Here's Stanley Fish:
Commentators who explain smugly that O’Donnell’s position on masturbation (that it is a selfish, solitary act) is contradicted by her Ayn Rand-like attack on collectivism, or who wax self-righteous about Paladino’s comparing Sheldon Silver to Hitler and promising to wield a baseball bat in Albany, or who laugh at Sharron Angle for being in favor of Scientology (she denies it) and against fluoridation and the Department of Education, are doing these candidates a huge favor. They are saying, in effect, these people are stupid, they’re jokes; and the implication (sometimes explicitly stated) is that anyone who takes them the least bit seriously doesn’t get the joke and is stupid, too.
Sometimes I think of the political blogosphere as a huge commons. An individual blogger can gain in readership or influence by attacking or ridiculing some enemy, but at the cost of making that enemy stronger in the world as a whole.
I also believe that every time the words "stimulus" or "fiscal policy" are blogged it helps the electoral prospects of the Republican Party, no matter what the content of the blog post.
I have for a long time had a slightly similar theory about political bumper stickers:
-if you see a bumper sticker you agree with, it’s not going to fire you up, if anything you will be more complacent (“that issue’s taken care of”)
-if you see one with which you disagree, it might fire you up (“I have to go vote to stop this madness”)
Therefore, it is reasonable to brandish bumper stickers which advocate the opposite of your own stance, provided you are willing to accept the risk of damage to your car if such bumper stickers inspire vandalism.
“An individual blogger can gain in readership or influence by attacking or ridiculing some enemy, but at the cost of making that enemy stronger in the world as a whole.”
Such is the genius of Stephen Colbert.
A reporter once talked to Roger Ailes about his negative reporting about Reagan. He asked if all the negative coverage in a recent story bothered Ailes.
He got a laugh and a smile in response. “You mentioned him over a dozen times in that article. We can’t buy that kind of coverage.”
The blogosphere is a derivatives market. If reflects 10 percent of the population by echoing 90 percent of its noise.
America goes through utterly predictable cycles of know-nothingism revival and decline. The trabaggers merely represent the peak of the cycle.
Nothing the Democrats, or anybody else, say will change things. We simply have to let things run their course. A few of the teabaggers will get elected, a couple of their simple-minded policies will be enacted, the predictable failure will happen, and we’ll move on. It’s not like this hasn’t happened at least half a dozen times in the nation’s history.
So liberals prefer condescension and disdain to an actual argument about the merits? Who knew? And now that strategy is facing diminishing returns? What a shock!
I feel like Rich Berger’s post is a paradox. Is he a liberal? If so, he’s presenting an excellent example of condescension and disdain in replace of arguments about the merits. But why would a liberal try to make ‘liberals’ look bad?
Perhaps he’s not a liberal? But then why would he write such a comment dripping with condescension and disdain?
“I also believe that every time the words “stimulus” or “fiscal policy” are blogged it helps the electoral prospects of the Republican Party.”
Yes.
See also: “National healthcare,” “comprehensive immigration reform,” “cap and trade,” and “incandescent light-bulb ban.”
But as you know, the Dems will always insist that their real problem is that their message just isn’t getting out.
I also believe that every time the words “stimulus” or “fiscal policy” are blogged it helps the electoral prospects of the Republican Party, no matter what the content of the blog post.
Aha! So Tyler is trying to help the electoral prospects of the Republican Party!
All those nutty Tea Party types destroying the Republican Party!!! Is that good or bad? Is the Left asking for the return of Rockefeller, Scranton, Nixon, Ike, Lodge, Bush 1, Bush 2, Anderson, and Ford? The same politicans mocked by the Left in olden days?
It sure is a good thing that the Left does not have any nutjobs.
Yes, I am being sarcastic.
In 2004 DNC, elder Jimmy Carter got the seat of honor, and he invited Michael Moore to sit next to him. Nice rational, middle of the road, moderate, considerate Michael Moore. Maybe the Republicans should give Ann Coulter the seat of honor in 2012?
How many Republican senators are as fringe as Sen. Saunder of VT?
It is sad to see the number on the Right who doubt that Obama is an American citizen. Does it worry you that 1/3 of Democrats polled think that Bush was in on the 9/11 attacks?
I applaud the good Prof Fish for saying that rational discourse should replace ridicule and name-calling. But he is smug in thinking that only his side is rational and other side extreme. If he wants rationality, he can start talking to his own side.
Adam-
Not a paradox. Sarcasm. But I want you to know that I get my regular emails from MoveOn – gotta save our progessive heroes, ya know.
Liberals SMUGLY point out incoherence and hypocrisy. They SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY cricize someone for comparing a moderate politician to Adolf Hitler. Give me a break. This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen. The public figures who believe dumb and incoherent things are the problem not the people who notice that they believe dumb and incoherent things. There is plenty of stupidity on the left too and there is nothing wrong with pointing it out.
This isn’t just disagreement. I can read smart people on the right present arguments about how America is fundementally different from all other countries in important ways that result in us having a much more expensive medical system and that government intervention will not fix it. We can have an argument about that. But attempting to have an argument with peopel this stupid is going to be smug because they are incapable of defending their dumb ideas. Defending dumb ideas is harder than defending smart ideas and defending any idea is harder if you are dumb. So O’Donnell is in a bad position.
Tyler Must have hated The Great Dictator.
Legs optional.
I knew that Prof Fish’s warning would fall on deaf ears.
zaxecivobuny: I agree with you, in part. Your quotes represent the way I would expect someone to act who cares to be less educated about the issues. However it is my expectation, for those who care to be more educated, that they will research the specific candidate or issue in order to discover the facts.
A political science major once told me that the reason for smear campaigns was not primarily to deface the opposing candidate. Instead it is more about trying to get the public to educate themselves. This may not apply to everyone, but the reasoning is sound for a number of voters.
Also, check out The Other Eric’s post, quoting Ailes, saying “We can’t buy that kind of coverage.” It’s about ratings, too. The public is interested in shock and slander. And when the public pays attention so too does the news.
Yancey Ward: You make a good point. I think it carries over to what commenters are posting. I follow MR, in part, because the comments are straighforward and the majority of speakers don’t attack each other.
The occasional post where one commenter tries to one-up another does turn me away from reading the rest of the comments and the article itself. Yet, often the comments are so insightful that I find it saddening to see the thread expire after only a few more posts are made by Tyler or Alex on the main page.
My theory is that liberals in the media (TV, print, blogs) haven’t adjusted to being in power. They act like insurgents and act unbelievably snarky and immature in their attacks. But very, very rarely do they defend the Obama record, and it’s this record that will determine the winner of the next election. I also think that anyone who thinks Olbermann or Michael Moore is good for the Left is pretty foolish.
Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore are good for the Left; they do speak for me. It would be foolish to take advice from a conservative on who should be doing PR work on our behalf.
Neither, by the way, has that much influence in the media market. Not when you compare it against Talk Radio, Faux Noise, and the corportist media (doubt me? try following who owns the major media outlets).
The record of President Obama is a damned site better than you might imagine, Chris. It doesn’t go far enough in moving our country to the Left but I’ll take it over anything a Tea-tard or Republican (aren’t they the same now) could accomplish. If you can though, please do try to list out the record which you believe will sink his presidency in 2012.
While you’re at it, Chris, take a look at GW Bush’s record. Now that’s something to be really proud of isn’t it.
Bartman, “if Obama had implemented Barry Goldwater’s policy platform, the teabaggers would be just as loud, just as angry, and just as transitory.”
Um… no. Just no.
pbriggsiam,
Are you serious or are you being sarcastic? My spoof detector is sometimes out of calibration and there are days I can’t tell.
If you are serious you might want to re-direct some of your aggravation at the tea parties toward the obama administration where you might be able to do some good since you are an obama supporter.
The problem is the obama administration’s abuse of civil liberties is making bush’s policies look good. So we need obama supporters to lean on the administration and tell them to try and be at least as good as bush when it comes to civil liberties.
In addition to civil liberties issues the obama wiretap initiative raises serious computer security concerns.
U.S. Wants Broader Internet Wiretap Authority
Yeah, I remember a lot of people saying the same thing when sections of the media began deriding Sarah Palin’s intelligence as soon as she arrived on the scene. But two years later it turns out that the peak of her popularity and public confidence in her abilities was the moment John McCain introduced her. The fact that all those nasty, sneering pundits kept calling her stupid hasn’t stopped the majority of Americans from thinking the same thing in growing numbers.
ATop, you and your right-wing friends may want to live in an uber-PC world where calling stupidity “stupidity” is frowned upon, but I don’t.
As long as the teabaggers keep railing about “socialism” in a context utterly divorced from any relationship to actual socialism, and as long as they lament the deficit while refusing to look at military spending, medicare or social security or tax hikes, stupidity really is the only adjective that applies.
Note, of course, that I think the lefties are typically just as stupid.
Comments on this entry are closed.