Skip to main content

Your reaction to my first post really blew me away!  I just want to thank all of you for being so awesome.  I want to write a series of these, describing my ideas about how these movements arise, how we can understand them and how we can, hopefully, begin to beat them.

After the debate in Denver, my Republican friend messaged me.  (I’m gonna call him Bob.)   He starts trying to get into it with me, so I tell him what I think about it.  (I’ve done a bit of debate.  I thought plenty, but that’s not for this article.)  Bob tells me, that Romney was never in favor of cutting taxes.  And now it's "on the record,” so he believes it’s a promise. He tells me that Romney was never talking about a $5 Trillion tax cut, but a $5 Trillion revenue increase, and that it just got Obama "confused."  Bob now totally buys all of the new lines, no matter how far they were from his previous beliefs (which he also quite fervently defended).

So, I’m going to ask a simple question, what is a Republican?  I’ll wait a second, try to answer it.  Keep your answer to yourselves.  No shouting.  But, don’t just picture some images.  I mean, really, define the standard beliefs of the Republican, in words, without using the word “conservative” or any other synonyms.  It’s not so simple, is it?  This question is the heart of my project here.  Republicans are not simple creatures.  (Neither are Democrats, but I assume most of you know that already.)

kamarvt tried to answer the question, at least in part, last time in a comment, “I am wondering why the diarist [that's me!] dismisses the idea that sociopathy is rampant in the right wing.” In general, I reject this because it’s incorrect.  Mental illness does not cause this ideology (at least not writ large, I have to give some credence to the fact that some of them must be, but not any significant numbers).  53% of Americans are not sociopaths.  25% of Americans are not sociopaths.  This is not only depressing, this is not only a thought that prevents us from thinking ourselves capable of reaching out to them.  But, this reifies the political opposition, and it is simply wrong.  The cause of the sociopathic like symptoms is the mentality of war.

But, we can’t get ahead of ourselves, not quite yet.  My general project is to understand the mentality of the far right.  The mentality of people like Bob.  Not all Republicans are crazy.  But the crazy Republicans seem to be far louder than most of the others.  This is no coincidence.  This is the very heart of the matter.  In order to undertake this, we have to step back a bit.  

At the most simple level, a Republican is a member of the party that is in opposition to the Democrats, and who is not named Ralph Nader.  There is some kind of ideological opposition between the parties.  It’s not really all that easy to define what those ideologies are, you can describe them in some very nice words.  But, at the end of the day, if we had to describe it to the little green men, if they ever come down, we’d be at a bit of a loss to really describe it to someone who hasn’t lived it.  

(Keep that in mind until after the jump!)

We do not live in a post ideological world.  We live in a world of red states and blue states, of rich and poor, of… you get the idea.  Slavoj Žižek is a man who has taken ideology seriously.  He has argued that, while our conscious opinions are important in defining what we believe, they cannot be taken at face value.  We have to divine the underlying meaning:

Racism, for example. Žižek recommends that we look for symptomatic contradictions, as when the anti-Semite claims that the Jews are both arch-capitalist exploiters and Bolshevik subversives, that they are both excessively tied to their overly particular tradition and deracinated cosmopolitans undercutting national traditions. In the Jim Crow South, blacks were presented simultaneously as childlike innocents needing the guidance of whites and as brutal sexual predators. In contemporary America, Mexican immigrants are viewed at once as lay-abouts burdening our social welfare system and as relentless workaholics who are stealing all our jobs.

These contradictions don’t show that ideology is “irrational” — the problem is exactly the opposite, that there are too many reasons supporting their views. Žižek argues that these piled-up rationalizations demonstrate that something else is going on.

In a lecture, Rick Perlstein is actually asked the question, what do conservatives believe? He responds that, while he has been researching them for most of his life, he actually cannot figure it out.  Now, they are for tax cuts, and against any tax increases. (Well, unless those increases come in the form of closing loopholes.  Seriously.  What do they think closing loopholes does.  Seriously.)  But, when JFK wanted to cut taxes, they were for the balanced budget.  Even though these aren’t always opposed, they are right now!  

We see a contradiction here.  We can see many of these.  The 47%  are lazy, and addicted to the dole.  Yet, they are also welfare queens who work hard to sham the system,

She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.
That’s one hardworking woman.  Eighty names?!  Damn, Reagan.  That woman probably knows welfare laws better than anyone on your staff!  Why didn’t you hire her!?  

How do we handle these contradictions?   How do we diagnose these symptoms?  We look at conflict:  “The […] distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy. […] The distinction of friend and enemy denotes the utmost degree of intensity of a union or separation, of an association or dissociation.”  

The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible. These can neither be decided by a previously determined general norm nor by the judgment of a disinterested and therefore neutral third party.
Republicans actually believe that Democrats are a threat, an existential threat, to their way of life.  Perhaps even to their lives.  They believe that Democrats are enemies of democracy.  They’ll steal the election.  They will take our guns, just like Hitler.   So, they are willing to commit to civil war in order to stop it.

We are mystified when Republicans move the goalpost.  We are mystified when they seem to be defined only as opposing whatever Democrats believe.  We should not be.  They are defined as only opposing whatever democrats believe.  

The political does not reside in the battle itself, which possesses its own technical, psychological, and military laws, but in the mode of behavior which is determined by this possibility, by clearly evaluating the concrete situation and thereby being able to distinguish correctly the real friend and the real enemy.
When there is an Other, the Same (yes, that is actually what it is called) actually identifies itself in opposition to the Other.  This is one of the chief, defining, characteristics of a Same/Other conflict.  Another defining characteristic is that the Other is actually almost totally depersonalized.  The Same can no longer feel empathy for the Other.

This is the mentality of war.  One cannot feel sympathy for the enemy when you are actually, truly threatened.  I do not know what the biological mechanisms are, but the evolutionary justification is clear:  people who do not feel empathy for their enemy are more likely to survive.  (General Sherman.)  Of course, I do have to give kamarvt some credit, some of them are clearly sociopaths.  But, I doubt that it is any more than we see in the general population.  Maybe a few more in the richer supporters of the Republican party than in the Democratic party, but it is not what we are facing writ large.

And we see this lack of empathy in a very real sense.  Bob has clearly taken Michael Savage to heart when he claims that liberalism is a mental disorder.  Bob has said just this to me.  But, it's so obvious that people would see it this way if they are at war.  'How can people make the decisions of democrats' -- even when they themselves had been espousing those same ideas at some random point in the past, and certainly will again in the future!  It's not that they cannot understand the ideas, it is that they cannot understand liberalism.  The ideas are divorced from those that are espousing them, and only those who are espousing them are relevant.  Psychologists have even found these same associations with independents!  The people are what's important, not the idea.  (Well, at least, not any idea.  I'm sure, even if Paul Ryan tried to get his party to back his new favorite economist, Karl Marx, he wouldn't get all that much support.)  But, we see these issues pop up everywhere in American politics.  Understanding it is necessary.  Understanding how to overcome it is more necessary still.

Consider, now, how sinister the comparison to Hitler actually is.  Hitler was a right wing reactionary!  That is why the right wing reactionaries were so very scary to Americans for so very long.  (Nixon and others justified, even in the Nixon tapes, their suppression of left wingers by arguing that the right wing populists would be so much worse!  So much more terrifying!)  It's just as sinister as Glenn Beck usurping the legacy of MLK!  MLK was a leftie.  He believed, and he so explicitly, in redistribution.  He was antiwar.  This usurping is actually pinning the left wing populists as, secretly, right wing populists.  Thus, the only antidote is the "real" left wing populism.  The right wing populism!  The doubletalk is amazing!  The fearmongering, and I can't even tell if it is as deeply considered as I am saying.  Many of these people either believe it, or are just saying extremist things in order to get viewers.  But, whether it is a conspiracy of redefinition or a legitimate reaction, this is something that I believe we must understand, and I believe the epistemology I am sharing with you is crucial in doing this.

We have to counter this thinking.  We have to expose it, deny it and utilize history on our own terms.  These people have their own sets of facts.  You cannot have access to the "truth" without taking sides with them.  Once you do, you see what Bob saw, that Mitt Romney is always telling the truth.  Mitt Romney is always winning and he believes that the new Mitt Romney is the same Mitt Romney that has always existed.  There aren't multiple Mitts.  There is only one.  The Mitt that is going to beat the Democrats, beat the enemies.  Mitt is Bob's friend, so to speak.  (I don't think they personally know each other, though he does come from a powerful family, so they actually might have familial ties.)

I think that Barack Obama is actually going to strides to counter this.  He is using Big Data, and targeting people with massive amounts of ads, in order to convince them of the correctness of his policies.   gives an anecdote:

A tour of coal-mining country in southern Ohio by the Atlantic’s Molly Ball produced some vivid anecdotes that illustrate this data. “Those opposed to Obama cited various reasons,” she wrote, “from disappointment to anger to being convinced he’s a Muslim. But the impressions of Romney were remarkably consistent: He’s for the rich.”

Journalists have even found working class voters who believe that Obama is a secret Muslim and intend to vote for him anyway, because – as one Virginian put it – “at least he wasn’t brought up filthy rich.”

In short, what we need to do in order to counter this is to breed fear of the rich and the Republicans.  We need to frame Republicans as the party of the rich, and Democrats as the party of the people.  They are the party that cares about the people, and they are the party who can solve the problems of the people.  However, economic populism isn't enough.  It is too easy to caricature.  We need to come up with a new understanding of the Republican party in order to counter it.  And we need to frame it as dangerous.  We need to frame the Tea Party as dangerous.  Many of us already know about these dangers.  We need to inform everyone else.

And, again, not all Republicans are crazy.  The loudest ones are the ones who exist in the friend/enemy distinction.  However, there are plenty of very smart, and very reasonable Republicans.  They just aren't loud enough.  I would welcome a resurgence of the moderate Republican.  I would love a second coming of Eisenhower.  However, I believe that, until the moderates can take back the party, we cannot move forward in this country and we cannot solve the problems of today.    

How can we accomplish?  There are solutions, but we both have to admit the seriousness of the conflict.  We both have to come to the conclusion that we want to come together again.  I don’t, yet, know how to do this.  Perhaps some of you have some suggestions?  

No, Barry, this is not a good suggestion:

Originally posted to Greg Meyer on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 09:59 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You could tell your friend Barry (8+ / 0-)

    that it's Mitt who is confused. Here, on his own website is his 20 percent across the board tax cut:

    And, if youf buddy thinks there is going to be a 5 trillion "revenue increase," then he must believe that Mitt is planning to RAISE taxes on somebody. Who?

    •  You are thinking logically (3+ / 0-)

      The author proves that doesn't work.

      What to do?  I don't know.

      Watching Mitt's strategy is what it looks like when you try to put an etch a sketch in a centrifuge.

      by AppleP on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:40:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Democrats must find a compelling framing that (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ladypockt, a2nite, Dirtandiron, SuWho

        impacts the reptilian brain.  There has to be a Democratic equivalent that appeals to the base emotions of fear and anger.  I am too cynical that the power of big money required would aspire to move the public mind with higher motivations such as compassion and charity.
        I keep proposing a cultural revolution directed at progressive values such as frugality and efficiency that is cyclic rather than linear.  That is the core of renewability.

        •  Citizenship (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, Dirtandiron, SuWho

          That's the frame that Obama introduced. It's a powerful and American as "freedom" and appeals to Progressive values of responsibility to others.

          •  I was doing voter registration for the umpteenth (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SuWho, Eric Twocents

            time in our rural GOP majority community and a acquaintance of mine (GOP and doesn't seem to consider voting for Obama though she obhors any lack of integrity) said something about doing my "civics" work again and smiled.  Maybe that's one of the frames that works.

            We have an orphan Republican that has gotten on our email list and his pet peeve is obstruction.  I think the President is doing a good job of appealing to those that are down to earth and practical enough to get that and are not belligerent.

            The Other/Same is the same thing as In Group/Out Group.  I think we can start talking about that directly.  What that is is tribalism and many parts of the country that remain GOP enthralled have that as a cultural base.

            Then there is the idea of mutual versus power-over mindset.  For someone that can value mutual power (because they don't see life as one constant battle for supremacy) it is possible to want to empower others.  If you are insecure to the point that every interaction must be a battle for position you will respond to a mutual person as an existential threat.  That is one reason the President threatens some people by being inclusive and empowering.

            Lastly there are going to be cases where true sociopaths gain the megaphone.  We have some of them (Limbaugh) that have attained that status.  Efforts to remove them from the megaphone with mass boycotts, etc. are important.

            •  This is indeed a cyclic rather than linear pattern (0+ / 0-)
              Then there is the idea of mutual versus power-over mindset.  For someone that can value mutual power (because they don't see life as one constant battle for supremacy) it is possible to want to empower others.
              It is a self-renewing system.  It is less wasteful.  It is a Libertarian ideal to trust each other to take care of each other.  That is why we need a paradigm shift in our country.  The European Social Democrats lead the way as just a beginning of how tightly and constrained by resources will cause those of us that survive to be extraordinary efficient...and strong.
              Climate change is going to cause mass migrations of human populations in dire straits.
      •  Start a new party - (0+ / 0-)

        "The Real Republican Party" -by proxy, and enjoy seeing the lunatics joining it. Then work in a bipartisan way with those who are left in the GOP.

        Dissolve Israel; stop distinguishing between jew and non-jew in Palestine.

        by high5 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 10:33:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Republicans use Freeze-frame logic (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Twocents

        They can pick the single frame that supports their view from hundreds or thousands that contradict it and ignore all the others. The preponderance of evidence is not relevant to them.

  •  Thanks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mumtaznepal, bnasley, NotGeorgeWill

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:26:22 AM PDT

  •  Democrats want to use our tax dollars for (10+ / 0-)


    Republicans want to give our tax dollars to their private business cronies.

    Good diary, thanks!  Looking forward to more!

    "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

    by mumtaznepal on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:29:20 PM PDT

    •  No, you're wrong here (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      qofdisks, TheOpinionGuy

      I will say you are partially correct, but mostly wrong.  And, here is where the diarist gets everything scrozzled.

      The current set of Democrats not only want to use our tax dollars for ourselves (right!) but they also want to use $1 Trillion more than the current revenue for even more stuff.

      And some fiscal conservatives are called sociopaths for disliking that setup???

      Dems held the majority in both houses of Congress for 4 years - as well as the presidency for two full years.  All they needed to do was pass massive tax increases to pay for all this shit.  Why didn't they?  I ask you.. why?  Because they are wusses? Well, yes.  They knew they would be voted out first chance the electorate got.

      Democrats have to make a very hard decision.  Man up and pass the tax increases for all the stuff they want, or STFU.  It's really that simple.

      •  ...and the irony is that they were voted out (4+ / 0-)


      •  Your assessment that I am wrong doesn't (5+ / 0-)

        follow with what you said in the least, and is rather rude.

        What I said: Democrats spend on social programs.  Republicans do not, they destroy social programs to privatize the money.

        Now, if you want to segue and have a discussion on how that it paid for, go ahead, but I didn't mention it - so your attacking me for that and calling me "wrong" on something I never even mentioned is just rude and wrong in it's own right.

        "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

        by mumtaznepal on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:33:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The lie about controlling Congress & Presidency (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You are patently incorrect about how long Democrats controlled Congress and the Presidency.

        "...So for 72 days the Democrats held a 60 seat, filibuster-proof supermajority in the United States Senate. But wait! There’s more! As Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn points out, even that was unreliable. “Even in this window Obama’s ‘control’ of the Senate was incomplete and highly adulterated due to the balkiness of the so-called Blue Dog conservative and moderate Democratic Senators such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.”

        Zorn continues:

        The claim that Obama ruled like a monarch over Congress for two years — endlessly intoned as a talking point by Republicans — is more than just a misremembering of recent history or excited overstatement. It’s a lie.

        It’s meant to represent that Obama’s had his chance to try out his ideas, and to obscure and deny the relentless GOP obstructionism and Democratic factionalism he’s encountered since Day One.

        They seem to figure if they repeat this often enough, you’ll believe it..."

        Now, on to the other point you made:
        The current set of Democrats not only want to use our tax dollars for ourselves (right!) but they also want to use $1 Trillion more than the current revenue for even more stuff.

        And some fiscal conservatives are called sociopaths for disliking that setup???

        Your framing on this is masterful, but misguided.  If you are living in a world in which some righteous, gallant patriots are desperately trying to prevent fiscal ruin while some other group is insisting on wasting money for "stuff," then you haven't been paying enough attention.

        If the "stuff" you are talking about are things such as infrastructure investments, more clean energy and other investements in public goods, then yes, I don't mind the government spending more than it takes in for a time until the economy gets stronger.

        "Why do we see the same old Republicans all over the news all the time when they were kicked out for screwing everything up?" - socratic's grandma

        by Michael James on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 03:11:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you Michael James (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Michael James

          You said it all better than I could have.  

          Jerry seems to display the very same contradictions described by the diarist.

          Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth - Abraham Lincoln

          by Gustogirl on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 03:38:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Spot on (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jedennis, Greg Meyer, inHI, Dirtandiron

    if a little wordy.  Keep it up.

    Bene Scriptum, Bene Intellectum.

    by T C Gibian on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:44:41 PM PDT

  •  Good diary, I have been thinking... (11+ / 0-)

    very hard of an adequate adjective that would sum up people like George Wills, racist barstard doesn't seem severe enough for this type. Your Diary has added a little perspective for me, but I doubt I'll ever forgive the racists in the Republican party. The way they have reacted to the first black President is nothing short of evil.

    Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture

    by nezzclay on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:06:50 PM PDT

    •  Republicans don't like women either. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      inHI, Blue Bell Bookworm
    •  hmmm (0+ / 0-)

      Just because they should know better, it doesn't mean that it's easy for them to know better.  There are broader social forces at work here.  Is it improper to call it evil?  I wouldn't, but that's not because it isn't evil.  Some of them are certainly somewhat evil.  Should George Wallace or Strom Thurmond be forgiven for their racism?

      I don't know.  Racism is a very, very hard problem to solve.  They simply don't view black people (or whatever race you wanna chose) as equals.  This does not excuse violence or anything else.  It merely explains it.

      I am not excusing their behavior.  But we need to understand their behavior.  Once we do, we can do our best to bridge this divide.

  •  i was in a foul mood... (8+ / 0-)

    I'm glad you discussed the lack of empathy. To my mind that is the prime indicator of the sociopathic impulse; that the suffering of another is acceptable for your own gain. That was the generator of that comment, and rereading it, it comes across as more of a blanket indictment than it should have. The 'actions and motivations' i referenced in that comment aren't defining of a mental disorder but result from people giving in to those impulses, which most of us have to some degree. I think a lot of those loud mouth republicans you mentioned make it safer for others to justify the inherent selfishness and ...lack of empathy? emotional laziness?... that defines such a common thread of their initiatives and priorities.
    Those others, imo are dominated less by malice and more by the adherence to (acceptable) authority also quite common among modern republicans. They are easily led, but only by acceptable sources. Your friend Bob was quite content to pivot as fast as Romney did, and  sees no fallacy in it; none was presented by his trusted sources. That's a typical and infuriating response.

    no doubt there's a war mentality; the reflexive rejection of anything (D) or Obama is exhibit A, and you're right about the rest of it, too, imo. They are in (to them) an existential battle for the ability to own and amass property, and that has always been the real reason for warfare. So they fight like hell, and their darker motivators, those tribal bents, those selfish frames, all start to show.
    That's when I start calling them names, and getting in a bad mood. I can withstand the failure of logic, I can sorta tolerate the rewriting of recent history, but conspiracies everywhere and denying even personal observation and memory is a bridge too damn far.

    anyway, I'm glad to have partially spurred a thoughtful diary. Thanks  

    R-Money/R-Ayn, the ENRON Ticket, is not a campaign; it's a hostile takeover bid.

    by kamarvt on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:16:20 PM PDT

    •  Democrats also should be in a "War Mentality" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kamarvt, a2nite, Dirtandiron

      Climate change is fixin' to kick humanity's ass.
      Progressive objectives would be to develop cyclic and self- sustaining systems.  We need to control our numbers such that the resources and nature's absorption of our waste no longer over loads the planet.

    •  So, I agree about 90% (0+ / 0-)

      But I think that saying that they have a lack of empathy is wrong.  They don't have a lack of empathy.  They do feel empathy for their neighbors, and the people in their church.  The crowds felt great empathy for Palin, and for her handicapped child.

      They just don't feel empathy for those who are attacking them.  It's not laziness, it's just an inability to believe that they are not actually under attack.  (It's similar to the conspiracist who feels that dark shadows lurk behind every corner, but the far right just feel that such shadows lurk behind every liberal.)

  •  Tribalism. Not ideology. They have no ideology. (15+ / 0-)

    They just want it all, and that means - as it always has in history - conquering all other tribes, or eliminating if they will not accept subservenience.

    1% fits right in with them: he has no ideology but Power For Him.  That's why he can lie with absolute conviction about his positions, bc all that matters is winning power and nothing is inconsistent as long as it serves that end no matter how contradictory it is.  Now, that is sociopathy.

    That's not to say your average R is.  Neither was your average German in 1936.  But their leaders sure were.  And the average German supported them primarily bc the Nazis succeeded in 'othering' everyone but them.  So destroying those others was not only natural, it was patriotic.

    Sound familiar?

    •  Democrats also have to "want it all". (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ybruti, a2nite, Dirtandiron

      There is no other way to go.  Liberals need to be passionate about their ideals more than ever.

      •  But Ds can not, should not want to DESTROY Rs. (0+ / 0-)

        Look, I've said before, I loathe modern Thugs.  But I've also said we need the Republican party.   Or put another way, we need two parties and for a variety of legal and cultural reasons whatever it stands for that 2nd party will call itself Republican.  The system needs 2 parties to work, and the policy results are better when 1 party provides the antithesis that leads to the sysntesis that is the actual law passed.

        The problem is modern Thugs do not care about the process of governance required by the Constitution, or making policy better.  They just want all the power to have all the power (and rip off the Treasury too, of course).  Its about what they can do for themselves, not for anyone else.  They want their tribe to rule all and cow or eliminate all possible opposition.

        While Ds should want to win every race, they should not want to do so to eliminate any opposition.  They should want to win not because the other side is evil but bc, no matter how good they may be, we are better.  Our values are better, our ideas, our policies and our results.  I am a Democrat bc I believe history proves that as to the last almost century and certainly today (with some notable exceptions that prove the rule, of course).

