Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
How the Tea Party Exploits Liberals’ Weaknesses (and how to fix that)
I have written about economics, education, journalism, abortions, class actions, and Emergency Financial Managers, but this may be the most important piece I have written this year.
As I look back, nearly everything I have written this year includes some aspect of tracing political actions and results back to identify the driving purpose behind them, then envisioning that purpose carried through to its conclusion. It is not a new technique, and the results are not surprising. Conservatives have taken us down this path for decades, and the evidence has been there to see, yet neither conservatives’ purpose nor their final destination has penetrated the national consciousness.
Why? Because conservatives have figured out how to exploit liberals’ weaknesses, and liberals fall for it every time.
It is human nature to create stereotypes. Both left and right have stereotyped images of each other’s relative intelligence and driving motivations. If you’re reading this, you are already familiar with the stereotype of a Tea Party sympathizer: undereducated, overarmed, stubborn, belligerent, gullible. Too dumb to actually reason with, little brain development beyond the limbic center where fear lives (cf Ted Nugent). The right’s stereotype of a liberal elitist is something of its funhouse mirror image: an overeducated, insufferable know-it-all with too much book-learning and insufficient common sense. Too concerned with being technically correct, even over irrelevant things, and especially at others’ expense (cf Keith Olbermann).
Right wing nut job. Libtard.
These stereotypes not only make it harder to talk to each other and to respect our differences, they make it harder to see each other for what we are—and that causes blind spots.
Stereotypes don’t grow out of thin air. Facts do have a liberal bias. The more education people have, the more likely they are to be liberal. By itself, there is nothing wrong with being proud of educational accomplishments. The problem is when liberals go from believing they are smart to believing that non-liberals are stupid; these are not the same things.
This is liberals’ blind spot: intellectual hubris. We pity right wingers their stupidity. But for the luck of the DNA draw, we think, that might be us holding those misspelled signs and nodding along with Rush Limbaugh. But we still make fun of the signs.
When we on the left dismiss Tea Party members as a bunch of idiots, we presume that Tea Party members are too stupid to understand what they are doing. When you start with that assumption, you cut yourself off from ever considering the possibility that their actions are intentional and volitional, with a clear understanding of the consequences.
1. By attributing their actions to ignorance, we are failing to hold Republicans in power accountable for their motives, their actions, and their results.
The right is happy to play to this blind spot by dumbing down their public face. Their candidate pool always includes people whose malapropisms are the bait that liberals love to ridicule. I’m not talking about incendiary “get your guns” talk but the John Wayne/John Wayne Gacy errors that are irrelevant in the end. Yes, some elected Republicans really do seem to be that dumb (hello, Louie Gohmert). But behind those useful idiots are some very smart people who have been avoiding public scrutiny and pulling strings while we have been playing “Spot the Loony.”
2. While we are gloating over their irrelevant mistakes, we are not discussing issues that matter.
Even before Fox, conservatives were winning the war to control public discussion, and they were doing it by framing issues in a way to make their agenda look better. In this way, conservatives have undermined some of our most basic and deeply held national beliefs, including where wealth comes from, where it ought to go, and even what wealth is. From economics to political science to hard sciences, conservatives have succeeded in convincing the general public of things that defy history, statistics, and physical evidence. And we liberals think we are more clever with words? We can’t convince the public of the truth. We should be learning from the experts, not making fun of them.
3. By failing to hold elected Republicans responsible for their actions, we are missing a huge opportunity to weaken Republican support. While we hold elected Republicans accountable for what they have done, we must hold Republican voters responsible for what their elected Republicans have done.
When we turn over the rock of elected Republicans purposes and goals, we find some pretty ugly stuff, stuff that the average self-identified conservative finds too shocking to believe. It is shocking to think that any group of Americans could want to stunt our national growth, to continue our path to third-world nation conditions, and to see people suffer. It is un-American. It is offensive, and it’s natural to turn away from offensive things. But ugly as it is, we have to keep shining a light under that rock until the public gets it. Because as of now, they don’t. If we are squeamish, they win.
If we stay tough, then their support gets squeamish. As of now, the many self-identified conservatives who also like more populist ideas like Medicare, Social Security, public education, and taxing the rich can still align themselves with extreme right Republicans without cognitive dissonance—without the conflict of values that causes a person to squirm. That is our fault. We have not made them face the truth of elected Republican extremism.
