Skip to main content

View Diary: Trippi Op-Ed in the WSJ: Yes. Yes. Yes! (276 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wrong, and dangerously so (3.00)
    Rush did not turn Mods into C's.    Rush rode the wave and amplified it.    The voters we lost to the GOP in the last few decades were once D's in name only.

    I urge you to experiment with using anger to try to persuade people in your own.   Just because it's satisfying to you personally doesn't mean it's that way to others.    

    If anger worked to persuade, you'd see it in the truest cauldron of persuasion:   TV product commercials.    

    Anger works in politics only to motivate segments of the base.   Never as a primary tonality.    Was Reagan angry?  GWB?  Clinton?  Not even Nixon was outwardly angry.     It's for the fringe.   Use it and you stay on the fringe.

    •  Then why are ads always 'yelling' at me? (4.00)
      What's the one think in common for all TV commercials? They spike the volumn up on ads.

      Why have The Clapper, Ginsu Knives, Matthew Lesko, that damn Spray-on Hair, Ch-ch-ch-chia pets, and Billy Mays for Oxy-clean become such cultural instituations?

      BECAUSE THEY YELL AT YOU SO LOUD IN THE ADS YOU CAN'T IGNORE THEM.

    •  On Anger and Being Angry (4.00)
      I agree that acting angry detracts from persuasion.  Bush never acted angry during the campaign.  But anger motivates people and Republicans have been very good at making people angry as a way to manipulate them.  So you play on jealousy, resentment, insecurity and fear.  You find a target for people to focus these emotions on, which makes them angry at the target, and this anger motivates them to vote against it.  Don't act angry, find a scapegoat and make the people angry.

      Also, let's not confuse straight talk with anger. Criticizing Republicans policies and their execution of them -- calling a maggot a maggot -- doesn't necessarily make you "angry."

      It occurs to me that your focus on "anger" and "angry" resembles the Republican talking points on Howard Dean.  Dean was "angry," the echo chamber said it and the media amplified it, but Dean didn't really act angry.  I watched a lot of Dean interviews and speeches.  There were no flaring nostriles, no angry body language.  Dean may have been loud, raucous, fed up; he criticized Bush and showed fighting spirit, but Dean didn't act like he was angry.  

      So you're right, Dems shouldn't flare their nostriles and stamp up and down.  They shouldn't yell over people and call them assholes.  But they also shouldn't mince their words.

      And Dems also need to make their base -- most fundamentally working people, be they organized or not -- that they will actually stand up for and make a material difference for them. Let them eat Free Trade is not a strategy.

      This aggression will not stand, man

      by kaleidescope on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 11:53:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You didn't think Bush was angry (none)
        during the campaign?  Please correct me if I didn't read that right.  Well, he looked arrogant (a form of ire and disdain).  He looked irritated as well as agitated and on the verge of losing control if you ask me.

        Dean on the other hand was firm, inspired and inspiring.

        •  anger makes me angry! (none)
          There's no way to "read this right."   This quickly gets very subjective, but I'll give you my opinion., because that's what we do here on this blog.

          I don't think Bush was angry most of the time.    He blew it big time in the debates, though.    The general perception, I'd guess, is that he's not an "angry guy."    Good image control on that.   His debate performance was probably perceived to be out of character by many.  Who knows, I'm guessing.

          Dean, as I saw it, was probably not angry often.   But he was unaware that those times when he expressed anger it would show up in the media and color his image.    It happened, hence the perception.    Not enough discipline.

          I personally didn't find him inspiring, but that's just me.    Firm, definitely, which was good.   But also a touch bellicose - which comes off as fiery to admirers and, well,  a little angry to those who aren't.  

          •  An Angry HoHo? Ha Ha. (none)
            All the time people called Dean "angry" his popularity grew. It was, basically, the scream that did Dean in (that and being outmanuvered in Iowa by Torricelli and company) and in the scream he most definitely (and obviously) was not angry.

            This aggression will not stand, man

            by kaleidescope on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 11:12:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I met him in person. Surly was the word. (none)
              At our event he was OK, but definitely gruff.   That was the consensus among the candidate and her friends, who were contacted by the Dean campaign.   Some used the word "arrogant."

