My Sound Bite Can Kick Your Sound Bite's Ass: Why Republicans Stay Simple

OK, this is a rough draft, but I think I have some good ideas. Fellow DUers, I need your feedback.

My Sound Bite Can Kick Your Sound Bite's Ass: Why Republicans Stay Simple

The college I attend requires me to take a Development of Western Civilization class. It is comprised of four parts: philosophy, theology, history, and literature. Quite simply, it's like four classes crammed into one.

During a philosophy lecture, my professor was discussing Georg Hegel, and the concept of "dialectic"--point and counterpoint. As an example, he used President Bush's and Senator Kerry's positions on abortion. He listed Bush's, and then made a side comment: "If you heard Kerry answer this during the debate, you just cringed if you were a supporter."

Of course, this comment wasn't really pertinent to the discussion at hand, but it stuck with me. He proceeded to write Senator Kerry's position on the board--that he disagreed personally with it but couldn't force others to believe the same way. I wondered--what was so offensive about it?

Then it hit me. It has to do with the terminal "dumbing" of America.

What is the terminal "dumbing" of America? Well, it's been around for a long time, and it began to have a real impact during the Reagan era. It was a strategy, employed primarily by the GOP, to "simplify" their message to voters. The uninterested wanted sound bites, not explanations. They wanted pizzazz, not fluff, and that's exactly what Reagan and the Republicans gave them. Phrases like "Reagan Revolution" appealed to people, even if most didn't know what they meant. Of course, the "Reagan Revolution" soon came to mean ballooning deficits, strange defense programs such as "Star Wars", and a widening gap between the rich and poor, but people didn't seem to care. Why?

Because they had their sound bite.

George H.W. Bush followed in the same vein, with his "Read my lips: no new taxes" pledge. People loved it. What does the average voter hate more than going to work? Taxes. The GOP appealed to the base instincts of the working man, and it worked. Bush Sr. was elected. Of course, he broke that campaign promise, and was defeated by a certain governor from Arkansas in 1992.

Their efforts pale in comparison, however, to the work that Karl Rove and the Bush Jr. team have done.

To an outside observer, George W. Bush does not appear to be candidate timber for ANY office. He is uninterested, arrogant, and, from what I've observed, rather stupid. But he had one thing going for him--his mastery (or lack thereof) of the English language. His disdain for intellectualism is stunning; in fact, he seems to be something of the anti-Lincoln. Whereas Lincoln was a scrapper, having to work for his education and taking a genuine interest in politics and American affairs despite his disadvantages, George W. is a man who was given the best that education could offer: Andover, Yale, Harvard, etc. and he sneers at it whenever it is pointed out to him.

Karl Rove worked his magic, and suddenly Dubya was a good ol' boy, just slummin' with the folks down south. According to him, his favorite activities are "getting in the pickup truck with his dogs," "diggin' in the dirt for bugs," and other things that are usually associated with rural voters--an important part of the Bush voting bloc. Never mind that he had owned three oil companies and driven them into the ground, never mind that his father was CIA director/Vice President/President, never mind that he constantly made fun of "liberals" yet was educated from the heart of liberalism itself--New England. He was a good ol' boy to his supporters, and that is exactly how the Bush team wanted it.

But positive reinforcement of your own candidate is never enough, because if the people are as stupid as you want them to be, isn't there a chance your opponent might influence them? We have seen the tactics of this administration in both 2000 and 2004, and they were merciless in their thrashing of Al Gore and John Kerry. Vice President Gore, who many perceived to be just an overeager, hardworking Boy Scout, was turned into a liar, a cheat, and a stiff. Senator John Kerry, an accomplished Vietnam veteran who distinguished himself by winning three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star, then had the courage to come back and speak out against the war, was turned into a flip-flopping coward. His distinguished 20-year Senate record was used to beat him over the head again and again, and groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, despite the fact that their stories were disputed by people who actually served with Senator Kerry, despite the fact that it was revealed they had fundraising ties to the Bush campaign, and despite the fact that many of the people in the organization were discredited, were bought by these same voters.

All through Campaign 2004, I noticed a troubling trend. Most voters, when asked which candidate was the straighter talker, chose Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry. Never mind that he had lied about the reasons to go to war, never mind that he had lied about the fact that our troops would be greeted as liberators, never mind the fact that he had told numerous lies about Saddam's weapons program--including the false claim that he had tried to procure uranium from Nigeria, which he used in his State of the Union 2003. He was the straight talker. Why? Because every issue, no matter how complicated, was reduced to black and white. And voters liked it. They wanted "straight-shootin'" Bush over the nuanced, complex Kerry.