With few exceptions, even liberal media coverage of Republicans since 2009 has presumed that Republicans want to do the right thing but don’t know how instead of questioning what Republicans really want to do based on what they have done. But in this case, when I say we, I don’t mean just the handful of left-leaning broadcasters still employed in the mainstream media or the small liberal radio and blogosphere. I mean you and me on the ground, in our communities, standing up for the truth.
It is tough to face that people we know and like have voted for this extreme course of action: my parents, your relatives and friends, our co-workers. That gives us cognitive dissonance. Most humans don’t like confrontation, and the path of least resistance is just avoiding certain subjects. But when political activists talk about fighting for what we believe in, it’s not just about picket signs and rallies. It’s those one-on-one conversations when we quietly but firmly (at least in my family, maybe your family is noisy) explain the facts and stand up for our progressive moral convictions. When we refuse to roll over to talking points.
We have had over thirty years to see the consequences of conservative politics. No one should be able to claim that they didn’t understand, didn’t know, didn’t realize where conservative politics was going. Voting Republican in this election climate doesn’t necessarily make people extremists, but it makes them collaborators with extremists. In most races, there are no moderate Republican choices because the party won’t let them in. And even self-proclaimed moderates have voted lockstep down the party line for more conservative measures. A Republican vote in 2012 is a vote for the conservative extremist agenda. Period.
Some will knowingly support that agenda. So be it. They won’t be able to deny it later.
Some will still deny the truth and cling to their comfortable lies, but they won’t be so comfortable anymore.
Those who come to understand the truth of conservative extremism will start to question what they have been told, then do their own research. And when that happens, we win. When that happens, ordinary, thoughtful people will realize that they are not part of the party of the oligarchs. They may even decide they are one of us.
We all seem to make New Year’s resolutions, so here are a few recommended resolutions for our Republican ...
This holiday season, when you get together with your relatives from the other side of the tracks—you kno ...
What’s with all the hate? The Republicans say they don’t hate anybody. They say liberals are the haters. ...
There were two back-to-back entries on my Facebook page this morning. The first was from comedian and po ...
They claim to be the party of Lincoln or Reagan. I want to know what the hell happened to the party of ...
The Platzner Post
Jul. 26th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Fight fire with fire!!!
Reynardine
Jul. 26th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
It’s difficult to bring this up to people you know, because the puppeteers have them by the short hairs of their fear, and when those short hairs are pulled, they react with rage. Sometimes it’s with hot rage, and if it is rarely on the scale of a Breivik, it’s enough to end a friendship at best and cause you physical damage at worst. The more dangerous is cold rage: the kind that hides behind a phoney smile and a nonchalant, “Oh, nothing”, while you find everything in your neighborhood, work, and school goes strangely to Hell. It is the vengefulness and punitiveness of people in the grips of these totalitarian doctrines that makes us afraid to confront them, and that is the exact intent of their puppeteers.
A Walkaway
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
True: torched workshop (lost all of my equipment and most of my tools), kitties poisoned (maybe even our dog), and racist hate graffiti spraypainted in front of our mailbox, all done at night or when we’re not here. These all happened shortly after I’d written letters to the editor opposing dominionist goals. It’s been impossible to find a job in the last year, in spite of a higher degree and many skills. We have a dead tree in the yard threatening our house, but cannot get help getting it removed (requires a sky-lift). These last two may be connected to that “cold rage” – but they’re so sneaky I can’t be sure.
The hot rage: getting yelled and ranted at by a neighbor when they learned I’ve taught evolution (roughly 20 minutes worth) – now they refuse to talk to me. Getting driven out of the church we’d belonged to for years because we didn’t agree with teaching “The God of the Bible” in the schools (quote) and didn’t agree with murdering gays – even told we couldn’t be Christian and accept evolution. Threats made to elderly family members and demands that they order me to shut up (because of my letters and activities). Getting preached against in local megachurches because of the letters written to the editor.
If you even just dare walk away from their church, they will find ways to hurt you. I found out four years after I walked that they’d blocked me from getting a decent job (from a person who was party to that action), and five years after we caught them trying to break up our marriage. Decades later, we still regularly have problems with them.
A Walkaway
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 10:01 am
A clarification: the church we were driven out was Episcopal, and supposedly more liberal than most in the area. The call for murdering gays came from a lay leader in the church, and shortly after we left they threw a gay couple out of the church (according to the report, ordered them to leave and not return).
(We also got treated to regular anti-liberal diatribes in the last few years.)
The local dominionist churches had cuckoos planted all throughout the church, and they succeeded.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 10:26 am
A small church 6 miles from me has just opened up a private school. All ages. Supposedly to train christian leaders of tomorrow according to the advertisement. A Christ oriented school. That aught to produce the scientists we need to bring about the future cave dwellings
A Walkaway
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 12:02 am
(Laugh) I’d welcome something like that – it might be cooler than what we have! Cheaper to keep comfortable (cool)!
Seriously, at the university level, we’ve been dealing with fallout from the “Christ-centered schools” already on a regular basis. Disruption of classes, threats, vandalism, you name it – I’ve seen all of that.
Several professors would use the first class to explain that we teach and use evolutionary theory in the social sciences. In one intro class a few years ago, roughly 50 students (out of around 300) walked out when she told them that if they couldn’t accept that, they could drop the class because she wouldn’t tolerate disruptions.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 26th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
You know its difficult to hold them responsible in a way, its dependent on who you have contact with. I have little contact with republicans except my 3 representatives. I do hold them responsible and Im sure they are tired of listening to me.
But I totally agree we must hold them responsible. I also agree there are no moderates in the GOP or tea party and those who vote with them vote with extremists. Look at Wisconsin.
Excellent post Cassandra
Boscoe
Jul. 26th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Holding Republican voters accountable is nearly impossible due to the ’round the clock revisionism done by Fox and their punditry. They walk in lock step and spin everything to be the fault of Democrats. And when that fails, they simply say the bad thing is simply a “liberal lie” and never happened at all. In order to successfully hold anyone responsible for anything, they have to admit they’re at fault. And Republican voters have the full backing of the Murdoch empire reassuring them and arming them with “facts” that “prove” they are never, ever at fault.
I know people who absolutely refuse to believe Clinton left us with a surplus. These people also believe in the “fair tax” due entirely to their limited definition of the word “fair”. Any attempt to reason or show proof to the contrary is immediately dismissed as lies and distortion. No conservative ever did a wrong thing and no Democrat ever did anything but ruin the country.
I don’t know from “liberals”, but I know my personal weaknesses are that my mind is open to whatever evidence may be out there, regardless of whether it leads me right or left on any particular issue, and that I always fall for the trick of being led to believe you can have a rational debate with a right winger.
In my experience, at BEST you can have a *polite* debate, but never a rational one.
Cathy
Jul. 26th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Excellent post that accurately points out what has been happening. Fear and hatred are mighty motivators in keeping the masses in their place. Most Republicans we know are Reagan Repubs, who do not see how the party has changed in 30 years. The election of President Obama has brought all of the dissension and prejudice out into the light, and it is time for accountability–from elected leaders and those who elected them.
robert chapman
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Before Reagan, I could have become a Republican. There were sensible and progessive people like Mark Hatfield and edward Brooke in the US Senate for example.
The GOP has changed into something that I find constrictive and unreasonable. Instead of being open to honest and serious debate and resolution of issues, they seem caught in an endless RINO hunt which keeps them getting farther and farther out of touch with the mainstream and any hope of fixing any of our problems.
Unfortunately, the Ayn Rand model of Objectivism seems to be the only economic paradigm that anyone understands anymore, so the GOP malarky seems reasonable.
Until the libs start talking sensibly about kitchen table economic issues and proposing policies that help people meet their bills, we will remain irrelevant in the national debate.
Reynardine
Jul. 26th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Twenty years ago, there were Buckley-type conservatives who enjoyed a good debate. When nothing was doing at my office or his, I used to go to the office of a neighboring solo professional, we’d good- naturedly go round and round, and then we’d split a beer. You can’t do that any more. Most of these people are victims of Goebbels-type propaganda and epistemic closure, and the more hard evidence you bring up, the more they regard you as in league with the Devil. Rupert Murdoch did this, and the real key to opening people’s minds is smashing his grip on the press.
robert chapman
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Twenty years ago there were even Republican moderates who would engage the Buckley-types in intra-party debates about the future of the country and the party.
Reagan with his communist hunter background, rich circle of supporters and doctrinaire mentality purged them all and has left us a one party country.
rm
Jul. 26th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Looks like Michele Bachmann’s has not taken notes , $4,700 Hair and Makeup Bill
motherjones.com/mojo/2011...
smidgen
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 2:10 am
Yeah, but that $4700 was for both Michele AND Marcus.
Ingarose
Jul. 26th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
This is one of the better articles I have read in some time. I always cringe when people post at Huff Post or Alternet or here how absolutely stupid the tea party people are. Maybe they are less intelligent but they still seem to be winning a lot. President Obama has given up way to much to the fanatical GOP who is backed by the tea party.
A lot of people think that Obama is taking them to the cleaners and that he will come out smelling like a rose while they wither in the dust. I am not so sure about it, they have a lot more gumption and fanatical thinking behind them.
Democrats and liberals always want to appear reasonable, thinking that this will win them votes. Sorry, sometimes in means getting out and about like those in
Wisconsin.
Bill Haines
Jul. 26th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
For someone advising people be held accountable, you’re pretty clueless. Olbermann’s a bit over the top but is a decent pundit, while Nugent literally belongs in a mental ward. Equating the two undermines your argument; I almost stopped reading right there.
And I’m sure to lose friends and acquaintances, but I’ll be publicly and repeatedly questioning the intelligence of anyone making less than $250K/year planning to vote Republican, and suggest everyone actually realizing what’s going on do the same.
Lord Zontar
Jul. 26th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Frankly, the intelligence of anybody who makes less than $10 million a year and votes Republican should be questioned. $250K/year —$1MILLION/YEAR— is chump-change compared to the GOP aristocrats who benefit from the looting of the commonwealth. The $250K-$1M group will be the eventual targets for plunder after the rest of the country has been driven into poverty. That is, those who manage to survive with any assets after the rest of society beneath them has crumbled.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 26th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Well said, the poverty level will creep upwards
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 26th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
There was no comparison between Olbermann and Nugent. Try reading it over. In the meantime you shouldnt have called the author clueless.
Cassandra Vert
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 1:19 am
No equivalency intended. Nugent is an example of what the left would call a right wing nut job. Olbermann is an example of what the right would call a libtard. Each side reviles different qualities, so other than being somewhat iconic, they don’t have much in common.
robert chapman
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
The GOP continues to provide its voters the sense of being part of something bigger than themselves and of being part of a movement dedicated to the preservation of the world they can live comfortably in.
They still see liberals as wanting to take all their money and give it to people who haven’t made the moves needed to earn a living for themselves.
Libs have to start showing people examples of well run and well governed institurions and businesses that are making peoples’ lives better.
Clinton was brilliant at identifying businesses and industries that were about to take off, helping them and getting credit for the help he gave them.
Libs have to start showing more smarts in economics and power politics.
Green Genius
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 12:01 am
What happened was when teachers taught the truth they were hunted like witches. And now the global corporate is teaching our kids what they want them to know. When the USA’s founders wrote our constitution they were self taught and had experienced the real tyranny that is forth coming. What I want to know are names. We need to keep naming the people,(like the Kochs), that are planning to turn us into third world nation. Are they the Bilderbergers? Are they the WTO? IMF? Who is in control of the Swiss banks? I heard it was Americans now.
lightning
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 12:29 am
Some strategies:
1. Follow the money. Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers bought and paid for the Tea Party.
2. Do the math. Right-wing numbers don’t add up. Make sure everybody knows it.
3. Don’t be afraid to call bullshit. Creationism? Climate change denial? Saddam involved in 9/11? Flat tax? Supply side economics? Small government? States’ rights? Bullshit!
4. Don’t lie. We don’t have to — Reality has a strong liberal bias.
And don’t expect any help from the mainstream media. Reporters seem to make it a fetish to be profoundly ignorant of the things they report on. Everything turns into “he said — she said”, even if one of them is a raving loon.
Cassandra Vert
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 1:35 am
To 4, I would add “But don’t count on the truth to instantly enlighten people. People need to be convinced, even of the truth, especially when it doesn’t fit into the alternate reality framework they have absorbed elsewhere.”
smidgen
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 2:17 am
But when that alternate reality is their only reality, and they defiantly cling to their reality with an absolute death grip, the truth is of no use or value to them.
Biff Humble
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 10:14 am
This is so true. Studies have shown that when people are presented with facts that challenge their established views, they “double down” and become even more set in their opinions. It is so difficult to admit your opinions are wrong, any facts to the contrary are dismissed outright. It’s only when not changing becomes more painful than changing that people adjust their behavior/beliefs.
robert chapman
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Right wing numbers won’t add up because libs are stopping from the complete enactment of their agenda.
