Do We Get It?

I came across an "interesting" (in the sense of a burning wreck being interesting) article entitled "The Left Does Not Get It" recently.  The article is another "THEY are calling everyone victims, surrendering for America, and pro-gay marriage baby-killers".  Directly rebutting the article would be completely ridiculous, and I don't intend to do so.  Rather, I am going to analyze what tactics this and other articles are using to demagogue "liberals" as evil hatemongers.

Do we get the issues today?  Of course.  Do we get how to talk about them?  I'm not sure.

First, your conservative pundit attempts to define his enemy.  This is more than just creating a straw man in order to rebut it, it is an attempt to shift the debate in their terms as well.

Liberalism underestimates the potential of the average citizen. According to modern day liberal philosophy, the average citizen cannot make it on their own. To exist, the average citizen requires assistance from the government.

The liberal position allows for compromising of our freedoms while the conservative position defends them.

By "assistance from the government", I doubt he is referring to the government's roads, security, infrastructure and other services which we all use.

The problem with rebutting these concepts is that he never actually describes WHO has them.  It's always the ambiguous "they", who happens to be a liberal.  If we try to directly rebut the charges, we will be implicitly endorsing their truth.  If we ignore the charges, people will assume they are true of "liberals" as well.

What we can do is to attempt to re-define the terms.  I think that George Lakoff and the various "framing" discussions are explained far better than I could possibly do.  But we need to remember why we need to frame the issue.

Also, we can attempt to personalize the debate.  Have Nancy Pelosi ask them if they believe that she hates America.  Make them attack people, not just ideas.  Because if they are making claims about people, we can rebut them.

Second, your conservative pundit attempts to define the American public.  As the American public can't directly speak, they attempt to tell people what they think.  In general, people tend to agree with most everything people say they agree with, so they will agree with that as well.

[T]he majority of Americans support a strong national defense without foreign influence.

More people oppose homosexuality today than four years ago.

While it's true that Americans support a national defense, I doubt it is true that a "majority" of Americans support alienating our foreign allies to make our national defense completely our responsiblity.  Similarly, I don't think that more people "oppose homosexuality" today.  Most poll numbers show that support for gay marriage is increasing, and all but the most vehement televangelists don't "oppose homosexuality" (Bush and Cheney definitely don't).  But that doesn't stop them from saying it or stop people from thinking it.

Too many Democrats try to only speak to the "liberals" and to other Democrats.  By doing so, we imply that a large portion of the country disagrees.  We need to use inclusive language.  Remember Barack Obama's convention speech.  He described how we all have the same concerns, and how the Democratic Party can help them.  We need to appeal to (almost) all voters in all 50 states, not just targetted swing voters.  Talk about how we all support equal rights.  Talk about how we all want to know our elderly relatives will be financially secure.  Don't talk about how we want to eliminate the death penalty, talk about how we want to ensure that we never execute an innocent man.

The Republicans may have some success with wedge issues, but they use them to try to unite 2/3 of the public against the other part.  It is ridiculous to suppose that a party which preaches tolerance and inclusiveness would win by trying to divide the American public.

Last, your conservative pundit attempts to "helpfully" suggest how to fix the "problems" with the Democrats.

To end this slide into political isolation, they need to change their outlook on humanity and freedom.  Instead of supporting defeat and compromise, they must advocate victory and life.

My advice is to completely ignore their suggestions.  Either they are intended to backfire and cause us to lose elections, or they cause us to be "worse" than the Republicans on the issue.  If we were to do the "opposite", it probably wouldn't work either.  Better to just completely ignore their bloviating suggestions, and do what we think is best.

In summary:

1. Frame the issue.
   
2. Make it personal.
   
3. Don't be divisive.
   
4. Ignore their recommendations.

•  Any Thoughts

  I'm still angry after reading that article.  The filth is incredible.  I've tried to convert it into freelance punditry and thoughts, how do you think I did?

  by Power on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 03:34:39 PM PDT

•  Look

  The message of this to me is clear:

  No mercy. No quarter. No handwringing. Nothing is too shrill or off limits. If somebody running for President has a blemish, its a scar. If somebody has a scar, its a tumor. We are in a war to protect the freedom and ideals that this nation was built on, as well as the most vulnerable and stepped on people in our society from a bunch of greedy bastards who only care about themselves. We are not fighting an opponent that thinks we are wrong, or misguided, or simply misinformed on the issues... we are fighting an enemy who has clearly delared that we are evil and to be 'destroyed' for 'the good of the land'.