        IOW, not just what is best for my tribe, but for everybody (even in the rest of the world too).

        •  This nation needs to desparately discard the (0+ / 0-)

          Republican party utterly.  This nation desperately needs to create a second party that is honestly to the Left of the modern Democratic party.

          •  All it would do is give every election to Thugs. (0+ / 0-)

            Every current empirical measure, together with history, shows there is a good 40%ish percent of the country that is and has always been rightwing.  The Right is going no where.  

            So, splitting the rest of the electorate with another party more liberal than the Ds only guarantees the Right wins every election for the forseeable future.  The opposite of '92 and '00 write large and permanent.

            •  Have not the "Consevatives" done just that in (0+ / 0-)

              modern party politics?  Presently, we have an ultra-extreme right-wing Republican party and a Democratic party that is far to the Right of Ronald Reagan.  It is the far left that has been utterly discarded in modern day.  I suggest that we turn that around and the sooner that we start, the better.
              We need MORE expression of moderate to extreme Left ideology in our national conversations.  Issues need to have a Left-wing framing for a change.
              Look, the conservatives may be wrong and they may be crazy but they have seen their effort come to fruition long term.
              We need that devotion on the Left now.  

              •  Americans fundamentally are not ideological. They (0+ / 0-)

                are practical.  They want things to work.  If you convince them gov can make it work, they'll vote for that.  That only bsns can, they'll vote for that.  Its why each party occassionally makes hay out

                And the media, elite and 'opinion makers' are fundamentally conservative.  In large part bc money runs them all.

                The reason the Right has pushed things backward if bc the most active and dependable minority of that minority is vociferously cryptofascist and theocratic and keeps nominating the most Rightwing candidates.  The result is ther officer holders move to the right and the only way to get things done is for the rest of the country to move Right.
                Money is happy to encourage and fund this (as it did the T-liars) bc it serves their interests.

                But, that means the focus is not on the party (or parties) but on 1) the dependable base, and 2) its elected office holders.  D's have worked on both and push the party left from Triangulation and Iraq war days.  Yes, BO is more centerist (tho also more liberal in many respects than Clinton governed).  But a large part of that is bc inter alia 1) POTUS's job is in part to try to transcend ideological differences (that whole 'bring the country together' thing that Head of State entails), and 2) voters tend to be less ideological in the votes for POTUS than other offices.  

                Even FDR in the middle of the Great Depression was not elected as a Leftist (he ran on a balanced budget!) and voters didn't support his policies bc of ideology but bc he was doing something about their problems.

                Now this does produce the modern qunadry that BO and Ds find themselves in: how can you be successful and liberal and move the country left ... and still get solutions to at least some problems when the other party refused to support even their own proposals?

                I don't have an answer to that.  

                But I do know that if you split the vote of the Left bt 2 parties, the only winner will be the Thugs.  See, '68- Nixon/Humphrey/Wallace, '00-Gore/W/Nader (and even Anderson cost Carter some states in '80, tho not the election itself).  It works the other way too: '92-Clinton/Poppy/Perot.  There is also wealth of supporting data from lower level Congressonal and state elections.

                •  Well, sure the big money is on the side of evil. (0+ / 0-)

                  Obviously, I am not proposing an abrupt shift.  Liberals need to study how the crazy far Right wing has accomplished taking over our national power and politics and emulate it.
                  One factor that we are discussing is framing and using emotional appeal.  Perhaps Liberals need to infiltrate the moderate churches to counter the Christian fundamentalists, for example.  
                  We have to be careful not to adopt right wing framing and thinking as our own.  

  •  One word it's called (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NotGeorgeWill, a2nite, Dirtandiron

    GREED, the Republicans will not be satisfied until they squeeze every last dime that we have

    •  What is the Liberal counter to "GREED"? (6+ / 0-)

      What could be a more reptilian brain stem drive than GREED.
      Only the love of a mother could even begin to compare to the primordial greed.
      It is the corporatist fundamentalists,  that exploit our most base drives and emotions to manipulate us.  
      Democrats need to counter with either the same or other base emotions and drives.
      People are stupid.

      •  Survival (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Mitt Romney is a puppet for his billionaire friends. His backers want to take what the average working class or middle class family has and give it to the top 1%. If they ever get the absolute power they want, my loved ones and I may very well end up homeless, instead of living the decent life we live now. That is the truth as I see it. If we can get enough others to open their eyes to that, no Tea Party candidate will ever be elected.

        Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

        by Dirtandiron on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:36:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Biblical invocations too . . . (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ybruti, Dirtandiron, SuWho

      are unlikely to do much harm in this area in a country where the majority of people are Christian.  I thought Elizabeth Warren did an excellent job of highlighting this passage with her quotation of Matthew 25:40 "what you do to the least of my brothers . . ."  

      The opposition's policies are not only bad for the economy and bad for the majority, they are immoral.

      •  I agree. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SuWho, NotGeorgeWill

        Question: When did Jesus ever say, "No poor person ever gave me a job!"
        Answer: NEVER! He was all about taking care of the poor. He even said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich person to enter Heaven. But the wingnuts hand wave that away.
         And, by the way, the only men Jesus was ever known to raise his hands to was the money changers defiling the temple by using it for their business.

        Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

        by Dirtandiron on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:40:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A number of favorites in the Old Testament . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          "Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks."

          Jeremiah pulls no punches on this one:

          Jer. 5:28f. "[The wicked] do not plead the cause, the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; and they do not defend the rights of the poor. Shall I not punish these people?" declares the LORD. "On such a nation as this, shall I not avenge myself?"

  •  A few suggestions. (7+ / 0-)

    As liberals, we tend to see the small differences in topics. And while we are now answering back strongly, we either don't share that war mentality or we are not so afraid of the future, which could well drop us unwillingly into another war.