               It was  late '02, and he seemed nervous.   In general as I saw him,  he was often just gruff, or surly, or choose the word.   The flip side to that is "tough".   He's warm occasionally.     The point is, he didn't project a consistently warm outlook, like, say, Edwards, Clinton, Reagan.    

              Like Kerry - he wasn't always aloof.   But you're worst publicly displayed mood is what you'll be hit on.    It's all a performance.

              Add it all up, the occasional shouted, red faced speeches, and you get the catch-all description of "anger."    Note that I am not saying all of this proves that he is "bad" in any way, or that the emotions are "invalid" - just that it was bound to color his opponents definitions of him.      It's a show.    I didn't mention the scream.   I think the scream struck people as undignified and unpresidential.   Again, if you love him, you may   love the scream.      That's my opinion, please don't take this as a flame.

    •  To quote you... (none)
      "Wrong, and dangerously so"

      Rush helped create the wave he rode.  And many of the voters we lost to the GOP were Dem on the issues.  Just as they are now.  Except now they don't know it.

      The chips are down. Find your outrage.

      by sj on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 11:57:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (none)
        I don't agree with that, that we lost a significant number of  voters who were ours on the issues.    We never couldt have them because culture-values trumps self-interest.    In Lakoff's terms, many (not all) people have both conservative (strict) and liberal (nurturant) values systems, and use them in different parts of their lives.

        I think that there may be a small subset of these issues-agree-ers that we lost....but most wouldn't be with us despite this.   Culture-values-religion is primary for these people - even over their own money or health care prospects. ds

        I agree Rush helped create the wave.   But he was tapping into very sympathetic  targets.    

    •  interesting pt there, (none)
      that dems that we lost in the last 15 yrs or so were dems in name only--

      I agree,

      and I think it is because dems stopped inventing what it means to be a dem--fdr and ww did a little groundwork, and then we said, ok that sounds good to me.

      what is the japanese word?  kaizen--constant innovation--devouring yourself to make yourself anew.

      we've lost ourselves, and our only salvation is to rework it completely.

      all classic "dem" issues are tired: organized labor has become slow are corrupt and has not done it's homework in helping business keep up with global development, abortion--we say, a women has a right to choose, end of story; but how about pushing for better, cheaper day care and maternity/paternity leave policies by saying--hey, some people abort b/c they can't afford more kids, and we don't want that happening to ANYONE!!!

      we don't we reinvent our stances?

      we are not exempt from the deterioration that happens to all complacent folk..

      He will never be a tough competitor. He doesn't know how to be comfortable with being uncomfortable. Lou Piniella

      by alivingston on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 12:11:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Was Reagan angry? (4.00)
      Are you old enough to remember the moment Reagan won the 1980 primary? When he more or less tore a microphone out of the hands of Bush Sr (I think) and said "I PAID FOR THIS MICROPHONE AND NO ONE WILL TAKE IT AWAY FROM ME" (or something to that affect)?

      Reagan was angry, and showed it on the stump, and was widely admired by people for it (especially angry soon-to-be "Reagan Democrats" who weren't part of his base until he made them part of his base).

      His opponents ran against him in part by saying he was too angry (and might, you know, blow the world to smithereens because he was such an angry old man).

      Did he look angry when, shortly after taking office, he took on the air controller's union?

      Anger was a very real part of Reagan's politics and his political appeal.

      Just so you know.

      PS: The reason you think I play gotcha with you is because you make statements -- like claiming Reagan didn't show anger -- that aren't even remotely accurate.

    •  Anger is not a bad thing. (4.00)
      One can feel angry and let it out any number of ways.  You seem to equate the emotion of anger with the expression of it in socially unacceptable ways, e.g., being cruel, abusive, hateful, vicious, using profanity, being violent.

      But one can be angry and not express it by any of those means.

      There are many things that I get angry about. Most of the time, I get angry because I'm hurt, or someone I care about is hurt. I also get angry at people, and policies, that are clearly wrong and offensive to my morality.

      My anger takes the form of cursing etc. if I'm in private. Or small rants here on Kos. But mostly in the form of concerted effort to change that which makes me angry, expressed through proper channels and in socially acceptable ways.

      I am damned angry that George Bush has done vile things to our country. I work from that place of anger in my work as a Democrat and activist. I don't intend on doing anything ugly with the anger I feel about Bush, and I'm a fairly mentally healthy individual and able to control my impulses, not that my impulses run to violence anyway.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site