reviewer’s evaluation of the work, the editor’s knowledge of the field, and the reviewer’s record. You can find the entire list in the January 2012 issue of Choice.

In celebration of this achievement, NYU Press is offering 20 percent off each of these titles.  Enter promo code “CHOICE12” at check-out on our website and save 20 percent on After the CrimeNet Effect, and/or Mexican Americans Across Generations (discount applied at checkout, offer expires January 31, 2012).

And if you’re attending the upcoming American Library Association Midwinter Conference in Dallas (January 20-23), NYU Press is offering 20% off these titles at the conference as well. The books will be on display at the Choice booth (booth # 2317), so be sure to stop by and save!