I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine recently. For the sake of this column, we'll call her Mary.
Mary was brought up in rural Minnesota and was taught from a very early age about morality. There was only one God: a Christian God. There was only one true political party of faith and that was the Republican Party. She attended Oral Roberts Unversity and was told who were God's chosen ones and who were not. She lived in the conservative culture. She knows it well. A few years ago, thankfully, she came to her senses, stopped drinking the Kool Aid and has a more well rounded view of the world.
I have spent much time and many words on trying to figure out why the Republicans get away with everything. How can a party so corrupt and inherently evil get so many people of good faith to vote for them? How have they won the House, the Senate, the Judiciary and Executive Branch? How in, the face of so many facts to the contrary, have the become know as the party of "morality" and "strength."
I was expressing this frustration to Mary one day on the phone about how the Republicans always seem to entice people into voting for them when it is nowhere near in the interest to do so, she said something very interesting to me. It made me understand why they do such a good job at getting people to listen to them. She said that the answer lies in the one last thing that America is still number one at doing. The one thing you can always rely on us for doing right. The one thing no one can resist. Marketing. The Right is really good at marketing. And they know how to use language to get people to believe in them. Mary said that it's all in the language they use and how they market it.
They say things like "Support Our Troops" which means that if you don't agree with the war then......well.......I guess you don't support our troops. The Republicans spent the Clinton era lambasting the Democrats for being corrupt, lying to special prosecutors, and generally being evil. Now, suddenly, when the tables are turned perjury isn't that bad of a crime. It's the "criminalization of politics." They say they are "Pro Life" which means if you aren't Pro Life, then you are.....what? Pro Death? Pro Baby Killin? It's simple messages for simple minded people.
Many citizens in our country have the attention span of a two year old. If you were on TV and someone asked you, are you pro-life and you say yes, well, that's a clear cut, easy answer. If you answer, as I would, that you are against unwanted pregnancy and that you believe that we should try to educate people more in the use of birth control, then more than likely the people watching the show will have tuned out when they heard the first three syllable word. They will think you are to wishy washy and hard to understand. They will think that the first person had a clear cut opinion and stood up for themselves and the second one, well, what were they talking about again?
And that's why the left hasn't figured it out yet. They have complicated answers to complicated problems. The right has simple answers to complicated problems. And the latter is all that people have time for these days. The right makes people feel better with simple language and that is how they get their support even though the problems are still there.
So, here it is! The answer for the Democrats. The left needs to come up with some catchy, quick phrases to win back the government. Here are some suggestions....
*Oil Comes from Terrorists, the Sun Comes from God.
*Like Sex? Wear A Condom!
*Like Uzis? Buy a pair of boots and join the Army!
*Think! It will help you figure out stuff.
*Where is Osama Bin Laden?
Help the Democrats with their language. What other phrases could they use?
17 comments:
Markadelphia, I like what you are saying here because it is definately the case. We have become a nation of consumers and in order for that to have become true, we have had to have been sold on the idea through the myriad channels available to marketers, whether it is politics or merchandise or ideology. We have essentially become pre-programmed to accept anything anyone says because we are constantly being sold something through the tv, the radio, magazines, newspapers, the internet, etc. So, I can see what you are saying about the democrats needing something to turn the market towards their message.
Here's the thing, are we that confident that what the Democratic Party is offering is what we want? Where have they been over the last 2 years while the tribe of oil moguls have run our country into the ground? Where were they the 4 years before?
It also concerns me that we need to "sell" people on something. Either it is a good product/idea and people can see that, or it isn't and someone has to make the sale. I feel that the problems are deeper than bad marketing.
That said, I have always liked " Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."
I appreciate John’s willingness to look in the mirror. Here’s some random tidbits regarding what I see...
When I see footage of anti-war protests I don’t see many banners reading "Support Iraq's New Constitution" or "No to Jihad" or "Stop Suicide Bombers." The crimes committed daily against the Iraqi people by other Arabs who wish to re-enslave them seem to be of little interest to the average anti-war protestor. Rage against the daily assaults on children, women, anyone, by Islamo-fascists and ordinary national fascists must not be fashionable. Only alleged American crimes are cool to decry.
