The Winning Side

Crosposted on truth > lies

For the politcal mind, there are two sides to an argument: the right side and the left side.  For the moral mind, there is the right side and the wrong side.  And for the emotional mind, there is the winning side and the losing side.

For people that call themeslves "conservatives" Bush has really done many liberal, "big government" type things while in office.  He has refused to veto anything that has come across his desk, breaking records for letting the government pass new laws.  He has presided over an explosion of government pork being included in federal spending bills.  The PATRIOT act is the largest "big brother government" proposition since Japanese internment camps during World War II.  He has failed to reign in spending.

But being on the winning side trumps all else.

The real reason Bush still retains any level of support from "conservatives" is because of the war in Iraq.  But this isn't even a conservative idea.  It is the biggest government pork project there is, as ungodly ammounts of money are being flushed down the toilet.  Interventionalism is and always has been a populist idea.  But yet the "conservatives" that back Bush all support him for his biggest government ideas.

To what do we owe this ironic twist of rationality among Bush supporters?  They call themselves conservative, but they support his big government ideas.  The reason, I believe, is that they simply want to be on the winning side.  The 9/11 attacks made America look weak and vulnerable to many of our citizens.  The PR propaganda released shortly afterwards was geared to counter this, and cast Bush and America as tough and dominant once again.  To appear dominant once again, America had to attack something, someone, anyone.  So we went into Afghanistan.  But that wasn't big enough.  We had to find another target that we could easily incinerate quickly to make America seem tough again.  That perfect target was Saddam Hussein.



The entire conservative propaganda empire, from Fox News to Limbaugh to Jerry Fallwell play on this theme: "Conservatives are tough and dominant, liberals are weak and flaky."  Is it any coincidence that Sean Hannity looks like an ex-quarterback from the high school football team, and Alan Colmes looks like the science nerd that everyone threw food at during lunchtime?  If you doubt me, just read some Ann Coulter columns.  Her rhetoric is all about dominance, and not conservativism.

If the underlying debate were really about left and right, Bush would have no support at all.  He spends like a drunken sailor, and the only individual liberties he supports are those of CEO's of companies and law enforcement authorities.  But "conservatives" in government and their constituants have managed to shift the axis on which the debate is centered from a political one to an emotional one.  Support for Bush is more about winning than being a conservative.  It is more about winning than taking the moral action.  Right-wing propaganda has invented many enemies that "conservatives" have to "win" against: terrorists, liberals, the Clintons, welfare queens, college professors, scientists, etc.  It's not about facts or morals, it's about beating someone up.  "Conservative" propaganda is just there to tell you who your target is.

How do you fight this?  NOT by becoming more moderate.  Not by playing to the center.  That comes off as weak.  You play this by dominating the public discussion, sticking to your points, knowing the facts, and not backing down.  You do this by having a strong set of values that you believe in, and never doubting them.  You do this by taking the fight to the streets and never giving up your proud, leftist values.  Liberalism is good for nearly everyone in this country.  It gives power to the bottom 95% of the people. Conservatives sould be the ones on the defensive for their "fuck the middle class, screw the poor" selfish attitudes.  How many people would agree with conservatives if the debate was framed in that manner?

and civility doesn't have to mean backing down. Even compromise doesn't neccessarily have to be a losing proposition if your language is not too conciliatory.

It's about the lack of knife-fighters (people willing to get down and dirty and play the game on an unwielding stance and brutal level, possibly even being underhanded in order to win) and overabundance of quislings (people who want to find happy solutions through compromise, sensitivity and weakness that believe we'll win *someday* based solely on being correct and attack other Dems for being too radical and extreme) on the progressive side in the leadership.

I'm sick of Democrats rolling over to alpha-male GOPpers. I'm tired of cerebral nuance and wimpy moderation. We're right, Freepers are stupid, let's collect scalps.

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

Well...when are we going to start? All I want is one partisan Democrat to stand up after the Fitzgerald indictments and say openly that this shows that all Republicans are liars and criminals and for the rest of the Democratic peanut gallery to not flagellate them for saying it.

Why is it every time our leaders get the boot on the throat of these fascist scumlords they let up on the pressure? When you've got your opponent down, you don't let him up, you kick him until he's dead; you don't criticize your allies for kicking, you pile on. :rant:

Being that this is DU, I'm probably preaching to the choir.

The political, moral, and emotional axes.

The democrats are stuck fighting on the political axis alone. They want to moderate their opinions to maximize their appeal on the political axis.

Meanwhile, the Republicans still have part of the political right, and they have a monopoly on the emotional and moral axes of the debate. They have claimed moral high ground on abortion and god issues alone, and the Democrats haven't fought back. They have claimed the emotional side of the debate, too, in which they bully the other side so that people are attracted to the powerful, winning side.

Maybe Fitzmas Eve is a bad time to post editorials like this. :shrug: