The answer to this is simple:
We’re against it.
I am in no way focusing solely on (1). The problem is that when you discuss (2), the response from the loyalists is along the lines of “Well, that’s a matter of opinion, and we have to stay the course, and your guy would probably be worse anyway” and so forth.
But the loyalists, for the most part, refuse to accept any part of either 1 or 2. By patiently examining the facts, and actual statements, it is sometimes possible, and even shown on this board, to get them to acknowledge that it wasn’t just “based on bad information”, but an actual lie. When the conceptual breakthrough on 1 is achieved, 2 pretty much follows automatically. When that breakthrough cannot be achieved, as in the case of our friend Shodan, perhaps it can get through to some of the non-posting readers of the thread.
The Fight Against Ignorance (TFAI) requires use of, and respect for, facts above all. It bogs down in the softer ground of value judgments such as in your case (2).
Well, I share and understand your anger and frustration, but I think it is also a fact that people are more likely to base their opinions on value judgements than hard cold facts. Sad but true.
The other thing to consider is how much we (as in “the left”) are also drinking the kool-aid of polarising divisiveness. It’s a human foible, and it is being exploited by the Right, right now. They want you to rant, and ridicule others. Serves a purpose. And so easy to fall into, I know.
But let’s face it: No one likes to be told they’re wrong, or taken for a fool. Personal humiliation is very hard to overcome. And a lot of people invested themselves in the Bush admin. Mostly out of fear, another very human and understandable trait. There are other reasons, but they are hard-core, and will not be influenced by your rants and ridicule. They will be strengthened by them.
A lot of what you see now is pure personal pride, or defensiveness - why else do you think the current polls on support for the war or Bush inspires such vehement attack? This isn’t what “happy” people do. And you’d think they’d be happy that their chosen candidate won, right? I say, give them a way to save face (not that I am always able to manage it, but this is a sober moment - take it for what it’s worth)…
Hmmm. Well, bluntly, the problem is, I’m actually not convinced that Bush (himself) DID lie. Not because I have any respect for him, but rather because I have so LITTLE respect for him that I find it perfectly easy to believe that he believed what he wanted to believe, and thus honestly thought he was telling the truth whenever he made statements about WMDs. Which, of course, is just as frightening as a president who lied, albeit in a somewhat different fashion.
Similarly, he’s made remarks about evolution which show that he really has no idea what he’s talking about. But is he LYING about evolution or just ignorant?
And I and other liberals have given Bush kudoes for his pledge to increase American funds to fight AIDS in Africa. Very much the right thing to do, and we said so. Gosh, there goes another beautiful theory, mugged by a gang of ugly facts.
Spoken like a Bush loyalist, which I know you aren’t. You seem less sick than me of their retort “He’s NOT a liar. He’s a FOOL. Hmmph!”
Perhaps I can get you to agree with “willfully self-deluded”? He isn’t merely passively ignorant, in the usual sense. He isn’t merely uninterested in the world around him. No, he is actively ignorant. He positively refuses to be informed, or even to consider that he might not understand a situation fully enough, or even to acknowledge that he’s capable of making a mistake. I include such an propensity to lie to one’s own self in my definition of lying.
And if we were only comparing opinions on a roughly comparable basis, I’d even agree. But facts are paramount. We’re arguing facts, trying our level best to get the actively ignorant (a category which is not confined to Bush, but includes even some Dopers) to see what they are. The value judgments follow them. The enemy is ignorance itself, and the fight starts with getting the facts to be seen and accepted.
Oh, in at least many cases, they are, they are. (Pssst, Bricker, she means you).
But I agree that far more Bush voters are apprehensive and reluctant, and I attribute that in large part to their now knowing that there is no one else to blame. The cohesiveness of the reflexive-conservative culture has been due in large part to having a boogeyman enemy to castigate, and blame for everything that has gone wrong. Now they actually have to accept full responsibility no matter what, no more blaming Clinton, and they’re scared totally shitless. Some, perhaps among the more frequent posters here, may feel it but be covering that with schoolyard-level bravado; others may have chosen to disappear almost entirely rather than engage in discussions in which their own earlier childish displays will be discussed, a few have acknowledged having been wrong.
