Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Your Point…It Fails!  So Very, Very Hard! Previous entry: Oklahoma to display Ten Commandments at the state Capitol

Stop rewarding the faux outrages

This post by Digby chronicling the psychology of the Republican faux outrage machine is a must-read, and I try not to say that lightly.  It’s a tactic they use routinely at this point—-maybe not quite daily, but at this point, more than weekly.  At any point in time, your average wingnut has to juggle a shocking number of pretend offenses, from being pretend shocked that Pelosi criticized the CIA to fake outraged that Notre Dame routinely invited a President to speak at its graduation without checking with Alan Keyes first.  In fact, I’d say that on top of what Digby is saying, another function of the hissy fit is base control.  By pumping conservative followers with one pretend scandal after another, and occupying all of their minimal brain space with it, you effectively prevent them from actually thinking about real issues that matter.  Which is critical, because actual thought is fatal to conservatism, especially the way that it’s practiced now. 

Of course, the whole Digby post really got to me, because (not to pick at old scabs) I was the center of exactly such a faux outrage.  The way wingnuts were carrying on when Melissa McEwan and I got jobs with the Edwards campaign, you would have thought no one had ever even thought to suggest that there’s something immoral about the way the Catholic Church oppresses women and gay men, and how they are promoting the spread of AIDS, particularly in developing countries, because they’re so scared that someone might prevent a pregnancy while also preventing HIV.  But what I witnessed at the time was this: The whole faux scandal became a real lightening bolt for how the netroots would like to deal with this routine outrage machine the Republicans have built up.  Which is that we think that you should throw them the finger and get on with your lives.  And I tend to agree with the rest of the netroots on this, but sympathize with the fact that Democrats fear doing this.  Digby:

In a political context this translates to a fear by liberal politicians that they will be rejected by the American people—and a subconscious dulling of passion and inspiration in the mistaken belief that they can spare themselves further humiliation if only they control their rhetoric.


Of course, the concern in the case of the faux scandal involving myself and Melissa was that Edwards would get tagged as tolerant of Catholic bigots, which is a ridiculous suggestion, because it starts with the idea that there is such a thing as someone who is “bigoted” against Catholics like you would be against a non-mainstream group, as opposed to merely critical of church dogma.  But no matter, one can see how that fear is hardly imagined, especially when Catholics are a traditional Democratic voting constituency. And of course, it’s well-understood that wingnuts have nothing better to do than wail and moan, because what else are they going to do with their time?  Think?  Give a shit?  Get a hobby?  Leave the house?  No, of course not.  That’s scary and, it’s been reported, causes you testicles to fall off.  So all that’s left is wailing and moaning.  Soon, you feel the urge just to give them a scalp so they’ll shut up.

At best, though, what you buy when you hand them a scalp is that they quiet down some about the current faux outrage and just move on to the next one.  But they never, ever forget, and no matter how much you offer a phony apology, they never, ever forgive.  They weren’t mad in the first place, so acts like apology and forgiveness are meaningless in real world terms.  So the value of capitulation has never been proven to me.  All you do by capitulating is encourage them to diversify their targets. 

But what can you do?  The media happily picks up the latest faux outrage and runs with it.  Maybe not every one, but the right wing noise machine’s tactic is to employ an infinite number of monkeys typing out an infinite number of faux scandals until one takes off in the mainstream media.  It’s a perfect system for the media types, because they get an endless supply, from which they can pick and choose, and they don’t actually have to do any work to find content to fill the airwaves, since the monkeys with blogs and think tanks and front organizations provide an endless stream.  This means that everyone is against us, unfortunately.  Or was, though now there’s a few left-leaning talking heads on cable now to break up the monotony.

But what I think Democrats should seriously start doing is to take on the motto, “Never apologize, never capitulate.”  At least not as long as it’s a faux outrage. Why?  For one thing, out of basic respect for decency.  Apologies are precious things that shouldn’t be watered down by giving them out when you don’t mean it to people who don’t mean it.  On top of that, every capitulation is registered as a victory for wingnuts.  With this Pelosi thing, for instance, they’re angling for a way to shut down discussion about torture altogether.  They can’t win for a number of reasons, mainly because shutting down this discussion will create a cancer in our society that may be terminal.  But even when it comes to less important issues, capitulation just registers as a victory.  Which insures they’ll do it again.  It’s basic behavioral psychology—-if a monkey starts slamming on a keyboard and you feed him grapes for his trouble, he’ll keep doing it.  With human monkeys, you just feed them phony apologies and scalps.  We need to quit rewarding the behavior, at bare minimum.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:38 AM • (66) Comments

Of course, they never needed to shut the torture debate down to begin with; it had already ground to a halt with the lack of national leadership on the issue.

Comment #1: norbizness  on  05/20  at  10:46 AM

“But what I think Democrats should seriously start doing is to take on the motto, “Never apologize, never capitulate.””

That was one of the Late Great Steve Gilliard’s mottoes, and a good one to put into action…

Comment #2: MikeEss  on  05/20  at  11:03 AM

Faux outrage?  But you SWORE and stuff. 

Digby’s piece is outstanding. My favorite piece of faux outrage this week is Glenn Reynolds’ pearl clutching in the WS over Obama’s IRS joke at ASU because it *undermines the integrity of the IRS/government.*  Wha?  I hadn’t thought of this silliness as a non-stop distraction machine but it makes a lot of sense.  And fits well with their overall self-perception as Holy Saints of Perpetual Martyrdom.

Comment #3: pennylane  on  05/20  at  11:14 AM

I give a big thumbs up to all of this.

(And I think some of the media eagerness to seize on this stuff in the current context is eagerness to prove they can be “tough” on Obama. Which is a bullshit standard. Either something is a story or it isn’t.)

Comment #4: chingona  on  05/20  at  11:14 AM

And if the current set of democratic leadership can’t hack that, start getting some new ones.

Comment #5: paul  on  05/20  at  11:16 AM

Conservatives: the original concern trolls.

Comment #6: bananacat  on  05/20  at  11:19 AM

I don’t understand how the Dems aren’t turning the Pelosi thing to our advantage. It would be easy to say, “You want investigations? Ok. We will now investigate EVERYONE.” And why not??

Comment #7: Essie Elephant  on  05/20  at  11:20 AM

I don’t understand how the Dems aren’t turning the Pelosi thing to our advantage.

You must be thinking of somebody other than the good old Dumbocratic Party I know and so don’t love. The party that never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Comment #8: Steve LaBonne  on  05/20  at  11:25 AM

Yeah, for all the things that the Democrats have learned how to do right, there’s still nothing they love more than doing things Republicans tell them to do, either out of a misguided sense of bipartisanship or because they foolishly think it’ll work better this time than all the other times they’ve caved pointlessly to the GOP. Or I guess because they read the Village media, and they’re always mortally offended every time a Democrat sneezes.

Comment #9: Scott  on  05/20  at  11:32 AM

Which is maybe a problem with the “inclusiveness” that brings over Blue Dogs and DINOs. I mean, it’s super great to have a Democratic majority, but not if they won’t do Democraticy things and, simultaneously, make the Democrats look bad with their Blue Doggyness.

I hate the two party system. I mean, really, what am I going to do? Vote Republican? Ha.

Comment #10: Essie Elephant  on  05/20  at  11:36 AM

Point taken, norb. But of course, right wing nuts are simply trained to wail and moan on cue, and the actual facts on the ground are irrelevant.

Comment #11: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/20  at  11:36 AM

Essie: Perhaps because Pelosi is a leader of the Democratic Party and is, in fact, complicit in the torture regime.  Curiously, if she is complicit, it’s because of the psychology described in this post.  She was bullied into keeping quiet for fear of being accused of treason by traitors.

Comment #12: BABH  on  05/20  at  11:37 AM

Or I guess because they read the Village media, and they’re always mortally offended every time a Democrat sneezes.

That would be that same media that are busy going out of business. Just another example of the fact that what the Dumbocrats are really afraid of is their own shadow.

Comment #13: Steve LaBonne  on  05/20  at  11:37 AM

Unfortunately those with the most ridiculously noisy claims often set the agenda.  For instance, Lenin’s faction of the Russian Socialist Party was called the “Bolsheviks” - the “Majority Party” - because at one pre-WWI Party conference they had a majority at one meeting.  Those who opposed Lenin were therefore named the “Mensheviks” or “Minority Party” even though in every other venue they had the majority of votes.  Thus is political theater made.

The Republicans set the tone because they are, quite simply, perfectly fine with barking out silly talking points and shrugging with indifference when called on the stupider of their stances.  The media is like a toddler, easily distracted by flashing lights and loud noises, and unfortunately the voice of reason is lost in the buzz.  I think the only way the Democrats could seize the agenda would be to be fearless - as someone mentioned above, counter with “Oh yeah?  Bring on the investigations.  Bring it on.  Let’s put Cheney on the docket first.  BRING IT ON.”

Comment #14: tannenburg  on  05/20  at  11:39 AM

I don’t understand how the Dems aren’t turning the Pelosi thing to our advantage.

Well, Nancy may not be the best Speaker we’ve ever had but dumb, she ain’t.  Yes, we know the Conservowhacks will jump on anything.  But while that makes them annoying it also makes them easy.  They will jump at any piece of bait.  Something awful weird is going on here.  Either:  A) Rahm is setting Nancy up for a fall, or, B) we’re feeding the R’s rope.  Time will tell.  But in either case, the wingnuts will be our unwitting (witless?) accomplices.

Comment #15: Magis  on  05/20  at  11:51 AM

“Never apologize, never capitulate.”

And fight back.  The faux outrage of the Noise Machine leaders can stir up real outrage in low-information voters.  John Kerry tried to stay above it all when he was Swiftboated.  That was a terrible mistake.  When Obama looked like he was going to be sunk by Rev. Wright, he stood up and made the ass-kickingest speech of the campaign.  After that, none of the other shit the monkeys threw would stick.  Since he had stood up to the bullies once, he didn’t have to respond to the faux outrage over Ayers, ACORN or his birth certificate.

Digby calls it “Ritual Humiliation”.  Outside of Social Studies and Anthropology departments, it has another name: bullying.  When you stand up to bullies, they back down.  At their core, they are cowards.

Comment #16: BABH  on  05/20  at  11:53 AM

I wish Harry Reid would figure out how to deal with Republican bullying—I just feel he caves EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Comment #17: FashionablyEvil  on  05/20  at  11:55 AM

I’m with the posts above on the Pelosi thing. Start saying “Fine let’s investigate. EVERYONE.” and watch them backpedal right off the fucking cliff.

Comment #18: Mark  on  05/20  at  11:57 AM

Reid doesn’t cave.  Reid just gives the appearance of caving because he agrees with them, and he likes his position as someone who can undermine the Democratic Party.  /cynic

Comment #19: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/20  at  12:00 PM

Also, I notice that they’re doing the faux outrage thing to Michael Steele too: “Maligning” Rush Limbaugh?  The horror!

Comment #20: FashionablyEvil  on  05/20  at  12:00 PM

That is pretty cynical, Amanda.  So much so that I don’t think I would have even considered that.  I’d be more inclined to attribute it to his desire to keep his seat and his post at the expense of his party.  But maybe that’s the same thing.

Comment #21: FashionablyEvil  on  05/20  at  12:06 PM

Yes, FashionablyEvil, the only solace I have during this whole thing is they’re turning like hyenas on heretics within their own ranks.  I do hope that the media keeps putting that news up as well - it can’t help but make the Republicans look like Captain Queeg ranting about strawberries.*

* aka The Caine Mutiny.

Comment #22: tannenburg  on  05/20  at  12:06 PM

The briefings in question happened in 2002. Nancy Pelosi did not assume minority leadership until 2003.

Get the basic facts of history straight before you start panting and wailing about what the leadership of the Democratic Party did or didn’t do.

Comment #23: Mighty Ponygirl  on  05/20  at  12:09 PM

Example of aforementioned faux outrage: One of my Facebook nutter friends (ok, a relative) recently posted a link to the OUTRAGEOUS statements by Tony Bennett (well-known diplomat and crooner) that Obama is wonderful and everything he does should be supported and everyone in the world loves him.

Aside from it being pretty much true that the rest of the world loves Obama (I refrained from posting a link to the surveys that say this), I pointed out that it’s a little silly to be asking Tony Bennett his political opinion and then reporting it as “news”.  Kind of like when Brittney expressed her support for GWB. I suggested that maybe, just maybe, the “news organization” in question was trying to manipulate her emotions rather than report news.  I think I made a tiny dent in her consciousness, as she conceded that it would be like asking Angelina Jolie some advice about dentistry.

But it occured to me that if she thought that was worthy of posting to FB, she must spend most of her days being outraged over much larger actually important issues. What a way to live.

Comment #24: kajey  on  05/20  at  12:20 PM

Reid doesn’t cave.  Reid just gives the appearance of caving because he agrees with them, and he likes his position as someone who can undermine the Democratic Party.

Is there ever a point at which we can start assuming this applies to most of the Democratic party?  These people are quite intelligent and experienced.  There is no way they can be this continuously clueless for this long.

Comment #25: Gavel Down  on  05/20  at  12:29 PM

Ponygirl: I was not in the Gang of Eight, but somehow - reading newspapers and stuff - I knew of the torture regime by 2004.  Remember Alberto Gonzales’ confirmation battle?  That was about torture.  Congressional oversight doesn’t end in 2002.  If there weren’t more briefings (and of course, there were), then she should have asked for them.

Pardon me for “panting and wailing”.  We’re talking about the United States government torturing suspects to death in the name of the American people.  It sort of inspires righteous indignation in folks with moral centers.

Comment #26: BABH  on  05/20  at  12:29 PM

Get the basic facts of history straight before you start panting and wailing about what the leadership of the Democratic Party did or didn’t do.

This.

It’s not just faux outrage, it’s the fact that even the basic and essential factual predicates for much if not all of that outrage are completely manufactured.  I don’t really carry a brief for Pelosi personally. But if *any* Democratic congressperson…and never mind one who was not actually in a formal leadership position at the relevant time…had publicly outed the torture policies (in 2002 in a Republican administration with a Republican-controlled Congress), there would have been a faux-outrage shitstorm (complete with a tsunami of treason accusations) that would make the current controversy look like a garden party.  Hell, they would have demanded she be impeached and prosecuted had she, or anyone, gone public about it and condemned it.

Of course, I wish they had…but that goes back to not being cowed, and I suppose looking for backbone and politically-suicidal courage from any congressperson is a bit much to ask here in reality. wink

Comment #27: Felix Culpa  on  05/20  at  12:29 PM

When I saw, via Xoverboard, that Donahue was throwing another fit about Dan Brown, I started to formulate rational rebuttals in my mind.  In particular, I just saw Angels and Demons and thought the film treated the Catholic Church pretty generously. Yeah, it talks about their historical intolerance of science, but much less so than the book does. In the end, it basically allows the Church to be a flawed but mostly innocent hero.

But as Pollak points out in that post, that kind of argument is immaterial.  Bill Donahue doesn’t care if his argument has any basis in reality. He doesn’t care if the thing he’s upset about is actually upsetting. He just embraces an opportunity to be publicly outraged and get lots of attention. So it’s a waste of time to bother rebutting him.

Comment #28: Cris  on  05/20  at  12:34 PM

I’m kind of with BABH on this. If Pelosi knew or deliberately chose to NOT know, then whether or not she was majority leadership then does not matter. She’s guilty of something in my eyes, if only bad judgment, and I think the public has a right to know if it comes up during the course of my proposed “Investigate Everyone Starting With Bush and Working Down” scheme (none of this “Investigate Democrats and Ignore Everyone Else” crap).

If every single Democrat in Congress rubber-stamped torture, I want to know about it. It’s not a partisan thing.

Now, having said that, I can totally understand WHY she would be tempted to keep all this stuff secret. CYOA is a strong motivation, but that doesn’t make her a good person, for goodness’ sakes. Now, having said that, if she seriously thought she would be locked up or something if she did tell, well then that’s another story and we wouldn’t probably prosecute her or anything in that case. But that’s for the investigation to uncover. And if that was the case, it’s pretty bad of her to keep playing the blame game. It would be better to come out and say, “Yes, I knew, but I was told that if I said anything, I’d be locked away for life for compromising national security and I feared for my life and my family.” Or something.

Comment #29: Essie Elephant  on  05/20  at  12:35 PM

I think that the white male hetero christian population have seen what happened when non-white, female, LGBT, non-christian population acted up with their complaints and got things to change.  They think if only they could harness that power, they could get things to change back.  Its misusing the effect of emotional outrage so that they can turn around and ignore real emotional outrage.  These are the same people that blame homeowners for the foreclosure crisis, they blame rape victims for being raped in the first place, but are quick to put people to death if they are even accused of a crime and are not white or wealthy enough.

Comment #30: Ursula  on  05/20  at  12:36 PM

Conciliatory note: I do not mean to imply that Mighty Ponygirl has no moral center.  I just think she may have lost sight of the central issue.  It doesn’t matter whether those responsible are Republicans or Democrats, civilian or military, in office or out.  What matters is that they are held to account so that this does not happen again.  If sending Cheney to jail for the rest of his life would damage Pelosi too, then we should be lining up to throw Pelosi under the bus.  But hey - maybe she is totally clean.  A full investigation will tell.

Comment #31: BABH  on  05/20  at  12:38 PM

Is there ever a point at which we can start assuming this applies to most of the Democratic party?

Sure, just be careful where it leads you. Let the assumption motivate you to improve the party, not to abandon it.  Reid needs to be primaried.

Comment #32: Cris  on  05/20  at  12:40 PM

Amanda’s right. A large portion of the national Democratic Party—maybe not a majority, but enough to throw everything off—is bought and paid for by the same corporate interests that own the Republicans, and can be guaranteed to derail any real progressive initiative. Reid, one of their leaders, WANTS you to think he’s a coward, because it’s the most plausible explanation for why he keeps caving, and it keeps folks from figuring out that he caves because he’s a corporate creature whose main purpose is to keep the progressives in check. He’s not a coward at all: he’s actually rather courageous, though it’s all in the service of evil.

Until we primary out one of these corporate beasts and replace him/her with a real progressive, they’re going to keep doing it. We almost got that ratfucker Lieberman, but we need to win that game before we stop getting played by “timid” “Democrats”.

Comment #33: felagund  on  05/20  at  12:41 PM

What’s even worse than hissy fits are hissy fits that work (cf. cutoff of funding to close Guantanamo).

Comment #34: Bitter Scribe  on  05/20  at  12:42 PM

Let the assumption motivate you to improve the party, not to abandon it.

That assumes we have the power to improve the party - Ned Lamont’s run was not an encouraging sign in this regard.  The party has been moving farther and farther to the right over the last (at least) ten years despite the best efforts of motivated and hardworking honest-to-god lefties.  I don’t see the advantage of sticking with the Democrats if they don’t actually fulfill any of our policy goals.

Reid needs to be primaried.

Agreed.  But realize you will be fighting the whole freakin’ Democratic Party to do it, and the chances of success are small.

Comment #35: Gavel Down  on  05/20  at  12:45 PM

Of course, the internet is largely clogged with legitimate outrage directed against targets too insignificant or too indifferent to make said outrage productive.