The problem is, of course, that many issues are NOT black and white. Whatever the Bush team would have you believe, you can be against abortion personally, but also feel that you are unable to turn your beliefs into law. You can disagree with the Iraq War, but support the troops.

The Bush team played on voters' basic fears. For the religious right, pamphlets were distributed in Arkansas, West Virginia, and other bastions of fundamentalism that said John Kerry would ban the Bible if elected. Never mind that Kerry is a Catholic, people bought it, and they voted for George Bush. For the gun owners in the deep South, Bush and the NRA appealed to the Democrats' support for gun control and turned it into "Kerry will take away your guns if you vote for him!" Well, once again, base emotions took over. In fact, over 70% of Bush voters in Alabama said they voted for him because "Kerry would take our guns away." If it works...

How do Democrats counteract such maneuvering? If one looks at recent Republican campaigns, they all have one thing in common--the sound bite. They relied on the gullibility of voters to draw support from places that they wouldn't ordinarily get it from.

What are people voting for when they vote for the guy with the best sound bite? The majority of them are voting against their own economic interests. If you make less than 100K a year, you are hurting your family by voting Republican, because the middle class--the people making less than 100K--are the ones hurt most by Bush's tax cuts. Never mind that $400 or so he gave you at the beginning, cause where's it gone? That's right, back into the pockets of his rich friends. The bottom 60% of the country got less than 15% of the tax cut. He successfully fooled people into thinking they were getting free money. Doesn't everybody love free money?

The bottom line is that Republicans rely on two things: the success of the sound bite, and the stupidity of their voters. How do Democrats counteract the spread of gullibility?

A good strategy is to push the idea that Republicans believe their voters are stupid. I do know one thing--that the average voter HATES being called stupid. Easily influenced voters will believe that Republicans think they're stupid, and all Democrats have to do is provide them with the overwhelming evidence--such as the "Wolves" ad (I don't need to tell you what that is; you already know). Push the idea that Republicans believe their voters can't handle any more than the sound bite, and people will get angry. Democrats just have to sit back and watch the fireworks as rural voters realize they've been hoodwinked.

Of course, that's not where the work ends. We also have to provide an easy-to-swallow, viable alternative to the Republican way. Like James Carville said, the choice can't be between something and nothing--it must be between something and something better. It comes down to the question: Can our sound bite kick their sound bite's ass?

Arkana

Thanks for an interesting post.

You have touched a subject that I've been thinking about ever since 11/3...that such a there is such a disparity, economically, educationally and culturally between Americans now, that it is relatively easy for the Repubs to use a simple (albeit dishonest) message to garner votes....

The lessons for us are obvious:

first, simplify the message....the sound bite is a good model

second, peel away the edges of the anti-intellectual movement. Remember, there are shades of red states; they are not monolithic.

third, peel away the edges of the evangelical vote; again, they are not as monolithic as we think....the followers of Falwell and Robertson are a small percentage of the evangelical movement.

Again, great post....

Mont.county HQ
some suggestions that will be brought up next week
End the birth tax!
(re:debt limit/giving every newborn a bill for their share of the national debt)
homophobia is not a moral value

truth is not treason

anything that is longer than a short blurb and you lose the attention.
it has to be something that grabs their attention and makes people curious. something you can say in one breath.

I'm making my recommendations tonight./

and bring ewagner with you!

t repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat

Access the brain through simple emotional ideas. That's what 'morality' really is.

Nail them in by hammering and hammering and hammering.

Say it loud so people notice and can hear through the deluge.
MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER!!!!!!!!

This is why Ann Coulter has a career. She throws verbal rocks through people's windows and spectators are amused and aroused.

Try this quote out:

"Republicans want smaller government for the same reason that crooks want fewer cops; it makes it easier to get away with murder."
-James Carville

t repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat

Access the brain through simple emotional ideas. That's what 'morality' really is.

Nail them in by hammering and hammering and hammering.

Say it loud so people notice and can hear through the deluge.
MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER!!!!!!!!

This is why Ann Coulter has a career. She throws verbal rocks through people's windows and spectators are amused and aroused.

Try this quote out:

"Republicans want smaller government for the same reason that crooks want fewer cops; it makes it easier to get away with murder."
-James Carville

Where is it?

Is that really true.... only a small percentage of evangelicals are followers?

Are there stats published relating to this?

You've made the point that all of these groups are very diverse, yet look at the posts in GD and GDP.

"The fundies/gays/soccer moms/ad nauseaum lost the election for Kerry."

Plays right into pavRovian hands; I bet he has GD and GDP bookmarked for laughs.

EXCELLENT work, Arkana.

We'd love to see you in the "Frame the Debate" group!

There always was a text in the frame behind him that summed up what they wanted you to think.

that was an excellent evaluation of the genuine gullibility and stupidity of many many voters. Now the question is, do we give in and make equally condescending sound bites and continue making america stupid, or is there some way to change what the public wants, somehow make them less apathetic, less lazy, more willing to be informed?

we can change anybody's intellectual (or anti-intellectual) habits. Since we are forced to work with what we have, it would benefit us to use the Right's own tactics against them.

t repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat

Access the brain through simple emotional ideas. That's what 'morality' really is.

Nail them in by hammering and hammering and hammering.

Say it loud so people notice and can hear through the deluge.
MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER!!!!!!!!

This is why Ann Coulter has a career. She throws verbal rocks through people's windows and spectators are amused and aroused.

Try this quote out:

"Republicans want smaller government for the same reason that crooks want fewer cops; it makes it easier to get away with murder."
-James Carville

If someone says are you against abortion our candidate should say "yes" (if they are truly against abortion, as most people are).

That puts the person asking off-guard. How can they respond to that? If they say, well your opponent says you're FOR abortion, our candidate should reply, "Well, he's lying to you."

Short, sweet, honest. And it puts the person questioning them in an awkward situation. It also negates the topic as a wedge issue for the GOP.

Same thing with gun control. Are you for gun control? "No." Well, your opponent says you are. "Well, he's lying."

We need to quit beating around the bush and letting the GOP manhandle us on these wedge issues.

The radcon bobbleheads refuse to elaborate away from the script and so should we.

We have to win the Nation back to our side first. Then when Bush has LITERALLY trashed the Nation, and people let progressives have the power, we can educate like hell.

We can't expect every voter to EVER be as intelligent and probing as most DUers, though.

Realistically, making voters smarter again will take a generation of Democratic rule, during which we fund education properly. We won't get there without playing the game for a while first. We don't really have to condescend, but we absolutely need high quality, pithy, TRUE slogans. It's essential that we flip Repuke 'advantages' on their heads. Some issues will probably be different for the next campaign, so some of these ideas may go obsolete, but we can make more.

"Support truth, justice, and the American way: vote Democratic"
"Democrats for democracy"
"Lying cheating and stealing are not moral values"
"Bigotry is not a moral value"
"Help needy rich people: vote Republican"

"George Bush: 'a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.' (Proverbs 6:19)"

"Hey, George Bush! 'A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will not go free.' (Proverbs 19:5)"

"REAL Christian values: Jesus said, '...give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.' (Matthew 19:21)"

"REAL Christian values: 'though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.' (1 Corinthians 13:2)"


By the way, I'm actually not religious, but these things from my upbinging stay with me.

I've believed this is why the Republicans are so intent on Privatizing schools. The bulk of the voters will be dumbed-down and the only ones that would be able to afford an education are the well-heeled which is their base to begin with. We've managed to get a good number of the population into college, where they do learn more about society and their place in it, which would turn any thinking person to the liberal side. The long term target should be getting as many people into college as possible, short term may have to be convincing them that the Republican Elite thinks they are stupid.

I have long believed that Repukes know that only stupid people will vote for them, and that is why they oppose any form of real improvement in education. Sure the "reforms" of "Leave No Child Behind" mandate lots of testing, but that's just a more efficient way to flunk kids out, unless you also pay to upgrade their teachers, facilities, and daily nutrition.

Repuke voters:
top 2% income + bottom 46% intelligence + 3% electrons/phantoms = 51%

If they can destroy public education, then only the wealthy will be able to afford an education. And it is much easier for an aristocracy to control the masses if they are uneducated. The GOP is definitely looking to create a class system where the rich are taken care of and everyone else are the ones taking care of them.

Listening to W's plans for education used to be really crazy-making: I kept asking myself if he understood that proceeding in that manner would actually destroy public education. Finally (after some research) I realized: he INTENDS to destroy public education. Now it's crazy-making on a whole new level.