  No gloves. No regret. We go at them. We pound them into the ground. Winning is all that matters to them, and we are fighting for our Nation's survival.

  by LeftHandedMan on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 03:44:17 PM PDT

•  Well,

  I agree with the idea that you don't want to 'directly' rebut the article, but it seems like in spite of that, you've attempted to rebut it.  In so doing, you've given it credence, you have, at least to some implicit extent, accepted the framing of the article.

  I just don't think that is a proper approach. When faced with a bogus and false attempt by the other side to define us, all you can do in reply is attack, and define them.  

  Or, to put it more simply, the only correct response to "Why do liberals hate America?" is "Why do conservatives hate America?"

  by Feanor on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 03:45:51 PM PDT

  •  That's Exactly My Point

    By directly responding to the points in the article, you don't get anywhere.  That's why I was trying to look for "different" ways to respond.

    You can't just ignore the right-wing echo chamber, but you sure as hell shouldn't do what they want you to do.

    by Power on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 08:37:26 PM PDT

•  Bunk

  Liberalism underestimates the potential of the average citizen. According to modern day liberal philosophy, the average citizen cannot make it on their own. To exist, the average citizen requires assistance from the government.

     Conservatives often make this charge, and quite effectively, that liberals wish to govern your individual lives, in turn eroding your personal freedom.  Liberals, as per usual, always find it necessary to defend and define to justify their positions.
     Turn the argument on its head and we find the claim to be complete rubbish.  Is is the liberal or the conservative that wishes to shape morality through legislation? It seems obvious that the liberal is inclusive, non-judgemental, whereas the conservative wishes to mold society to fit into a narrow band of perceived morality.  The liberal understands the subjectivity of morality, personal choices and freedoms, the conservative unaccepting and rigid.
     The claim that conservatives believe people should be free of government interference is pure propaganda.  Which philosophy wishes to censor, based on an arbitrary compass.  If liberals actually believe the average citizen is bereft of the ability to make their own decisions, why then is it the liberal who often sides with the common man against the bigger institutionalized forces?  Is in not an acknowledgement of the inequalities, rather than a statement of personal freedom.  The conservative is the one who actually has the low opinion of man, he/she needs direction to override their primitive tendencies.  This guidance, whether legislation or pressure, admits that man is inherently evil and must have laws lest he acts on his nature.  The liberal sees man in a better light, not afraid to give the common man power for fear he will not handle it accordingly.
     Interesting that in terms of democracy and freedom, it has historically been those on the left who have fought to move the bar, whereas the conservative has fought liberty, emancipation and personal freedoms.  The liberal says, smoke pot, who am I to dictate, the conservative wags the moral finger, claims corruption and forces retribution.  Who is it again that feels the average citizen can or cannot control and guide their own lives??  
    We on the left need to stop defending liberalism, instead showing the conservative slanders for the house of cards they really are.  When we do that we may see a change in the way the world liberalism is perceived, maybe it may even become palatable again.
  

  by Stevo on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 03:57:20 PM PDT

  •  I want to write something about this

    but I can't write and look at your post at the same time so forgive me if I get something slightly wrong. What I want to say is that what the original poster is showing, and arguing, is that the right's frame is strong and we need to combat it by appealing to those it is directed at.  We can't do that by using words that we like, as liberals, words like "inclusive" or "tolerant" or "flexible" or whatever. WE have to actually use the words the right does, take their ideas and steal them. If they argue (and they do) that liberals are government dependent we have to argue that it is conservatives who are freeloaders, eating at the government trough. If they argue that liberals want to get into everyone's buisness, we have to argue that liberals aren't blue nosed peeping toms, that they believe everyone has the right to make their own independent decisions about how they are going to live. if they argue that liberals aren't "for" the family, we have to argue that they are "against" the independence of families.  IF they argue that liberals are collectivist, we have to argue that liberals are the original rugged independents.

    The right has shaped language and imagery in certain ways that are salient for their followers. We want their followers so we have to use their language and make them decide (independently) tht we are the party that can give them the most of what they think they value.

    aimai

    by aimai on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 04:52:23 PM PDT

  •  Thank you

    I believe that you , and Power as well, have made  clear cut strategic assessments that ,strangely enough, the Democratic Party apparently is unable or unwilling to accept.

    by Ardee on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 05:09:58 PM PDT