Message Control

[Extra Stout]

Nobody understood what I said. The point is that unintentionally assembling the message that "If you oppose health care reform, you are an un-American racist" would be a politically disastrous thing to do. It would be a sign of really bad message control.

Now Manny goes a bit beyond my thinking. My thinking is that this phenomenon was totally unintentional, and that probably they are just trying to label the protesters as un-American racists. Perhaps Manny is right and the Democrats really think it is a good idea, electorally, to say this to a wide swath of the population.

That would go beyond "inept message control" to "adventures of the galactically stupid."

I don't think the response of the average American to such rhetoric is really going to be "Wow maybe I really am a racist" or "Oh the government is threatening me I better pipe down now." I think the response is going to be more anger from more people.

[DarrinS]

I don't know if this word association is intentional and I don't know if it's smart or stupid.

Ironically, it's quite similar to the Rove-ian politics that these people detested for the past 8 years.

One difference is, in addition to the un-American label, they can also play the race card, which they'll play over and over, like a broken record, until it loses any effectiveness.

Nancy Pelosi is a very unpopular politician. I agree with other poster who said that the election of Obama made her and other far left Dems feel like they had a blank check to ram their agenda down the throats of all Americans. It's scary to think that this woman is only two heartbeats away from POTUS.

[DarrinS]

Is "socialism" the new "N-word"?

[Extra Stout]

Reading Manny's replies again, I just have to shake my head.

What is the objective here? I thought for Democrats the priorities would be things like "passing health care reform" and "staying in power." Instead apparently they just can't resist forming a circle jerk and congratulating themselves on how righteous they are and how evil their enemies are.

Passing health care reform was always going to be difficult. That's why during the Democratic primary Obama dealt in generalities. Clinton mentioned specifics, and that was a mistake. Specifics can be criticized. Now comes the time to get down to details, and of course that draws lots of opposition and hightened emotions.

Back in 2005, when Bush was pushing Social Security reform, people got loud and angry about it. Back in the late '80s, when Congress was working on Medoicare reform, people got loud and angry about it. Doesn't anybody remember that scene where Dan Rostenkowski had to run away from his bluehair cons uents and flee in a getaway car?

The hangup in Congress right now is that Blue Dog Democrats are skeptical about how to pay for reform. Their cons uents are getting restless. We're at the point now where the honeymoon period for a new President ends. The economy doesn't seem to be getting better. People keep hearing about huge deficits. They are worried about what is going to happen to health care.

I get that the idea was to hold meetings so Congresspeople could reassure voters. I get that the idea on the right was to disrupt those meetings so the Democrats couldn't get their message out as effectively.

All that makes sense. But what has happened, with the Democrats simply calling the protesters "un-American racists," is that instead of telling the guy at home who voted for Democrats in 2008 because he was sick of Republicans, but now is uneasy at all the new spending, i.e. the very guy they were trying to convince, "Don't listen to these guys," they've ended up telling him, "You're an un-American racist."

Is it really necessary to explain further why that is a bad thing?

[Rodriguez]

Is "socialism" the new "N-word"?

socialists are even tier than Ns, period. Of course, someone with both of them combined in him is undoubtedly unqualified to be a government officer. What a terrible choice democrats made in their primary election.

[Extra Stout]

PS - I missed your post on "Death Panels" comments ES. I'm sure its here somewhere in this vast thread of Message Control.

God you are such an ass. Haven't you figured out that even though Republicans are making things up, they're winning the debate?

[Rodriguez]

God you are such an ass. Haven't you figured out that even though Republicans are making things up, they're winning the debate?

The democrats won the presidential election, however...

[SonOfAGun]

Pelosi calling others un-american is a joke.

[Extra Stout]

The Ugly Truth

November 5, 2010 by Liberal White Guy

It was too good to be true. We should have known better than to think America had finally grown up. While not all the races are decided, we know this much: Democratic majorities in the House and Senate have been sharply reduced. The Republicans once again have the ability to filibuster any further reform efforts. The grand vision that once seemed within grasp two short years ago has run into the ditch.