Many people understand “cowardice” and “Chickenhawk” but they can also understand political opportunism and nowadays it seems that cynical opportunism can masquerade as moral superiority.
Let’s take a look at the widely held liberal slogan "War is not the answer." War has ended more evil than anything the left has ever thought of. In the last 60 years alone, it ended Nazism and the Holocaust; it saved half of Korea from genocide and it kept Israel from national extinction. Most people do not view GWB as a murderer. Murder is immoral killing and it is the situation that determines when killing is immoral and therefore murder. Pacifism (barf), the belief that it is wrong to take a life in every situation, is based on the mistaken belief that absolute morality means "in every situation" rather than "for everyone in the same situation." In my mind, GWB is not a murderer because there is moral killing (self-defense, defending other innocents, taking the life of a murderer) and immoral killing (intentional murder of an innocent individual, wars of aggression, terrorism, etc).
Last year, Bush received 8.3 million votes more than he did in 2000 and the democratic nominee lost 4 million voters since the 2000 election. Maybe people don’t think GWB is an idiot, a fascist, a warmonger, a religious fanatic, a kook, a monster, a bad guy. Kerry didn’t map anything out other than superficial buzzwords and Monday morning quarterbacking (It’s easy to complain – you don’t have to deliver anything). His most common phrase was "I have a plan" without articulating the plan whatsoever. Like there is something called “the plan” that will magically stop all bad things from happening. To his credit, Kerry talked about tax cuts, killing terrorists, cutting Corporate taxes by 3%, didn’t mention abortion, didn’t mention gun control, etc. Sounds pretty conservative to me.
It's not a matter of getting your message out. Save the Fox News references for once - you've got a big chunk of the media as well as other outlets advancing your message already; therefore it could be the message itself which always boils down to America neglects its poor, beats up its gays, oppresses its women, fouls its environment, ignores its children's educations, denies blacks their votes, and invades other countries for corporate profits: These are all accusations that the left champions often.
To most Americans, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race-baiting demagogues yet they are heroes to the Democratic Party. Most Americans do not see their country as the bigoted and racist nation regularly depicted by both black and white Democratic leaders. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like "Why you ain't" and "Where you is”, ol Jesse Jackson vilifies him.
To many Americans, Michael Moore is an opportunist who has utter contempt for most of his fellow Americans. He goes abroad and tells huge audiences how stupid his fellow American citizens are and in his lovely little film, he portrays the American military as buffoons. Yet this radical was given the most honored seat at the Democratic Party convention in Boston, next to former President Jimmy Carter. If Michael Moore was any kind of a policy genius he would be hired to consult political campaigns. So congratulations to Franken and Moore - they join the ranks of everyone else out there minimizing serious issues and degrading the political process by hyperbole, juvenile slams and reinforcement of stereotypes. The Michael Moore crowd isn’t that big in this country – they’re just really loud.
I read the original post to mean that Democrats have problems because they are just too smart and that people who voted Republican are somehow brain dead people who need some talk radio host to spell everything out for them in simple terms. From now on, the Democrats should "keep it simple"? I think you're on to something. Please keep promoting this insight wherever you go: Americans are really dumb, and the Democrats' only problem is that they are so extraordinarily brilliant. If the Dems can just pretend to be "brain dead" like the Republicans, they will sweep to victory. That is a great strategy, please pursue it.
Fear is often talked about in relation to the right wing nowadays. If you want to understand the Left though, the best place to start is with an understanding of hysteria. Leading leftists either use hysteria as a political tactic or are actually hysterics themselves. Take almost any subject the Left discusses and you will find hysteria. The Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, risks to health, global warming, racism, Christianity just to name a few. Not everyone who believes the hysterical claims of danger made about secondhand smoke, baby formula, or dodge ball is on the Left. But the Left leads the country in hysteria over dangers to health. Also, many on the Left really believe that this country is on the verge of a theocracy because George W. Bush is a Christian, because the words "under God" are still in the Pledge of Allegiance, and because most Americans don't think marriage ought to be redefined.
None of this is to deny that the Right also gets hysterical but the irony in all of this is that the Left sees itself as the side that thinks intellectually and non-emotionally...and that’s kind of hysterical.
I'm a big fan of "Think! It will help you figure out stuff." That's funny.