Several years ago this image came to me: what Bush and his corporate pals want (what would serve them best) is something of a return to a medieval structure, where they live inside gated communities (the moats come later) and the rest of us scramble for jobs picking broccoli and flipping burgers.

As to the stupidity of the average voter discussed in this thread, it's not that Americans are stupid, but we have been subjected to an incredibly well-orchestrated propaganda campaign these past 5 years, and some sub-groups have been targeted far longer. Good luck to us all in overcoming the change in world-view this has wrought; good luck to us in re-framing the debate.

Great thread, by the way.

Hekate

Republicans are Pavlov's dogs, aren't they?

I've been fascinated with words and their influence on how people think all my life. I did not know there was a "Frame the Debate" DU forum. Looks like I need to get a star now.

Anyway, here are a few of my contributions:

mandate = blank check
reform = dismantle
Republicans have moral values, Democrats have moral credibility
bush = false prophet
Republicans = the party of privilege

The party of personal responsibility is way too personal and takes no responsibility.

(This one is very snide: Why does the party of personal responsibility allow a crucified man to keep paying for their sins?)

The Democratic party stands for justice, faith, and traditional values.


edited to add the comment about privilege

I saw someone use the word pavRovian on the boards yesterday.

Perfect.

which includes these items which seem to be used frequently now:

Glittering Generalities. Glittering generalities are intensely emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to such emotions as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. Though the words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people, their connotation is always favorable: "The concepts and programs of the propagandist are always good, desirable, virtuous."
Generalities may gain or lose effectiveness with changes in conditions. They must, therefore, be responsive to current conditions. Phrases which called up pleasant associations at one time may evoke unpleasant or unfavorable connotations at another, particularly if their frame of reference has been altered.

Vagueness. Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application.

also:
Errors. Scholastic pronunciation, enunciation, and delivery give the impression of being artificial. To give the impression of spontaneity, deliberately hesitate between phrases, stammer, or mispronounce words. When not overdone, the effect is one of deep sincerity. Errors in written material may be made only when they are commonly made by members of the reading audience. Generally, errors should be restricted to colloquialisms.

Know your enemy. More at: http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-06-04/discussion.cgi.79.html

Hey, excellent post! But W may be overdoing this part: "To give the impression of spontaneity, deliberately hesitate between phrases, stammer, or mispronounce words." There's a difference between folksy ("Green Acres") and inbred ("Deliverance").

Just the one page you link to should be REQUIRED READING for us dems. Clearly it is KKK Rove's training manual, and we all need to read and re-read it. I have compiled what I think is the whole manual from separate sites. You can read it at:

http://joeorgren.com/propagandamanual.htm

Every stammer sends a flutter through the hearts of the republican sheep.

writers. The speechwriters need to be able to use it, and the candidates need to be able to recognize it when it is used against them.

I think it goes beyond even "glittering generalities". I've come to recognize the propensity of the right to cram multiple potentially contradictory generalities into a single message:

compassionate conservative
smaller christian-values governement
anti-abortion, pro-death penalty
(this list could go on ad nauseum)

Sometimes it's almost like the more the ideas contradict each other, the more likely they are to be found close to one another in print or in speech. My theory is that 1) the intellectully lazy among us (I'll let you decide who that is) tend to only pick out the part they like, and 2) the more they disagree with the other part(s) of the message, the more likely they are to dismiss it. I'd love to believe that progressives/liberals are all above this, that we all simply get annoyed at such obvious attempts to manipulate our psyches, but I think deep down we all realize that the right has no monopoly on poor critical thinking skills.

And while I'm here, I'll share another thought I've been nursing since 11/3, even though it's only moderately relevant. Why do we (the left) attack Bush on what are already generally perceived to be his weaknesses? It only reinforces the beliefs of the converted on the left, and the righties have already become quite adept at ignoring these failings anyway, so it won't be difficult for them to ignore them even harder.

The Bushies went after those things that were generally perceived to be Kerry's strengths, twisting the truth, and in many instances out-right lying about his record. Whether fair or not, this raised questions about issues that were spending a lot of time at the front of our consciousness, so we couldn't just completely ignore the propoganda. For example, Kerry might be a decorated war hero, but we all know "war is hell", and that even the best among us may slip up from time to time. It's not inconceivable that we may have actually wondered for a brief moment whether or not Kerry shot a retreating child-soldier in the back, no matter how thoroughly this lie was eventually debunked.

Maybe this is a little too much reverse pop-psychology, and in fairness, I'm not really sure what real "strengths" Bush has that we could even attack, but the misperception that he is some kind of every-man is a good place to start.

Unfortunately, telling voters the Republicans depend on voter gullibility *is* an instance of telling voters that they're stupid, which as you note, is not a good thing to do.

The repubs unfortunately win either way on this one.

-RvN-

We don't have to call them stupid; we have to frame our issues in simple terms that can be understood quickly. Something that can ring in their minds over a period of time.

Put it this way: "Did you hear them say X? Of course you're too smart to fall for that when you know the truth is Y."

That way you aren't unintentionally belittling their intelligence. You are stating a short, simple fact. If they ask how, then you can tell them. But we need to be honest and we need to keep the responses short.

Welcome to DU!

:toast:

if democrats tell the masses that repubs think they're stupid, it only reinforces the perception that democrats are intellectual elitists.

Think of it this way: John tells Bubba that George thinks he's stupid. Do you really think that the reaction will be "fuck George, I'm not stupid!" OR "fuck you, John!"? Especially when you know ahead of time that 1) Bubba likes George a lot; and 2) Bubba dislikes John a lot.

I think the repubs DO think their constituents are stupid. The problem with it is, to a large degree they're correct. They just don't tell them. They let democrats claim that the repub voters are stupid, and increase their own support via the backlash against the "elitism."

I wish there were an answer...

the complexity is something that is appealing to those who are likely to vote democratic. so we can't dumb it down equally as republicans do.

but i like your idea that we need to expose their dumbing down. say things like "you must think the voters are fools to believe that".

i also agree that's not where it ends. but it's a good start.

not the audience he is targeting.

You don't say, "My opponant thinks you are stupid".

You have to say "Do you think these good people are that gullible?"

We can't just speechify at the redstatofmind voters. We have to direct our attacks at the other side and make them defend their positions to those voters.

if they own all the media, it won't matter.

Letters to the editors to small papers can get our message out. I'm getting one in a mid-sized paper Monday.

If we can come up with "soundbite" type 30 second interviews we could get on tv more often.

Maybe we need the banners like Bush had behind him for every interview. "Truth", "Honor", "Just Government", things like that printed over and over to influence peoples' minds.

And short snappy replies to questions. No hemming and hawing. No "buts" to cloud up the message.

We have to try or we might as well give up.

There are many people I have known that could be considered stupid. I can be very stupid at times. That does not mean that i am illiterate or uneducated or worthless - it just means that i am a human being and not perfect. I know a lot of people think i am stupid (or crazy) because i keep insisting that the election was rigged - so be it, I am stupid and crazy.

Furthermore, I claim my stupidity. And my tin foil hat.

So here's what a stupid liberal southerner thinks:

The media has used this perception (stupid, crazy) to squash any meaningful discourse about what happened during the election, citing "internet conspiracy theories" and whatnot. Coverage has been mostly nonexistent. I had lunch with my 70 yr old father today. He knew nothing about what is going on. He's not internet savy, watches only regular broadcast TV. He was very interested in what i had to tell him. (He was also very impressed with DU) And while he was outraged, he also said that we could not win. I'm stupid and i must disagree.

The media marginalise and ignore this issue that strikes at the very heart of our democracy. (I still can not believe that they are sitting on this the way they are! How dare they? They bite the very hand that feeds them - exactly what do they think will happen to the media when the country transforms into a Theocracy?)

The republicans have mastered the sound bite and the moral values question. They know most people are lazy and yes,stupid and don't want politics to take up too much of their time. Some, but not all, realize how politics affect their lives.
The regular joe mentality =
why should i care about that, it doesn't affect me.

Meanwhile the democrats are seen as the "intellectual elitists" because we run intelligent people for office.....or because we know that issues are not black and white and can be complex. So be it. We are also the stupid and crazy people that are clogging up the blogisphere with "conspiracy theory" Hell, we even call each other stupid do we not? I personally am so stupid and crazy that I believe in democracy and will do what is necessary to save it. I say we claim our stupidity and our regular joeness back from those bastards.

We have to frame the argument in the way that most directly impacts RJ's life. One thing about regular joe, he's a patriotic guy. He's over in Iraq dying by the thousands cause he's so patriotic. He loves his country. Just like you. Just like me.

And that is the thing that we must exploit to save this country. The repigs stuffed the attack of 9/11 down everyones throat to reelect chimpy. I say we frame this as an attack on Democracy and shove back. Picture this on your tinfoil hat:

Attack? What attack?
Why the attack of November 2, 2004.
"The day democracy died"

I am such a stupid ass,I believe in Democracy.
www.blackboxvoting.org

one voter, one vote counted
(appropriate link)

Or any of the excellent slogans already suggested, but always with an appropriate web link.