But why after it seemed that those parts of America not nearly as intelligent or enlightened as we are had finally started to get the picture, have they returned like pigs to the mud pit of the Republican Party? Is it because the Republicans suddenly became a responsible political party worthy of governing? Of course not -- all right-wing ideology is inherently irresponsible and unworthy. Did the Republicans figure out new lies to deceive Southern and Midwestern white voters into following them again? Well, that is certainly part of it; after all, Southern whites are not known for their critical thinking skills or sophistication, but let's not place all the blame here on the GOP political strategists.

No, at the root of this is that for the past two years, secure with a historic Democratic President whose election demonstrated our own unimpeachable moral superiority, and majorities in both houses of Congress that should have been strong enough to push through a firmly liberal agenda that could at last achieve the goals of equality and social justice through reason for which we have long strived, we have dared to tell voters the truth.

And the truth was this: America, you are bad. You are inferior to us. You are racist. You need us to show you the right way. And we are willing to teach you.

We thought that the elections of 2006 and 2008 meant that there was some subset of the great unwashed who were willing to listen. We thought maybe in those vast expanses of ignorance between the two coasts, there were a few ears willing to hear that it is not just enough to vote for a Democrat to become truly enlightened; no, they need to understand that their whole worldview, their religion, culture and way of life is inferior and obsolete, and needs to be done away with in order for society to progress.

But they didn't want to hear it. It started in the summer of 2009 with health-care reform. Suddenly those moderate voters started to question the grand liberal vision. The insane gun-toting right-wing mob of course showed up at town hall meetings dragging their knuckles and praising their Jesus. This was the first time those who had elected "Blue Dog Democrats," who of course are not real Democrats, but who we figured would suffice for the time being, felt a draw back to their old tribal loyalties. We tried to explain to them that their feelings were simply the residue of their latent racism and fears about their moral, educational, and cultural inferiority. They were not upset with Barack Obama because of any concerns about "socialism" of "deficits," but rather because they at last had realized that some of them had voted for a black man, and since they are all subconsciously racist, this had generated some cognitive dissonance which they were having trouble resolving. We told them this was just the last gasp of the angry white male before they finally submitted to rule by people better and wiser than them.

But they would not listen. For some reason, they reacted negatively to this message of enlightened truth. They regarded it as insulting. True enough, but sometimes people need to be insulted. However, instead of embracing the truth, they once again clung to their guns and their religion, and grew bitter. Public opinion turned against Barack Obama and our agenda.

It truly is a shame when people are unwilling to listen to reason. Would it have been better for us to lie to them like Republicans do, to maintain some sort of consensus, to pretend that they are OK? No, we must first and foremost to our own selves be true, and what is true is this: that no matter how much Jim Webb wants to butter it up, the South, and the Midwest for that matter, are giant stinking cesspools of cultural detritus. Our goodwill towards those people can only extend so far.

So while we lick our wounds and lament what might have been, we as white liberals can take comfort in our ever-more-secure knowledge that we are better than everybody else. That, at least, is one beautiful truth.

[LnGrrrR]

To be fair though, is there ANY wide group of people that don't believe that they are better than other people?

Southern whites think they're better because they're religious, ie. more moral... and I'm sure every other large bloc of people has their own beliefs why they are better than every other group.

[Spurminator]

Instead apparently they just can't resist forming a circle jerk and congratulating themselves on how righteous they are and how evil their enemies are.

Reminds me a lot of 2004.

[Extra Stout]

To be fair though, is there ANY wide group of people that don't believe that they are better than other people?

Southern whites think they're better because they're religious, ie. more moral... and I'm sure every other large bloc of people has their own beliefs why they are better than every other group.

Regardless of whether or not that is true, self-righteousness has a fairly consistent track record of being a wildly ineffective political strategy.

Let's say that you are having a political debate with somebody more conservative than you. You disagree with something he says, and he goes on to explain to you that the reason you disagree is because you do not believe in God and therefore are more evil and depraved than he is. What are the odds that you are going to listen any further to anything he has to say?

