I think that the GOP gains the votes of the religious right by convincing them that `liberal elites' are mocking, and attacking them and their values. As a result I question whether satire of the religious right serves us, or hurts us.
The Clinton administration provided a very clear model for successful policy. President Clinton was a centrist; he presided over a time of widespread peace and prosperity. Yet the current administration seems to choose policies which yield war and economic stagnation over Clinton's centrist policies. With such a clear, positive example immediately available, how could the current administration get it so wrong? Perhaps because peace and general prosperity aren't necessarily in their interest.
I believe the primary goal of the Republican Party is to benefit the upper class and corporate interests. However, to remain in power, they must gain the support of a majority of voters. This presents a problem for them, as they don't represent the best interests of any majority. Therefore, they must use manipulative tactics to gain the support of enough people to constitute a voting majority. One of these tactics is to victimize those prone to seeing themselves as victims.
I think that the religious right is manipulated into supporting the Republican agenda. They are on board, but their best interests do not guide GOP policy. Corporate interests guide GOP policy. So how does the Republican Party leadership convince religious conservatives to vote against their economic best interests? The answer came to me in this post by one Steven Willis at Redstate.com in response to our own bink:
I work with many very highly educated people . . . nearly all of whom are on the left. They lecture me constantly about how stupid and mean and dishonest the right is. At the same time, they lecture me on the need for tolerance and understanding and the need for listening.
Your comments are noted. But, you should spend your efforts trying to get your friends to recognize that Republicans and Conservatives are often nice people, with feelings, and families, and logic.
So what strikes me in this post is the fact that he is saying the `very highly educated' lefties are mocking the `stupid and mean' righties. I think Rove and company create the impression that the Left is guided by `liberal elites.' The true leadership is not looking out for working class and minority interests; in fact the party is guided by sexy hollywood celebrities, know-it-all professors, pro-abortion activists, and angry leftist bloggers. For instance, have a look at
this video on the left (with major coverage of `far left-wing,' `angry' DailyKos) provided by Pat Robertson's CBN.
The key to this is these `liberal elites.' If Dems are `elites,' then they don't represent the interests of little Mr. Freeper. Not only do these `elites' not represent the interests of little Mr. Freeper, they mock him. They're smarter than him, and they mock his simple belief in the bible with their promotion of evolution. They're gorgeous celebrities, so they have sex all of the time like those people on TV, while his life is a dreadful bore. They do all kinds of things that contradict little Mr. Freeper's simple bibical-based worldview, like have homosexual relationships, failed marriages, unplanned pregnancies and abortions.
So little Mr. Freeper feels bad for himself. First, he knows he's not so bright. He's no leader, he's a follower of the church. He isn't beautiful, and doesn't have all of the hot relationships he'd like, but he can say he's celibate, which supposedly is morally good. So when you convince him that there are people who are better than him, and they think they're better than him, and those people are mocking him, those liberals are mocking his lifestyle and his intelligence and his simple beliefs--he will hate those people. I believe this is how the right operates. Per the CBN video I linked to earlier, the left is run by hollywood celebrities and abortion activists, oh and far left-wing angry bloggers. Who would vote for decadent celebrities, abortion activists, or haters? Or read this article from The Free Republic (abridged quote):
The San Francisco event was organized for "teens to find Bible-based solutions for the spread of sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, drug abuse and suicide."
Reading very carefully one of the few media outlet stories on the event, Scott Thompson sums up the real purpose when he noted "I'm not here to hate anybody... This isn't about Bush or gays or anything other than being here to worship together."
But the cities Democrat leaders condemned the event as "fascist," extremist, and dangerous. In the process, they intentionally put out their own leftist lying propaganda spin that these kids were there to support Bush and bash gays.
These liberals, from Nancy Pelosi's home, consider morality and religion dangerous. They openly protest and fight against efforts to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and suicide.
He goes on to conclude that Satan himself is in charge of our party. You see, those angry Democrats hate the little guy. They hate his silly religion, they hate his simple values, they hate his pathetic attempts to do good. They're attacking his simple religion and his morality, they're attacking his beliefs. So if you're the simple little guy, why would you support the Dems?
So if I'm right, if the GOP paints Dems as mocking and attacking the little guy, how do we respond? I'm getting at the whole civility and tone debate that DawnG has written about. Should we tone down our rhetoric, and try to build bridges with the right? Or should we mock the stupidity of fundies and attack with greater fury until they have been defeated?
I'm thinking that we need to show the right that we are ordinary people, not `elites.' We need to find opportunities to show them our loving, human side (we're not all haters). We should be respectful of their dignity as individuals, and treat them with civility. I think we should attack them politically in the proper forums (i.e., attack in debate, not in a conversation among neighbors). If a fundie is your neighbor, be both a liberal and a good neighbor. But of course we need to fight them to win in said proper forums, we need to defeat them in said proper forums.
What do you think?
Update: scottman makes a good point below, and that is that we should mock abstract concepts, not individual people or groups of people. This sounds like a good compromise/first step anyways.
In truth, I can't imagine giving up my deeply held belief in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism in the name of bridging the right/left divide. I guess all we can aim to do is try to maintain a civil and respectful discourse, even in our fierce political battles and biting satire. That, and maybe we could try a national "hug a fundie" day...