It just occurred to me that there's a major flaw in the current Republican organizational structure - a lack of independence.
Let me congratulate myself by putting my hand between the proverbial hammer and head of the nail. We all know that Republicans march in lockstep with one another and to not do so is to be called a tax increasing, gay, brown people loving librul. It's great for Bush that all his little flying monkeys follow him around and do his bidding, but is it great for them?
As near as I can tell, Americans - progressives and conservatives alike - respect independence. I don't mean independence in the sense of civil liberties or free markets, but in the sense of "I'm my own person." That, in itself, is a form of charisma. I know a lot of people who supported Bush in the election because "he didn't take shit from anyone." I think a lot of us on the progressive netroots like Hackett for the same reason. We get the feeling that he's not lip synching to the party line, but speaking his own mind with his own thoughts on positions.
If this is the case then I think this is a point that needs to be hammered home more often, not brushed aside by sighing "progressives are decentralized, conservatives are authoritative." Maybe the way conservatives do things isn't just the way they do things. Maybe it's wrong too. Wrong both ideologically - people should think for themselves, not receive marching orders, and maybe politically - people don't respect lapdogs. We should not accept the status quo when we have something to gain by challenging it. This could be especially useful in the current political climate where Bush is becoming more toxic than New Orleans. If a Republican gets up and starts heaping praise on dear leader and talking about Bush's vision - for the apocalypse - we should hit home and question what that Republican thinks about those issues and why.
I'm not saying that this is foolproof. We're bound to run into conservatives who think for themselves - either more moderate or the crazy wingnuts - but it will help root out the difference between those who have thought things through and those who are just along for the ride. The real difference between personal and civil servants. Of course this goes both ways. If a Democrat wants to be a shill for the DLC or some other organization and play Simon - or Will Marshall - Says, that Democrat should be prepared for the consequences.
That's the real difference between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives only know how to follow orders and for the most part they're mindless. Progressives will not and cannot imitate that kind of infrastructure. We can't pass ourselves off as monolithic, but we can pass ourselves - and the Democratic party - off as a group of like-minded individuals who are largely independent. To accomplish this we need to do two things: 1. Elect people who are independent minded and 2. Elect people who are more like minded than not. At the same time we should hit Republicans as hard as we can for not being their own persons.
Come on, who didn't want to punch Mel Martinez in the face when he said he'd probably vote for Roberts - and you know he hasn't really thought about it and is just doing what has been strongly suggested for him to do?
Monday, September 12, 2005
Independence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think you're making a dangerous mistake by referring to the bulk of conservatives as "mindless." First of all, I don't think you actually believe this, but are doing what a lot of liberal bloggers are doing right now: Using charged He-man rhetoric as a way distinguish yourselves from your ball-less counterparts in congress (How many times did Atrios say "Fuckers" during their Katrina coverage?) OK, fine, the liberal party of this country needs to distinguish itself from a doormat, but when you essentialize and miscategorize this far, it really sets back the movement. Aside from being mean-spirited, it's wildly counterproductive to write-off the followers of an opposing ideology as without reason . Intellectuals in the 1930s were too busy insisting upon the irrationality of fascism to actually organize a unified oppositonal front to it. Only when it was too late did anyone get around to effective analyzing its appeal. After reading Lakoff, do you still think conservatives don't have a firm moral or psychological position to stand on? Lakoff doesn't agree with them, but he doesn't call them crazy either. Besides, atavism runs through both sides of the political spectrum and most people . Good lord, ask all the student "progressives" to cogently explain their liberal positions (Define a criteria for foreign intervention. Defend the morality of an income tax. Explain the difference between the WTO and the World Bank and how each of them misuse their power.) and I think you'll find most of them fit your definition of "followers". I don't know, maybe I just don't like the suggestion that seems to run through this column that "you either mostly agree with me or you're a fool" that plays into the stereotypes of know-it-all liberals. Ignorance is ignorance and you've got to work the root of the problem rather than berate the poor undereducated soul for being the fool that he is. I don't blame conservatives for how they think anymore than I do the victims of Katrina for looting and I don't think it's appropriate to refer to either of them as "mindless."
