Once again Mr Feehery illustrates a use of GOP tactic that falls under the umbrella of the party of "no". This time it is the GOP argument that "no politician represents the political center". Every time I hear the meme "no politician is any good", it is coming from a disaffected conservative. Take a quick read.
It's a subtle political game and the GOP is good at it. They're playing to the cynicism of moderate conservatives and centrists. The idea is to suppress voter turnout rather than cede voters to the opposing party. Rather than have their former supporters vote democratic, they'd rather see their former supporters not vote at all. It's not hard to appeal to a liberal either, with the argument that 'no politician represents what you believe'.
More importantly, this type of talk creates a 'ready reserve' of disaffected conservatives who will be ready and waiting to vote republican again. This is, at least in what I see, the real comeback strategy for the rethuglicans. When the next wave of misinformation-based conservative 'change' comes about, much like 1994, these voters will crawl out of the woodwork by the millions unless we stop it.
The problem here is that this creates a false dichotomy and appeals to the nirvana fallacy.
This type of political thought and political thinking is that it is a highly selective weapon, and dangerous if not used correctly.
Let's take health care for example. Most likely, this round of health care reform will not include a real single-payer option. The round of health care reform, therefore, will anger a number of conservatives and a number of liberals. Some of both will become 'disenchanted' with politics over this issue. The problem is that, during a conservative resurgence, the conservatives can be brought back into the fold. As we saw in this election cycle, it is easier to inspire people to support a cause than it is to inspire people to oppose it.
This is only made worse by the GOP tactic of picking liberal bogeymen and smearing them incessantly until they start using their name alone as a dirty word. Nancy Pelosi is a perfect example. She is imperfect, yes, and there are legitimate reasons why a liberal might argue that she shouldn't be speaker or shouldn't be in the house at all. That's fine, and discussing that is fine as long as we recognize the opportunity for the GOP to sneak in, make cynical comments, and poison the discussion.
So how do we deal with this?
Well, the first is simply being aware of it.
Second, we shouldn't allow statements like "all politicians are crooks" to hang in the air unanswered. I like to remind people at work that there are single term schoolteachers and other 'common folk' in the house; and that a first-termer like that couldn't possibly have had time to become a beltway snob.
Call out the nirvana fallacy when it crops up. Point to paying attention to the primaries and even before that and political activities as a way of combating this.
All, what are your thoughts on this hidden use of negativity by NONO the GOPOSAUR?