And may I suggest that we pick a particular day and fashion ourselves the most magnificent tin foil hats that have ever been seen. (with the appropriate link and slogan predominantly displayed) And wear them all togeather on the same day. All day long. Embrace your stupidity to save your country. A simple, cheap, eye catching way to shove this thing down the media's throats.

Can you imagine what would happen if all these "stupid crazy" people show up on the streets and in the workplace wearing foil hats? Why people will stare. And maybe check the link. And maybe be convinced. and maybe tell others. and then, maybe the outcry would become so huge that the media could not ignore it any longer.

What do ya think DUers? As I already said I'm stupid and crazy.
(Also I realise that this might not be the appropriate forum for this but the line of thought made my brain explode) ;)

could and will be held accountable. Hope is something that can move human beings to do the impossible.

Lise

We are having a demonstration in my town (San Luis Obispo CA) this weekend complete with drummers and banners.

Here are some of our sign slogans

A Fair Election? Prove it!

Just Prove It!

No Proof = No Democracy!

Who Killed the Paper Trail??
Let Me Guess.

t repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat

Access the brain through simple emotional ideas. That's what 'morality' really is.

Nail them in by hammering and hammering and hammering.

Say it loud so people notice and can hear through the deluge.
MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER MURDER!!!!!!!!

This is why Ann Coulter has a career. She throws verbal rocks through people's windows and spectators are amused and aroused.

Try this quote out:

"Republicans want smaller government for the same reason that crooks want fewer cops; it makes it easier to get away with murder."
-James Carville

...and hello from further down the Central Coast.

Hekate
in Goleta

Look at the way the word Liberal is used. We are to the point where 'Liberal' is interchangable with the "N" word, even to the most well-meaning. Little old ladies with * pins on their lapels surely don't want to associate with those trashy, no good 'Liberals', now do they? Think about it. 'Liberal' certainly has a much different meaning than it did before Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity came along and imputed the new meaning to the word. The word has become a symbol in much the same way that 'Communist' was when I was growing up. Don't like what so and so is saying? "What he says is a lie, Jimmy, he's just a Communist." 'Liberal' has become a simple concept to grasp and hate... an enemy, as it were. In "The Music Man", Professor Hill at one point states: "With me, kid, there's always a band". With Repukes, kid, there's always an enemy! Point out the enemy to the masses, label him as such, then watch the masses come around to your way of 'thinking'.

You've got a good start to the essay. Keep it up!

Compassionate Conservative: The Republican Double-Speak that undermines the GLBT Civil Rights.

Since 1964 the Republicans (GOP) have been working feverishly to find their voice and to frame the national debate on important issues. They have effectively moved the nation to the right over the past three decades. In so doing the GOP has a strong message and talking points on every important issue that clearly defines their position. While on the surface their positions can seem almost appealing and at the very least plausible. However, the spin is transparent to those who actually think and hold an informed frame of reference by which to draw conclusions. The GOP’s basic creed is that “there is no compromise,” and proclaims a “with us or against us” mentality, which stifles open conversation, debate and dissent. The GOP has made it perfectly clear that the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgender (GLBT) does not have a place at the table.

America today is a “microwave” society that does not seem to have time for long complex answers or explanations of issues or time to understand the political nuances of government in action. They much prefer George W. Bush’s (W) short to the point answers to complex questions, which are often coded with messages that make them feel as though he is one of them.

One such Orwellian term that has taken center stage is “compassionate conservative.” It has a prima fascia appearance of a positive progressive meaning. The only meaning it actually holds is the one the reader/listener assigns it. Orwellian terms can hold, as many different meanings as there are people who hear or read them. They are in fact propaganda tools by which Karl Rove has masterly mobilized the Evangelical Christo-Fascist (ECF) base within the GOP. The ECF, who has quietly worked behind the scenes over the past three decades, came into the light of day under Reagan. They were granted on a large scale what they had always wanted – a national stage and a place within a major political party.