Comment #36: norbizness  on  05/20  at  12:45 PM

I don’t see the advantage of sticking with the Democrats if they don’t actually fulfill any of our policy goals.

I hear you, but we’ve been there. I supported Nader and I still don’t apologize for it.  But I now recognize that it wasn’t productive.  We want to change the party, we have to work within it.

Comment #37: Cris  on  05/20  at  12:50 PM

Something awful weird is going on here.  Either:  A) Rahm is setting Nancy up for a fall, or, B) we’re feeding the R’s rope.  Time will tell.  But in either case, the wingnuts will be our unwitting (witless?) accomplices

Oh I wish.

I simply don’t believe in the long game of Chess Meister Obama.

This is the most powerful he will ever be, unless the midterms send home Blue Dogs and send in real progressives.  He needs to move his agenda forward—the agenda he promised and the agenda people voted him into office to follow.

There is no long game.  There is just a very, very good politician who is slightly less evil than most but still right-of-center. 

It’s a better world than if McCain had won, but it’s not going to move much to the left.  They want that second term, and they play cautious.  Thing is, once he’s won the second term, he’ll be a lame duck.  No where near the mandate-level power he has today.

Be pissed, progressives.  Be very pissed.

Comment #38: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  05/20  at  12:53 PM

But I now recognize that it wasn’t productive.

It might have been, though.  Back in 2000, I scoffed at people who said the Democrats and Republicans were two sides of the same coin.  I’m not scoffing now, and I think there are others like me.

We want to change the party, we have to work within it.

Why do you think this will be any more productive than it has been so far?

Comment #39: Gavel Down  on  05/20  at  01:10 PM

Is there ever a point at which we can start assuming this applies to most of the Democratic party?

I judge them on how consistently they “cave”, or if they do what Reid does and “caves” before anyone even applies pressure.

Comment #40: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/20  at  01:12 PM

I simply don’t believe in the long game of Chess Meister Obama.

Thank you.

I can only speak for myself (although I think Seeker agrees), but I’m getting so very tired of this meme. It’s like the world’s most postive conspiracy theory, where Obama knows everything about everything and is 100 moves ahead of everyone else and chess and planning and strategery and blah. Obama isn’t god, he isn’t a chess master, he’s a guy and he makes mistakes and breaks promises and cowards out just like everyone else does.

It’s getting to the point where if Obama loses the race in 2012, it’ll be seen as all part of his Master Plan to bounce back in 2016 and then REALLY make those hope-y changes.

Comment #41: Essie Elephant  on  05/20  at  01:13 PM

Why do you think this will be any more productive than it has been so far?

The extreme-crazy ‘Christianists’ (used here as opposed to normal Christians) managed to take over the Republicans. Why can’t we do the same to take over the Democrats?

We’d lose some folks… but maybe they’d form a viable third party… that would be nice. The Democrats already have the “crazy liberal” label. Might as well keep the brand and make it fit. I dunno.

Comment #42: Essie Elephant  on  05/20  at  01:15 PM

BABH—I haven’t lost my moral center at all, nor am I trying to obfuscate the issue. But let’s face it: Pelosi was not a Somebody back then, she was just another nobody in the minority in the Year Of The Patriot, and the CIA had that much less reason to play straight with her.  Not to mention their own internal records can’t confirm or deny what they did in 2002 with regard to meetings with house representatives, so partisan loyalties aside, I’m much more likely to believe her than them in this issue.

I want everyone investigated, but I want people to understand the investigation within the context of history, and when the first thing you do is assume that Nancy Pelosi has been the leader of the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton left office, you’re not investigating in good faith.

Comment #43: Mighty Ponygirl  on  05/20  at  01:18 PM

Why can’t we do the same to take over the Democrats?

Because we don’t have billions of dollars we’ve fleeced from people who can’t afford it, nor do we have talk radio.  Plus (I hope) we’re saner and can’t necessarily be made to march in lock step that easily.

I just don’t know how we’d possibly compete with the entrenched influence and money that the “DC centrist Democrats” have available.  So, i’m in favor of letting the Republicans and the Democrats merge, even if it’s in all but name, and concentrate on building a liberal party from the ground up.  Of course, then we have the media fighting us tooth and nail.  But alternative media exists, if we’re patient.  Really really patient, but I think it’s the only thing that has a chance of working.  Electing “more and better Democrats” doesn’t work if they’re just corrupted by the DC cheerleader crowd and their money as fast as we can elect them.

Comment #44: Gavel Down  on  05/20  at  01:23 PM

MP, that makes sense. You and I are on the same page then.

Why can’t we start the investigations with, say, Bush and Cheney and work down from there? Hmm.

Gavel Down, wouldn’t we need the same billions of dollars and talk radio and lock-steppiness to get the new party to work? And you’re always going to have the “you’re not blue enough” arguments that new parties alaways have… witness the “if you read a daily horoscope, then you don’t belong in the Democrat party” kerfluffle a few months back. smile

Comment #45: Essie Elephant  on  05/20  at  01:29 PM

If Pelosi knew or deliberately chose to NOT know, then whether or not she was majority leadership then does not matter. She’s guilty of something in my eyes, if only bad judgment, and I think the public has a right to know if it comes up during the course of my proposed “Investigate Everyone Starting With Bush and Working Down” scheme (none of this “Investigate Democrats and Ignore Everyone Else” crap).

Except, of course, it’s not going to be Democrats who stood by getting taken down along with Republicans who actually did the planning and authorizing.  The game is, “Hey, Pelosi resigned, so the torture problem has been solved.  Shut up.”

Pelosi is being set up as the scapegoat.  We don’t have to go to the mat defending her, but maybe we can remember for two seconds that she voted and spoke against the war, which is why Republicans have been desperate to get rid of her since she became Speaker. 

Seriously, who here believes that the CIA is telling the truth and Pelosi was fully briefed by the CIA that there was ongoing torture, knew all about it, and said nothing?  Why is no one considering the source and the fact that CIA isn’t even defending itself?

Comment #46: Mnemosyne  on  05/20  at  01:34 PM

The idea is to start local, and very small.  For that, no, we don’t need billions because we’re not starting on the national stage in competition with those who already have billions of dollars.  By the time a new party works its way up to the national level, hopefully the playing field would be a bit more even.  It’s historically the way things have worked.  Of course, back then we haven’t had all three branches of government and the media controlled by essentially the same set of people and ideas.  I’m not saying it will work (the Greens are a good example of that, certainly) just that I think it has more of a chance of working than trying to blind our eyes to the reality that most people (and I don’t exempt myself) are pretty easily corruptible.  I have to go to lunch now but i’ll try to be back later - this is a fun discussion.

Comment #47: Gavel Down  on  05/20  at  01:35 PM

Mnemosyne, I’m totally willing to believe the CIA is lying. I just don’t understand how the Democrats are losing the P.R. battle so badly. Instead of playing “Did she / Didn’t she” over Pelosi, they should have the courage to not blink, as it were, and say, “OK, let’s investigate EVERYONE whom the CIA may/may not have briefed - and let the convictions fall where they may.”

Shorter me, I’m not piling on Pelosi, I’m piling on the crappy Democrat response. Although since she should be PART of that response, I guess I am piling on her for that.

Comment #48: Essie Elephant  on  05/20  at  01:40 PM

By the time a new party works its way up to the national level

Here’s where I break down - I’m no good at the long game.

Between Republicans and Republican-Light, I’m not sure we have the time to play the long game.

Not saying my “reform the Dem” party is anything more than a pipe dream, though. Hm.

Comment #49: Essie Elephant  on  05/20  at  01:41 PM

Mighty Ponygirl:  I’m glad we agree, and sorry again for my indiscriminate rhetoric.

Comment #50: BABH  on  05/20  at  01:52 PM

Mnemosyne, I’m totally willing to believe the CIA is lying. I just don’t understand how the Democrats are losing the P.R. battle so badly.

Except that they’re not.  That really scary survey that showed Pelosi’s approval ratings down by Gingrich’s?  Total bunk.  Her current ratings, 2 years into her term as Speaker, are the same as Gingrich’s when he first became Speaker.  His ratings plummeted from there, but you’d never know that by looking at CNN’s headline.

The House Democrats rallied around Pelosi and backed her up 100 percent, so the problem here—as usual—is Harry Reid.  Senate Democrats still cling to this strange notion that their Republican counterparts have the country’s best interests at heart no matter how many times they’ve had their face shoved in the dirt.

Comment #51: Mnemosyne  on  05/20  at  01:56 PM

Can’t we get Harry Reid not to be the Senate Majority Leader anymore? He’s truly awful.

Great, great piece, Amanda.

Comment #52: m_leblanc  on  05/20  at  02:04 PM

Maybe the problem isn’t a lack of Democratic backbone as much as it is a lack of Democratic will to upset the apple cart.  This is one thing that the Republicans (in their condition of decay as existed under Dubya) understood well.  The Rs knew they could get away with anything, and the best the Dems would do is turn their back (or worse) on their own who had the decency to use their position to, I don’t know, oppose the Republican bullshit.  Sure, you might get some tepid tsking once in a while, but those who called for investigations of the Bush cabal when it mattered (e.g. Cynthia McKinney) and impeachment (e.g. Dennis Kucinich) were largely painted as kooks and misfits by corporate media.  They were also hung out to dry by Democratic leadership and much of the liberal blogosphere.

I don’t know how you can expect to ‘work within’ a party that shuts down effective dissent and does not appear to respect the apparent wishes of its own supporters with anything more than lame lip service.  (Full disclosure: in my first trip to the voting booth, in 2000, I voted for Nader.  I called myself being pragmatic by pissing my vote away on Kerry/Edwards in 2004, but that was it.  No more playing Charlie Brown to the Democratic Party’s Lucy.)  It’s painfully obvious to me that the vast majority of the Dems aren’t afraid of Republicans as much as they are afraid of upsetting their wealthy and corporate donors, but there’s a shit-ton of overlap between the policy desires of the Dems’ big supporters and those of the Rs’ big supporters.  The wishes of the average voter are meaningless outside of carefully crafted campaign promises.  That’s why Obama won’t crack down on the banks; that’s why Obama and the Democrats aren’t going to put Bush and Co. on trial; and that’s why we won’t see single payer health care anytime soon.  The apple cart brings them power, wealth, and prestige, just as it does to the Republicans.  Don’t expect them to turn it over for some piddling little wish list from the unwashed masses.

Comment #53: Sam Holloway  on  05/20  at  02:40 PM

I can only speak for myself (although I think Seeker agrees), but I’m getting so very tired of this meme.

Count me in on that.

    We want to change the party, we have to work within it.

Why do you think this will be any more productive than it has been so far?

I have to say that this is my big fear.  I remember the refrain often sung on Kos that the time to take on an incumbent Democrat is the primary.  Of course, we don’t hear that so much after Connecticut, 2006.  The fact that the Democratic Party leadership seemed to give Lamont only token support really left a sour taste in my mouth for the Democrats.  And then Lieberman goes out and campaigns for McCain and loses nothing ...

Comment #54: Richard Goblin  on  05/20  at  02:47 PM

But what I think Democrats should seriously start doing is to take on the motto, “Never apologize, never capitulate.”

This is why I love watching the Jezze Ventura vs. Faux News wingnuts clips from this week over and over again. (the Larry King Live clips aren’t half as great).
If you keep on challenging them on their talking points they either start blubbering because they don’t actually have the facts to back the point up and are just used to people rolling over them or being confounded by having to counter such outright lies or STORM OFF THE SET because they can’t actually change the truth into lies or bully you into capitulating.

Comment #55: Danica Lefse Queen  on  05/20  at  03:05 PM

Really, Sam said most of what I would have said next.  I don’t think we have any future with the Democratic Party.  What little hope I had for it died with Obama’s campaign promises.

I will add though that Jesse Ventura is Independent (as far as I know) and that might be part of the reason he’s willing to speak obvious truth that no one else will acknowledge.  I don’t agree with many of his other positions, but there might be some common ground between people dissatisfied with the War Party that we could work on. 

Btw, I think liberal blogs (including this one) really dropped the ball on the Tea Party protests.  Yes, they’re wingnuts and they’re a little silly and easy to make fun of, but these are really really poorly informed people who still felt some authentic populist outrage at the banks and the entrenched interests, however much the Republican establishment tried to channel it into their usual brown people and wimmenz scapegoats.  We could have worked with that.

We need a party that will attract both those people and real liberals.  I think the way to do it, personally, is to de-emphasize social issues in favor of a refrain of “the established interests/rich are screwing you over big time” and then quietly support civil rights (including abortion, gay marriage, etc.)  I don’t think social issues are any less important than the issues we would be emphasizing, mind you, I just think that the sorts of people who are attracted to the Tea Party stuff have been distracted with them for years and years, and arguing on those fronts is doomed to failure.  However, focusing on what common ground we do have, and then supporting, quietly and with little fanfare, the social issues that are important to us, might be the way to go.  Just a stream of consciousness rambling here.

Comment #56: Gavel Down  on  05/20  at  03:21 PM

Of course, the concern in the case of the faux scandal involving myself and Melissa was that Edwards would get tagged as tolerant of Catholic bigots, which is a ridiculous suggestion, because it starts with the idea that there is such a thing as someone who is “bigoted” against Catholics like you would be against a non-mainstream group, as opposed to merely critical of church dogma.

There is such a thing as being bigoted against Catholics.  I mean, are you kidding?  In this country’s early history, Catholics, especially Irish Catholics, were heavily discriminated against.  Do you not know what WASP means?  Have you never heard of the KKK?

Comment #57: keshmeshi  on  05/20  at  04:01 PM

yes, keshmeshi that was the case in the early to mid part of the 20th century,  but catholism has been mainstream for the last couple of decades. Catholism is the number 2 religion in the United States.  People freaked out about JFK becoming president, but now even Newt Gringrich is a catholic.

Comment #58: kitten parade  on  05/20  at  04:17 PM

It is true that Catholics were much discriminated against in the U.S.  These days they’re aligned with the anti-choice people and are such a huge political force that we have five Catholic men on the Supreme Court of the United States.  It makes me feel all warm and safe knowing they’re up there strictly constructing their constitutional interpretation, the last safeguard of minority rights against an o’erweening government.

