Bush Like Me: Ten weeks undercover with grass roots Republicans

[OneBlueSky]

interesting article from Rolling Stone . . . Matt Taibbi spent a couple of months working for the Repugs as a grass roots volunteer . . . this is his account of the experience . . .

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6539082?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1097529183054&has-player=false

(snip)

These critics do a terrific job of mocking his mental deficiencies and dismissing his supporters as hapless morons, but they do not do a very good job of explaining the nature of his support. The few dissident commentators who bother trying to explain the Bush phenomenon seldom do more than reach for the nearest Marx-inspired academic cliche. They will tell you, for instance, that Republicans are a vast intellectual underclass cynically manipulated by the rich through a mesmerizing cocktail of yahoo enthusiasms, xenophobic fears and ancient superstitions -- and those same people will insist, if forced to offer an opinion on the subject, that one should feel sorry for most of them.

This is the wrong approach. As a professional misanthrope, I believe that if you are going to hate a person, you ought to do it properly. You should go and live in his shoes for a while and see at the end of it how much you hate yourself.

(snip)

The problem not only with fundamentalist Christians but with Republicans in general is not that they act on blind faith, without thinking. The problem is that they are incorrigible doubters with an insatiable appetite for Evidence. What they get off on is not Believing, but in having their beliefs tested. That's why their conversations and their media are so completely dominated by implacable bogeymen: marrying gays, liberals, the ACLU, Sean Penn, Europeans and so on. Their faith both in God and in their political convictions is too weak to survive without an unceasing string of real and imaginary confrontations with those people -- and for those confrontations, they are constantly assembling evidence and facts to make their case.

But here's the twist. They are not looking for facts with which to defeat opponents. They are looking for facts that ensure them an ever-expanding roster of opponents. They can be correct facts, incorrect facts, irrelevant facts, it doesn't matter. The point is not to win the argument, the point is to make sure the argument never stops. Permanent war isn't a policy imposed from above; it's an emotional imperative that rises from the bottom. In a way, it actually helps if the fact is dubious or untrue (like the Swift-boat business), because that guarantees an argument. You're arguing the particulars, where you're right, while they're arguing the underlying generalities, where they are.

Once you grasp this fact, you're a long way to understanding what the Hannitys and Limbaughs figured out long ago: These people will swallow anything you feed them, so long as it leaves them with a demon to wrestle with in their dreams.

- much more . . . interesting . . .

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6539082?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1097529183054&has-player=false

[Cerridwen]

1. Very good article. Thanks so much for posting. n/t

[MsUnderstood]

2. what a fun way to end the day. . .

Worth the read!

[blondeatlast]

3. Great article; it confirms what I've suspected for a long time.

Actually, I found "Susie" to be kind of tragic; how awful is it to have to be afraid of REALIT?

I damn near felt sorry for her.

Excellent readl thanks.

[AmerDem]

4. This guys father is a news reporter on MSNBC

I also watched this author 1 time on C-Span. he did a very good job of speaking while in a debate style with a typical repuke wonk. Now i'll read the full article.

Thanks for the post!

[progdonkey]

5. thanks a lot for that :-)

I especially liked the ending. God, I hope he made that part up!