By proclaiming himself a “compassionate conservative” W has self-identified with his ECF base, in a way in which they feel included and assured that he is truly one of them, while simultaneously appealing to more educated moderate conservatives. The GOP can now have it both ways without upsetting either camp. However, with out a definitive definition, “compassionate conservative” can be used to color the tone of any conversation or debate with great flexibility. The ambiguity of the term makes it difficult for the Democrats to draw distinctions by which they can set themselves a part from the GOP and therefore define who they are. This offensive position puts the GOP on solid ground while making their opponents appear weak and somewhat incapacitated. This offensive position that the Democrats have been forced into leaves them little room to speak out for GLBT rights without inciting the ECF.

More Of The Same?
The Orwellian terminology continues with the social programs that W has championed such as No Child Left Behind and Faith Based Initiatives. The latter is of particular concern to Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgender community (GLBT). The idea of the federal government funding religious organizations, no matter how good their intentions may be, is clearly over stepping the boundary between Church and State. In the case of ECF organizations receiving federal funds is tantamount to the GLBT community financing its own discrimination and the proliferation of hate rhetoric these organizations are infamous for delivering.

After the passing of Reagan Administration, and the subsequent loss of the White House by Bush Daddy to Clinton, there may have been a feeling that the ECF’s had to redouble their efforts to paint the Gay and Lesbian community as a threat to the “family.” The gay marriage issue was handed to them on a silver platter when the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage and the subsequent act of civil disobedience followed in San Francisco with the Mayor championing gay marriage. We all had a feel good moment as we watched our Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters not only express their love but also committed a revolutionary act by actually getting married. However, some of us were thinking about the backlash that would most assuredly come. None of us had any idea that the 2004 election would place our civil rights center stage in 11 States, where they passed measures banning gay marriage, civil unions, adoption, and essentially all contractual agreements that would resemble marriage. The ECF has now waged a jihad against the GLBT Community.

Although W has tossed a deceptive bone to GLBT Community by saying that he supports the states right to allow civil unions, if they decide that is what they want, this does not mean that he has decided to reach across the isle, so to speak, to include the GLBT Community. W’s brain, Karl Rove, wouldn’t allow such a folly to put future Republican elections in jeopardy. It was a cleaver tactical maneuver to put the GLBT community at ease while simultaneously tossing the ECF some red meat, over which they will work all the harder to assure that the GLBT Community is not only rendered incapacitated but decimated.
Robert Knight, who heads an affiliate of the Concerned Women for America (CWA), a right wing Christian conservative group, was quoted in the New York Times (Evangelicals Want Faith Rewarded, 11/12/04 by Peter Wallsten) as saying, “Business as usual isn’t going to cut it, when the GOP rides to victory by espousing traditional family values and then turns around and rewards the liberals in its ranks.” Knight goes on to speak directly to the GLBT issue by saying, in the same New York Times article, “The president has to stop endorsing homosexuality indirectly by supporting civil unions.”
This leaves the GLBT community in great peril of losing hope and not mounting a counter offensive. Frances Fox Piven, a Professsor of Political Science at CUNY, recently said in an interview, “I think that people rise up when they have hope and a sense that they can have influence. If things are very bad people become despairing and fatalistic and they withdraw.” Withdrawing now would certainly put the final nail in the coffin for GLBT civil rights. We must organize like never before in our history.

If you visit CGCS, you might've already read some of these that I've posted there...


1. "The president and I both are against abortion. The difference is that he wants to tell a woman what to do with her body, and I don't."

2. "The president and I both believe marriage is between a man and a woman. The difference is that he wants a constitutional amendment to tell your state what to do, and I think the voters of your state can decide."

3. "The president likes to say we can't change horses midstream. But if you're trying to cross the Ohio River on a pony, you better upgrade in a hurry."

4. "Where I come from, the most important family value is that you don't tell another man what his family should believe."

5. "The NRA is making hunters look foolish. What kind of a man needs an AK-47 to shoot a deer?"

6. "The real Bush tax cut plan: you lose your job, you pay less taxes."

1) Sound bites are not competing on a level playing field. One reason their sound bites routinely beat ours is that they are played louder, everywhere, and more often. The Kerry/Edwards campaign had sound bites (W is for Wrong) but they never took--and it's not just because they weren't 'as good.' Britney Spears's music is not as good as Elvis Costello's, but Spears has her little claws hooked into everyone's brain because she's constantly being blasted at them, whereas Elvis, though he has (or had, in his heyday) many fine tasty pop hooks at his disposal, is not. You can't play the echo game if nobody is willing to amplify your message. That's why, IMHO, we're fucked as long as corporate control of the media is as airtight as it is.

2) Not everything is reducible to a 5-second clip.

I know part of the point is that not everything has to be; just enough to get some slogans branded in people's brains. But the problem is that our politics really are different from theirs in that we tend to favor deliberation and consensus over knee-jerk/authoritarian responses. If we try to boil down our positions, we leave out the openness to other options and tolerance of other viewpoints that is essential to our policies and beliefs.

There is also the problem that once we do boil our positions down, it becomes easy for the right-wing mindset to trap and contain them. For instance, take Kerry's position on abortion as cited above: the sound bite for that would be "anti-abortion but pro-choice." To most people, that's just going to sound like "flip flop."

Why is he flip flopping? Because no politician can say he *supports* abortion. On the other hand as a Democrat he can't support making abortion illegal. He's in a position, as a Democrat talking about abortion, where he HAS to qualify his stance in order to avoid being painted as a baby-killer. Bush, as a RW Republican, is in a position where it's very easy to boil down his position on abortion: He's agin it.

He could say, as he often did, "I support a woman's right to choose." That doesn't take too long to say. But look how much more fluffy and vague "a woman's right to choose" sounds than "the life of the unborn."

They have taken all the moral absolutes prisoner. That's why they can do sound bites and we can't. We could fight back with moral absolutes of our own on some issues, chiefly poverty, equality, peace, and social justice. THere, we run into two problems:

1) Our @#$! politicians are scared to talk about poverty like it's a moral issue because then people will start calling them socialists and indeed that's what they will be. That's why our party has increasingly turned to social issues to distinguish itself from the Republican party--because it's too chicken to take on the economic issues for real.

2) There are some social issues where it is a crucial part of the Democratic platform to try to keep absolutism at bay. Abortion is one of them. Most people who are pro-choice will also say if you push them far enough that they would prefer it if there were fewer abortions in the world but that women have to be free to make that decision themselves. This is a very important gray area to keep open. If it disappears, you're left with either "abortion good"--a political non-starter--or "abortion bad," in which case how can you argue for allowing it to continue?

We can try to play the sound bite game as effectively as we can, but the thing is that if we allow politics to be reduced to sound bites we are forced to accept the parameters that the Rovian machine has defined. We have to change the rules of the game, just like they did, and that is going to take a long fucking time. It will not be done by 2008, for instance. We have to learn to play small ball, and take the long view.

I don't like it either,

The Plaid Adder

Kerry had a pretty good idea for a meme by comparing bush to Tony Soprano, but it didn't stick for exactly the same reason.

.. you're basing that on the assumption that they have brains.

The approach I would take to abortion is to agree with them because I do. I would like to never have the medical abortion procedures used, I would want every child conceived to be loved, plan and wanted. I would want people emotional and financially prepared for the 18 year commitment that they are making. We need to agree with them and show what we have in common not what differs, the differences will be obvious. We must all feel their pain. Clinton was very good at this.

Gun Control is also very easy since I live in rural America and see the need and usefulness of these tools. We have to speak loud and clear that we support guns and we support gun safety. Show that we are NOT trying to take guns away but talking about real safety issues, like accidental shootings and the need to educate even non gun owners about guns and gun safety. Once again show we care and are interested in what they are interested in.

The economy is easy too. We must talk about basics not point fingers at rich fat cats. They want to be rich fat cats. We must show them how much we want what they want. This should be very easy, as the economy goes down because of “The Tax Cut and Spend” policy of this administration, we should be feeling their pain and led them to our responsible policies of “Trick Up” economics that worked so well under Clinton. These differences should be easy to point out but they need to be hammered and hammered daily by some Democratic voice ever day on the news. We must work to get voices to the people with positive messages and pound, pound, pound until the image that the repugs are putting out is viewed as mean and inaccurate.

The leaders of our party must daily speak POSITIVE, caring, hopeful, messages. We must demand that they are heard by all the people in all places.

KL

Every day I get at least a dozen emails from well meaning friends and relatives with little stories (usually false). Many have a simple but powerful and emotional message behind them and most of those messages benefit the position of the right.
We need to start crafting our own little tear jerking emotional emails based on TRUE stories and spreading them via email. If the media will not work for us...we need to do the job. Check out the Snopes site for the kind of messages that get sent around. With the proper framing the efforts of a few could be very powerful...especially with truth behind the messages.

referring to Halliburton.

Bush's economic program for non-billionaires.

Hey, basically we're too nice. Apparently because Dems are afraid of offending anyone. When were pugs ever afraid of offending anyone with outrageous lies? I say, offend with outrageous truths.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.