Comment #59: kaninchen  on  05/20  at  05:14 PM

On Harry Reid:  He is both a right of center Democrat, but willing to play like he is more liberal during an election and then capitulate to the Republicans in the “spirit of bipartisanship” AND also knows that the constituency that has elected him for the last 2 decades is right of center to wingnut.  Reid cannot go further left and still get elected in Nevada and the Nevada DC will not sacrifice the relative power it gives them to have their Senator as the Majority Leader to run a more progressive candidate.  The fact that Nevada went blue in 2008 was entirely the result of Obama’s huge margins in Las Vegas and until the midterm elections remains a statistical outlier; usually the rest of the state’s overwhelming support for the Republicans (over 70%) cancels out the even divide in Las Vegas.

I have gritted my teeth and voted for Reid twice because the alternative in this state is wingnuts.  I console myself that I can make more of a difference in the Congressional races with candidates like Dina Titus.

Comment #60: history_mom  on  05/20  at  07:09 PM

I remember the refrain often sung on Kos that the time to take on an incumbent Democrat is the primary.  Of course, we don’t hear that so much after Connecticut, 2006.

I don’t spend a whole lot of time on dKos these days, but my impression is that Markos interprets CT 2006 as a netroots victory, in spite of it all.  He (we) may have lost the big battle in that one, but it seems to me that it convinced him that primary challenges are effective. I mean, Lieberman did lose the primary. And I see no reason to believe that his decision to run in the general as an Independent will catch on.

Comment #61: Cris  on  05/20  at  07:48 PM

history_mom:
True, but two problems:
First, there are an awful lot of senators who are way redder than their electorate, but are kept in by the magic of incumbency.
Second, even if we concede that Reid is pretty much a nicer Nelson it certainly doesn’t stand for the proposition that he should be majority leader.  Your majority leader should be an unrepentant missionary for the planks of the party, not a spineless gorm who rolls over to the minority every chance he gets.

Comment #62: seeker6079  on  05/20  at  08:32 PM

I simply don’t believe in the long game of Chess Meister Obama.

Thank you.

I can only speak for myself (although I think Seeker agrees), but I’m getting so very tired of this meme.

Yes, I do agree with both you and Caren, Essie.  Watching normally sane progressives fall over themselves making excuses for his “screw the progressives and the people who were right about the economy” team-assembling process was an unpleasant experience.  Watching fools delude themselves is easy to deal with; watching intelligent people do it made me feel a little soiled in the soul.

The complete lack of any real Push from 1600 to move along a genuinely Democratic (let alone progressive) agenda since January has been fatiguing.

Comment #63: seeker6079  on  05/20  at  08:37 PM

I don’t know how you can expect to ‘work within’ a party that shuts down effective dissent and does not appear to respect the apparent wishes of its own supporters with anything more than lame lip service.

Oh, they only shut down dissent when it’s from the left. Dissent from the Bayh/Nelson wing is treated with great respect.

The way I see starting a new party is to pick some incumbent Dems who line up with real progressive values and ask them to switch. Once momentum starts to build, it becomes much easier to get new candidates in, as well as establishing that the Dems are center-right rather than “wacky left”. We move the Overton window in the right direction. We’d caucus with the Dems at first to stop the Republicans getting control.

And of course, doing any of this requires huge cartloads of money.

Comment #64: Dolbia  on  05/20  at  09:20 PM

Seeker, I understand the issue of incumbency (around 90% for Senators), but I’m still not seeing what the problem is with what I wrote. As someone who lives in the state that keeps electing Reid, I was offering a rationale for why a) the flip-flopping and spinelessness is likely an accurate reflection of what he actually believes and politically shrewd if he wants to remain a Senator for Nevada; and b) why finding a more progressive candidate in this state is pretty much a non-starter.

As far as whether he should be the Majority Leader, the fact that he did secure bipartisan support in his re-election and is Republican-lite was probably seen as a concession to get Congressional Republicans and the White House to work with a Democratic majority. Clearly, this strategy failed.  Was it a smart move for progressives? Not at all.  Was it a smart move for Democrats?  I would argue no.

I’m sort of confused by the implication that my post justified his position as Majority Leader.

Comment #65: history_mom  on  05/20  at  10:17 PM

Be confused no longer.  I wasn’t disagreeing with what you said, I merely used it as a jumping-off position for the point that I wanted to make.

The most infuriating thing about the current Dem Reps and Senators is that they constantly believe in this compromise meme when no-one is actually compromising with them.  Fight to win, fight to the maximum, keep jamming the overton window further left, keep pushing, never give an inch.  It worked for the GOP and it will take decades of the Dems doing the same thing to undo the damage.  It isn’t helped by the fact that the Democrat reps and senators tend to be a fair bit to the right of the overall American electorate in policy decisions.

LBJ would have had Reid’s balls (tiny, tiny, tiny balls) for lunch and his nutsack for a change purse.  The Dems need somebody like that again.  Can you picture the civil rights legislation, for example, going through with the current crop of timid eunuchs?  Not a bloody chance.

Comment #66: seeker6079  on  05/21  at  11:03 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.