Handling The Bullies

[candy331]

Found this article very insightful, our candidates should take this under consideration and we could also with reasonable persons who want to listen.

HANDLING
THE BULLIES

http://prorev.com/bullies.htm (found on Buzzflash


Sam Smith

For many years now, the Republican right has engaged in a politics of cultural bullying that is the direct descendent of the southern segregationists. It is based on anathematizing a minority in order to solidify its own political base around false assumptions of purity and superiority. It is an illusion that deceives much of its own constituency into thinking that ultimately minor cultural differences are more important than such issues as economics, healthcare or public education. Thus it is not only mean, it is masochistic. One minority ends up being hurt by another that is being conned and hurt in other ways.

The illusion works best in a politics in which a large portion of the public is politically inert. That way you don't have to convince a majority, you need only mobilize your own minority. It is a vile sort of politics that deliberately fosters hate and anger and is as alien from the American ideal as one can find. It is, in fact, far closer to the theocratic tyranny of the Taliban than to anything in our own best traditions.

One of the reasons the Republican right has gotten away with it so successfully, however, is that both the media and liberals have been willing to fight the battle precisely on the grounds that the right wishes: namely the presumption that one must choose sides in whatever cultural jihad it launches.

Thus we find pundit and Democratic pol alike groaning over the likely prospect of gay marriages becoming a major campaign issue. If matters follow their normal course, they will and the GOP will be delighted. But such a course has been disastrous to Democrats in the past so they might, for a change, think of doing something different.

Like changing the ground of the argument. Instead of letting the GOP define the issue as between morality and sin, the Democrats could reframe it as a debate between extremist bullies on one hand and moderate, fair minded Americans on the other.

Imagine, for example, a Democratic

more

[maxanne]

1. thanks for posting this

Candy331.

This makes an excellent point - they've been framing the debate for a long time, and we've begun accomodating ourselves to their terms. We even use their language now.

Every time we say, "I'm not a feminist, but.." or "I'm not a liberal...but.." we're caving in to them. We need to turn the tables, out bully them - and take our terms back and use 'em loud and proud.

[Kanary]

2. Watch how it happens here, on DU

Recent example:

A thread about poor people writing letters to the editor. Could have developed into a good discussion about what poverty is actually doing to people, and ways to support poor people in their struggle, and how to turn it around.

Instead, someone throws in a red herring "morality" about the "irresponsibility of having more children than one can afford", and the whole discussion ends up derailed to refute and defend. MIssion Accomplished...... in depth discussion of poverty derailed.

It's very easy to take the bait, and it's clear that none of us are immune.

Diabolical, is what it is.

It's time to start recognizing the process, and help each other to avoid falling into the hole.

Thanks for posting the article... I look forward to reading it, and sharing it with others. I appreciate your effort.

Kanary

[G_j]

3. good article,

the bullies are a minority, as a large part of the population is "inert".

Some of these roots go right back to the KKK.

[themanintheback]

4. It's 1984, people

Orwell was prescient. Bad is good. Liberal is death. Hate is love.

[newyawker99]

6. Hi themanintheback!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Cocoa]

5. the dems seem to be handling gay marriage this way

did anyone think that they seemed remarkably coordinated at the debate where the question was asked?

They all said pretty much the same thing: it's a question of equal rights.

Except for Lieberman, who wasn't at the debate, but who took a clear anti position afterwards.