Skip to main content

View Diary: How I learned to stop being angry (309 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  MAKE them fear us. (8+ / 0-)

    Really, hope IS for wussies.  

    If fear is what they understand, then fear we should deliver.

    I will be happy the moment the Democratic party is as terrorized by US as the Republicans are by the Chrstian Right.

    It is not religion that I question, it is that the human practice of religion would deny its privileges to other humans - DKos user grapes (6.25, -6.92)

    by AndyS In Colorado on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:21:59 PM PDT

    •  Andy..while I understand your frustration... (6+ / 0-)

      Heaven knows I'm feeling a good dose of that this evening, is that what we really envision for ourselves..that we instill fear.

      I'm feeling down, and I'm definitely feeling a tad bitter and sarcastic..but in my heart I know I don't want leaders that feel fear..from Bush or "US".

      I want leaders that will listen, thoughtfully and respectfully, and lead on the basis of what is right and good. Not out of fear..but out of respect for the people they govern.

      Sheesh, all this frustration and I'm still an idealist.

      •  Respect is best, but obedience to the will of the (7+ / 0-)

        actual people will do in a pinch.

        And yes, I am frustrated, and seeking a way out.  I've been tossing out trial balloons all evening.  So if anyone sees my various comments as kind of churlish and spastic, you are right.  Not sarcastic, because I am desperately trying to think of anything that might work.

        See, the "ruling by fear is bad" thing is a top-down thing.  I don't want the PEOPLE governed by fear.  So to that extent, I agree totally.  But it does look as though that's where we've been and that we're headed for much more of it.

        If "fear" though is the only thing the LEADERSHIP understands and will get us to where we need to go, I see no problem in using it, given the fact that the leadership of both sides is already governed by (and governs by) fear, just the wrong kind of it.

        I don't want them to feel fear either, in an ideal world.  I would love mutual respect and them listening and making wise decisions in the combined best interest, but, as of this totally exasperated moment, I just don't see it happening.

        In the long run, I would tend to agree it is a bad thing if people who are charged with running our country are pinned between two snarling dogs with six inch fangs.  

        The problem for me is, both Republicans and Democrats are like are running from a phantom version of one of these dogs on the right.

        Fear, to me, is already on the loose.  If harnessing fear and turning it to the advantage of the American public is bad, it is a worse thing to have the people actually making decisions harnessing fear to terrorize the American public.

        It is not religion that I question, it is that the human practice of religion would deny its privileges to other humans - DKos user grapes (6.25, -6.92)

        by AndyS In Colorado on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:44:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fear makes the world go round (10+ / 0-)

          The kind of fear I'm talking about.  

          Think of the fears in your life that motivate you on a daily basis:

          1.  Fear of losing your job
          1.  Fear of losing your house (if you own one)
          1.  Fear of losing your Significant Other

          Just between those three we can define about 95% of adult American behavior.  

          Fear is what makes the entire system function.  It's what makes you get to work on time, it's what makes you actually do your job, it's what makes you pay your bills.  

          It's the drivetrain of the American economy.  It's the glue of most employee/employer relationships.

          The Democrats, if they actually worked for us, would fear us.  They do not.  Or they wouldn't have done what they did today.  

          That tells me that they're working for somebody else.  Someone they fear more than us.  

          It's pretty simple, really.

          •  Well, I agree -- there's realistic fear, and then (4+ / 0-)

            there's terror.  Not terror that you're going to lose your life (e.g. "terrorism") but terror that you've made a whole lot of people HELLA angry.

            I think Morgan was chiding me on the basis of "terrorizing" our leaders, not run-of-the-mill "concern" or "fear" in that smallish sense.

            I think the distinction needs to be made, but otherwise, I agree.

            I have to say, I want the people in Congress to feel "terror", from our side, for a change, if only for a short time.

            I'm sick of right wing political terror.  I want to wield some terror of my own.  

            Just to let them know we're capable of unleashing it.  That's all.

            It is not religion that I question, it is that the human practice of religion would deny its privileges to other humans - DKos user grapes (6.25, -6.92)

            by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:00:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, so the question is (6+ / 0-)

              how do we do that?  

              How do we strong-arm the people who are supposed to represent us in the first place?  

              How do you force your wife to quit cheating on you?  Threaten her?  

              That's the crux of the question.  Do we really want to bother trying to strong arm people into working for us, when they don't really want to?  When their loyalties lie elsewhere?

              Sure, why not?  We should do THAT and everything else.  We should strong-arm them at the same time we plot their replacement.  At the same time we do an end-run around them completely and take our own power back from them.  And then USE IT.

              •  Get more people to vote? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                YetiMonk, buhdydharma, blueoasis

                honestly, I'm grasping at straws here, because I feel just exactly how your rant sounds.  

              •  What is interesting to me is that these people .. (8+ / 0-)

                the ones who represent us .. are not that complex.  They aren't even (to my chagrin) all that intelligent.

                The last six years have been an odyssey of political maturation for me.  I have to confess, if I were to look at myself six years back, I would have contempt for myself as a clueless rube.  I used to have these romanticized ideals of leaders being the best and the brightest.

                Undoubtedly, my political maturation is not complete, and will continue.

                No, I don't just mean plot their replacements.  I mean TERRORIZE them.  

                As in, bury them in faxes and nasty phone calls.  Demonstrate and scream.  And needless to say, we need to be cleverer and yank the keys from them.

                But here's the key, and what makes me different from the religious right -- TEMPORARILY.