[Wild Cobra]

You're not very good at reading sarcasm online WC

Sense of humor does not come across well in black and white. What can I say. How many times do people not sew my sarcasm? I rarely use it now. Without understanding a persons quirks, or a common reference, it's not obvious in written form.

Maybe like this joke that few people understand:

There are 10 types of people. Those who understand this and those who don't.

Does that make sense to you?

[Wild Cobra]

Nobody understood what I said. The point is that unintentionally assembling the message that "If you oppose health care reform, you are an un-American racist" would be a politically disastrous thing to do. It would be a sign of really bad message control.

Now Manny goes a bit beyond my thinking. My thinking is that this phenomenon was totally unintentional, and that probably they are just trying to label the protesters as un-American racists. Perhaps Manny is right and the Democrats really think it is a good idea, electorally, to say this to a wide swath of the population.

That would go beyond "inept message control" to "adventures of the galactically stupid."

I don't think the response of the average American to such rhetoric is really going to be "Wow maybe I really am a racist" or "Oh the government is threatening me I better pipe down now." I think the response is going to be more anger from more people.

I wasn't sure exactly what you meant. I saw it as since many people tied the three concepts together with President Bush, that democrats should have been smarter and not fall into the same trap. Afterall, it was democrat pundits spinning the idea that the three concepts meant the last administration was saying "Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda carried out 9/11" even though iy wasn't the message.

I still fail to see Doobs reading into of it, even sarcastically, to say Why do you hate America?"

I must have missed some keywords in life growing up as a nerd.

[Wild Cobra]

Reading Manny's replies again, I just have to shake my head.

What is the objective here? I thought for Democrats the priorities would be things like "passing health care reform" and "staying in power." Instead apparently they just can't resist forming a circle jerk and congratulating themselves on how righteous they are and how evil their enemies are.

Passing health care reform was always going to be difficult. That's why during the Democratic primary Obama dealt in generalities. Clinton mentioned specifics, and that was a mistake. Specifics can be criticized. Now comes the time to get down to details, and of course that draws lots of opposition and hightened emotions.

Back in 2005, when Bush was pushing Social Security reform, people got loud and angry about it. Back in the late '80s, when Congress was working on Medoicare reform, people got loud and angry about it. Doesn't anybody remember that scene where Dan Rostenkowski had to run away from his bluehair cons uents and flee in a getaway car?

The hangup in Congress right now is that Blue Dog Democrats are skeptical about how to pay for reform. Their cons uents are getting restless. We're at the point now where the honeymoon period for a new President ends. The economy doesn't seem to be getting better. People keep hearing about huge deficits. They are worried about what is going to happen to health care.

I get that the idea was to hold meetings so Congresspeople could reassure voters. I get that the idea on the right was to disrupt those meetings so the Democrats couldn't get their message out as effectively.

All that makes sense. But what has happened, with the Democrats simply calling the protesters "un-American racists," is that instead of telling the guy at home who voted for Democrats in 2008 because he was sick of Republicans, but now is uneasy at all the new spending, i.e. the very guy they were trying to convince, "Don't listen to these guys," they've ended up telling him, "You're an un-American racist."

Is it really necessary to explain further why that is a bad thing?

We agree here. I laugh every day when I see stuff like this because the democrats are pissing off their own voters as well. The 2010 elections will be real interesting.

[LnGrrrR]

Regardless of whether or not that is true, self-righteousness has a fairly consistent track record of being a wildly ineffective political strategy.

Let's say that you are having a political debate with somebody more conservative than you. You disagree with something he says, and he goes on to explain to you that the reason you disagree is because you do not believe in God and therefore are more evil and depraved than he is. What are the odds that you are going to listen any further to anything he has to say?

Oh, I agree completely. I'm a counselor type, and have never seen the use in denigrating your opponent. I think it's stupid for higher-up politicians to do such, but I expect those that lower on the totem pole (myself, for instance) to do so with abandon. Higher up politicians have to channel the passions of their electorate without reflecting the more base emotions/ideas that arise from them.

I think that's one of the major issues the GOP had... instead of using that pro-American "with us or against us" fervor quietly, they came right out and said it, taking it a step too far. I think that, in many cases, is the sign of a bad politician... witness Palin's "real America" comment.