I don't disagree with your point re: our nation being one guided largely by marketing. The evidence is undeniable. I do disagree, however, with the notion that this can be defined as a bad thing. It is what it is, and maybe we should feel compelled to make the best of what we have rather than rail against it? Color me naive and simplistic, but I don't see what good comes of being condescending toward the very people with whom we share a common purpose.
Also, I would offer that if Dems (or you) get up in front of us and start speaking about being against unwanted pregnancy and that you believe that we should try to educate people more in the use of birth control I will go ahead and change the channel. Not because you have "complicated answers to complicated problems" but because you have no answers to complicated problems. Whether or not the Republicans' simple answers are working isn't as material as the fact that Democrats aren't bringing actual solutions to the table.
Maybe the Dems should adopt "Eureka! We finally had a constructive thought!"
Crab, usually you make some good points but you latest posts is full of half truths and things that are just plain wrong.
The left does say things like "Stop Jihad" etc but the "liberal" media doesn't cover it.
War is horrible. Trying to find some justification for it just seems wrong somehow. Even though it was necessary in WWII and is now for the war on terror, it does not make it the moral thing to do. Killing people should never be looked at comfortably.
Other than those two situations, I'm not 100 percent sold on all the wars in between. For example, why the first Gulf War? Nobody really talks about that. Sure we drove them out of Kuwait but didn't we tell Saddam that it was OK at first? I have a friend that was there and has Gulf War Syndrome. No one cares, really.
Kerry got 57 million votes to Bush's 60 million. 57 million votes is 15 more than Clinton ever got. Higher voter turnout and all. I look at this and think the country is divided not Bush had clear cut answers and Kerry did not. And Kerry did have a plan. He talked about it all the time and had further details on his web site.
By saying that all he said was "I have a plan" just proves me point about complex answers not getting through to people. The "liberal" media couldn't condense his energy plan, for example, into a 10 second sound bite. That's why he looked ineffective.
You really need to stop talking about the liberal media. There is no liberal media. All the media generally act like unpaid public spokespeople for the government...whichever party is in office. I'll give you Al Franken and Air America but beyond that, paranoid fantasies about the liberal media destroying everything are just that.
Micheal Moore does not potray the military as bufoons. In fact, I think you should go back and watch the last five minutes of Farenheit 911 in which he states that the American who gives his life to be a soldier should be honored in return by not sending him to war that is largely for corporate profit or any other frivolous endeavor.
And for the record, he had a seat reserved for him and was in attendance at the entire Republican convention as well. The "liberal" media just didn't turn their cameras on him.
Funny, you talk all the time about how most Americans are dumb. Are they all smart now? You know as well as I do that 15 percent of this country does not know who the president is.
As far as hystyrics go, I hear the right much more than the left....the liberal media running rampant, judges dictating law, gays, they's a coming to take my guns away etc...
As far as I can tell, the left is pretty well silent, weak, and completely ineffective.
I disagree that the democrats have to come up with a game plan. Most of the causes requiring a 'game plan' to get us out of this mess is directly attributable to initiatives from the republican party...war in Iraq, insurmountable debt, regression of environmental concerns, etc.
Why does the republican party now require the democrats to have a 'game plan' in order for the demos to be acknowledged?
Mark, I don't understand how you can say the media isn't biased? I think I would very much like to sit down and watch the news with you sometime because it’s clear that when the reporter says one thing, we both hear something altogether different.
It’s not just prominent character assassination like Dan Rather putting phony stories on the air because he finds believable any story so long as it ascribes the greatest evil to President Bush. The media doesn’t run curse-filled rants like you do here, it’s much more subtle; like talking up the economic scholars who support the Democrat tax plan but not mentioning the scholars who support the Republican plan…it’s calling the Democrat strategy a plan and the Republican strategy a “scheme”…it’s tallying the dead but never mentioning the new schools built or putting the Iraqi election results on page 15…it’s putting together a political round-table of 3, a kook-liberal, a Democrat and a “moderate” Republican like McCain (a donkey in elephant’s clothing).
Read ‘Bias’ by Bernard Goldberg (a lifelong Democrat) and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
They may say it but leading voices in the Democratic Party make it clear that the left wants to stop GWB far more than they want to stop Jihad.
I agree that war is horrible but it solves problems and in no way am I looking at it comfortably.
I was comparing Bush’s vote totals in 2004 to his vote totals in 2000. Kerry got 4 million less than Gore did. Agree with you that the country is divided.
I didn’t say the media was liberal(even though they are) – I said there are just as many outlets getting the liberal message out there as there are outlets getting the conservative message out there and I never said anything about a liberal media destroying everything. It’s just that I see no analysis of the leftist message itself coming from anyone but little ol me.
Moore did indeed have a seat at the RNC because he was a consultant for the US News and World Report magazine. He was no guest of honor. The cameras turned on him when McCain mentioned him.
I may talk about how individuals are dumb via a grab-bag-of-irritation type of conversation but I don’t talk down to one entire side of the political spectrum. There are plenty of smart people on both sides of the aisle, one side is just a little misguided IMO and I don’t think people are stupid because of the way they vote. I also don’t view of people as helpless victims of powerful external forces like a Sean Hannity marketing campaign.
Dave, We don't even have to sit down together and watch the news. The next time you turn on CNN, Fox or whatever, count how many times they preface what they are reporting with "White House officials say...." or "Officials in the Pentagon say...."
These are supposed to be facts just because someone in the government says so? Sure, there are opinon shows which give their slant but no one really reports the facts anymore. Just the spin. And this White House knows how to spin.
Up until New Orleans, all of the media was basically asleep. Horrible things were happening as a result of our country's policies and no one was talking about any of them. Why? Fear, perhaps that after 9-11 they would seem unpatriotic. They have been slightly better since Hurricane Katrina.
My "curse filled" rants are just that because I can't believe the things that are being done in the name of morality these days. It just sickens me. You'll have to excuse me if I get angry when people say that the War in Iraq is for freedom when there are so many facts to the contrary. And when these same people refuse to look at these facts? Well, it makes me yearn for the days of a civilized debate over trickle down economics
You mention Dan Rather. Well, I personally don't like him because he still maintains that Oswald was the lone assasin the Kennedy assasination. He really doesn't hold much weight with me.
But if you think all the Bush national guard stories are just "character assasination," wow, uh, you should really rethink that. I suppose you think all the stories about Kerry are true.
And here are some more facts about the "liberal" media.
Most watched news station: FOX
Most popular radio show: Rush Limbaugh.
Best selling political author: Ann Coulter.
And then there is Laura Ingraham, the Chicago Tribune, and the eight zillion right wing radio shows that are the ONLY thing on in Hicksville, USA.
So really, as far as I can tell, the most popular media right now are conservative media.
Hicksville, USA as you put it with such obvious disdain and contempt, happens to be comprised of a great many hard-working American citizens whose opinions are just as valid as and, frankly, worth a great deal more to most people than left-wing, book-smart nut jobs ranting to garner attention to their "enlightened" causes. Contrary to what you seem to believe, they don't sit around couting their teeth, drinking moonshine, and taking dips in the cee-ment pond. You, the champion of combatting black-and-white simplistic views, have painted half of America with the broad brush of "too stubborn or stupid to look at the facts". To address both you and Anonymous (clever name), perhaps you need to sober up after years of getting drunk on armchair quarterbacking. Successfully critiquing (half of that being questionable) somebody else's work does not qualify you to do the work. If that's all the Dems have to hang their hat on, they better go back to the drawing board. Losers make excuses...the fact that the Dems couldn't win elections in 2004 despite alleged gross incompetence on the part of the Repubs should really be a blessing for the Dems. It should be a wake-up call that their party truly doesn't represent the little guy like they claim. (Of course, like the true visionaries they are, they answer this wake-up call by putting in power the guy who has come to epitomize the degree to which they've lost touch with the common person. Good luck with that Howard Dean agenda.)
It's clear to me that the conservative media programs are more popular right now simply because enough people have gotten tired of hearing about what bad people we are and how we continually f*#@ things up. I, for one, have tired of that.
Well, there’s the problem. You’re talking about ‘opinion’ pieces (Limbaugh & Coulter) and I’m talking about what traditionally has been ‘the news’, i.e. newspapers, news magazines and the daily TV news programs. Although much real news can be garnered from these opinion shows, they make no bones about the fact that they’re entertainment shows presenting their opinion. But when I pick up Newsweek and see the headline, “Why Bush Failed”, that my friend is commentary, not news.
“White House says…” I think you’re needlessly worried over petty semantics here. Simply reporting what the President/Pentagon/etc did today isn’t implying any truth, it’s simply saying, ‘here’s what our leader says or here’s what happening in the pentagon today’…the viewer should be able to make their own judgments as to truth or political agreement. And how would you have them say it anyway?
But I suspect we’re now too polarized a culture for that and we’ll simply move to red/blue news stations so each side can get the news tailored to their way of thinking.
Oh, and by the way, I do think most of the Nat’l Guard stories were simply character assassination attempts. They’ve been investigated to death with the same result; nothing there. Bush’s Guard service was solid but unspectacular and there was nothing illegal or cowardly about it. The Nat’l Guard has been called up for nearly every conflict of the 20th century; Kennedy (D), Johnson (D) & Nixon(R) simply chose to not call them up. But President Bush didn’t run on his service record, whereas Kerry did run on his. And you’re right; I most certainly don’t believe most of Kerry’s stories are true, especially since more often than not, he’s contradicting himself…ex. His autobiography states that he didn’t see any combat until date X, however, his service reports request a Purple Heart for himself months before date X. Huh?? So, who you going to believe? Kerry or Kerry?
But this is something we can hash out another time.
I am not arguing the validity of any opinion. All opinions are inherently valid.
I am simply saying that there are ignorant opinions...some willfull and others not so willfull. By making available only right wing radio shows or Christian broadcasts in rural areas and small towns, some people have perhaps unknowingly become more ignorant.
That is frustrating to me when people start talking about the liberal media when there is much more conservative media in these states that helped elect George Bush.
It's true. The Democrats have no vision. They don't stand up and say the things that I want them to say. They probably never will.
In the end, it doesn't matter. In 2008, the most popular candidates for President are Rudy Guilliani, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Dr Condeleeza Rice....all of whom would be good or excellent leaders of our country.
PL, your wish of a moderate candidate in 2008 could very well come true. The end of an extremly frightening era of conservatism is soon upon us. I, for one, will be very happy.
Fine, all opinions are valid, but keep them in the editorial section. Is that asking too much?
I can tell you from first hand experience growing up in those rural areas that they still deliver the newspaper and even have television, so there’s plenty of tradtional news getting out there. And sure, conservative radio is big, but there’s a reason for it. It’s called market economics. The conservative media market is growing because the traditional media outlets aren't doing a good enough job. The FCC isn’t saying you can’t put a liberal radio program on the air, the market just isn’t buying. Sorry.
The blog sucked but the comments were for the most part good.PL is right on target with most comments and they show some real thought and reflection.Just Dave also makes some great points about the good our troops are doing in Iraq. Things like rebuilding schools, getting water to the villages that were used to getting water from polluted wells. Setting up medical clinics etc... If and when the Dems come up with a message other than we hate Bush they might actually win an election. Just Dave also comments on the military records of Bush vs Kerry. My own brother Glen served on the gunboats in the Mekong delta and even tho he is a flaming liberal he admits that most of what Kerry said he did is just bullshit. Like leaving his boat to chase after a wounded VC into the jungle. No commander would leave his command to personally persue an enemy into the jungle. He might delegate crew members to do so if he thought necessary but never leave his command to do so even in the heat of battle. I have a nephew who is in the last days of Army Ranger training and will likely be going to Iraq It warms my heart to know that so many young people are willing to serve in the face of all the media critiscism of the war. I cannot believe the near glee with which they announced the 2000th death in Iraq.I truely believe that it is worth the sacrifice to give the people of Iraq the chance to vote on their own future, That includes the women who were not much more valued than slaves before the war. After all without the French involvement in our revolution we would still be bowing to a King even tho they were involved for their own reasons not ours the fact remains that if the French fleet hadn't beaten the British fleet to Chesapeak bay Cornwallis would not have surrendered. Don't forget the thousands of French troops that also participated in that engagement.
Mark perhaps the blog would be better if you actually though about what you post rather than just relying on the Dems talking points. By the way there is no h in Laura Ingrams name.
