From The Politics Ain't Beanbag File

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:36:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Kevin Drum considers whether fight from progressives might work:

If this is right, it's bad news for Bob, who's consistently argued against the Foxification of the left and for a tough but fundamentally factual approach to fighting the modern right. But Suzy is suggesting that although the key to success in Virginia was partly better organization, it was mostly about using more incendiary language. Likewise, in the case of Rush, the key to success had nothing to do with his odious point of view. It was all because we could highlight a single word — slut — that enraged people.

I don't know if this is correct. I'm just tossing it out for comment. But politics has always been about emotion, not cool logic, and maybe these two recent examples suggest that liberals are rediscovering that lesson. We'll see.

We'll see? We've SEEN. (To be fair, Kevin is asking whether Dems will remember this.) Fighting Dems and Fighting Progressives -standing up from a crouched posture, has always worked best. Kevin might want to revisit the debate on the "American Taliban".

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Open Thread | Tonight . . . On The Breitbart Follies >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

From The Politics Ain't Beanbag File | 13 comments (13 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Drum makes no sense. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by dk on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:51:37 PM EST

How is rising up against people who devalue women's bodily autonomy about emotion, as opposed to logic? His post is rather offensive, to be honest. It's certainly not a progressive position, at least. And, his argument against Somersby makes no sense. Is he really trying to imply that the post-Bill Clinton Democratic leadership has ever really put up a strong fight for higher taxes on the wealthy?

It's the fighting part that is novel (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:55:46 PM EST

for Drum.


I think that's probably (4.50 / 2) (#16)
by dk on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 08:54:43 AM EST

what Democratic functionaries think, but I'd remind you that about half of the residents of Virginia are women, most of whom, I would imagine, do not want the state to mandate a that tube be stuck into their vaginas, and that there are at least some men out there who believe that women should not be subjected to such processes either.

It's the fact that the wording represented the truth that had the most power, imo, not simply a good marketing campaign. Good policy (or fighting against bad policy) is really the best medicine. It's a shame, in my opinion, that too many in the Democratic leadership disagree with that statement.


That's a misinterpretation (none / 0) (#7)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 06:57:21 PM EST

Drum says "Politics has always been about emotion," and he's entirely right about that.

I know you're familiar with the concept of "framing" in politics. The fact is, you can't drive voters to the polls with a nice logical exposition on the funding mechanisms of health care, for example. The right wing has known this forever, and couches their nonsense in incendiary language-- "death taxes," "European socialism," "elite snobbery," and the immortal "death panels."

The more-or-less-left has been reluctant to follow suit for decades now, though it wasn't always the case.


No, it's not a misinterpretation. (none / 0) (#11)
by dk on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 09:57:49 PM EST

It's just that I disagree with Drum and, apparently, you.

What the right wing is quite good at is using emotion to obfuscate. You provide some examples above in quotes. The answer is not to do the same. And, I would argue, the "left" isn't as bad at as you seem to think. I mean, look at Obama. What do you "hope and change", "yes we can", and "post-partisan unity" were all about (just as he was voting for FISA, bailing out the 1%, etc. etc.).

The response, as Somersby has been good in pointing out, is that the focus should be on the truth, and the emotion that comes with fighting for the truth. Drum seems to fall into the trap of thinking there is a dichotomy between truth and political success. Of course, this isn't particularly an issue for our current Democratic leadership, which is essentially looking out for their large donors and thus not interested in standing up for principles that would benefit most people.


Well, I don't disagree with (none / 0) (#13)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:08:54 PM EST

anything you say, and neither would Drum.

But the issue in question was emotion, not whether the emotion is ginned up on the basis of a lie or of the truth. I'm 100 percent for ginning up emotion for our side on the basis of truth (we could argue, perhaps, about whether that's what Obama did or not), and it's something that could be done if we had our own Frank Luntz type, or one who was actually listened to.

My long-time reading of Drum is that although he personally isn't generally all that susceptible to being ginned up politically by emotion but prefers more sober factual analysis, he's frequently fulminated over the fact that the GOPers do this so easily with falsehoods and the Dems. can't seem to with truths.

I'll say again it's a misinterpretation to think he thinks emotion and political success inevitably means falsehoods, and I don't really get how you draw that conclusion.


: I get it because Drum (none / 0) (#15)
by dk on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 08:50:11 AM EST

misinterprets Somerby. Drum is trying to paint Somerby as someone against the use of emotion in order to come up with a thesis. Somerby's point is the when emotion is used by the "left" to obfuscate as oppose to bring out the truth, it is ultimately harmful (except, of course, for the corporate sponsors of the Democratic leadership, and the gasbags on MSMBC, who rake in the profits).

If Virginia's ultrasound law had (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by Anne on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 03:30:05 PM EST

started out where it ended up, I doubt there would have been a big to-do over it; it was the requirement for an invasive and intrusive transvaginal procedure that sent people over the edge. And while I know there are those who think "rape" was too strong a word to characterize a medical procedure, what else are you going to call a procedure that introduces - against your will - a probe into your vagina? That's what we call it when the object in question is a broomstick or a baseball bat, so why are we so reluctant to use "rape" to describe a transvaginal ultrasound - because the operator is gentle with us?

And yes, Rush Limbaugh has been spewing toxic waste for years - but most of the time, if you aren't a listener, you don't have to hear about it - we make the choice not subject ourselves to his garbage. The Sandra Fluke incident was brought to everyone's attention in a way that took away that choice because it was everywhere - TV, radio, newspapers, internet - so of course there was backlash.

First we had the Catholic Bishops throwing a hissy fit, and then we had Obama accommodating them, the lovely "aspirin between the knees" comments, the all-male hearing on religious freedom being in danger because of birth control, and then Fluke's remarks and Limbaugh's decision to stir the pot with his usual insensitive and ignorant remarks.

It was a non-stop assault on women, on their autonomy, their privacy, their health care - and it was all being driven by a bunch of men who seem obsessed with controlling women either through religious dogma or secular legislation.

Everyone has their line in the sand, their Howard Beale moment, and many of us had ours over this issue.

I'm not sure we will have such a confluence of insults and invasions and incivility on the other issues that deserve attention, which is why there will be an undercurrent of anger and frustration, but no concerted and organized pushback.

I assume the Bob here is Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by andgarden on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 04:27:05 PM EST

Maybe it's just me, but I've found him increasingly . . . off kilter lately. Of all people, he should know to lay off cable news.

Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 06:51:03 PM EST

He's gotten chemically addicted to his own cynicism and sourness. He's no longer capable of analyzing things with any kind of objectivity.

And it's ironic, given one of his central points (and I think an important and excellent one) is the "us versus them" tribalism that so often cripples the more-or-less-left in this country, that he's become so emotionally wedded to his own "enemies list" of people who have to be shown to be not just always wrong all the time on every point, but lazy and mendacious and thoroughly corrupt.

Jeez.


: At the very least (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:11:56 PM EST

I slog through his stuff every day because he keeps me awake to some things I'd be inclined to slough over otherwise, but it's getting more and more tedious and unpleasant a chore every day.

Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by lilburro on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 04:36:08 PM EST

it seems to me that part of the reason the backlash against Rush now is so strong is that the person he targeted was a well-educated young white woman doing all the right things in the Beltway world, going to Georgetown, etc. Maybe an obvious point. Then again this whole thing has spiraled into a real learning experience about how our Congresscritters think about women and their knowledge of basic physiology.

I liked him as moderator for (none / 0) (#12)
by sj on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 10:15:04 PM EST

The Firing Line Debates. Then it was William Buckley who made my skin crawl.