When he's right, he's right
Jan. 13th, 2006 09:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockSteve M.'s got a great post up about the general public's perception of our two parties:
Then again, Charles Schumer is generally polite and soft-spoken even at his most dogged, whereas President Bush often can barely conceal his mile-wide mean streak -- yet it's Schumer whose character is frequently questioned and Bush who is seen as possessing an unmistakable decency at his core.
Why is this?
Because Republicans have mastered the art of persuading the public that Democrats, individually and collectively, are evil freaks, neurotics with malign intent. The New York Times may catalog failures in the Iraq War on its front page, but Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the Drudge Report and the New York Post make it personal, snickering and recoiling in mock-revulsion at the unhinged perfidy of twisted yet powerful Democrats (and presumed Democrats) -- compulsive liar Al Gore, power-mad Hillary Clinton, sexual predator Bill Clinton, drunk Ted Kennedy, prissy traitor John Kerry, raving old coot ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, wacko GOP-basher Dan Rather.
This is a cancer on our politics, and it would be best if it disappeared from the scene, but it won't. So Democrats won't have a fighting chance until there's a comparable effort on our side.
Sure, we on the left do a good job of spreading negative impressions of Republicans amongst ourselves. But Republicans reach the middle -- mostly, I think, because they use tools other than snark and ridicule. The right-wing specialty is a fake tone of concern -- Bill O'Reilly is the master of this, Sean Hannity is quite adept at it, and even Rush, between infantile song parodies, regularly goes solemn while sounding the alarum bells about the crimes of Democratic and liberals. This is mixed in with relentless attacks on soft targets (e.g., Ward Churchill) and campaigns based on half-truths (e.g., stories about "the war on Christmas") to paint a picture of a vast, interlinked liberal/left/Democratic conspiracy of dangerous weirdos preventing the triumph of decency and of common sense.
It all plays in Peoria.
We might have won this thing if we had built a multi-tiered, self-referential advocacy/attack media that could persuade Middle America that Samuel Alito is an evil freak and so, for that matter, is the oleaginous Lindsay Graham; until we build it, we're going to get beaten over and over again. I'm not saying I necessarily want to live in a country in which we send as much poison into the political atmosphere as the Right. I'm just saying that may be the only way to prevent Republican rule without end.
Wish I could argue with this, but he's right. My question is, do we have to abandon our innate decency in order to wrest government from the hands of the GOP, and if not, do we content ourselves with being under their rule for the remainder of our natural lives? Is there a third option? Because right now relying on the American public to wake up and see what evil fucks are running the country just doesn't seem too realistic to me.
Then again, Charles Schumer is generally polite and soft-spoken even at his most dogged, whereas President Bush often can barely conceal his mile-wide mean streak -- yet it's Schumer whose character is frequently questioned and Bush who is seen as possessing an unmistakable decency at his core.
Why is this?
Because Republicans have mastered the art of persuading the public that Democrats, individually and collectively, are evil freaks, neurotics with malign intent. The New York Times may catalog failures in the Iraq War on its front page, but Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the Drudge Report and the New York Post make it personal, snickering and recoiling in mock-revulsion at the unhinged perfidy of twisted yet powerful Democrats (and presumed Democrats) -- compulsive liar Al Gore, power-mad Hillary Clinton, sexual predator Bill Clinton, drunk Ted Kennedy, prissy traitor John Kerry, raving old coot ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, wacko GOP-basher Dan Rather.
This is a cancer on our politics, and it would be best if it disappeared from the scene, but it won't. So Democrats won't have a fighting chance until there's a comparable effort on our side.
Sure, we on the left do a good job of spreading negative impressions of Republicans amongst ourselves. But Republicans reach the middle -- mostly, I think, because they use tools other than snark and ridicule. The right-wing specialty is a fake tone of concern -- Bill O'Reilly is the master of this, Sean Hannity is quite adept at it, and even Rush, between infantile song parodies, regularly goes solemn while sounding the alarum bells about the crimes of Democratic and liberals. This is mixed in with relentless attacks on soft targets (e.g., Ward Churchill) and campaigns based on half-truths (e.g., stories about "the war on Christmas") to paint a picture of a vast, interlinked liberal/left/Democratic conspiracy of dangerous weirdos preventing the triumph of decency and of common sense.
It all plays in Peoria.
We might have won this thing if we had built a multi-tiered, self-referential advocacy/attack media that could persuade Middle America that Samuel Alito is an evil freak and so, for that matter, is the oleaginous Lindsay Graham; until we build it, we're going to get beaten over and over again. I'm not saying I necessarily want to live in a country in which we send as much poison into the political atmosphere as the Right. I'm just saying that may be the only way to prevent Republican rule without end.
Wish I could argue with this, but he's right. My question is, do we have to abandon our innate decency in order to wrest government from the hands of the GOP, and if not, do we content ourselves with being under their rule for the remainder of our natural lives? Is there a third option? Because right now relying on the American public to wake up and see what evil fucks are running the country just doesn't seem too realistic to me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-13 07:57 pm (UTC)You mean like Alito's wife fleeing the chamber in tears after Graham used the word "bigot", then the GOP spin machine tried to blame it all on those nasty Dems? Jesus tapdancing Christ, do your really approve of this shit? I mean can't you step back from the "Rah-rah, my side's winning!" nonsense long enough to see that our government's been turned into the equivalent of a goddamn soap opera?
A lifetime appointment to the highest judiciary body in the land is being treated with all the seriousness of a fucking football game.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-13 08:29 pm (UTC)All I meant was that the Democrats have done a terrible, terrible, awful job of making the case to most people that Alito should not be confirmed.
But what they have done quite well is solidify the appearance that they are mean and nasty and don't really have much to say beyond listening to themselves talk and talk and talk.
It's kind of like watching a political train wreck, listening to people like Biden and Kennedy. That's the face of the Democrats this week and that's good for the Republicans.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-13 08:48 pm (UTC)Dude I am not arguing with you on that, if you look back at my previous posts this week you'll note I'm saying much the same thing.
But what they have done quite well is solidify the appearance that they are mean and nasty and don't really have much to say beyond listening to themselves talk and talk and talk.
Uh, this is where we disagree fundamentally. They haven't done a damn thing to appear mean and nasty, though the GOP has certainly tried (and succeeded) to portray them that way. Drudge blames the Dems because Alito's wife runs out in tears even though it's a Republican who sends her off on her thoroughly staged dash. And doesn't every single news organization pick up the talking point. Ooh, nasty, mean Dems!
Jesus Christ, if there's one thing the Dems haven't been it's nearly nasty enough. Alito's a political weasel, he has to be given tough questions he can't scurry away from. Gods this almost makes me think back fondly on Bork, at least he was an idealogue who answered questions honestly (if batshit insanely).
This is a man whose decisions may well impact the rest of my life, he should be answering hard questions. He should be made to sweat. The Dems should be pulling out all the big guns. Instead they sit there limply, occasionally flinging something resembling a real question his way but offering no real follow up. Using the camera time to try to get some kind of message out to the public and letting the GOP write all the press for them.
That, sir, is pathetic.