                You don't threaten.  You riot.  You make it undeniably clear that "YOU FUCKED UP".

                Engage in behavior that's atypical for a "weak liberal", even if for a short time, and you will get their attention.  It is the first lesson of any teacher engaging a room full of unruly adolescents.  Repeated lessons (if required) will burn in the point.

                Again, the people who get elected to make decisions on our behalf are, by and large (there are exceptions) unfortunately (or fortunately,for this calculation) not that intelligent.  They are, in fact, relatively stupid people, as people go.  Yeah, I know that's cynical, but to me, it's true.  Intelligent people are complex and tend to fall victim to things that make them unattractive as political candidates.  Life complexity is a death knell to a brilliant political career.

                Anyway, at the very least, very few of them climb the right side of the intelligence curve, if the evidence at hand is illustrative in any way.

                To deal with stupid people, just as with animals, you send an unforgettable message.  They will remember the message and factor it into their crude calculations.  Then when the Exxon lobbyist comes to call, the long memory will kick in.

                It is not religion that I question, it is that the human practice of religion would deny its privileges to other humans - DKos user grapes (6.25, -6.92)

                by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:28:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Brandishing the rolled-up newspaper at the dog (9+ / 0-)

                  ... as opposed to discussing with the dog what's written in the newspaper.

                  The Dutch children's choir Kinderen voor Kinderen (= “children for children”) is a world cultural treasure.

                  by lotlizard on Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:06:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  To really terrorize them, (4+ / 0-)

                  we must withdraw our consent to be governed. Simply nattering at them is impotent. It is disgruntled consent to be governed, nothing more.

                  We must turn our backs on them and build a parallel power to theirs.

                •  replace the word terror PLEASE (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  YetiMonk, lorzie

                  with intimidate.

                  Its what the righties do.

                  Especially the fundies.

                  "Here is what we want, do it or we will fire you", Then fire some of them to make your point. Lieberman would have and will make a grea example.

                  Also, fire the machinery, DCCC etc. and start new orgs.

                  •  I'm not sure I mean just that. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Spoc42, buhdydharma, blueoasis

                    I think that in some sense Republicans are used to attempts to "intimidate" them.  The Christian Right is expert at "intimidation" or attempts thereof.

                    I'm not surer Democrats share that experience for the most part, from their own "constituents".  All the better.

                    If intimidate is the same as "scare the fucking crap out of with how mad we are", I would agree, but I don't really think it is.

                    There is something mildly disconcerting about someone with an already ugly disposition becoming somewhat more disagreeable.  That's "intimidation".

                    What I am talking about is people with a generally mild disposition becoming, very briefly, very suddenly, very unexpectedly, VERY disagreeable.

                    I am talking about the mouse in the palm that not only roars, but rears up, swells, grows 8 inch fangs and blows breath of fire on them, that blackens their face and blows back their hair.  All in the space of about 5 seconds, comically speaking.

                    Thereafter to shrink into a harmless mouse again.

                    I want to give the Democratic collaborators NIGHTMARES.

                    For the effect to be so quick and so extreme that they wonder whether it really happened at all (which wondering would be part of the aforementioned "nightmare").

                    I am talking about a psychic blitzkrieg.

                    Quick, essentially harmless, non-violent, but, basically heart-attack inducing, just from the comic/dramatic effect.  Just for the knowledge that the fundies are the least they'd have to worry about.  A simple demonstration of displeasure, and the depths thereof.

                    I want the Democrats in Washington to shiver in their skivvies at the mere thought of such a thing happening ever again.  That takes more than mere "intimidation".  It's at some whole other level... though I hasten to add I do not and would never suggest anything like physical violence or even the suggestion thereof.. that's simply crude (and unnecessary), not to mention illegal... and beyond that, it actually ruins the event I'm hoping for.  This is all purely political in the sense of pitchfork and torch wielding.

                    I don't really want to fire people in terms of this particular thing, (or even bother to threaten to do so) because I don't think it would do any good.  We tend to think in terms of classic replacing people in politics because that's good civics, and we liberals tend to be good at civics, and wanting to be "responsible citizens".  But you know the story, "new boss, same as the old boss".  

                    And I don't propose to make it a pattern.  The fact that liberals are generally mild mannered actually works to the benefit of making such a point.  The only question is, how to execute such a thing, which would take a lot of creativity.

                    If that's "intimidation" then we have no argument ;)  I just want to be clear on what I would love to see happen, allegorically speaking.

                    It is not religion that I question, it is that the human practice of religion would deny its privileges to other humans - DKos user grapes (6.25, -6.92)

                    by AndyS In Colorado on Fri May 25, 2007 at 03:55:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  the ONLY thing they NEED from us (5+ / 0-)

                is money.

                Follow the money, see how it works.

                Where it doesn't work for US....Change it.

                By cutting it off.

                I wouldn't give to anyone but Dean now.

                And I'm sure, HE'S not perfect, just the best we've got

          •  Fear of illness if you don't have insurance! n/t (5+ / 0-)
      •  Fear works. (4+ / 0-)

        The Establishment was terrified that there would be a revolution during the Depression. So, we got Social Security and a few other goodies.

    •  Fear (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      YucatanMan, rolandzebub, Dar Nirron

      Is the mind killer.

    •  in this case (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      opinionated, blueoasis, kidneystones

      you are right and it is necessary. The question is how? They think we are unable to fight back or they would not have been so blatant. They may be right. We'll know very soon though. This is where the netroots develops teeth or dies with a whimper.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site