The Dems in Congress are always held responsbile for the deficit thru their giveway programs. Food stamp participation has grown to its highest level. It is costing the government $85 billion. What portion of the $1,500 billion ffy 11-12 deficit is that?
How can we put a price on the human suffering that would accrue if food stamps were eliminated and its recipients were forced to rely on the market for their food budger?
Do conservatives care? To be sure. They claim that the market unleashed will feed these people and free from government dependency.
What? Which is a greater factor in poverty: government dependency or an economic system that tilts all advantages toward a wealthy oligarchy?
Libs need to change the conversation from big government to oligarchy.
Cassandra Vert
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
In the 1980s, they told us money would trickle down to workers. Since then, money has flowed away from workers to the wealthiest top 2% in record amounts.
Now they are telling us food will trickle down to the poor….
A Walkaway
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 10:10 am
In Florida, unless you’re on disability or unemployment insurance, you can only get three months worth of food stamps in a three year period and they’re strict about it. To get disability, you have to win against a system that is very heavily and strongly stacked against you (the judges are supposed to put a human face on an inhumane system, but they’ve put conservatives in place and it became even more vicious). The governor just made it much harder to get unemployment, and far easier for corporations to find ways to deny you. Real trickle-down, that!!!
Reynardine
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 6:56 am
The left and the middle believe in being “fair”, even to a homicidal lunatic. To a rightist, the only “fair” thing an opponant or mediator can say is, “yes, master”.
Jared D.
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 7:18 am
I read once – Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity.
Reynardine
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 8:02 am
And I have observed: Too many co-incidences aren’t.
robert chapman
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
conservatives have undermined some of our most basic and deeply held national beliefs, including where wealth comes from, where it ought to go, and even what wealth is
Somewhere, quite a long time ago in political years- say like in the Carter Administration- the left stopped taliking about economics.
This has been catastrophic. In the Carter years GM was the biggest private sector employer and its workers wages were probably on the order of 400% of minimum wages.
Today, Walmart is the largest private sector employer and its average wage is probably more on the order of 150% of minimum wage.
Obviously, the value that labor adds by building a car is much greater than that of clerking in a store, but the only reason that honest labor is drifting toward poverty is that the capitalists are calling all the shots.
Capitalists are the least engaged of all the major stake holders in a business enterprise. The give it necessary funds and deserve earnings for that, but they can take their money out far more easily than entrepeneurs, management, or labor can transfer their talents.
The left must address this. Four measures to address the overly large influence of capital.
*Higher marginal tax rates to equalize the playing field.
* A real labor movement that provides labor an equity stake and decision making role in economic enterprises.
* Distinguishing the difference between personal property, which people earn and have the right to enjoy, and capital- property which people use to create wealth and everyone should have a rightful share in
* recognition that the broader the base of decision makers, the better the decisions. Allowing a small group, capitalists, bureaucrats or saints to control enterprizes leads to poor outcomes.
The left needs to begin a dialogue within itself to define these issues, educate people on economics and mobilize for political action that goes beyond merely changing section 3; subparagraph b; of the US Good Old Boy Code.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
I dont know, I worked at Walmart AND Sams club and the average wage WAS minimum wage
Boscoe
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 1:58 am
…and that’s only because there still *is* a minimum wage. Imagine if the right got their way and removed that “restriction on the ‘job creators’”…
mel in oregon
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
there is some truth to the argument that conservatives are more practical & liberals are better informed. thus so many liberals i have met are lost when it comes to working on their car, fixing a leaky faucet or knowing anything about hunting or fishing. the flip side is conservatives seem always to want to return to those thrilling days of reagan or hoover. they seem to suck in everything limbaugh, beck, their church, the corporation they work for says without any thinking that maybe what they are being told is baloney. i really believe if you are well informed & still mechanically minded, you’ll probably be a happy person. liberals especially need to really think critically & fight for what you believe in because obama is leading down the same path as the republicans which is more takeaways from the poor to the lazy wealthy. you may think, “oh well, i’m 40, the gutting of social security & medicare won’t affect me”. that kind of thinking divides liberals which is what conservatives love. when we had a far more united group 50 or 60 years ago, it was composed of union members, minorities, students, & intellectuals. now it’s kind of a free-for-all. don’t worry though, in 2-3 decades, we will have a party in america that resembles the european social democrats of 30 years ago. they will swamp the democrats & republicans. the tea party then? nothing but a nasty memory.
