once upon a time, the british army marched in rank and file.

[unblock]

once upon a time, war was fought in a way now regarded as genteel -- armies assembled in rank and file and faced off against each other across a field. the front row knelt, aimed, and fired, then returned to the read to reload and wait their turn at the front.

this was effective when your opponent did the same, when aiming was hardly an exact science, and when larger area weapons didn't exist yet.

the british tried this against the americans, but we took advantage of the wooded terrain and hid, took our pot shots, and fled before they could react. the british decried such tactics as uncivilized, but they proved effective and their insistance on moral outrage in lieu of developing an effective response was one of several ingredients of their eventual downfall.



similarly, the republicans have developed infuriating political tactics over the last few decades. instead of sitting calmly for an intellectual debate, they shout and call us names. instead of picking a consistent position, they practically celebrate their own rampant hipocrisy. instead of acknowleding the occassional human error, they refuse to ever give up an inch. instead of respecting the other side, they label us traitors, socialists, or fascists.

now it's all well and good to express our moral outrage, and at least in 2008, the shot themselves in the foot through classic overreach. but return they will, with the same tactics and worse, and we must adapt. we can't rely on them royally screwing up the economy to put us in power. that's hardly a long term political strategy. nor can we rely on tremendous charisma and speechmaking. we can't even rely on effective governance, because POLITICS and POLICY are not the same thing when it comes to retaining power.


decry the republican tactics though we might, we must abandon our old methods and recognize that they no longer work. attempting honest debate SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK when the opponent shouts over you, calls you names, and the moderator refuses to call them out on it. complaining about their hypocrisy SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK when such accusations don't lead to apologies or even acknowledgements and again, moderators refuse to shame them for it.

BY ALL MEANS, let's find a LONG TERM way to return to fair, honest, mutually respectful discussions of policy. but in order to GET THERE, we need to be rather more tactical about it.


- we need to mock republicans more
- we need to develop catchy snark to counter their catch phrases
- we need to push wedge issues that divide them
- we need to ATTACK them rather than let them attack us all the time
- we need to build our own set of words and phrases that pack more punch, and not accept their terms
- we need to be the ones picking the issues, not them
- we need to set the terms of the debate
- we need to declare victory more often
- we need to point out how they lost the debate (e.g., if they refuse to answer a question)
- we need to show strength

[Richardo]

1. Merciless mocking is working well for me.

I've found few know how to react when their manufactured outrage is met by raucous laughter and a well-aimed jab.

[unblock]

6. my own favorite has been "still?" in response to "i'm a republican"

been using that for 2-3 years now. so far it's ALWAYS been followed with an admission that, yeah, it's been getting awful damn hard to stay a republican, and often they're thinking about becoming independent.

that's something, anyway....

[rudy23]

2. I agree about the tactics like fighting bullying with ridicule

The problem is that the Republicans have the media and corporate money on their side. We need to be twice as "guerilla" as they are.

[Ron Green]

3. I'm recommending this, but I must mention that

a shooting war and a "war of words" are very different things. After crawling down into the gutter with the Republicans it'll be hard to reestablish reasoned discourse.

[unblock]

4. it's not always easy to simply re-establish peace and friendship after a shooting war, either.

but some things must be done. exactly what our adaptation is is up for grabs, we don't have to "crawl into the gutter" necessarily. but we do have to respond and adapt and be more effective, one way or another.

[MajorChode]

5. The answer to incivility is not more incivility

Right now the GOP is circling the wagons, and it their case, it's a losing strategy. It may be paying off in the short term, but if you look a bit deeper into what they are doing, you'll see they are fighting a losing battle.

The GOP is not picking up any new constituency. All they are doing is firing up the most uncivil and encouraging them to reveal their true nature. While this might cause them to show up at the ballot box in the short term, ultimately they will lose because they have no new ideas that can attract new people. Their biggest strength right now is pissed off old people, and pissed off old people will not keep up the pace for too long. They get tired and need a nap. They also die off eventually. As the GOP moves more and more towards the dipshits on the extreme right, they will lose those in the middle that they can't survive without.

The Democrats are filling their ranks with young people. Young people may be impatient, but ultimately they are going to win. It's just a matter of time. The best thing the Democrats can do right now is to fire up their constituency. Not enough Democrats actually get out and vote and that is the biggest problem.

[unblock]

7. i agree that right now, republicans are continuing to shot themselves in the foot.

they are only even trying to rile up their increasingly narrow base. but this shall pass.
they will figure out they need a new plan and they will be back with a more effective pitch, more effective wedge issues, and so on.

i don't know exactly what it will involve, but trust me, it will NOT involve civil discourse.

[damntexdem]

8. Actually, it was effective with one-shot muzzle-loaders.

Not in every terrain, but effective nevertheless.

[needledriver]

9. I agree with your conclusions, but I disagree with your history!

Dear unblock-

once upon a time, war was fought in a way now regarded as genteel -- armies assembled in rank and file and faced off against each other across a field. the front row knelt, aimed, and fired, then returned to the read to reload and wait their turn at the front.

A cursory examination of His Majesty's Manual Exercise of 1764 will reveal that the kneeling Front Rank fires at the same time as the Center and Rear Ranks. By the Spring of 1776, the British had abandoned three ranks for the most part, changing it to two ranks (with the Front Rank standing) and spread their file interval out from shoulder-to-shoulder to around a foot and a half. This, because the Americans were not that formidable an opponent!

this was effective when your opponent did the same, when aiming was hardly an exact science, and when larger area weapons didn't exist yet.

This was effective because a soldier's musket is accurate to about eighty yards, and the best use of it is massed volley fire. The other best use of it is to fix bayonets and charge. A musket with a fixed bayonet is a spear on one end and a club on the other. Engaging your opponent close enough to smell the sausage he had for breakfast while trying to stab his guts or bash his skull in at the same time round shot and grape shot are tearing holes in your ranks is hardly a genteel business.

the british tried this against the americans,

And won nearly every battle.

but we took advantage of the wooded terrain and hid, took our pot shots, and fled before they could react.

"And fled"? When the Redcoat puts his hobnailed shoe on the ground you used to stand on, that's called winning the battle.

the british decried such tactics as uncivilized, but they proved effective and their insistance on moral outrage in lieu of developing an effective response was one of several ingredients of their eventual downfall.

Your last sentence is the truest, but not for the reason you intend - because it is a pack of lies, spin, and disinformation.

Really.

I don't want to hijack this thread into a discussion of the tactics and strategy of the American War for Independence. That's not the point.

The point is controlling the rhetoric. The history in your OP is riddled with the popular mythology of the AWI, which is very much at odds with what really happened. (The winners get to write the history books)

The truth is that the British soldier of the American Revolution was tough, courageous, and capable. His commanders were long serving professionals who quickly adapted to conditions in North America. The reasons the British lost were myriad, and had far more to do with the fact that Britain was embroiled in war with France and Spain. MASSIVE amounts of French weapons, uniforms, money, troops and the French Navy had far more to do with Britain's defeat than those plucky militiamen hiding behind rocks and trees - but we didn't get to hear that over the Patriot noise machine. Sound familiar?

That's all I intend with the history lesson. Don't let their terms define your position.

[unblock]

10. i may need to research this more :) sorry for relying on my midwest high school propaganda :)

my point stands even if my analogy is more to historical myth than to historical fact, but you've got me curious about the actual events of the time....