Interesting link. Dark Woke is meaningless nonsense. Trump’s mean little kid act is the new woke. Cute at first, but we’ve had enough. Newsom is on the right track if he will stick with it
The problem with the go low side is that it assumes that the parties are symmetric. That since the Republicans have been able to lie cheat and steal their way tomthe top we should be able to as well. But this reasoning is as faulty as saying that when police are confronted with a hostage situation the police should counter it by taking hostages of their own.
Going low has worked for the Republicans because that is what their base voters want. The more pettiness, lies, cruelty, and destruction of norms the better. But these sorts of tactics on the left are generally a turn off. Even those in this thread that are embracing the tactics are doing so with a admission they don’t like them but may be a neccessary evil. So use of these tactics on the left is a tradeoff between effectiveness and turning off supporters. A tradeoff that the right doesn’t have to contend with.
There are other assymetries such as the fact that unlike the left, the right don’t seem to mind being lied to so long as it supports their world view resulting in an alternative reality media sphere that the left has been unable to match. Also the Democrats have a big-tent base with multiple agendas who don’t always agree and don’t automatically believe what the party tells them to believe. But that may be outside the topic of this thread.
Moderating:
I think discussing whether “low tactics” by Democrats could or should include lying to their base is absolutely within the scope of this thread to discuss. I think the answer will be swift and short, but it’s not off topic.
“Base” is right, in terms of moral character.
Good point and well said. But we must figure out how decent people can fight this attempt to overthrow the USA.
Decent people don’t create their own ICE Gestapo. We want to remain decent people. We do not want to pick up arms.
I’m calling my congress people. Yet again.
Shit my congressman Michael Bennet’s website is down. Now for Hickenlooper.
Hickenlooper’s phone number is not on the website. Great. Hickenlooper’s website is jacked to send him an email.
Lovely. So it begins.
Good sense here. We don’t even have to use violent rhetoric. It’s not as simple as “what are the moral implications of going low?" because we can’t assume going low, however one defines it, is going to work. We have a different base that values different things. A lot of Republicans are really cruel and enjoy cruelty, so cruelty works. A lot of Democrats are extremely put off by cruelty, so cruelty is unlikely to work as effectively.
(I have a friend who works for the DoD. He said he overheard someone complaining about Trump.
"I don’t get what’s the big deal.”
“He was making fun of someone with a disability."
"Doesn’t everyone?”
That’s Trump’s base.)
While I think it’s generally true that Democrats are incompetent, Democratic politicians also have the harder job. Even leaving aside the plurality of identities they have to somehow coordinate, they are dealing with a population that likes to feel like it’s taking the moral high road. Also we don’t just believe shit because we read it on the Internet.
I read a little bit into Ryan Holiday’s Trust Me, I’m Lying, where he humblebragged about all the right wing misinformation he got paid to proliferate. He said he tried to make money selling lies to liberals, but they didn’t buy it. I think the man is misguided and could not justify giving him any money to read the rest of the book. But there’s something to it. Democrats are not as credulous as Republicans, and we’re less likely to spread things we believe to be false.
So you can’t assume the same tactics will work.
I think you’re right about that. The analogy I use in my own head is the difference between herding cats and herding sheep. The Democrats have the advantage in the sense that the cats outnumber the sheep, but having a numbers advantage in that situation isn’t always enough.
FWIW, part of what I think happened to get us to this point is that I don’t think this was always the case. I think there was a time, probably as recently as 2008, when there was still a significant component of sheep in the Democratic Party and cats in the Republican Party. Whether the parties kicked out their cats / sheep, or they were stolen, or they left on their own accord doesn’t really matter. It’s where we are now, and that’s what we have to deal with.
It’s the only thing that might work, however. “Going high” won’t and never has. Lying in the Republican’s favor and trying to placate them - which is a major part of what “going high” is - only helps them.Going high is about pretending that the Right is composed of decent, well meaning people who mean the best for the country and who should be worked with together in bipartisanship; in other words, it’s about self-destructive levels of denial of reality.
Pointing out that they are racists, misogynists and fascists is going low. Pointing out all the innocent people they are hurting is going low. Pointing out how incompetent they are is going low. Being honest about them at all is going low, because you can’t be honest about them without being insulting.
Being nice to the fascists never makes things better.
Oh, I would have just considered that being honest.
When I hear “go low" I think of lying about the opposition, voter suppression, threatening people, breaking laws. You know, things Republicans do.
Your definition of going low strikes me as very sound.
There’s a difference between “low tactics” and violent, fraudulent or criminal ones. It’s the latter the Republicans like.
Yeah, “when they go low we go high” was broadly about avoiding negative messaging and, specifically, it was a Michelle Obama/Hillary Clinton slogan because they knew that especially in THEIR cases, “going negative” or fighting fire with fire would be labeled as “typical angry Black” or “typical bitter feminist” by the RW side.