    We see alternatives. We see many roads leading to a destination. They don't.
    As a result, they have created their own alternate reality, which consists mostly of clichés and separate issues that are stirred together.
    I call the second lumpage. It takes patience and repetition to crack those lumps, and I'm not sure that cracking them can be done, but it is one way of answering back that is short of name calling.

    When fighting the first, that upside-down alternate world of theirs where fiction is fact and vice versa, I like to remind them that we are all in the same boat. We either row together or sink together.
    That in itself is one of the oldest American clichés, but one of the most pervasive beliefs I've noticed is, after taking what they say to it's logical conclusion, much of the time, their beliefs boil down to thinking it is every man for himself.

    That belief rises from uncertainty and fear. Again, both of those are hard to change, but hopefully, displaying confidence may help.

    I believe that our confidence in our President has done at least as much to re-elect him as anything else we have used this time.
    One device I have used a lot is calling out any who use a derogatory nickname for our President. This strikes to the heart of both fear and the war mentality, and mostly, I just ask the question 'Why can't you used his last name as it is? After all, it's funny and odd to begin with."
    ...and some stop.  For others, name calling is all they have. Work on it, either way, and Barack Obama becomes more human; everyone gets called a name in grade school, after all.

    Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

    by Idaho07 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 08:07:45 PM PDT

    •  Once I retaliated to the name calling by (0+ / 0-)

      using rMoney in quotes, but I know the President wouldn't do that, so now I call the candidate Governor Romney, which looks polite but doesn't convey my tone of voice.

      The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. -- Judge Learned Hand, May 21, 1944

      by ybruti on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:10:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Agree: Democracy vs. Feudalism (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NotGeorgeWill, SuWho

    The Feudal Lords were of the same DNA and cultural stock as the serfs they owned.  They could make the SAME argument across class lines, "We both grew up on this manor."

    Likewise, the Republicans play the race card with the angry white men, and Romney is even going a step farther and morphing into Ronald Reagan/Fred McMurray.

    The difference is a belief in Democracy and Fairness.

    Poor angry whites will vote GOP because they trust George Bush to keep the minorities on the bottom, below the poor whites.  They'll put up with utter serfdom, too, as long as queers can't marry!  They share that Sameness across class lines with the existing culture, conserving the status quo, and the OTHER has darker skin or speaks another language.

    Democrats play the Sameness i.d. game, too, but with different criteria.  To us, the OTHER is some one like  Romney.  He works to retain unfair wealth, power and by weakening the inclusiveness of the community.  We believe we're part of a greater whole, and our greatest advantage comes in Mutual Aid.

    They're afraid of the OTHER and CHANGE.  That's CONSERVATISM:  No Change.  So they sell out democracy for a protector:  The Feudal Lord.

    "... all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you." --Mark 11:24

    by november3rd on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 08:13:21 PM PDT

  •  probably a big contributor to the whole "other" (5+ / 0-)

    to the whole "other" thing is the republicans pursuit and embrace of christian fundamentalists.  I was immersed (unfortunate pun, i know) in Baptist theology 24/7 for years.  My experience was there's a whole shitload (a more qualitative than quantitative term) of people who LIKE being afraid, of having something to fear.  

    Once i got away from the Baptists i saw this among the fundamentalist versions of other faiths as well.  In more secular areas, its one of many reasons the Glenn Becks and Michael Savages can keep loyal listeners.  There's a significant percentage of people who get off on having something to be afraid of.

    As an example, i have an aunt who expressed much concern for me living on the west coast when North Korea was testing missiles and finding their quality control needs some improvement as far as detonating nukes goes.  She was worried living in Nashville so she couldn't imagine how much more danger i must feel.  

    I'm no engineer/physicist (no matter how often i sleep at Holiday Inn Express) but i tried to bring her down a little with a few facts about ICBM and nuke production and resources as well as some 'real politik' about how less-than-gracious U.S. response would be should N. Korea send just one missile our way.  

    Nuthin' worked.  She just wanted to be afraid.  In Nashville.  Of a nuclear North Korea.    

    I've got probably thousands of examples like that from a cross section of different flavored fundamentalists.  And there's something very pertinent i realized from working with people with substance abuse problems: you can't reason an addict out of his/her addiction.  And this whole need-to-be-afraid-of-the-other thing is very much an abusable, addictive... thing.

    there's probably an interesting line of MRI research on the pleasure centers of the brain here...

    anyway, the republican pursuit of fundamentalist voters has likely had an unintended and serious effect on the psycholgy/zeitgist/memes of the entire party.

    Reunite Pangaea!!!

    by bnasley on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 08:42:28 PM PDT

    •  I love being afraid too. Our entertainment is (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bnasley, NoMoreLies, Yamara, Dirtandiron, SuWho

      largely based on the base emotion, reaction of fear.  It is very pleasurable in horror movies and spooky stories.  
      Chronic insecurity is a kind of fear that I  don't take pleasure from and that I do not become accustomed.  Chronic economic pressure wears a body down.
      Perhaps a defining factor of wisdom is to actually discern real fears from bullshit ones.

    •  I find the President's optimism a great (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hulibow, bnasley, SuWho

      counter to the Republican gloom and doom.  And now with the deficit and unemployment numbers coming down, the Democrats can show that there's reason for optimism.

      The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. -- Judge Learned Hand, May 21, 1944

      by ybruti on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:06:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bnasley, SuWho, ybruti

        and most of the problem after Friday's job numbers came from the Republicans rooting against America. How can they justify being angry that the economy is moving forward? The average person will pick the optimistic position - it makes us feel good. The picture of my head is of a rolling snowball - it feeds and grows on itself and creates more optimism and bigger rewards. I guess that's true for hate and unhappiness too, which would be the purpose of the Republican reaction. I hate saying it but it's true - the only way for Mitt Romney to win is to foster the negative.