A Walkaway
Jul. 30th, 2011 at 10:41 am
I’ve met only one liberal that fit that description, but the man could quote you article and page number for just about everything he’d ever read. The rest of my colleagues and friends, well, that saying just doesn’t fit. It was a mental quirk… a kind of ‘focus’ his brain had (that all of us wish we had a bit of, but not at the expense of our own ‘gifts’).
In fact, the people I’ve met that couldn’t change a light bulb were rabid Tea Party. Many of the academics I’m around are rather handy, although most haven’t hunted (I’ll grant that). I’m sure they’d pick it up in a hurry if they had to.
The things I’ve learned have taught me that stereotypes are almost always false, and it’s often an exception to the rule where they ARE true.
rm
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Trade press slams Palin film spin
www.boxofficemojo.com/new...
www.politico.com/blogs/be...
john gage
Jul. 27th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Please use civil language. you write “Libtard”, yet you wouldn’t write “niggeral” “liberkike”or some other horrific, brutal, mashed-together pejorative, even to demonstrate what others were using for derogatory terms. please get with it. the “R-word” is right out, right now. thank you!
Cassandra Vert
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
I chose that term because I and friends have been called that. Were those who originally used it trying to be offensive? Of course. Your reaction is what they wanted to provoke. It is another form of distraction. Yes, there is a time to stand up to that, but we should also be able to discuss offensive words without being accused of being offensive.
ValleyJim
Jul. 28th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
I was raised to be compassionate and look at all sides of an argument. However that does not work when your foe is rooted in lies, bigotry and hatred as the Neo-cons are now.
Now, we have to stick to our guns. We have to shove the truth down everyones throat like they do their lies. We cannot be subtle any longer. This is the time to get tough or get left in the dust. Obama had my vote when he first ran. Probably will not vote this time because he has left the Democratic party in my opinion. His idea of negotiating is giving in and that is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Jean Clelland-Morin
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 4:54 am
Never get tired of repeating: During the brainwashing of the better-dead-than-red era (as a 73 y.o., I remember it well) we threw the baby out with the bathwater and started the trashing of our own backyard with greed-is-good. All the nasty variations of the term “liberal” are finally reduced to “Commie”. Brainwashing precludes rational thinking. Is the majority the working-class? Are we going to continue to listen to Special Interest propaganda and continue to shoot ourselves in the foot? // Jean Clelland-Morin
Jim C
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Fine article, Ms. Vera. You seem aware of Lakoff’s ‘framing’ theories, yet I wished for more in your prescription for the ‘fix.’ Could there be something to the idea (above) that we “change the conversation from big government to oligarchy”?
My facebook comment re the original article: Very good Dx, but the Rx fails to recognize that one cannot convince (deluded Rs) with facts. E.g. “one-on-one conversations when we quietly but firmly … explain the facts and stand up for our progressive moral convictions.”
I support the argument that genuine liberals must hold conservative voters *responsible* for electing the ‘tools’ of the right. Just hoped for a better way to ‘fix’ the situation! Comments on the politicususa.com page, and my private conversations and experiences, show the fallacy of thinking we can change individual minds by ‘water-cooler’ persuasion or dinner table conversations.
Now if our Progressive Leaders, wherever they are, would ‘frame’ an argument for community values, THEN we might have something to talk about.
See “Don’t Think Of An Elephant” by Geo. Lakoff.
Jim C
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Vert, forgive me. My eyesight is failing, … loss of health care….
Cassandra Vert
Jul. 29th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Certainly arguments need to be reframed on a larger scale, but then you get into a discussion of media and how you get a reframed message out to people. (I wrote about that this year in the book FIX America! How Each of Us Can Help All of Us).
You and I don’t have the power to reframe public argument, but we can stir things up on the ground. And in the end, power grows from the ground up.
MaryT
Aug. 5th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Great article.
I recently learned of a group called the “Coffee Party” From what I have seen they do tend to be rather liberal leaning but say they want to get past the shouting and have rational conversations. Whether you agree with their philosophy or not they have a link to this site: bit.ly/9OufnF
The sphere chart is a tool to use to start conversations. You answer a bunch of questions and it comes up with a chart based on your answers. It then allows you to compare your chart to friends, family, coworkers, anyone else who has taken the survey. It shows where you have common ground to start working together instead of dismissing each other because of stereotypes.
A little “pie in the sky?” Maybe, but at least it is somewhere to start.