Your Daily Digby: 'Progressivism needs progressive rhetoric!'
By John Amato Thursday Dec 04, 2008 1:04pm
It's up to the liberal blogosphere and some members of Congress to shift the narrative away from bipartisanship after Obama enacts his agenda so the country will know that it was liberal and or progressive values that has saved our country from Conservative ruin.
And I agree with the great Digby.
Progressivism needs progressive rhetoric to match policy if it wants to be around long enough to make a real impact. If Democrats make things better without making it clear that their ideology (I know that's a bad word) is superior, the country will simply continue to treat politics like entertainment and vote for whoever puts on the best show and makes them feel good about themselves at a particular time, irrespective of their policies. It would be foolish to think the Republicans will never again be able to compete in that arena. They have shown themselves to be very adept at that kind of politics.
Now, if their ideas could be so discredited that nobody wants to ever be associated with them again it wouldn't matter if they ran the reanimated Elvis, nobody would want to vote for them. But that's not going to happen if progressives believe that it doesn't matter if our politicians distance themselves from progressivism simply because it's easier than challenging the myth that the country is center-right.
This is a two party country. You can say you aren't "ideological" and that you are a pragmatist, as Obama does, but polarity is the norm. This isn't just semantics --- it matters in a very prosaic, practical way if the country identifies itself with the party that has staked out the conservative side of the line. You can see from the two different responses to presidential victories by Gergen how that plays itself out politically.
There's a reason why armies wear identifiable uniforms and it's so their own fellows will recognize them.
Suit up and show up, ladies and gentlemen. We have a lot of work to do, and it's up to us to make sure we set the record straight because conservatives will re-brand themselves yet again, as the above video demonstrates. They'll put it in a nice little Lee Atwater package and the media will try to suck America into it all over again. I wrote this in an earlier post:
And Gerson has a secret plan to save the GOP. He's going from the phony "Compassionate Conservative" to the "Heroic Conservative." Comedy Gold...I can see him now---Red Cape at his back as he swoops down on the evil Sylar---sucking the powers out of him that he has stolen from all the other Heroes!
Sit back and watch the show. "Heroic Conservatives" is idiotic, but what would you expect from a former Bush speechwriter?
So give me your best shot.
What do you think Conservatives will come up with as a new label? Or will they just try to turn back the clock and be run-of-the-mill, "Old Fashioned Conservatives?" I know the media would lap that one up in a heartbeat.
Login or Register to post comments.
Take back the English language from the Cons.
As for a 'two party system', DON'T WE WISH!
Isn't Republican and Republican Light enough for you? The nerve ;)
Do you remember that scene from "Moscow on the Hudson" where Robyn Williams defects from the USSR, goes into an American supermarket, and passes out when he sees how many different brands of coffee there are to choose from?
Americans do that when they go to foreign countries and see how many political parties there are.
I usually don't like hearing the term rhetoric used in this manner.
But I do think we have to stop letting the conservatards shape the political conversations, i.e.: This is a center-right country, Obama's cabinet picks are controversial or like a Republican cabinet, Bill Clinton was successful because he was more of a Republican, that Obama doesn't have a mandate, The War on Executive Assistant Day etc.
I'd gladly use rhetoric like a frikking BIOLOGICAL WEAPON if it would prevent CONSERVATIVES from actually managing to TAKE CREDIT for Obama's success's. It was bad enough when liberals just sat there like deer in headlights and allowed the conservative propaganda machine to make the word LIBERAL synonymous with child molester. But it would be ridiculous, if not criminally negligent to let them re-brand liberal success as CONSERVATIVE success.
Heroic Conservatives will be shown "standing up" to "protect" essential "family values" from 'attacks' by 'radical abortionists' and liberal activists.'
They cannot lose with an approach like that, especially after the coming total melt-down which will belong to the Dims, totally, since Nov 4...
The only thing this clown deserves is derision and snide laughs. That this man has a forum on TV and with the WaPo, and that some folks actually care what he says is a minor miracle...
There has already been rhetoric, it political correctness. if it wasn't for democrats the crude and inconsiderate language of the right would still be present.
It also needs to be brought up on a daily basis that the war in Iraq is illegal and Bush is a terrorist asshole.
. . . and he has a terrible haircut.
And he eats his own boogers.
this is serious. he is terribly uncouth
Is there any such thing as being couth?
.
Well that's simple enough, then. We'll just re-brand terrorist organizations as "high-energy political action committees," and the war on terror, and its grip on domestic politics will evaporate. After all, if the conservatives can errase the honest humanitarian instinct to make up for centuries of institutionalized racism by re-branding affirmative action as "reverse discrimination," we can damned well do the same thing to them.
After the amount of money it's going to take to get this financial mess out of the ditch, they will probably harp about large govt. spending and crow about being the party of conservative spending. Of course they will negate the money wasted by the bush administration as money spent under an incapable president.
Conservatives won't change, except a little cosmetic/publicity improvement. No, its the Democrat Politicians who will abase themselves to be "bipartisan" "Fair & balanced" or as Big-O says, "Pragmatic".
The Repugs work will be done for them before the year is over.
....from a middle aged geek who passed out from uncontrolled giggling the first time he saw a woman naked.
And that nekkid woman was his mother?
Suddenly the increase in rhetoric about this being a center-right nation from the right wing noise machine makes perfect sense. At first it sounded like the rantings of a schizophrenic in a deep state of denial. (Which it partly is.) But it's probably also a preamble to their new line of propaganda. If they say Obama is moving to the right because he has to please the center-right nation, if things improve under Obama the conservatives will just say things improved BECAUSE Obama moved away from those evil librul principles.
That's ONE line of attack. The second will be for the Republican party to adopt a few liberal policies, but re-label them 'compassionate conservative' policies. Thus, managing to label the REAL liberal as a conservative, and re-branding liberal policies as conservative ones. (Have you seen David Frum's new book? That's basically what he's advocating.)
Screw that. Now that we've defeated the conservative political machine, we have to concentrate on defeating the conservative propaganda machine.
"If they say Obama is moving to the right because he has to please the center-right nation, if things improve under Obama the conservatives will just say things improved BECAUSE Obama moved away from those evil librul principles."
I think you have pretty much nailed it!
haven't helped at all.
The complete inability of the Dems to control the discourse and frame their message is astounding.
Where are the liberal attack dogs sending these reptilian conservatives back under the rock they crawled from?
I mean, in less than 2 weeks these conservabots have managed to convince everybody that auto workers make $100K for tightening a couple of bolts a day... WTF?
No, it's the MSM stupid. If it weren't for the media falling in line with the republican message, we wouldn't be in this mess as badly. Not dissing you Tyler, just trying to make my point.
however, this is not "news" (pun intended) that the media is in the pocket of the GOP.
I am just a bit flabbergasted by the lack of strategy by the dems (or whatever may pass by liberal in this country) to deal with that fact.
Dems seem to be all too quick to appease and too slow to defend/fight.
Freaks like Micheal Gerson this think that they can define and explain everthing.
Bravo, in this republican psuedo-circus that was left the progressives need to stay away from the clowns and elephants and must be the ring-leaders! They must crack the whip and blow the whistle. They must declare that Ronald (666) Wilson Reagan is DEAD! And so will be his policies that corrupted this nation! Run all over the neo-cons. They WILL do it to you! All you true-blues...care not of the flesh and declare the reds dead.......Don't whimp. There's too many spies in the house......The conservative "propaganda machine" is a Goebble's invented one. Remember, The Yanks will win.
I can think of nothing better than "progressive pragmatism". If Obama's administration is successful and manages to improve American lives, you can bet the Republicans will latch onto "pragmatism" as THEIRs to include in their next campaign rhetoric (as McCain's campaign used "change" in imitation of Obama). We need to claim progressive pragmatism as a mantra first, use it as an inclusive dialogue-framer, and attach it to success so any Republican attempts to co-opt it will be only a sick joke. We can forget the Republican attempts to frame politics as "right" or "center right" if we know what we intend to say and communicate without fear.
We still have time because our dialogue with America needs to reflect what has actually been successfully accomplished. All we have so far is a successful campaign and what looks like an interesting lineup of characters for Obama's administration. Their success in accomplishing Obama's goals remains to be seen. I think the impetus for re-framing the political landscape will come as we move into action.
I like that...
Progressivism and liberalism have always been about pragmatism, while conservatism has always been about ideology and dogmatism. That's the only way that conservatives can get away with constantly putting up STUPID/IGNORANT candidates for election. Because following the tenets of a doctrine doesn't require you to think about, or evaluate each individual situation on it's own merits. If you apply those tenets, and things get worse, it's clearly because you didn't apply them STRONGLY enough, and all you have to do is DOUBLE DOWN on them.
If you get to a point where it's obvious that you're driving the car of state off a cliff, the solution is to speed up. Maybe if you speed up enough you'll start to fly. Or at least that's what Adam Smith said, and he was really smart.
That's why I think we should put the words "progressive" and "pragmatism" together as often as possible, and "conservative" and "dogma/dogmatism" together as often as possible.
..there's only so much lipstick. Conservatism is like the pitbull chained to the tetherball pole. In this case, the tetherball pole is the bible-banging, gun-clinging, right-most fanatics.
They lied to America and fudged and forged evidence in order to push forth a "zionist" militaristic agenda, foolishly thinking that they could change the mindsets of others at the point of a gun.
Truth and Honesty have NOTHING to do with liberalism vs conservatism.
And calling yourselves something different is like conceding that the lying Rovian Neocon propaganda machine has successfully altered the definition of Liberal and Democrat to mean UNAMERICAN.
I hate all kinds of ism's, please don't add to the already steaming pile.
ideology had nothing to do with the Bush administration militaristic failures, but it DID feed into the economic collapse that we are in the middle of and the response to Katrina, for instance. It had everything to do with the conservative desire to make government impotent vis a vis corporations and to reward the already-wealthy with even more wealth at the expense of the not-so-wealthy.
None of us likes to be tightly-labeled, but we must be able to discuss politics with agreed-upon language. If our dialogue is about programs that work or don't work for the benefit of Americans, we don't have to assign ourselves any labels. The labels are attached to the programs -- they're successful or not.
I think language is crucial in framing politics and we must be able to re-frame the language of politics that accurately conveys the truth, not rhetorical propaganda.
CRONEYISM
Heckuvajob Brownie was in his position only because of payback for political favors. The unwillingness of the administration to work with Blanco was due to open animosity from Blanco. It's NOT a valid excuse, but it is what it is.
Wall Street Failures were all about deregulation. I dig deeper beyond GOP rhetoric and see a handful of well placed people who've ripped off the system using the guise of conservative deregulation. It's a smokescreen only. Just look at the blatant actions of one Phil Gramm. He used his position to deregulate energy markets, and then he and his wife extracted BILLIONS via Enron. These criminals know EXACTLY what they're doing and seriously deserve to hang. (literally!)
Language is crucial in framing politics, ONLY IN TODAYS SPIN DOMINATED ENVIRONMENT. Just ask Frank Luntz.
truth should NEVER require a label.
was Bush's way of making government impotent without cutting expenditures except in the programs themselves. Those cronies weren't required OR expected to do the job. Think of the EPA. OSHA regulations gutted. That's true all the way down the line, all those coast-along, do-nothing jobs for Bush's & Cheney's buddies, resulting in America's infrastructure and Constitution collapse.
I hear your frustration. Truth should never require a label. But it deserves a framework that doesn't allow the light to be snuffed out by lies.
I think the operative word here is "should."
In an ideal world, where ideas competed on their own merits, and content was more important than packaging, I'd agree completely. But in the paradoxical world we live in, which is in the 21st century in terms of its technological ideas, but the 15th century in terms of its superstitions and vulnerability to demagoguery, I can't. Like it or not, truth has ALREADY been labeled AND packaged, and the general public has no way to tell which can it's in except by reading the labels. For the moment, one group, with a targeted political agenda has successfully use demagoguery to bundle up a whole category of the good ideas that are out there and label them "POISON." So successfully, in fact, that most of our society will never dare to even open that can and sample its contents.
I yearn for a new age of enlightenment as much as the next guy, and I whine about the need for more education, and not more demagoguery as the solution to our problems as much as any progressive. But when you have a powerful political group who is turning the manipulation of public ignorance into a SCIENCE in order to advance their own narrow agenda, sometimes you have no choice but to fight fire with fire. At least for NOW, until some sort of a balance is brought back to the political discourse.
(Other than that, I agree with you that more than half of Bush's problems were caused by arrogance, hubris, and incompetence, rather than ideology per se, and that any politician, regardless of ideology, is vulnerable to the same vices. But that's a separate issue from the issue of digging liberalism out from under the steaming pile of horse shit that it's been burried under by a gang of plutocrats.)
I personally think that conservatives, after sending the country to the brink of disaster, need to stick their "advice" where the sun don't shine...
'invented' propaganda as the official medium of (internal) 'statesmanship.'
The conservative "propaganda machine" is a Goebble's invented one. Remember, The Yanks will win.
Ummm, except that the propaganda machine to which you refer was actually designed and built (though given a much less threatening name: Public Relations) by Freud's favorite nephew, Edouard Bernais, in cooperation with Woodrow Wilson, to sell World War I. Goebbels himself acknowledges his debt to Bernaise:
N/T
But even if you were, arguendo, right, that doesn't rebut my point.
Which was: Propaganda is a unique USer contribution to management of opinion and the 'manufacture of consent," which was a phrase of Bernaise' coinage, too. A generation later, Ellul would show that, in the industrial (and now, certainly, even moreso, in the post-industrial) state, propaganda is the ONLY form of communication from the State to its citizens/constituents.
Just pointing that out.
For what it is worth, I agree completely with your take on the whole propaganda bizness.
Just that Goebbels for all the evil shit he pulled, he never sold the holocaust to Hitler, and he was not stupid enough to sell the concept of the industrial extermination of millions of people to a relatively civilized society, regardless of the evil f*cks who carried out the atrocities and who were willingly participant with little need of convincing. In fact building the case against the nazi elites for the holocaust was not as straightforward, it seems those f*cks were thinking for plausible denial in case their whole thousand year third reich did not work out... But that is neither here nor there, I guess...
Aren't we running dangerously close to equating rhetoric with propaganda?
Although there is a modern definition included that rhetoric is empty political speech, traditionally it was defined as the art of effective communications, logically presented and explained.
Question: Can a method set up for rational discourse become the method by which irrational acts are allowed to happen?
Answer: Perhaps, electricity can be used to cook your food or your spouse as they bathe. So rhetoric, like electricity, is based upon the intent of the user.
But wouldn't that be the abuse of rhetoric?
He really waxed rhaposodic when Edward Bernaise was sauced.
Social Security is probably the most successful government program ever. Republicans decided to take Social Security and rebrand it. They wanted to take contributions and pass them off to investors to create more millionaires.
This would make them rich, without any risk, but put the investors at risk. Just see what happened. Some securities disappeared (WAMU) others have lost up to 95% of their value.
Repugs like to point to the so-called accomplishments of Reagan - which are nothing but dreams - except of course the huge national debt, Iran-Contra, the religious nuts and more. Progressives/Liberals/Democrats need to reclaim the term LIBERAL by pointing to all the things achieved under (D) Presidents
progressives can't frame an outhouse or determine language over the constant nationwide coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition of the talk radio monopoly. the blowhards will shout over any progressive attempts that even get close.
"that's not going to happen if progressives believe that it doesn't matter if our politicians distance themselves from progressivism simply because it's easier than challenging the myth that the country is center-right."
that is a direct result of of the talk radio monopoly and losing the Fairness Doctrine 20 years ago - the reason we are in this bush disaster now. progressives who continue to ignore talk radio, even with the internet and alt tech, are fooling themselves and probably still unaware of the essential part the GOP talk radio machine plays in determining what is and what isn't acceptable in America. that ignorance is the reason they were able to take lee atwater's techniques national, short circuit democracy, and make bipartisanship impossible.
about the possible recrudescence of the "fairness doctrine."
progressives can't frame an outhouse or determine language over the constant nationwide coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition of the talk radio monopoly. the blowhards will shout over any progressive attempts that even get close.
There are more than 1000 radio stations in the country on which the sole (or overwhelming majority of) opinion is whatever you wanna call Hannit/Slimebaugh/El Falafel/Savage-Weiner.
Every market in the country over 50 or 75k affords some local wannabe facsist fux their opportunity to exceed the sep[tic content of the 'leaders.'
The Right cannot stand the thought that they should compete on an even playing field. They never do. They ALWAYS cheat, and cannot prevail without undue advantages.
So they're going apeshit about the (invisible) revival of the Fairness Doctrine.
I hope the Democrats hear you and move to end, or at least balance, the ethics-free hate talk and lies of right-wing radio and TV.
the Republican "market" is being fractured by rightwing radical talk radio, an interesting perspective.
Will talk radio get wake-up call? Appealing to the right-wing fringe is no way to build a political movement. by Michael MedVed.
no one better represents the principles and morals of the new republican party and as point man for the talk radio monopoly no one has been more effective in getting us here. but he was mostly a front man- his daily/weekly/monthly agenda and the talking points he and his wannabes prechewed for the lazy TV and print talking heads were part of a large scale media and public consensus management by the GOP and think tanks and later in day and night all the rest of them had to do was put a new flavor on the old crap. if they were trying to pass something important like "homeland security" or another unqualified supreme or pressure congress to stop discussion and vote on something like giving bush war powers ("tell your reps to stand up and be counted") they wouldn't even bother to try to vary the delivery. that was the important part of the talk radio monopoly and still is- its effectiveness as a propaganda machine to sabotage democracy. it won't be as effective if they begin to individualize. most of them are copycats with little ability to create their own. most will continue to depend on the daily feed of talking points and framing, most of which is meant to attack anything left of far right, make excuses for anything republican, and do the groundwork for whatever the GOP wants.
palin was chosen as limbaugh's bride, to bring the talk radio base on board with mccain in time for the convention. she was actually announced minutes before the start of his show and he used it as the excuse to finally get behind mccain. palin didnt have to read - she listens to talk radio and spoke in talk radio.
niche audiences? medved, like most of the GOP is in denial- the reason they're fragmented is thanks to the talk radio reality finally getting whacked by the real reality- unfortunately they dragged the rest of us with them. and their whole existence depends on them sticking together - in head to head competition in a real world the liars and distorters will have to deal with reality and if they don't stick to the talking points and earn their keep selling war, deregulation, and global warming denial their monopoly will finally expose them to real competition from thinking talented funny truthful talkers and they won't stand a chance.
and they will regroup if progressive continue to ignore them. the excuse used to be that it was headache-inducing, now its the new technology. but nothing can create issues and myths and frame and intimidate like the talk radio monopoly.
Liberal Pragmatism
Liberal Populism
Liberal Centrism
Realism
Branded as the politics of fat, pasty, dough-boy, racist, ill-informed, under-educated, pig-ignorant, redneck, brother-fucking, s&m pederasts who are still trying to develop a moral superiority to justify selfishness.
Or, more of the same...
By this time 2012, we'll be looking at a reconstructed Republican Conservatism that recoiled from the likes of religious-right Palinesque-extremism. They now know religious fanaticism will not sell in the future which is only marginally popular and which simultaneously offers no solutions to government management. Dumping the religious right as policy and popularity guides will bring them back into the main since it is now fairly exposed that it was only a weapon of mass deception anyway. One by one, the extremists in the rightwing will wilt and flee to the left to rejoin mainstream society.
