Eh, I sort of get this. It's not so much, for example, that you could have been a GHWB Republican and are now a Democratic partisan; it's that if you are a GHWB Republican today, you're probably a Democratic partisan. Maybe if you were always a Dem, it's hard to see how far the poles have shifted, but they've shifted a lot.
Maybe that's it. I'm reasonably polite, but I am, and always have been a hard liberal, and I was raised by the actual loony left (Confession: Basically any time I refer to any ridiculous position being attributed to the left generally as something that 'no one really believes', I say that with the mental reservation 'Except Mom.' My mother thinks W hired the 9-11 highjackers. You name anything else, she probably believes it.)
One major difference is how they see their GOP counterparts.
There used to be an honorable wing of the Republican Party (I speak here of its elected representatives in Washington, not the rank and file), within my own memory. It no longer exists, beyond three or four marginalized senators from New England. Maybe there are some specimens stuck on the back benches in the House, too, but it's harder to keep track of 231 individual representatives.
Being roughly my age, I can see how Drum and Marshall started out moderate. Less clear how Ezra did, what with coming of age during the Gingrich years. But what remains of the GOP in DC is a nasty, unsavory bunch who should only be approached with knives drawn. The "bipartisan" talk from folks like McCain and Specter is just so much pissing in the wind.
While they're three of my favorite bloggers
hell. If you read those three daily, and you wonder why you lack energy and feel sleepy all the time, then that's why. It's the blogular equivalent of Temazepam, but without the good times and jokes.
I'm sure you all read them two-three years ago, so you should have some inkling what they refer to, if not why.
Kevin Drum hasn't really changed that much (unfortunately).
6: I'd been relying solely on your blog for information, but the once-weekly posting schedule with frequent six-month hiatuses led me to seek alternative reading material.
Marshall now generally favors the same approach to politics for the Dems as Duncan Black, but Drum doesn't.
9 - Zing! And a moderate turns mean right before your eyes!
Less clear how Ezra did, what with coming of age during the Gingrich years.
Otherwise known as the Clinton years.
I started out mean. I've become much more restrained in my advanced years.
There's a couple of things to sort through here. One is the question of personality. I used to like conflict (online and otherwise); now I find that I get kind of queasy thinking about it unless the stakes are high (e.g., it's really important to stand my ground) and I know I've got the advantage before it even starts. I was reading a few blogspats over the weekend that entangle some of the academic blogs and it was just personally depressing to me. Reading Drum's comment section depresses me. Reading most highly partisan blogs depress me. That's just a personal, emotional thing. It isn't just what I want to be doing for either leisure *or* edification.
But ok. The second thing is the thought that for philosophical reasons it's important to treat the public sphere as an agora, open to all, and to scrupulously restrain yourself in terms of the kinds of claims, actions, and tactics you'll use, in order to preserve the democratic, open character of the public sphere. So no ad hominem; you try to be scrupulous about your sources; you try to be fair (not the same as being either moderate or balanced); you try to understand what other people are saying and why they're saying it before you criticize. This is a set of values I feel like I've had to learn, that I have to remind myself to stick to, and it gets really hard to stick to it when you feel like you're surrounded by people who don't give a shit about any of those core values, who are in various ways utterly shameless. And yes, I think that there are at the moment WAY WAY more pundits on the far right who are shameless in this way. So I can see someone saying, "Ok, fuck that stuff, I'm gonna play the game the way that they play it." But not only does that put the public sphere at even further risk, I guess I wonder if being slimy actually is what's working for a lot of rightwing pundits. That's an open question for me: I don't know if that's the source of their success or effectiveness. It's also it's a big mistake to be reactive and humorless, and people who let themselves be baited by rightwing asshole pundits often fall into that trap. Getting visibly angry or confrontation is smart only when you've already got the upper hand for some reason.
There's also a deep political point here, which is that liberals, leftists, progressives, the reality-based community, moderates (name your preferred faction) pretty much fucked up the modern culture wars in the 1970s and 1980s by thinking that all you had to do was seize civic institutions, grab the megaphone of culture, and hammer home your own version of social truth. Basically I think you don't get anywhere politically if you don't accomodate yourself in some respect to the everyday habitus of people you disagree with. This doesn't mean making nice-nice with asshole pundits on the right, but it does mean staying open-minded, curious, generous, even humble, in the face of the mystery of why people think and believe what they do when it's not what you think. The more aggressively partisan you get, whatever your ideology, the more that necessary posture of openness drops away, the more you perceive everyone in the world as a mortal enemy. All the people who read Ann Coulter are not Ann Coulter. A lot of them might be folks you could sit down and have a beer with and find out that they've got doubts about going to church, think that Bush isn't to be trusted, wish we hadn't gone to Iraq, or what have you. But if you don't sit down for a beer and instead start yelling "abortionrightsgaymarriageevolutionbloodforoil" the moment you see folks with Ann Coulter on their reading lists, you can expect them to spew back a parrotted line straight from the pundits.
So for me this is about deeply held values, about personal emotional preferences, and about a calculated reading of political tactics. But I get what they're saying, and why they feel like they've moved some distance. To some extent, they're asking if the decency trap is *ever* going to get sprung, when it is that the far right is going to have its McCarthy-Army hearings moment, where someone respected says, "Have you no decency, sir?" and basically good-hearted people who haven't paid much attention up to that point stand up and say, "Hey, yeah, that's mean, cut that shit out."
Clinton was a calm, civil, moderate type. People who admired Clinton tended to shift to the middle like Clinton. They tended to think that welfare reform and balanced budgets were a real good idea.
