We Can't Afford To Ignore the Douchebags

[babylonsister]

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.

[babylonsister]

1. No thoughts? nt

[Quantess]

2. by rebutting their arguments, you are just repeating the arguments.

and getting people accustomed to how it sounds, somehow lending it credibility and making it sound plausible.

I think some arguments don't deserve the dignity of a response, while other arguments need to be tackled and rebutted. It all depends.

[Two Americas]

9. exactly right

The right wing mouthpieces throw any old idiotic thing out there to see if liberals will take the bait. They have people believing that there is some "right wing base" that is being rallied, and that the right wing talking points have to be taken seriously and debated.

If we didn't argue back against the right wing talking points they would disappear and have no power. Once we do take them seriously, we have surrendered control of the discussion to the right wingers and will always be on the defensive and make fools of ourselves. We allow them to decide what issues should e discussed, how they should be discussed, what the "twp sides" are - thereby controlling our positions - and how relatively important different issues are.

All of the arguments here are between those who watch cable political news and take it seriously and those who do not. It is a clash of world views, and those taking the right wing propaganda seriously are allowing their world view to be created for them.


...

[Toucano]

22. Absolutely correct. We repeat and amplify their talking points.

The nuttiest stuff can be ignored.

If they present a genuine argument, it can be refuted, but we should resist responding to the nutty shit with anything more than, "Are you serious?"

Coulter and Limbaugh can almost ALWAYS be ignored. They simply don't make genuine and substantial arguments.

[omega minimo]

3. They gain strength from the attention. They sap the strength of those they suck in.

"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."

[babylonsister]

4. So maybe we should just ignore them, but they still get attention

from their base. When they lie, no one wants to know about it.

That's pretty creepy to me.

[Two Americas]

5. not sure babylonsister

I don't think that the right wing media is rallying any base, nor is it promoting any conservative philosophy. I think there goal is to get us to react and respond. In that way they control us. Right wing media is aimed at liberals, not at "the base."

We see one direct and clear effect of that right here everyday - almost everything that gets us at each other's throats originated from right wing media, and most of the arguments here are between those who pay attention to it and those who don't.


...

[omega minimo]

7. Well here we are. We meet again. Well put. Great points.

:toast:

[Two Americas]

10. wow

You mean we are getting along now? lol


:hug:

[omega minimo]

13. as long as

you stay off the high horse. :spray: :pals:

[Two Americas]

21. impossible

That I cannot promise.

It is just a lowly donkey, by the way lol.

[babylonsister]

8. Check out the salaries and audiences of

Beck, Hannity, and Rush.

There is a base.

[Two Americas]

11. that is an illusion

We are being deceived.

The right wing mouthpieces don't represent or talk to any "base" but they sure do have a bunch of liberals convinced that they do and obsessively worried about that.

The general public is far to the Left of the people here.

I talk to that "base" all of the time. I get a better reception for socialist ideas from them then I do from DUers. This lie about the conservative public and right wing base is for the purpose of creating divisions between us - and that sure works, as you can see here any day.


...

[babylonsister]

15. You are disallusioned. Again, check out what Rush and Hannity make.

You will be amazed. If no one listens to them, why are they paid so well?

[Two Americas]

23. I didn't say that

I didn't say that no one listens to them.

A fundamental truth about our lie-cheat-and-steal-incorporated economy is that those who make more are those who have figured how to manipulate things, or have insinuated themselves into favorable positions, or are ripping people off, it is not that they are performing or producing.

I thoroughly reject this notion - "he must be doing something right, look how rich he is!" There would be more truth to this statement - "he must be doing something very wrong, look how rich he is." Using the salaries of the right wing mouthpieces as an indicator of effectiveness is a variation on that theme. In any case, the issue is not whether or not people are listening to them, nor whether or not they are effective at hat they do, rather I am talking about just what it is they are doing and whom is being affected by it. I say that they are effective at confusing, distracting and dividing liberals and Democrats, and one of the main ways they do that is with the lie about the "center-right country" and the "right wing base." They have people painted into a corner, crippled and frustrated as a result if that, and they have people riled up to a fever pitch of anxiety and fear and this leads to them then viciously attacking their own allies on the Left.