They're going to reinvent Paul's ideas and try to beat the dems in championing a cancellation of the drug and sex wars so as to preserve the dignity of soo many republican scofflaws. The dems may be too preoccupied to notice republicans commandeering those two huge budget and liberty savers and must preempt their preemption, especially since we represent "Liberty", but can we do it before they do?
They're going to redefine "defense" along the sane lines of "defending our borders and freedoms" as an apologetic (for the Bush years)/unapologetic (we are Republicans!) excuse to compete with Obama's presumed failure to withdraw bases and interventions from overseas and costing deficit money. They will have little problem hypocritically switching tunes on this issue: When have they ever had to prove integrity?
They're going to take any and all policies created under Obama and change one or two words, push it further, then champion these as "smarter", "wiser" "freedom". This will include the general shift of the entire republican noise machine to the left, going further than the left in the name of liberty, and adopting heroes and examples to the cause.
To counter this shift in contemporary republican strategies, progressives, and specifically Obama before the end of his first term must:
First of all, point out the republican shift to the left! Contrast every proposal they make with their previous position and make them apologize and explain everything, every step, just like Rove has done to us.
Champion "Open Government": A massive declassification of every department's secrets at least to the degree of satisfying the great many open government organizations. This must include broadened scrutiny and access to all black-budget operations so that government appears transparent for the first time in 50+ years.
Champion "Liberties of, by, and for the People": IN scrutinizing all the federal programs that "work and don't work", the drug, sex, speech, and travel wars will have to be severely intercepted. This includes the "Incarceration Complex" and the "Victimless" DUI, drug and sex laws on the books. Also economic crimes that can be better addressed through "Economic Penalties derived from un-incarcerated producers that are commensurate with the economic crimes committed". (Ken Lay and his immediate kin are personally responsible for billions and instead of incarceration are under "house arrest" until all the billions are paid... forget this jail time bs, put them back to work and make 'em pay everything back until death do us part!)
Champion a "Global Emergency Presence": Instead of completely withdrawing from the world we offer a duel-purpose US military asset to the world employing our super-mobility and access to supply-lines, disciplined core and advanced technology to serve world emergencies any where, any time. "yes, we "might" get involved in direct conflicts, but in the meantime our assets are the world's assets, at your service". No one could meet humanitarian needs in crisis faster than the US military. If it's forthrightly called "humanitarian", which is what it is supposed to be anyway, we'll have no problem delivering aid to our "enemies" and will very quickly discover how few enemies of American Sanity there really are!
just my suggestions
What you do when the rethugs try to say this country is "center right" is you dismiss it. Don't even debate it. Giving these goons the benefit of the doubt it what started this whole mess of the last 8 years in the first place, starting with Gore.
I wish the Dems were the dominant male party, not this weak, fawning freaking "mommy party" meme. Can Dems rise above partisan memes? If not I should stop caring about this country's politics.
What you need is a strong progressive machinery, something that endures decades not single terms or at best two. You need nothing less than a progressive culture replacing the old capitalistic regressive one.
It amazes me that you, seemingly intelligent folks, are still trying to peddle this "two party" nonsense.
The military industrial complex has a stranglehold on America, and has for some decades.
You can call it a two party country all you want, but those two parties are merely a facade for the corporate interests from which true power in Washington flows.
Your credibility is strained when you talk in such a fashion.
Why not talk about how to reinvent the political system instead of focusing so much on how to "properly polarize" the country?
I don't believe that encouraging polarity is good for your country, or good for the world.
For "progressives" to admit their party is simply another part of the problem would mean facing up to both their public hypocrisy and personal cowardice. Most progressives will much prefer to continue engaging in their own particular brand of willful ignorance rather than face up to those difficult truths.
Gauging by what the Reublicans are like nowadays, I fear in the future the G.O.P. will stand for "God's own plan". God help us
Delete problem with spelling gauge
Login or Register to post comments.