  •  Republicans believe in a competitive meritocracy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    qofdisks, SuWho

    in which merit is measured by capital. The idea that all human beings are of equal worth and deserve equal rights and privileges is anathema to Republicans.

    They think that individual worth is something that is earned by hard work, ambition and a competitive spirit, not something that is inherent in everyone.

    And so they fear that a mandated "level playing field" will work to the disadvantage of people who have these qualities, and to the advantage of people who do not have them. The end result being a decline in the worth of society as a whole.

    At least, that's what I think they think.

    "Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into." - Oliver Hardy

    by native on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 09:05:14 PM PDT

    •  No they don't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "They think that individual worth is something that is earned by hard work, ambition and a competitive spirit, not something that is inherent in everyone."

      They think that individual worth is something you are born into gauged by the wealth of your parents.

  •  Exclusion + Nihilism = Republicans / (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

    by leftreborn on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:55:22 PM PDT

  •  If they talk, walk and quack like sociopaths... nt (0+ / 0-)

    Don't let millionaires steal Social Security.
    I said, "Don't let millionaires steal Social Security!"

    by Leo in NJ on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:59:53 PM PDT

  •  Great thought provoking diary . . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NoMoreLies, ybruti, SuWho

    Two things that I would note: 1. Habit. 2. Identity.

    One of the big things about voting behavior is that political parties try to get people in the habit of voting for their party as early as possible.  Once they achieve that objective, it becomes a lot easier to sell future candidates in future political campaigns.  Over the course of time, if economic conditions are bad, or if you have a major event like de-segregation and the Vietnam war, you can have conditions for a realignment.  

    So part of the answer here is that the Dems need to focus on winning the next couple of rising generations.  In the response to the financial crisis, the Dems made some inroad, but they/we didn't fully capitalize on the conditions that 2008 created.  The high rate of unemployment amongst younger voters doesn't help create a voting habit.  Perhaps the GOP leadership understood this, which might explain part of their obstruction strategy.

    Once a habit is formed, the activity becomes almost reflexive.  It is very hard to get someone to re-asses and change behavior.

    2. Identity.  For a lot of voters, once the habit is formed, party identification becomes part of who they are.  Not-Democrat, I am a Republican is part of who they are.  Change isn't easy, as the cliche goes.  And the older a person gets the harder it is to change habits.  This is just human nature.

    As far as "winning the future (and the present)" goes, part of this is related to cultivating the Democratic brand with growing demographic groups.  Perhaps even defining the opposition as hostile to these rising groups, which is actually pretty easy, because the GOP is in fact hostile to the change represented by changing demographics and the changing world.

    As it relates to the presidential debate, one area where Obama I thought fell short was in the framing of the differences between not only two candidates, but two political parties.  There are very real differences.  I understand the impulse for the president to appears as if he is above party.  Perhaps he could do this by painting Romney as someone very much in the GOP mold -- as a hard partisan.  The attack on PBS and Sesame Street, for example, could have been used to illustrate that Romney was championing an issue that the GOP House Republicans, the Tea Party made as a top agenda item after taking over the House.  They didn't address the jobs issues, they instead went after PBS and Planned Parenthood as their first priority.  So what makes Romney different.  When Romney says his tax policies and economic agenda are unrelated to anyone who has proceeded him, highlight the similarities between his and Bush's policies.  Where are the difference?  The only difference, Mr. Romney is that you abandon the compassion that W advocated and double down on tax cuts for the wealthiest and de-regulation.  

    Also, it's critical to establish a narrative within the debates, as was done during the party primary about these differences.  The Dems are the party that represents ordinary Americans -- the people that Romney and the GOP call moochers.  The GOP almost without exception favors the most powerful interests, even when those interests come into conflict with those of everyone else, and the politicians are presented with a choice.  This is a target rich environment, I'm surprised he didn't bring up the House GOP move not to support a jobs bill benefitting veterans.  He also could have highlighted the fact that Romney wants to repeal the Estate Tax, something that would save his family millions in taxes.  Obama could even note that under the Dems there is currently an exemption for the first $5 million of wealth -- which means probably 99.9 percent of the inheritance cases in this country.  

    Part of the challenge for the Dems this election cycle is that Obama is not an especially gifted debater (Romney may be dishonest, but this is one of his few strengths as a candidate).  When Obama brings his "A" game, he can hold court effectively, but he's never going to disqualify a top-level debating opponent.  On the upside, George W. wasn't an especially gifted debater either, but he was passable enough to neutralize this disadvantage.  As a campaigner Obama is great.  The Dems also have developed a very sophisticated electoral strategy.  I expect those areas to help down the stretch.

    •  This is a very useful analysis. (0+ / 0-)

      Thank you.  I hope someone from the President's team takes it to heart.  Maybe you could send it as a letter that Obama might read as part of his 10-letters-a-night ritual.

      The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. -- Judge Learned Hand, May 21, 1944

      by ybruti on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:01:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with most of this (0+ / 0-)

      But, I think George Bush was actually a relatively gifted debater.  You should go back and watch the debates against Ann Richards, he makes her look like an old fool.  It's amazing.  It's like another person.  But, no, he's just more raw.  While president he put on a different image.

      Bush was, likely, a brilliant man.  I just think that he slipped up occasionally.  He was careless, not a fool.

  •  The opposite of liberal is authoritarian (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ybruti, Yamara, a2nite, Dirtandiron, SuWho

    Too often we take accept that the opposite is conservative, but that definition is not accurate in the political world.

    •  They are authoritarians (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      They want to submit to others more powerful than them. And they want to abuse those they consider beneath them. They are really hung up on perceived pecking orders. And they see increased authority of law enforcement as a desirable end in itself, instead of a tool to keep the public safe. (Except when laws are enforced on companies or rich people, then they are all about standing up to the "Man")

      Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

      by Dirtandiron on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:46:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think that's true (0+ / 0-)

      The right wing believes that the liberals are authoritarians.  This is true, and we can see this in the historical record, go back and look at the attacks that people made against FDR and LBJ and so on.  I don't think it's all just a fantasy propaganda campaign, and that now they are drinking the kool aid themselves.  (For a few of them, it is, but not for most of them!)  I think that they, by and large, believe what they are saying.

      •  Generally, yes, but... (0+ / 0-)

        I do think they've been led by people who, in their time, knew better to conflate liberalism with the Soviet system--people like, say, Joe McCarthy.  To that extent, yes, they've drunk the Kool-Aid.

        I do think it's notable that this sort of talk lay dormant after the Vietnam War for a very long time until after Reagan's presidency, and even then it was largely confined to right-wing talk radio until after 9/11/2001.  There seems to be a certain species of white guy who finds himself 45 years old and not a liberal and not knowing what to do with himself now that the leather pants don't fit him any more, so he finds a place for himself in the world by acting according to the model he knows, which is the one he knew when he was four or so.  So you get all these delayed-action Archie Bunkers who took The King Of Queens a little too closely to heart, fill them for decades with talk-radio paranoia that makes them laugh a bit on the way to work, et voilá!  He may not even realize himself how much he's changed.

        The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early....Well, what are we waiting for? There's no deadline on a dream!

        by Panurge on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 07:56:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Republican equals Confederate. The Confederate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Dirtandiron, SuWho

    leaders were Tyrants. They would twist any rationale to support their ability to terrorize as they pleased.
    Are all Republican voters Tyrants? No. But they support the right to be a Tyrant.

    "But Brandine, you're supposed to be in Iraq stopping 911!"

    by leftyguitarist on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 06:23:59 AM PDT

  •  so both sides see each other as ... crazy! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, SuWho, ybruti

    Wow that is a recipe for failure as a nation.  There is no way to function when both sides view each other as enemies.  

    Here's my take using the model of domination vs partnership societies.  Creating the "Other" is what domination oriented societies do.  There has to be an "out" group, those who are blamed for all the problems.
    Partnership oriented societies overcome the idea of the 'Other" and view everyone as working together.

    How you change the culture of a society is complex.  Clearly, this culture translates into it's politics.

    I would say that Republicans are more domination oriented and Democrats are more partnership oriented (though perhaps not enough so).

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 06:58:18 AM PDT

    •  We will never have partnership as long as we (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      have Fox News and talk radio rabble rousing the 99% against their own interests. (aka the old "Divide and Conquer") move.

      Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

      by Dirtandiron on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:47:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not certain about this (0+ / 0-)

      I am going to address this idea of in groups/out groups in a a future post, because the Other is different, it's more than that.  The Other is the Enemy.  The Other is a type of out group, but I do not believe that all out groups are enemies.

      Also, how do you create a partnership based society?  Is there a way to make that stable and sustainable?  I do not believe so.  The society will always go out of equilibrium.  How can it stay in equilibrium unless everyone agrees with every decision that is made in government.  Whenever you pass a law, or elect a candidate by a majority vote, the minority is excluded.  The minority is the out group.  Democracy is predicated on exclusion.

      So, I don't see any scenario in which a society could function and be anything other than it is now.  There is no utopia.  There is no peace.  There is only humanity, and we have to learn to live with that.

      •  You may not see it... (0+ / 0-)

        ...But that doesn't mean it's not there--or at least that something better isn't there.  We don't need Utopia to have a better, more peaceful world.  It may make you feel good about yourself to be Hard-Headed and Realistic, but we've had more than enough of that since 1977 and look where that's gotten us.

        As for democracy, you're conflating that with majority rule.  That's not exactly wrong, but it's worth questioning--besides which, "the majority" isn't always the same every time.  It depends on the question.  Others know more about this than I do (watch them not speak up here, of course), but you seem to have an idea of a severely tribal society that I just don't have.  Tribes exist, but their boundaries are much more fluid than you might think.

        The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early....Well, what are we waiting for? There's no deadline on a dream!

        by Panurge on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 07:48:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think they're the enemy also; that's what they (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron, SuWho

    Have decided to be my enemy and the enemy of all humans in America & the world.

    Tipped & rec'ed

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:21:54 AM PDT

  •  This is why you have to do what (0+ / 0-)

    other countries have done, fight for the good programs, install them for 20 years, and slowly dilute them.

  •  What I learned from Mensa meetings: opinions are (0+ / 0-)

    not based on intelligence.

    Opinions are based on experience.

    Intelligence is used to support opinions, not to discover them.

    Unfortunately, hours and hours of broadcasts, mailers, sermons etc. are a kind of experience.  

    The good news is that sometimes reality (especially personally experienced reality) is the most potent experience.

    "'s difficult to imagine what else Republicans can do to drive women away in 2012, unless they decide to bring back witch-hanging. And I wouldn't put it past them." James Wolcott

    by Mayfly on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 03:57:51 PM PDT

  •  What do they believe? (0+ / 0-)

    Sometimes I think they hear nothing a chosen candidate actually says, they just trust people on their team to do certain things (cut taxes, slash government etc). Their guy could be reading a Tupperware label, and as long the right buzz words are thrown in,  their imaginations create the rest.

    •  HIPPIES MUST LOSE. (0+ / 0-)

      There.  Whatever makes hippies lose, Republicans are for.  (This includes Democratic Party centrism, natch.)  It ain't hard.  

      The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early....Well, what are we waiting for? There's no deadline on a dream!

      by Panurge on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 10:05:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site