They want you to think that half of the country is knuckle-dragging fundy nutcases, and they want you to think that the Left is dangerous, is a threat to the Democratic party. Variations on those two themes - highly destructive to the success of the Democratic party - are promoted here hourly and that is the source of almost all of the feuding and animosity here.

The narrative the MSM presents is so seductive, so appealing and compelling, it seems so "real," that it is almost impossible to resist if you sit there and watch it. It presents a childish all-or-nothing view of the world, dramatized and relentlessly reinforced day after day, and that corrupts people's thinking on all political issues. It has a far more profound effect on intelligent successful liberal people than it does on anyone else. That is creating a fifth column within the party.


...

[Two Americas]

24. by the way

Yes, I very much hope that I am disillusioned. I do not believe in the illusion created by the right wing media.

[hfojvt]

18. Nader

I am reminded of an SNL skit where two Irish brothers were at the whaling wall. The one said "I warn you, I am in a pretty good mood. I don't think there's anything you can say to make me hit that wall." and the other brother calmly says "England" BAMM!!

Although DU typically gets its flame wars from the M$M's issue du jour, whether it is immigration or an Israel/Palestine war or Schwein flu, but I don't think most of our arguments are between those who pay attention to the M$M and those who don't, much less rightwing media.

I think DUers would find things to fight about even if we all turned off our TVs.

[omega minimo]

6. Indeed.

It's been going on so long and reached such a level of insanity.................... if it serves you and your awareness/contributions/energy to pay it attention, then there's something. Yet, how many of the sources you're referring to are not just crazymaking?

Invitation to another sort of source, sinking like a stone:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5548706


For a while last year I listened to Limbot at work, b/c he has become so masterful at his mindfucking, it was interesting to deconstruct............ if he made me mad, I turned him off, but by that point he'd run out of anything to say and was just a clown, like he started out as 25 years ago.

Ultimately a waste of time. I don't know Limobtheads. I don't talk to them. I don't care what they think. Cuz they don't.

Babylonsister the good and bad news is you are evolved enough to be bound to be the change. You can't stop their poison.

:thumbsup:

[cliffordu]

12. Since they are sooooo close to the NAZIS they ought to be called

Deutschbags

[babylonsister]

14. Good idea. Appropriate. nt

[hfojvt]

17. except, of course

that all Deutsch are not Nazis, especially now, 60+ years after V-E Day.

[cliffordu]

20. I know I know....

I figure the Germans and especially my kraut brother in law can take the joke.

He actually thought it was pretty funny.

I imagine I'll get heat for it any minute now.

I just get tired of comparing perfectly useful hygiene products with scum sucking freaks like the republican't party.

Makes the hygiene products look bad.

[canetoad]

16. Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,

...you know the rest.

:hug:

(Here's a link in case it's slipped your mind.... http://www.fleurdelis.com/desiderata.htm )

[saltpoint]

19. I think of John Stewart. And what a necessary relief he is. He skewers

the right-wing crazies in a way that both clarifies the issues and calls the nuts to task.

ROLLING STONE magazine used to do that when Richard Nixon was in office and the Watergate revelations were becoming known to the world. After those tapes were revealed and their contents published, ROLLING STONE had a field day. I hung on every syllable.

The journalists who call the Right to task and the satirists and cartoonists too -- they're giving us quite a bit of clarity with our hilarity. Sarah Palin almost doesn't have to be satirized by exaggeration, since just about everything she says is so ridiculous on its face that satirists just repeat her comments.

If the GOP doesn't want to be represented by nutbags and psychos and torturers and liars, I would humbly suggest that they dissociate themselves from such. Until they do, I say Stewart and others are justified in their potent satires.

When the Pukes start to behave like a people-directed entity I'll give them some people-inspired respect. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. I don't think they've hit bottom yet. And I think President Obama is going to sail to a second term.

[babylonsister]

25. There's a good point. People like Stewart are invaluable.

He brings them up constantly and shows them for the fools they are. I like that approach.