Now that the country is ruled by Bush who makes insane bad desicions, being a "calm, civil, moderate type" like Lieberman is just enabling the horrible Bush administration.
17: But we're not talking about ideology in these instances.
Thesis: Moderate blogs are boring and people like having audiences, hence partisanship.
Also, reading the comment threads at the Washington Monthly leads to blindness. And 16 gets it right except it needs more swearing and calabatting, because sometimes it's okay to say, now, what the fuck are you on oh mine eyes they cannot see this stupidity.
#13: there is nothing remotely poofy about being chastised by a lady and if anyone says there is I'll tell Matron.
These guys have turned mean because they have spent the last six years trying to get the Democrats elected. The chap who has the job of promoting Barnsley as a tourist destination is a sarky little bastid too.
Seriously, they've turned mean because for each of them, their lives have moved in a direction where they spend more of their time thinking about politics and doing politics things and less time interacting with normal human beings. Even voting in elections is a minority hobby and actually thinking about politics between elections must be well below matchbox collecting in the popularity stakes. All minority hobbies tend to have their nasty little subcultures that suck you in. It's like someone who used to be a weekend cricketer who starts taking it a bit more seriously and fondly remembers the days when he wasn't so screwed up about who got selected for the Second Eleven Development Side to play Wycombe.
I think 17 gets it right. Specifically, in the case of Josh Marshall -- my understanding was that he left The American Prospect, because he wanted to support Clinton and Gore while the publishers were more inclined to attack them as being insufficiently liberal.
First paragraph of 16 is encouraging to me because it makes me think I might someday get a taste for conflict.
I also think 17 gets it exactly right. This has a lot to do with Clinton.
The second thing is the thought that for philosophical reasons it's important to treat the public sphere as an agora
good God, the man who wrote that sentence has some gall in saying that reading other people depresses him.
So no ad hominem; you try to be scrupulous about your sources; you try to be fair (not the same as being either moderate or balanced); you try to understand what other people are saying and why they're saying it before you criticize
These are a set of values that I follow to the letter[1]. But I like to think I am both partisan and mean. Socrates, Doctor Johnson and Churchill are on my side on this one btw.
[1] Go on, you bunch of bastards. Get the distinction wrong between argumentum ad hominem and personal insults. I dare you.
18, 22: I think we're not. Civility is a style, moderation is a set of policy preferences. You can be a gentle, courtly, warm and friendly socialist or libertarian, and a mean, hostile, nasty, partisanly-dishonest DLCer.
18. I wasn't clear.
What I meant was when clinton was president, democrats were open to clinton's move to the center so they tended to be moderate and civil in tone. Why get angry at some republican proposal if you are just going to adapt it as your own.
22: No, absolutely not. They all have the same ideology, but Klein is less generally mushy, and Marshall has embraced the netroots (or Simon Rosenberg) strategy rather than the DLC. He still agrees with the DLC on policy, as do Rosenberg. Drum hasn't actually changed much, maybe the number of wingnuts he engages is smaller.
and right, this sort of thing:
So no ad hominem; you try to be scrupulous about your sources; you try to be fair (not the same as being either moderate or balanced); you try to understand what other people are saying and why they're saying it before you criticize.
is what I mean by civility, or honesty. Personal insults are a matter of taste (or lack thereof).
26: Yes, but moderation in the sense of bipartisan compromise etc. necessarily involves a certain amount of courteous interaction with people of different ideologies.
I will also put in a qualified plea in defence of argumentum ad hominem in many cases. There is no fancy Latin name for the fallacy of giving hacks and ideologues the benefit of the doubt, but it is a powerful source of error.
26: Actually, I don't civility has much to do with it either.
. So no ad hominem; you try to be scrupulous about your sources; you try to be fair (not the same as being either moderate or balanced); you try to understand what other people are saying and why they're saying it before you criticize.
I think this is only possible with a sufficient set of common priors. And increasingly, the Republican Party is made up of people with whom I appear to have very few important common priors. I don't think they're trying to be unfair or crazy; I think they are fair by their lights, and that I seem crazy to them. (Cf. Ideal and baa still think going into Iraq was a good idea, and I suspect I share a lot of common priors with them.)
There's also a deep political point here, which is that liberals, leftists, progressives, the reality-based community, moderates (name your preferred faction) pretty much fucked up the modern culture wars in the 1970s and 1980s by thinking that all you had to do was seize civic institutions, grab the megaphone of culture, and hammer home your own version of social truth.
Part of it is also that they overclaimed. If they'd been proven definitively right, things might have gone differently. It's not merely that liberals were rude, and Clinton was concilliatory; it's that liberals were oversure and aggressive in policy, and Clinton was relatively cautious.
All the people who read Ann Coulter are not Ann Coulter. A lot of them might be folks you could sit down and have a beer with and find out that they've got doubts about going to church, think that Bush isn't to be trusted, wish we hadn't gone to Iraq, or what have you.
This is just a tactical disagreement. One of the stereotypes with which the Republicans have saddled Dems is that we always want to feel the other guy's pain, and understand what he's thinking. To the extent we embody that stereotype, we're not going to change the minds of anyone who sees that as a weakness in, for example, the prosecution of the WOT. Sometimes people trust you more in certain areas when they've seen you act like a bully. Sad but true.
At some point, personal criticisms are fair enough, though they may rarely be especially effective, depending on what you're trying to accomplish. I don't have much objection to someone saying that there's something personally obscene about the spectacle of Christopher Hitchens screaming at Iraqi intellectuals about how they're not trying hard enough to satisfy whatever bullshit vision he's been peddling lately, or complaining that they're too easily "bought off". Or that there's something utterly nasty about various right-wing plutocrats suggesting that Ned Lamont's wealth insulates him from the brutal reality of war. I think it's fair to yell "chickenhawk" when some military-age conservative pundit says that the only problem with the war so far is that we haven't killed enough people or fought hard enough.
I just think that in terms of values, ad hominem claims should never be the first, second or even third plank of a persuasive argument. And that even when ad hominem claims are perfectly fair, you might still want to avoid them simply because they're ineffective, because they make you look churlish or cruel or immature. Reagan may have been senile, for example, but just yelling about his senility only made some people more sympathetic to him than they might otherwise have been: you can't be mean to Grandpa, even when he did park the car at Wal-Mart and then forgot where he left it. Bush may be a former (and present) alcoholic, but hammering on it just antagonizes people who are either struggling with drinking problems themselves or feel like they've used their own religious faith to overcome such problems.
As usual, Tim Burke gets it all right. I'd just add that considerations are complicated by the position and audience of the speaker. Nancy Pelosi, Atrios, someone at a dinner party talking to a Republican, and an academic writing on his blog should all have very different ways of exhorting and persuading.
SCMT: What's the difference between saying, "We need to act more like bullies, because some people won't respect you until you punch them hard enough in the snoot" and someone on the right saying, "We need to actually be far more aggressive and bloody in our prosecution of the war in Iraq; insurgencies don't quiet down until you arbitrarily kill every other first-born son."?
Yeah, I know, apples and oranges, but the link is a kind of logic of violence, that there are people with whom violence (discursive, actual, or somewhere in between) works. This I actually agree with: but just as I don't think there is a magic cruise missile that can go down the chimney of a house and only kill the insurgents inside, I don't think there is a discursive smart bomb that lets you bully the guy who is impressed or intimidated by violent argument. In both cases, there is a lot of collateral damage that tends to make way more enemies than it stops.
Ogged's right that it depends on who you are, yeah. A professor screaming at the top of his blog about those assholes in Washington is basically throwing away whatever last scrap of reputational capital that being a professor might allot to you, and just being another schlub, of which there are plenty. A comedian who wants to call Rush Limbaugh fat, on the other hand, is speaking from somewhere else, and it may be a perfectly good thing for him to do.
And that even when ad hominem claims are perfectly fair, you might still want to avoid them simply because they're ineffective, because they make you look churlish or cruel or immature.
Clinton is great about addressing this concern by connecting himself to the criticized group. "Cut taxes for people like me...," "The Republicans are led by a very small group of guys who have accents like mine...," and "If I were running as an Independent, I'd say the same thing Lieberman's saying, but...."
33: One thing Orson Scott Card was right about (in addition to the use of ridiculous classical monikers on the internets, and the 12 yr old military space cadet geniuses) is that it takes empathy to be truly, effectively ruthless. Sit down with the Ann Coulter reader and on the third or fourth beer, call him a nancy boy.
Or I don't know, don't. But empathy itself is never a weakness. Hide it, sure.
Ogged's right that it depends on who you are, yeah.
Agree with that. Though with professors, it's mostly that I expect a certain dispassionate voice, or at least a removed voice. Berube's not kind, but I don't think less of him for that unkindness. To some extent, I would say the same with Leiter. That is, I expect good professors to be mean, but I expect them to be smart and analytic mean.
Let me put it this way: have you ever known anyone in your life who was able to persuade you do something you were initially unlikely to want to do? At least some of the time, that's going to be a person who either understands how you work inside, or a person who at least gives the impression that they're *trying* to. And I firmly believe you can learn empathy, and have it both for individuals and groups. A good intuitive salesman or advertiser has it; a good anthropologist has it; a good politician probably has it, at least at first. It's absolutely correct to say that you don't have to preach or talk an empathetic line, but you need to have a basic commitment to empathetic engagement if you want to have any chance of successfully opposing what you engage. Otherwise it's just about rounding up your own posse and going out for a gunfight, and I hate to break the news, but our posse is pretty much outgunned and has been for a while.
This I actually agree with: but just as I don't think there is a magic cruise missile that can go down the chimney of a house and only kill the insurgents inside, I don't think there is a discursive smart bomb that lets you bully the guy who is impressed or intimidated by violent argument. In both cases, there is a lot of collateral damage that tends to make way more enemies than it stops.
I think I agree with you, and I think Clinton handles it the right way. (See #39.) But it's really, really useful to have an enemy to blame things on. More importantly, it's really useful to have someone you can point to and say to the voter, "Blame your mistakes on him."
I'm not sure I disagree with you very much, if at all. These are questions of judgment about deploying certain styles of argument, and the proper answer is that the "proper answer" is going to depend on very specific context.
Isn't it kind of obvious that what we need is different rhetorical styles from different angles (and also, to be fair, mexicans)? Some on the left need to be above the fray. Others need to get dirty. As far as one's personal enjoyment, there are probably advantages and disadvantages to both positions.
What we had after the success of the Clinton years, was too many people thinking they didn't have to get dirty, jockying for the high, clean place. But now we're all so angry that getting dirty doesn't seem so bad.
In other words, what everyone has already said.
At least some of the time, that's going to be a person who either understands how you work inside, or a person who at least gives the impression that they're *trying* to. And I firmly believe you can learn empathy, and have it both for individuals and groups.
