Over at In These Times, David Sirota advances a new theory of American history:
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 point that Sirota’s trying to get at is another riff on his familiar refrain—progressives need to embrace populism, or, as he puts it in this piece, “stop spending their time ridiculing teabaggery and start co-opting it through their own brand of full-throated populism.” But couching such an argument in the language of UrbanDictionary is a new twist. It’s definitely an attention-grabber.