I agree that is the problem, but look at what you’re up against (all stats from a Pew Poll, June 2004):
If they barely believe Fox, what chance is there that they’ll believe you, or any other “lying lefty”?
C-SPAN.
So, what’s the plan again?
I find that plausible. The situation, of course, is made far more complicated by the fact that there are two things that are important:
(a) what Bush himself said/knew
and
(b) what his top level advisers (Rumsfed, Ashcroft, Cheney, etc.) said/knew
But honestly, I still think that discussing precisely where on the wrong<->dishonest scale each of the participants fall doesn’t accomplish much, because without simultaneously inventing time travel and ESP we’re never really definitively going to know. But ALL points on that scale are places which, when a president starts a WAR from them, that president ought to suffer some consequence or other.
Take the war (the ideological one) to their own homeland. For a couple of decades now, it’s been essentially screaming and cursing from “their side”. Our replies of “Well, maybe you’ve got a point there, let’s sit down and look at it” have been consistently taken as evidence not of good faith or responsibility but of admission of error and general irresoluteness. You know what the result has been, but you advocate more of the same anyway? *Fuck * that shit.
I’d suggest that we keep our reason and our responsibility to ourselves, but act the same way they do. Rebut their claims of fact with reality, point by point. Call them names derived from that reality, not the way they call us names based on fantasies about our views. Ram reality down their throats. We can do it without alienating the “reality-based community” that knows we’re right, and we can sway the lowbrows who are appealed to on a visceral level. Cut the intellectualism that can come across as snobbism and the responsibility that can come across as weakness - when we’re attacked with bullshit, attack right back with facts, at least as hard, and our stronger position will win. We don’t have to sacrifice or modify any principles to do it either; this is simply about communications methods.
I’m not advocating that at all. Is that how you read it?
You’re right that appeasement hasn’t worked out well, but I’m pointing out that ranting hasn’t worked either, and I don’t see signs that it will in the near future. If you could point me to some successes using either of these communication styles I’d appreciate.
I don’t have any answers (yet), but while we’re waiting for people to “wake up”, I don’t think it would hurt to take another look at the whys - the underlying motivations for the continuing cognitive dissonance. And that comes back to value judgements. Are you saying that value judgements don’t play a role in your own politics?
People will see it when they believe it. Or when they can believe it.
A lot of people are very invested in their value judgements. It’s not just conceding a point on a messageboard - their whole lives revolve around those beliefs. What are you offering to take the place of those beliefs?
People want to believe in something. Rants and appeasement aside, the person who offers an alternative belief for people to hold onto will be the next Martin Luther King. Great as he was, MLK didn’t arise to greatness from a vacuum - he filled a gap, when many were looking for something to hold onto. Unfortunately, Hitler filled a gap as well…
Does “The Left” have anyone ready to fill the gap when the people wake up and are floundering in their beliefs?
BTW, my comment about “happy” people wasn’t exclusive to Bricker, or even strictly people identified as right-wing - and it wasn’t a slam. I was thinking that “happy” people wouldn’t be posting regularly to the political threads at all right now. It’s been a long, ugly campaign.
To quote John Edwards, “Aren’t you sick of it?”
Happy people don’t advocate or prosecute preemptive or unnecessary wars, or feel the need to defend their chosen candidate’s every utterance. Conversely, happy people don’t get up at 4am to ride a bus for 6 hours to take part in an anti-war protest, or rant on messageboards about Bush’s every utterance. The worst (and the best) of history has come about because of unhappy people.
Happy people mind their own business. Because they can. Because they’re happy with the status quo.
IOW, I wish you would have addressed my other points (re the deliberate polarising of the electorate, and the importance of value judgements). Maybe another thread for another time…
“It is no longer a choice, my friends, between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence.”
- Martin Luther King, National Cathedral, Washington, DC, March 31, 1968
(King was assassinated four days after that speech)
We’ve done a lot more appeasing than ranting. Something has to change, and neither of us has a different option. Nor, for that matter, do I accept your characterization of “ranting” - that implies an argument derived from emotion, with *disregard * of fact. I favor a more forceful, more visceral presentation *of * fact, combined with spokespersons more credible to most voters than rich white suits who look just like Republicans.
