fett on 22/10/2010 at 01:16
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Keep in mind that a lot of the disdain directed at the Tea Party isn't because they are saying something crazy, its because of WHO is saying the crazy things.
No, it's because they're saying crazy shit. If Jon Stewart or Obama started saying it, it would still be crazy shit.
Their leaders have repeatedly demonstrated abominable ignorance on fundamental issues.
They don't understand the Constitution (and few seem to be more than remotely familiar with its language at all).
They don't understand American History, much less are they able to objectively make comparisons between the current state of the U.S. and other republics in Western history.
They don't have the faintest grasp on economics, how the tax code works, or who to blame when it doesn't.
They are racists in the most bald sense of the word.
They don't understand the difference between socialist institutions and Socialism.
Their analogies re: Health Care Reform are laughable outside of a second grade classroom.
They are ignorant of any culture outside of their local Baptist Church, not to mention, threatened by those who don't share their views - even to the point of violence, as was demonstrated in the Glen Beck inspired shootings last week.
They can't spell.
They can't conjugate.
They can't give speeches without using the word "ya'll."
They purposely inspire panic and unrest over non-issues and strawmen.
Newt Gingrich frequently speaks at their rallys.
The music at their rally's suck.
They suck Fox news on a nightly basis.
And swallow.
They are ideologically confused, mis-informed, knee-jerk reactionaries, as specifically demonstrated by the crazy shit they
SAY on a daily basis. They say crazy shit because of who they are, but it's crazy shit no matter who says it.
SeriousCallersOnly on 22/10/2010 at 01:30
Idiots will be idiots.
Boy, there are lot of idiots.
I don't watch tv anymore. At all. I suggest everyone does the same.
CCCToad on 22/10/2010 at 02:21
Quote Posted by SeriousCallersOnly
Idiots will be idiots.
Boy, there are lot of idiots.
I don't watch tv anymore. At all. I suggest everyone does the same.
But what about scrubs and Always sunny in Philadelphia?
And, yes, Fett there is plenty of crazy. Yet all those same things are true of the establishment Republicans and the insanity was very well tolerated when they were in power. Tolerated to the point that Democrats (judging by voting records, not statements on camera) were pretty happy to go along with many of his authoritarian moves.
One revealing aspect of this is the fight within the right: establishment right wingers are lambasting the tea partiers as crazy for spouting the same rhetoric they themselves used to rally voters for years.
Renzatic on 22/10/2010 at 03:33
Quote Posted by CCCToad
And, yes, Fett there is plenty of crazy. Yet all those same things are true of the establishment Republicans and the insanity was very well tolerated when they were in power.
You're making one big mistake here, CCC. All the crazy things the Republicans have said in the past have been tolerated because most people in the party know exactly what they are: marketing tactics. Phrases, jingo, whatever you want to call it, all tailor made for a certain large demographic, designed solely to rile them up and get their votes.
Problem is, you do that enough, and it'll eventually backfires. You end up with a whole group of people who took every word you said literally, and believe without a doubt in the boogeymen you've created for them. That's scary enough. But then these same people start catching on to your do as I say, not do as I do approach to politics, and get fed up enough to start doing their own thing. End result? Teabaggers.
So it isn't that the Republicans are flat out crazy, and can get away with firing off bullshit because they're card carrying members of the in crowd. It's more like fighting the consequences of their irresponsibility, because it's eventually going to bite them and everyone else in the ass.
fett on 22/10/2010 at 03:41
Sums it up perfectly, Renz. I don't worry about Reps blowing up the White House, but teabaggers are ready to strangle anyone who thinks kids shouldn't pray in school.
Cokehead on 22/10/2010 at 04:11
Quote Posted by fett
Sums it up perfectly, Renz. I don't worry about Reps blowing up the White House, but teabaggers are ready to strangle anyone who thinks kids shouldn't pray in school.
Even that's an imaginary problem - kids can pray to any god they like in school, in spite of what the fundamentalist endtimes-type mail my stepdad receives (in handy brochure form, if you were curious) - the major restriction to my understanding, is that no authority figure within the school (teachers, administrative staff, etc) can lead the prayers, as this could give the impression that anyone not participating is an outsider.
Oh, and the same sort of class disruption rules apply. Your poor child is free to pray to jebus, but he can't do it out loud.
It's a really easy political points to scream (because you can't really say that sort of thing a normal, sane tone) that your opponent opposes prayer in school, and/or his party has already made it illegal.
Rug Burn Junky on 22/10/2010 at 06:05
Quote Posted by fett
Sums it up perfectly, Renz.
Ahem.
[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
The thing with the Tea Party isn't that they are ideologically any less coherent than the GOP of the past 20 years, but that they don't [...] recognize the difference between outright hyperbole and actual policy. They've digested the hardcore conservative rhetoric cynically used to score political points in the media game, and believe that that extreme rhetoric is the basis for sound government.
[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]
The major problem being that during his tenure here, CCCToad has amply demonstrated that he is a product of this irresponsibility of the conservative movement. Acknowledging the point that the Teabaggers actually believe the shit which the GOP just says (made by both Renz and myself) would require actual introspection as to his own views - an admission that he himself so often parrots these unworkable "principles" and half-truths which are a hallmark of the conservative movement - on a level that he clearly isn't ready for: since even his plain language read of Greenwald is being perverted by the filters necessary to maintain his constructed worldview.
So rare to see cognitive dissonance in action, highlighted in such stark relief.
Queue on 22/10/2010 at 13:21
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Phrases, jingo, whatever you want to call it, all tailor made for a certain large demographic, designed solely to rile them up and get their votes.
Every single Republican's political ad, running in the television right now, has a selling point of so-and-so saving us all from so-and-so's ominous "Liberal Agenda."
The tagline, Liberal Agenda, has to be the greatest marketing ploy ever dreamt up. Two innocuous little words that on their own are not threatening ("Apply a liberal amount of ointment." or "What's on the agenda today?" Do you feel threatened?), but cram them together, slap 'em on as a label and you suddenly inspire feelings of wild Negroes running the streets raping all the young white girls, mandatory abortions for all God fearing folks, and the general end of civilization.
And I think Democrats simply don't know how to counter such marketing. Saying a "Conservative Agenda" just doesn't have the same bite.
Master Villain on 22/10/2010 at 15:08
"Conservative Agenda" sounds like something people would find reassuring. I occasionally try to think up something when I read about US politics, but I'm damned if I can think of two words which have the same kick as "liberal agenda" with the steel capped boot heading for Republican teeth.
Rug Burn Junky on 22/10/2010 at 16:06
Quote Posted by Queue
And I think Democrats simply don't know how to counter such marketing. Saying a "Conservative Agenda" just doesn't have the same bite.
It's not that they don't know how, it's just that it's not effective. The fact is, there are noticeable tendencies in the demographics to whom conservative and liberal thought appeals.
Conservatives tend to be:
* less intelligent
* more fearful
* more likely to think in terms of black & white
* less trusting of those who are different
* more respectful to those perceived in authority
These differences are only ever so slight, not enough to simply draw conclusions about each individual. But on a population basis, they are magnified. Think of it as a set of overlapping bell curves:
[CENTER]
Inline Image:
http://bluegrin.com/pictures/ttlg/bellcurves.png[/CENTER]
In actuality, the overlap is much greater, and the differences between the two curves are razor thin, but this still illlustrates the effect nicely.
The rhetoric that gets rewarded is the stuff that's unconflicted - where the curves don't overlap. Even if there are fewer people there, it's 100% effective, so the bang for the buck is greater. Over time, this leads to a concentration in that sort of messaging.
So conservatives are often reaching towards the MOST fearful, LEAST intelligent portions of their constituency, because those are the messages that are most reinforced with success. And because that audience sees it as a) black & white, and b) coming from their current authority - they take it literally, as though it were the word of god. This is true even in the tea party sense - they've simply replaced their figureheads with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, instead of party insiders. This is a potent combination - it allows for simple messages, which are then internalized with little questioning, and used as a cudgel against anyone not within the circle.
The reason why the conservative method doesn't work for liberals is the demographics - even if it appeals to a segment in the overlap, it's appealling to the segment that leans away from your ideology, so the rewards are questionable at best. When your constituency is more empathetic and less fearful of those who are different, a tact of "differentiate and hate" is always going to be ineffective.
And even where the substance of the difference is a legitimate "other" to guard against, there is always going to be a portion of your demographics that dismisses such stunts as beneath them. The best example is someone like Alan Grayson, who is over the top and hyperbolic in his claims. Whether it's the health care debate ("die quickly") or his current campaign (calling his opponent "Taliban Dan"), he's engaging in the exact same tactics that the right has used for generations, but flipping it. He's excoriated for it. Even though it's seemingly obvious that he's exaggerating for effect, he's taken to task for not being "fair" or "truthful." When such concerns were never a problem for the swift-boat tactics of the other side.
