It looks like one of the major Republican talking points regarding the Roberts SCOTUS nomination is that the "public" is "dillusioned" with the combative culture in Congress. Last night I saw Mary Matalin comically feigning disgust over what "they" might wreak on "us" with a prolonged battle...
...she immediately proceeds to cite the "danger" of Democrats allying themslves with the "lieral lobbies" (NARAL et al). I see the exact same verbiage in a piece on the front page of my local rag, the Philadelphia Inquirer, in which the chief political hack (umm, reporter) parrots the exact same talking points.
This is such a clever ploy! What they're really saying is that under the banner of national unity, and to somehow address the widespread "disillusion" that...well...the minoroty opposition party should just back down. In the interest of a new and englightened political discourse as represented by the "permanent majority."
In terms of framing, it seems like the Republicans look to portray the Democrats as feeding the "disillusionment" of the "public". I think we need to fight back and say that frothy and contentious poltical debate is a prerequsite for a functioning democracy. The Republicans shun debate, knowing that in the light of day their extremist social agenda is uspported by a tiny fraction of the electorate.
I think that what they refer to as "disillusionment" is merely democracy in action. It's been so long since we've seen real exchange of ideas anf legitiamate contrast of opinions that people may be a little unsettled, but I think it's the progressive movement's responsibility to rehabilitate people's sense of what legitimate political discourse looks like, sounds like, feels like.