Yeah, but....people are often most easily seduced by empathy just after they've been brutalized by someone else. Or so Lifetime movies have led me to believe. There is something similar going on in Clinton's strategy of triangulation, I think. Empathy is the closer; I think--to the extent we disagree at all--we're disagreeing about with what we should lead.
Reading Drum's comment section depresses me.
If there's anything more pointless than Drum's comment threads, I don't know about it.
"... a white, southern male, who graduated from [XXXXXXXX] in 1999. I was a varsity athlete, a history major and considered myself a moderate in both temperament and ideology. I even identified with certain aspects of "conservatism" and was eager to criticize the worst elements of both parties, etc. etc.
Except for the age and the athleticism, Marshall's reader's description of himself describes me, too, when I was in college. I've always been largely liberal in outlook, but at the time I naively believed that it was possible to rise above politics and that, in fact, people should "rise above" politics. I was willing to believe that because I could get along with Republican friends socially, it was possible/desirable to meet them half-way politically, too. In the wake of Whitewater and 6 years of the Bush Administration, I've pretty much abandoned those beliefs for good. Certainly, today, I'm much more willing to act for, vote for, and contribute money to the Democratic party solely on party lines than I was (as well as becoming angrier when it looks like the party is frittering away whatever principles or opportunities to retake offices remain) Bush hasn't persuaded me of much, but he's done a very good job of talking me into becoming a Yellow Dog Democrat.
The mainstream liberal blogs are all appallingly boring. In fact, there should be a whole other category for them. I can understand someone who would really get into Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh -- but I cannot get inside the head of a person who is nursing a Daily Kos addiction.
This thread reminds me that either Tim Burke and I have fundamentally different dispositions -- or else he and I are actually a lot alike (or else I'm like Tim Burke at age 25) and his Internet persona reflects the results of years and years of massive self-restraint.
47: Bush has pushed me beyond "yellow dog" Democrat to "Satan himself" Democrat. I'm sure that the Lord of Darkness would fit in really well among the Democrats -- no principles, but really competent.
I call upon Tim Burke to deny he was ever like Kotsko!
Also, reading the comment threads at the Washington Monthly leads to blindness.
"the comment threads at the Washington Monthly" s/b "any comment thread with more than 30 comments, at any political blog".
But the Washington Monthly's one is absolutely horrible. I'm glad that Drum makes no effort at all to police it, so people who have something intelligent to say immediately recoil and go somewhere else instead of wasting their insight there.
Typical comment thread.
20% complaints that he has posted about this issue instead of some more important issue (this generally includes the first seven comments)
10% suggestions that he post about something else
20% suggestions that people check out posts on some other blog about some other topic enitrely
5% people saying "Frist! lol"
30% insane rants entirely in lowercase
5% insane rants entirely in uppercase
10% entire news stories cut-and-pasted
But they're really nice to guest bloggers.
I remember when Drum's comment sections were readable. Christ, but that was a long time ago.
That's right; Drum's comment section, back when he was Calpundit, was actually really good.
53: Now tell us about how great the music was, Grandpa.
It stopped being good before he stopped being Calpundit. I'm a comments junkie -- in print publications, I'm inappropriately fascinated by the letter column -- and I haven't been able to read his comments, or Atrios's, for years and years.
I think there needs to be an easily accessible list of incredibly annoying things that bloggers and commenters do.
One that I've been noticing more and more is a person who just posts the same vague sentence on every single thread, hoping it will become a catchphrase (see #58 for an example).
This sometimes happens to actual bloggers as well, and is a sign of laziness and complacency.
e.g. posting one paragraph of a news story and then saying "Worst. President. Ever." (any number of blogs)
or posting one paragraph of a news story and then saying "Once again, The Religion of Peace, everyone." (LGF)
or posting fifteen paragraphs of a news story and then saying "He thinks white people will vote for him? Damn, he's dumb." (Steve Gilliard)
We gotta kick the bastards out!
-granny
Sometimes repeated catchphrases can be ok. I think Atrios's "bobo's world" is a really good idea, for example.
For all his many faults, Atrios is superior to other bloggers in terms of breaking an obnoxious habit -- namely, using cutesy quotations as the body text of open thread posts. That was just insufferable.
I was once just like Kotsko, only I saved all my Internet fury for people on Usenet who liked Star Trek: Voyager or who failed to understand John Boswell's brilliant arguments about Christianity and homosexuality.
So a couple of things Adam should know. 1) Don't eat too much red meat, that's been a bad idea. 2) Exercise more also. 3) Consider a less frustrating field than African history. Oh. Theology. You blew it already. 4) Don't buy so many books. But the big-screen TV is worth saving up for.
Sometimes repeated catchphrases can be ok.
They're effective; to put an idea into somebody's head, it has to be repeated. But it's still annoying. It's advertising. I don't come back to blogs that just advertise ideas at me day after day. I guess they have some success in implanting memes in the punditry discourse (if pundits actually read these blogs), but at the expense of actually having a respectful readership.
I haven't read the thread yet, but c'mon: Ezra Klein is about 14. He didn't use to be anything besides a twinkle in his parents' eyes.
"Impeach Bush. Impeach Bush now." On what? Being an idiot isn't impeachable if you swindled Congress into voting for your stupid war.
And pretty much anything TPMcafe commenters have in their signatures.
I also nominate 'rapes you in the face' because it's too embarassing to live.
I knew it! You can smell the passion of a convert a mile away -- in this case, a convert to moderation. "If I could overcome my addiction to inane vituperation, anyone can!"
I was once just like Kotsko
There you go, Adam: a message of hope.
"Impeach Bush. Impeach Bush now." On what? Being an idiot isn't impeachable if you swindled Congress into voting for your stupid war.
Lying to Congress and the American public about a war is less impeachable than lying in a deposition about getting a blowjob? There's no legal standard for impeachment -- 'high crimes and misdemeanors' means, basically, that 'we think you really, really suck'. I think it's a fine catchphrase, although they're all sort of pointless.
I haven't read the thread yet, but c'mon: Ezra Klein is about 14. He didn't use to be anything besides a twinkle in his parents' eyes.
Hey, I'm about Ezra Klein's age. I remember thinking Rush Limbaugh was hilarious. That was when my mom was given a home-made cassette tape of various song parodies taped from his show. She responded to the gift with hardly hidden revulsion, and I quickly snapped it up, and it was one of my favorite things to listen to between the ages of 10 and 12. Then I gave up childish things...
? Being an idiot isn't impeachable if you swindled Congress into voting for your stupid war.
I think impeachment is really a political action, not a legal one. We could impeach Bush for touching himself too often, if we wanted. It would just be a really bad idea as a matter of policy.
the same vague sentence on every single thread
"moronic brownshirt fuck". Incidentally, google asks me whether I was actually looking for "mnemonic brownshirt fuck", which returns no hits at all and seems a terribly strange replacement suggestion.
Don't eat too much red meat
It's like you're talking some crazy moonman language, Burke.
We could impeach Bush for touching himself too often, if we wanted.
I see you're in favor of the Bin Laden/Barbra Streisand plan for shari'a rule in the US.
71: searching for that led me to this, which is a list kind of like what I had in mind. I think it's actually supporting the use of moronic knee-jerk catchphrases, though.
On another topic, IOKIYAR (hat tip to Cincinnatus Demosthenes).
We could impeach Bush for touching himself too often, if we wanted.
That would rock.
I remember thinking Rush Limbaugh was hilarious.
I used to like the bit, when I was 12 or so, where he threatened a lobster he named PETA and then callers called up and were upset about his plans to dunk the lobster in a pot of boiling water. But then I read his book where he said that dolphins didn't have intelligence because they couldn't build cities and I figured he was just an entertainer who wasn't that bright because everyone knows dolphins are smart. I thought he was funny and was absolutely bewildered that people took him seriously as a policy wonk.
I listened to a lot of talk radio as a kid. This explains my natural charisma.
I went through a period of watching Limbaugh when I was a kid. I'm still not sure why.
WATCHING Limbaugh? There's no excuse for that, even for a kid.
I watched his short-lived TV show as well.
Too much = 4 nights a week.
Poof. On so many different levels.
You guys are all WATBs. Forget about the Clenis and let's chimpeach the chimperor!!
You know, the problem with sarcasm is that I have no idea who OG is attempting to make fun of.
"Clenis" is the most annoying phrase ever. People like that, I always imagine them talking really loudly, acting elated in a weird, almost aggressive way, and having loud, barking laughter. Lefty comments sections are strange places.
I had never listened to Limbaugh until 2003, when I listened to the Armed Services Radio, which played an hour of his show every day. I have to admit that I tuned in all the time.
A professor screaming at the top of his blog about those assholes in Washington is basically throwing away whatever last scrap of reputational capital that being a professor might allot to you, and just being another schlub, of which there are plenty.
This, and the rest of what Timothy Burke says, is, as per usual, wonderfully true. One big reason why what he says (and not just about professors) is wonderfully true: you (using the broad you of the civilian, blogging audience) aren't political actors on the grand stage. You aren't running the DNC or RNC. Maybe there's something for Harry Reid to gain by being a harsh partisan. Maybe there's something for Bill Frist to gain in concocting scurilous attacks. But there is really nothing at all for you to gain other than your own gratification. And, here, let me suggest: in the end, you will not be gratified.
I don't know if I come off very partison or not, but I tell you this: I gratify myself plenty.
ahh! partisan. Now I've got to go gratify myself to make up for that.
I think 88 is somewhat wrong. I have been convinced into greater partisanism by people like John Emerson. Partisanship isn't a good excuse for being stupid though.
You know, the problem with sarcasm is that I have no idea who OG is attempting to make fun of.
You apparently don't read the comments sections at many lefty blogs.
baa, you enemy of the working man, scourge of the compassionate, denier of truth, minion of evil, may George Bush's motorcade idle outside your home for eternity.
92: No, I get the vocabulary. I don't know whether OG is making fun of us all for being just like that, or whether she's commending us for our restraint in not being like those people.
You're Aristotelean enough, ogged, to know that we don't always know what us happy. Although the moderate mope is likewise a poor example of human excellence.
I think she was compelling us to chimpeach somebody. I'm not sure how it works, but I think the end product is, we each get a chimp. So I think I'm for it.
we don't always know what us happy.
We do know what us good life virtue.
what me happy: chimp: self-gratification.
95: I think you're reading too much into it.
I wholeheartedly support text's chimpeachment program.
88 is kind of wrong, I think. If there's any advantage in nasty namecalling, it makes sense that it should operate at all levels. Limbaugh says nasty things about Feminazis, etc., and those on his side largely either applaud it or dismiss it as harmless humor.
If it's useful for us to use similarly horrible rhetoric, then we should be supporting its use in the same manner. If Harry Reid is out there saying filthy things (which, you know, he isn't) and we the civilized audience are tut-tutting him, rather than picking it up in the manner that the Republican on the street picks up Limbaughisms, then he loses credibility.
I can see an argument for no one being that sort of nasty, but if it's useful for party leaders to do, then it's useful for party members to support.
How many chimps could we have bought were it not for the Iraqi war? Surely one for us each. Surely.
I agree with 102's assertion that Limbaugh is a Republican party leader.
I agree with 102's assertion that Limbaugh is a Republican party leader. Maybe if Michael Moore wasn't shunned by 98% of Democratic politicians, the Republicans would be on the defensive every now and then.
Moore isn't a democrat.
He could be if the Democrats wanted him and his fans to be part of their coalition.
102: Fair enough. I was just making the point that if it's beneficial for anyone to be nasty, it's beneficial for the bulk of people on the same side not to distance themselves from the nastiness.
100: Fair enough, but how do you feel about chimps?
Instead of the chimp, could we get the cash equivalent? What's the market value of a chimp?
Maybe there's something for Bill Frist to gain in concocting scurilous attacks. But there is really nothing at all for you to gain other than your own gratification.
I think this is wrong. For better or worse, the best model for dealing with the mass of Americans is high school. I don't know what magical WB world baa grew up in, but in my world, the popular kids in high school were often a little bit mean. And then when they were nice to you, it felt like a blessing. I think Atrios gets that, and I think that things like "Clenis" and "IOKIYAR" end up working and being useful (just as "Dumbocrats" and "feminazis" are for the other side) for just that reason.
If you were to go back and teach your past self how to win friends and influence people in high school, you'd tell him to go find the fat kid and make merciless fun of him. The question for the Democrats: where's the fat kid?
I don't know what magical WB world baa grew up in, but in my world, the popular kids in high school were often a little bit mean.
"WB"? (all I can think of is "wetback" or "Wilkes-Barre")
114: But I thought teen TV shows were home base for the idea that the popular kids are mean.
But Wilkes-Barre is pretty magical too.
(My sister once gave directions to the place she was living to a friend, culminating in "Turn right at the Magic Fountain." He was awfully confused by the ice-cream place that marked the turn, given that he'd been looking for a radiant woodland pool with unicorns and elves frolicking about it.)
This is crazed. Are you mass marketing sound bites to a mass audience in everyday life? There are different types of discourse appropriate for different settings. If you tried to behave like Tim Burke on "crossfire" maybe you'd get creamed. But life isn't crossfire! Heck, if the blogging heads guys acted like a crossfire guys, they would seem deranged. And they would *be* deranged: it's a conversation. When someone in a normal social situation starts on in with the talking points (particularly, the vitriolic ones) I think he's a fricking moron. He may think he is "acting strategically," or whatever, but ultimately he is going to turn into that person: namely, a talking-point-spouting moron.
Well, there's starting in with the talking points full blast, and there's being supportive of them. I've heard 'feminazi' from right-wing types in a 'this is a lighthearted way of conveying that I have some concerns about overly tense feminists, isn't it cute?' kind of way. That sort of 'I'm not taking it seriously, but it is charmingly funny, if a little juvenile' attitude toward your own side's nastiness makes it more effective.
Michael Moore is much less vitriolic than Limbaugh, but much more disapproved of for his vitriol by mainstream Democrats than Limbaugh is by mainstream Republicans. This attitude toward the two of them makes Limbaugh a more effective advocate for the right than Moore can be for the left.
I probably won't spend a lot of time calling Bush 'Chimpy', but you have to admit, it's funny because it's true! The man is lipless in an entirely simian manner.
. And they would *be* deranged: it's a conversation. When someone in a normal social situation starts on in with the talking points (particularly, the vitriolic ones) I think he's a fricking moron. He may think he is "acting strategically," or whatever, but ultimately he is going to turn into that person: namely, a talking-point-spouting moron.
A few points:
1. Yeah, of course--most of the time, you just behave like a normal human being. It's not like there's one big uber-tactic.
2. We were never going to get your vote anyway, so who cares if you he's a moron?
3. The point is to get the fence-sitter watching to think it is less trouble to be a Democrat than a Republican, because who needs the hassle.
4. If the Dem comes of as mean but funny, and generally a good guy--all to the good. If he comes off as an jumped-up idiot who doesn't know what he's doing, he'll be shunned. Welcome back to high school. I think you've somehow forgotten how appealing hate can be, at least to some people. (There's a guy named Ben H. whose writings on Arabs you might want to check out.)
Are you mass marketing sound bites to a mass audience in everyday life? There are different types of discourse appropriate for different settings.
Part of the problem seems to be that the smears used by conservatives -- 'feminazi', 'intellectual elites' -- are appropriate for mildly polemic discourse. There doesn't seem to be a lefty equivalent that isn't viewed as needlessly vitriolic.
Isn't that just a reflection of playing the refs? 'Feminazi' is precisely as unpleasant as "Bush=Hitler", but the first gets used often, and apologized for seldom, while the second is used mostly by rightwingers complaining about it while the left apologizes for the few loonies who talk that way.
There's nothing about 'feminazi' that makes it mild or acceptable other than that Limbaugh fans have agreed not to apologize for it, and liberals haven't successfully sold it as an outrage the same way rightwingers do.
How about teeny-weenie piffle-pecker warmongers?
I'm going to keep on believing that Bush is Hitler until I see a DNA test that decisively proves otherwise.
Further to 121: Dean talking about guys with Confederate flags on their pickups? Horribly embarrassing and we all apologized and understood how terribly damaging a gaffe like that was.
The Club for Growth runs an ad saying:
"I think Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading ..." -- and then his wife picks up the litany -- "... body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs."
and it's widely recognized as charmingly funny and effective.
Isn't that just a reflection of playing the refs?
Yes, entirely.
Having watched the GOP ride the slander-and-namecalling-as-governance strategy to control of the entire federal government, I'm a little suspicious of Republicans counseling restraint and civility to Democrats. I maintain civility here with our resident Republicans, because you guys aren't running for office and maintain the same level of civility, but on the larger scale, demonization works.
I'm not afraid of alienating 40% of the country. Most of those folks I expressly don't want on my side anyhow.
Hung like a chipmunk is wrong.
Chipmunks have huge fluffy tails to cover their Godzilla wangs.
Hung like a fly is better.
When someone in a normal social situation starts on in with the talking points (particularly, the vitriolic ones) I think he's a fricking moron.
Right back atcha.
Seriously, I think 88 is an understatement in two senses. First, even if everyone who reads this comment is a "civilian," some who read it may well be close enough to a non-civilian ("uncivilian"?) for a well thrown dart to hit a mark. There are plenty of people other than the heads of the parties, and head of the party factions in the Senate, whose opinions matter. (I don't know where you are baa -- I can see how someone in NYC, or Toledo maybe more so, would feel differently about this than someone in DC). Second, none of us are civilians, really. We're each a part of various mass movements, unthinking though most of us might be. In that sense, looking at a comment thread is like looking at a poll: none of the 1053 people they called the night before the election is important, or knows anyone important. Through the magic of science, they can, unintentionally, stand for millions.
I'm not happy with how that last part came out, but what distinguishes this form from our professional writing is that a crappy draft can nonetheless see the light of day . . . (I may be speaking only for myself, though -- you people write pretty well).
128 gets it exactly right.
that person: namely, a talking-point-spouting moron.
And I don't care if he does vote the same way you do, baa, I'll thank you not to bring my brother-in-law into this.
129: No, chipmunks have huge fluffy tails to compensate for the manifest inadequacy of their wangs. Tails are basically chipmunk Hummers.
I bow to your long experience as a chipmunk sexer.
130: Yup. It's sort of what I think of in my desperately philosophically ignorant way as a version of the categorical imperative; I use political rhetoric in the way that I would want everyone I agree with to. My using it, alone, doesn't mean anything because no one gives a damn what I say. But if everyone does the same thing, then it works.
Blah,blah,blah,Burke. The moderates have just turned moderately nasty, in tepid pursuit of an acceptable comity, self-defensive policies, and a self-image that doesn't include anal lube.
If you have policy goals that put you out of the political center, like peace for instance, or at least the avoidance of constant war...and this is a political position that puts you way out of the center...and yet you are not committed to either a full Aryan Nations or CUPA agenda, then you are an insurgency. Like the Sunnis or Lenin or Mao, act like an insurgency and attack the center sane moderate mofos like Burke and most of his buddies on this board with blood pouring down their thighs. There are plenty of insurgent strategies available at Kingdaddy's Arms & Influence. But the center and all who hide there must die.
Exceptions:Emerson & Kotsko. tho I expect them to disown me utterly.
"Who says violence isn't the answer? What if violence is the answer, and they just want to make sure we don't know it?"
- some comic strip I've long since forgotten the rest of
If there's anything more pointless than Drum's comment threads, I don't know about it.
You don't spend a lot of time reading Obsidian Wings, I'm guessing.
I join the chorus of voices disagreeing with baa in partisan, self-gratifying tones. But shouldn't we all take a moment from our disagreeing with baa to thank him for all the sincere advice he's given us over the past few years? Many an afternoon I find myself on unfogged, staring with glazed eyes, slack jawed, drooling, whiling away my time in nonsensical cock jokes that even I fail to understand, when lo and behold, there's baa, telling me just how I could do things differently, not just to help the liberal cause, but to be a different, better person. Thanks baa.
20 to 30 percent of a polity cannot determine policy until they are a majority. They cannot persuade a large enough group to become a majority so they must make the polity smaller, either by alienating some or making some disappear. 20 percent can fuck it all up good.
Burke's prescription works if you are 45 percent seeking to become 55 percent. That is a despicable place to live.
139: Come on, you can be mean about Republicans generally without making it personal. I like having Republicans around because it gives me something to disagree with without setting up strawmen, and baa's a generally good guy.
That is the lesson of Atwater and Rove. They used insurgent methods to put their 20 to 30 percent of the polity in charge. Voter suppression works like a muffa. Depress Burke, I want that pansy-assed academic to move to Canada. He is in the way.
Baa's a great guy. What would I do without baa, and all of his advice? Why I'd likely offend everyone by spouting partisan talking points. Baa shows us a better way.
and baa's a generally good guy.
Except for the Republican part. To be fair, that does pretty much put icky black rivulets of evil streaming from the pus-oozing chancre of his soul.
144: Well, yes. True. But besides that.
I love how Bob's denunciations of Tim Burke are interlaced with apologetics for baa. It's like the baptism scene in Godfather.
I can't believe how this thread bent over for Herr Doktor Perfessor. Burke wants to be the New Improved Center of Anglo-American Politics. Take a look, is that what this blog wants? Lieberman & Clinton & McCain & Hagel moved 10 pecent to the left?
Fuck that.
I'm with McManus. Death to all who are not mean! Chimps for all! Each and every one of us! Baa's advice to the wind!
147: Oh Bob, you're just saying that because you're one of those hawkish, neocon Baby Boomers.
Seriously, though, I'm not really buying Tim's line here, but who's arguing for "Lieberman & Clinton & McCain & Hagel moved 10 pecent to the left"?
149:Burke. Tho he may not realize it. You are not going to make the center move 20-30 percent. If you want a ban on abortion, you must make the center scared you are gonna blow them up. Or scared that the left will blow them up. But that is, obviously, the nature of the center, to be only motivated by fear to move from inertia.
Burke is of the center, and motivated by wanting the rest of the center to really like him, and accept him as the sane, civil, moderate nice guy he really is. He is those things. Gee, what a dude. He can belong.
Lieberman & Clinton & McCain & Hagel moved 10 pecent to the left?
What would this even mean? Hagel wants out of Iraq, and probably didn't really want to go in. Clinton is simply a political calculation machine, and can't properly be said to have desires; to the extent he/it does, I don't think he wanted to go into Iraq, and I think he wants out now. McCain & Lieberman? Not so much.
10% to the left of the Clinton who arrived in 1992 might be too much. But otherwise, 10% sounds just about right.
Hey, I've been told I can go ahead and eat as much red meat as I want, I'm happy.
Go ahead and kill the center, Bob. I already have my ticket made out for the firing squad at the back of the shed.
Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Timothy Burke was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover meat.
151:Okay first you pick a policy position. like UHC. Then you objectively judge the landscape. Unlike Matt & Ezra, I do not, after 60 years in America, believe that cutting the defense budget in half (while just a few Anericans die in terrorist acts, and bad guys laugh at us) or doubling taxes are soon to become mainstream positions. So UHC cannot be paid for. Besides other obstacles.
Now Norquist didn't ever say killing SS and Medicare was impossible. He said How do we do it? Threatening to blow up the economy, or actually blowing up the economy, is part of the plan. I think Norquist is gonna win, simply because the left will not blow up the place to keep from losing.
We blew up the place in the 60s. Bad stuff in consequence. We ended Jim Crow and stopped that war. You have to be willing to pay a terrible price.
To sum up, before I watch "Eureka":
If politics isn't at least a teensy bit violent, you are doing it wrong.
McManus, I'd be scared if I didn't remember how short you are.
Oh my god! I just looked outside my window and there's fifty thousand Bob McManuses marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks!
No, no wait - that is a pigeon. Darn - this close to revolution!
Bob does have a point. The protests before the Iraq War were a total joke. It would require massive civil disobedience (first of all getting out of the fucking "free speech zones") and probably several protestors getting shot before they would start being effective. When you're dealing with the world's greatest military power, the strategy of martyrdom is the only possible one -- the problem is just making sure to calibrate it so that it attracts more people to the movement than it's killing.
The protests before the Iraq War were a total joke. It would require massive civil disobedience (first of all getting out of the fucking "free speech zones") and probably several protestors getting shot before they would start being effective.
Criticizing the pre-war protests is seriously misguided. Nothing - absolutely nothing - was going to stop the war from the day it was authorized in October. Remember that a sizable majority of Americans actually supported the invasion - well in excess of sixty percent. You need public opinion behind a demonstration if you expect it to accomplish anything, and predictably enough, we didn't get that until the bodies started rolling in.
And when was the last time Americans demonstrated widespread sympathy towards the kind of sixties-style, massive civil disobedience you're talking about? Americans don't associate protesters barricading buildings with noble causes; they associate them with irritation and inconvenience. There's a reason why the term "hippie" carries a negative connotation, even among the generation that gave us actual hippies.
Hey, I've been told I can go ahead and eat as much red meat as I want
by your mum, who you still live with
162: Alright, then it's totally hopeless, so we can go back to discussing the Details article.
The problem with protests is that even the ones that contain huge numbers of people also contain a small number of the kind of people who frequently attend protests, which are also the kind of people that 80% of Americans are violently prejudiced against for no reason at all.
The end result is that the press covers the protest by focusing on the kind of people who like to go to protests; the average American sees this and says "God damn it, if those idiots are opposed to baby-killing, I guess I'm in favor of baby-killing;" and Democratic politicians say "I'd better distance myself from that issue so the Republicans don't make fun of me."
I think the only way a protest could be successful is if it contains literally zero of the kind of people who are always going to protests, and literally hundreds of thousands of people who have never protested before. The only example during my lifetime would be those pro-Latino protests last year, which did manage to open the eyes of some people who had been prejudiced against immigrants. (although not all prejudiced people, of course.)
It was depressing to see how easily the protests could be turned into points in favor of the people being protested against: "Look, we tolerate dissent! Protests are an example of our working democracy, the kind we want other countries to have."
Then again, I didn't attend any of the protests (though I thought the invasion was a bad idea), so maybe I shouldn't be talking.
162,165:I blame Bill Clinton. I am still reading people interested in the center, wanting majorities.
The people who burned draft cards and eventually draft centers in the 60s weren't interested in getting 75% of the people to burn their draft cards. They were an extreme 5%, who wanted another 5%, and then 10% more. At 20%, they stopped the fucking war. Remember, the Vietnam War was never below 50% approval, and a recent poll I saw showed that the East Coast elite was the group that favored it most. Duh, just like today. If David Broder & Joe Klein don't want you dead or in jail, you are definitely doing politics wrong.
But I have possibly already hinted at my concern about the center. It can fuck off, I don't need it.
I don't think it's been established that the protests were what stopped the Vietnam war.
Remember, the Vietnam War was never below 50% approval
You have a funny definition of "never."
What's fascinating about that is that it looks like the old guys figured it out first. Given Hersh and Pincus, my new rule is to never trust anyone under 70.