I agree with you that personal complacency is a large part of the problem - “I got mine, Jack, who the hell are you?” is an ancient problem, and the GOP has clearly targeted their policies toward them. “I got my tax cut, who cares who has to pay for it?” is the most glaring result.
I see the polarization being mainly of the rhetoric, not the electorate - just about everyone I talk with about politics has much more nuanced, even conflicted, views than any of the candidates or talking heads show. The alienation that the rhetoric game causes is the biggest problem, not the superficial lib/con split that the talking heads claim.
Of course value judgments are necessary - all I’m saying is that they must be based on fact, not flouting them. The ignorant start with their beliefs and look for facts to support them when challenged. The ignorance fighters start with the facts and go from there.
No, I don’t think ranting and disregard for fact are mutually exclusive. But for the purposes of my points here, it is irrelevant.
Well, I know quite a few “greedy”, short-sighted people too. But I don’t think these people are representative of the problem. Maybe that is where we differ?
I don’t see the difference between the alienation you speak of and the alienation I speak of. Could you be more specific? Thanks.
This assertion is the interesting and debatable crux. Elvis, are you absolutely certain that all of your beliefs are based on facts, and only facts? For example, what about the issues that are debatable by dint of the absence of facts either way?
This is exactly right – one reason the right has been drubbing the left in elections is that they have figured out that among the TV watching masses, style points count for a LOT more than substance. Come out swinging and angry and keep it simple. If you want to really think through a problem, this is the place to do it, not on TV or the radio or in real life, where too many people see thought as the same as prevarication same as cowardice same as being in the wrong.
So what about the people who value substance over style?
Where is the memo that tells these people to back down on their principles, because you’ve got a stategy that supercedes principles for the short haul?
And what is the guarantee to these people that principles will overrride that strategy when or if the strategy prevails?
Please explain how fucking over your base is a worthwhile strategy. I don’t see it. I’d like to hear where I’m going wrong in thinking that. Sincerely.
I’d like to add to that:
Is it considered worthwhile because the GOP has been using it to advantage, in the short haul?
I’m thinking that this will be their eventual undoing. But if you think otherwise, I’d appreciate hearing about it. Unless your own goals are strictly short term too…
[QUOTE=annaplurabelle]
So what about the people who value substance over style?
[quote]
They typically get their news from print sources, overseas sources and the Internet.
I’ve got no beef with reasoned discourse for people who are capable of following it. Look at the way the last few elections have been conducted via broadcast media. Call the Republican approach reasoned discourse? They pitch their message to their audience, as the Dems should.
Guarantees are hard to come by in this life, but the fact is that you can do anything you like once you’re in power, so long as you continue to flood the media with the right bullshit, even stuff that has nothing to do with what you campaigned on. If the Bush presidency has proven nothing else, it has proven this.
I don’t recall proposing fucking over the Dem base, but if you don’t think the middle class gucks who voted Republican aren’t being bent over a barrel economically, you haven’t been paying attention.
I do not share your conviction that the GOP will be undone by their strategy. If they are undone at all, it will be because they become victims of their own success – there will be fissures as various factions struggle for power with the Dems in disarray. This may take awhile. It could be a very long haul if we have to wait for it.
To be fair, you didn’t propose it specifically, but I still think the question applies to your suggested tactics.
And I still think y’all (ie, you and Elvis) are avoiding my questions/points.
No, I’ve tried to address your points very directly. It is possible I have misunderstood what you have been saying.
See, it is the comment like this that I can’t comprehend even the most devoted Bush supporter denying that it is a lie… He said they FOUND THEM. If I say that I found a chocolate cupcake on my counter, then you walk into the kitchen and there is no tasty treat awaiting consumption… there are only so many conclusions you can make. One of the most likely is that I WAS LYING. Now, given that the Bush admin didn’t even make a serious attempt to say that the cupcake was moved or eaten by someone else, and the sites where they “HAD FOUND” said cupcakes were mysteriously absent and devoid of any shred of evidence that so much as a single sprinkle had been there… I would have to come back into the other room and punch you in the face for being a dirty liar.