The vexing thing is, even though I think the best politicians are the ones who can say one thing and mean another, and be the perfect chameleon, it sucks when they go back on promises (ie, Obama caring about civil liberties).

[LnGrrrR]

Sense of humor does not come across well in black and white. What can I say. How many times do people not sew my sarcasm? I rarely use it now. Without understanding a persons quirks, or a common reference, it's not obvious in written form.

Maybe like this joke that few people understand:

There are 10 types of people. Those who understand this and those who don't.

Does that make sense to you?

Oh, I get that joke, but remember, I'm a computer nerd

I usually use a smiley face when I'm trying to put across an obviously sarcastic statement, so it's somewhat obvious to others.

[Wild Cobra]

To be fair though, is there ANY wide group of people that don't believe that they are better than other people?

Southern whites think they're better because they're religious, ie. more moral... and I'm sure every other large bloc of people has their own beliefs why they are better than every other group.

It probably depends on how you mean. I never gave it much though, but as individuals, we all have a few attributes we thing we are better than others at. To apply this as a group mindset, I think is impossible for the common person, except when it is what binds that group together. I was part of a Chess club growing up. We were better than anyone else at chess around us. Does that count? I wasn't the best among us, I placed 4th in the regionals. Two of the other guys placed 1st and 2nd. As a team, we went on to take 2nd place State.

It really depends on what a person or group things they are better at. If they think everything, I think they are delusional.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, I get that joke, but remember, I'm a computer nerd

I usually use a smiley face when I'm trying to put across an obviously sarcastic statement, so it's somewhat obvious to others.

But missing a reference to something, how many people understand? We both understand binary. Does someone who doesn't have that in common understand what was meant?

I seriously don't understand Doobs comment, still, from what ES wrote. What am I missing?

[doobs]

I can't believe I have to explain my response.

I was merely making explicit what the Democrats are currently implying. (And, yes, it's the same thing the Republicans did under Bush.) It was a stupid joke about how dissent is routinely demeaned by the party in power; I was trying to support his point by playing the part of the stupid, bullying majority partisan hack. I wasn't attacking him.

[Wild Cobra]

I can't believe I have to explain my response.

I was merely making explicit what the Democrats are currently implying. (And, yes, it's the same thing the Republicans did under Bush.) It was a stupid joke about how dissent is routinely demeaned by the party in power; I was trying to support his point by playing the part of the stupid, bullying majority partisan hack. I wasn't attacking him.

Our frame of reference is different I think. I never saw the references about Hussein, 9/11, and Osama as being a conservative spin. I saw it as a liberal spin saying conservatives were saying it. Again, the democrats were making the message of hate. "If you oppose health-care reform, you are an un-American racist." One was a fair portrayal of pasrtisan liberals, the other was not a fair portrayal of partisan conservatives. The "Why do you hate America" makes no sense to me because they are dissimilar messages. The common point is that liberals have lied in both cases. I guess you mean again, that the sarcasm means conservatives hate America, but ES seems more left of center to me than right.

[BacktoBasics]

The problem is party loyalty.

Eliminate the ability to associate yourself with or excuse your actions with these two words:

Democrat
Republican

Then we can start to concentrate on making this a better country. Holding individuals accountable. Arguing the facts is 1000% times more productive than arguing "Gang" Affiliation. The big picture never gets better as long as "parties" exist.

Its why this country is ed for eternity.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem is party loyalty.

Eliminate the ability to associate yourself with or excuse your actions with these two words:

Democrat
Republican

Then we can start to concentrate on making this a better country. Holding individuals accountable. Arguing the facts is 1000% times more productive than arguing "Gang" Affiliation. The big picture never gets better as long as "parties" exist.

Its why this country is ed for eternity.

Maybe that's why I didn't get it. I'm not loyal to either party.

[ChumpDumper]

I think the public option will end up being DOA, since that's the thing Republicans are ting their pants about the most. It may be replaced by mandating some kind of at minimum coverage and requiring carriers to offer it.

[DarrinS]

Staying on message: