http://www.openleft.com/diary/13044/we-cant-afford-to-ignore-the-douchebags We Can't Afford To Ignore the Douchebags
by: Daniel De Groot
Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 17:32
Natasha quick hits to this piece by David Roberts arguing (fairly well) that progressives should avoid spending time arguing with the various wingnuts that pervade our discourse. He concludes:
Some time in the next hour, somebody will say something stupid on cable TV. Somebody will write an idiot op-ed. Somebody will be wrong on the internet. Let. It. Go.
Focus on wavering Dems and their constituents and their constituents' jobs. Focus on how energy/climate legislation will make the country cleaner, healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous. The Newts can't stop anybody, they can only distract and sap energy from those doing the work.
They are not Boogie men. They are douchebags, and everyone hates them.
I wish I could agree, but I don't. Douchebags they are, but these vipers have not been defanged.
On one level, I will say I'm pleased we can even have this debate. In our shared quest to drive the wingnuts out of the "sphere of deviance" it is a sign of progress that we can even consider whether they're already out there, safe for us to ignore. From 1994 to 2008, this position was simply unsupportable, the freaks were literally pulling the levers of power. Now at least they're on the sidelines, but I'm not convinced this is good enough. Hecklers can sometimes disrupt the actual participants, or even provoke a rush onto the field so if my metaphor is accurate enough, I won't be satisfied until Security has escorted them from the arena where decisions are made.
So a couple points in rebuttal to David:
* 30% (his approximation) is too large to ignore. We generally know this as progressives. Many of us took some pleasure in the increase in the religiously unaffiliated, and decrease of Christians, now at 16% and 76% respectively. Richard Dawkins has been running the Out Campaign for atheists in an effort to battle back against the widespread bigotry (atheists were the only group found whom a majority of Americans would not vote for as President solely on that basis) against non-believers in God(s). The idea is that this rather small and loathed minority of the population, if properly organized could seriously alter the political landscape. Maybe Dawkins is wrong, but it's not a crazy idea. After all, it's called the "out" campaign after the movement by homosexuals premised on the idea that by publicly declaring themselves, more people would be forced to accept them as equals. Representing at most 10% of the population, gays have been pretty damn successful in achieving their aims, perhaps even more successful than women, who are actually a majority of the population.
All this is to say that 30% is easily large enough a segment of the population to make a decisive impact to society and government. Gays, women and atheists are mostly just looking for everyone to stop hating and discriminating against them, but this 30% believes all sorts of dangerously crazy things, and fights very hard to see them implemented. They don't have to convince 20% more of the populace of their views to win, they just need 20% to not fight back and go along with them. That's unlikely in 2010 or 2012, but we have to play long ball here too.
snip worth reading//
So put me in the "keep mocking and rebutting them as they crop up" camp. It may be an endless game of whack-a-mole, but it's not clear to me we're done, and if we stop, I think they only gain strength. Your parents were wrong when they told you to just ignore the bullies at school too. They don't lose interest if you pretend it doesn't bother you, they just try harder and do ever worse.