No, there is no suggestion that "you're either mostly with me or you're a fool" in this post.
The suggestion was that you either think things through or you're a fool. I know you for one happen to agree with that proposition. Consumer whores, anyone? It's a self-awareness question.
The main thrust of this was that conservatives who just take marching orders need to be called on it. Progressives do as well. However, considering the dynamic of top-down, well organized conservatism and a much more loosely organized progressivism, I think you'll find we've got more independent thinkers than they do.
You can accuse me of using charged he-man rhetoric to differentiate myself from the ball-less DLCers in the party, but it's not that it's he-man rhetoric that makes the difference, it's that there's any rhetoric at all being thrown at the GOP. Plus, is it so bad that elected officials should defend what they see to be valuable? If that's the sort of feeling that engenders he-man rhetoric, then it's fine with me.
The point is not to make conservatives look stupid, but to put the burden of proof upon them for their positions, instead of letting them get away with it as "this is an equally correct point of view." Some issues might be moral relative ones that you can't do that on, but most of them aren't.
Oh, only those who don't think things through are fools? I feel better now. I'm hoping that when I reach full mental and spiritual awareness, I'll have enough built-in compassion to to care about others. You're missing the forest for the trees, Mike. It's that sort of tone which turns off voters in fucking droves because no one wants to vote for a knowitall.
Where do you get the idea that I consider someone who consumes excessively to be a fool? I disagree with it on moral grounds and think that a good deal of consumer products prey on vanity and feelings of low-self worth which people are then deceived into buying and it makes me angry that people don't make better choices, but if the criteria for being a fool is to bow to baser human instincts, then we're all pretty much retards, yes? And to ignore human weakness and castigate and mock those who fell outside my moral judgments would be something a stereotypical conservative would do, yes? To conflate being a fool and being fooled is the same sort of nondistinction that the Bush adminstration thrives on when they talk about those who commit heinous acts and those "evil-doers."
Conservatism is organized, yes, but isn't that something that liberals have begin to view with envy? Just because FoxNews almost literally takes marching orders from the White House (We could only be so lucky) doesn't mean that malleability and independent thinking doesn't exist in the right. I consider liberalism to be the more intelligent choice and I think a number brighter people are drawn to it, but what's the use in pointing this out? See the piece of The Onion's AV Club this week where Errol Morris talks about trying to do work for MoveOn and move on insisting that trying to persuade certain voters using rational AND emotional appeals from other people was a lost cause.
No, he-man rhetoric does make a difference because it's shitty, counter-productive writing that contributes to lost elections. Why is there this imaginary dichotomy between hyperbolic blogger rhetoric and not saying anything? No one is telling you to be a pussy about this, but keep on message, alright? Maybe I'm being trite here, but isn't liberalism separated in large measure by its capacity for compassion and reason? There's a huge difference between saying "X elected official is an incurious demagague whose policies are unfair and counter-effective for reasons X, Y, etc..." than "OMG, he's a fucker!" and that tone is what sells people. Compare Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd and consider who actually makes people think about things and who comes off as an uninformed, self-righteous shrew. Lakoff included a section on how to speak to conservatives because we, liberals, are by and large so fucking poor at it and feel much more comfortable circle-jerking each other than actually figuring out how best to convey to people how the world actually works in a way they can understand and appreciate instead of lamenting their sad state of fucktardedness.
If the point is to not make conservatives look stupid then you've got some pretty misleading posts. A column from John Tierney simply labeled "Fuckwit"? The caption for Bush's note? The man needs a fucking bathroom break, a basic human need, and suddenly he's a little baby? Wow, if I were looking for a candidate whom I considered to be down to Earth and capable of relating to people, I'd totally dock him points for needing to urinate during a meeting and appreciate the kind liberal blogger who ragged on him for it. Oh man, I feel myself swinging left just typing that This isn't relatavism, Mike, this is not being an asshole.
I swore a lot in that post. I take it back, that actually felt really good.
Post a Comment