Maybe the "Comments" section would be better if you thought about what YOU post....whoever you are since you posted as anonymous.
Clearly you are a conservative. Fine, the more conservatives that post the better, I say. But your rose colored glasses view of what is going on in Iraq is just ridiculous. Sure there are good things going on there but if you really think that the reason we are there is to spread freedom, wow, even Crabby agrees with me that that is not true.
Do yourself a favor. Spend some time looking into why we are really in Iraq. Take 1 hour and check out the other side. Follow up their claims with a search for some facts, if you dare, and I think you will find some really awful things that have gone on over there and why?
Let's hear the "why" in your opinion, anonymous.
I wouldn't call the media gleeful reporting the 2000th death. As a matter of fact, I have a very good friend who served in Iraq for over a year and he wants to see all of the military deaths reported on the front page with full stories about each soldier so we will know who they are and how they lived. Is that wrong? Sadly, they are relegated to the back pages more often than not.
In fact he told me to go to this web site:
http://www.operationtruth.com/honor.html
Interestingly, the "liberal" newspaper "The New York Times" reports on the troops all the time. Why do you have a problem with that?
Oh and btw here is Laura IngraHam's web site. I see a H in her name just like I see Haliburton profiting from the blood of American soldiers.
http://www.lauraingraham.com/
I hope I’m not re-hashing old stuff, but can you elaborate a bit on why “you” think we’re really there and the “awful” things you’re referring to? It is after all, your site. A couple of quick bullet points will do. (It’s just that I’ve noticed you frequently state to ‘check the facts’ and say that you’ve mentioned them in the past, but I’ve not seen any from my readings of your posts. Simply ridiculing the other’s point of view doesn’t really add substance to your position does it?)
I’m well informed of the other side’s opinion. You say it’s not freedom. Perhaps not... Perhaps that’s just an ancillary benefit. But at $3 a gallon, it can’t be for free oil. I do recall President Bush outlining 8+ reasons for going to war in his pre-war speech (should be easy enough to reference for you all). Although I wouldn’t wish war on anyone, all the reasons for this war on terrorism are noble and although the sacrifice is great, I believe it is worth it in the long run.
Edmond Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I don’t think he was implying that good men should send notes of protest to the UN in hopes that evil doers will change their ways. Somehow, I think he’s implying that good men should perhaps do something a bit more stringent. And I for one am happy there’s a man in the White House with enough intestinal fortitude to rise to the challenge.
The myth here is that he has intestinal fortitude. I contend he does not. Most of the Democrats don't either btw.
This touches on what I will write about in my next column but here are a couple of initial thoughts.
Our chief enemy in the War on Terror is Osama bin Laden. They attacked us on 9-11 and we haven't finished the job with them. Granted, it is ongoing but President Bush said less than a year after 9-11 that Osama bin Laden was "insignificant" and "didn't really matter." I have the tape of this if you ever want to see it. I find this to be appalling.
Al Qaeda attacked us. Not Iraq. I think we can agree on that, right? 15 of the 19 hijackers are from Saudi right? And yet I see our president holding hands with the Saudi royal prince. I find this appalling.
No one is denying that Saddam Hussein had it in for the US. But our chief enemy and his 2nd in command (who is the real danger btw) are still out there. It's just inexcusable.
Oh my gosh, it’s the seventh sign; Dave & Mark agree on something?
The close relationship the US has with Saudi Arabia is disgusting and has been ongoing for decades. I'd love to see this or any President take a much harder line rather than taking the carrot approach.
I do have a problem with those who try to say that the Republicans said that Iraq attacked us on 911 and use that as fodder. Nobody is saying that. I can’t think of any conservative anywhere saying Iraq was behind it and would love to see a valid quote. I found the administration to be very clear on this point. The attach was by Al Qaeda alone but the event changed the way we look at terrorism in the world and the President expanded the attack on Afghanistan to start knocking off those states which harbor terrorists. Iraq’s flouting of UN resolutions and threat of WMD (non-debunked?) added additional reasons to take him out.
Personally, I’d like to see terrorist breading regimes like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Korea taken out too, but that’d probably go over like a lead balloon.
Post a Comment