dagblog - Comments for "The Real World: America"

I think that the driver of

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:32:35 +0000

In reply to It's a difficult calculation

I think that the driver of the liberal approach is not the persception of a small advantage but the perception of a large disadvantage. Unlike conservatives, liberals are scared sh-tless of being labeled extremists. Reagan famously exploited this fear by associating the word "liberal" with left wing extemism, causing liberals to shun their own name.

I think that the fear has some justification. Americans seem to have more tolerance for the right wing than for the left wing. But I don't know why. Maybe a backlash to the social upheaveal of the 60's and 70's. Or maybe it dates back to the Red Scare.

It's a difficult calculation

Nebton — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:15:38 +0000

In reply to Well put. I would add that

It's a difficult calculation as in both cases the respective extreme wings both hurt and help. Energizing the base means getting more of them to turn out and vote, but it also sometimes means losing some of the swing voters.

As to why it might make more sense for the right then the left: the right wing is all about authoritarianism. If they're told to go out and vote, they'll do it, by golly. The left wing is all about anarchy. If they're told to go out and vote, they won't exactly because they were told to. (Yes, I'm making a caricature, but there's some truth to it.)

Well put. I would add that

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:10:39 +0000

In reply to There's one distinct

Well put. I would add that conservative intellectuals have been reticent to stand up to the right wing. The occasional criticisms of Harriet Myers and Sarah Palin by some conservative leaders were refreshing exceptions to the rule. Liberals, on the other hand, drop left wing extemists like hot potatoes. The behavior on both sides is based on political calculation. Conservatives believe that the right wing helps them more than it hurts them. Liberals believe the left wing hurts them more than it helps them. I'm not sure why it is or even whether these perceptions are accurate.

There's one distinct

DF — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:54:00 +0000

In reply to I suppose that's what I mean

There's one distinct difference between the intelligentsia on the right and the intelligentsia on the left. On the right, the intellectual elite are perfectly happy to demonize, well, "the elite" that are keeping "real Americans" down. Of course, these charges always come from the elite of the right and are made toward the elite of the left, which is why academia in general is always lumped in. The purpose is to demonize the left elite in the eyes of Joe Sixpick.

On the left, the elite also demonize the elite, but they instead target the real power elite, like corporate power, the military-industrial complex, etc. Ironically, these charges still come from the elite of the left (think Huffington), but it's typically the intellectual elite versus the power elite.

This is not to say that the left has no power and the right has no intellect, but rather that the intellectual elite tend to align on the left and the power elite tend to align on the right. Each side is engaging in the populist game of trying to convince the elusive "common man" that their side is "of the poeple", bereft of an elite and that it is the "real" elite, the elite of the other side, that have "the people" in their crosshairs.

I suppose that's what I mean

Nebton — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:34:55 +0000

In reply to I dunno about that. The left

I suppose that's what I mean about the intelligentsia being influential. I think they're part of the reason that our paranoid fringes get marginalized. I think the right's answer to intelligentsia (to the degree you can call them that) are also influential, to the degree that they're partly responsible for the nurturing of the crazies on their side. I also think that they're beginning to lose control and a least a few of them are scared of that.

I dunno about that. The left

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:15:20 +0000

In reply to Actually, I mean the

I dunno about that. The left has its own paranoid tendencies, e.g. 9/11 and Halliburton conspiracies. The difference is that the left has marginalized the voices that promote such ideas, while the right has nurtured them. I'm not entirely sure why that has happened, and I'm trying to figure it out, but it goes back at least to the rise of Falwell's Moral Majority and probably further to the Communist witch-hunts. It's worth noting that this has not always been the case. In the early 20th century, most of the rage came from left wing populists who stoked anger against capitalist elites.

Actually, I mean the

Nebton — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:31:07 +0000

In reply to The difference in popularity?

Actually, I mean the difference in reacting to emotion instead of reacting to facts (AKA the "Beckish schtick", although O'Reilly does it, too), although perhaps I'm giving our side too much credit. The "left", of course, is comprised of several groups, but I think the "intelligentsia" is an influential part of it, and we're not as easily swayed by emotional arguments as the rabid right. Or, at least, I like to think we're not.

The difference in popularity?

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:13:45 +0000

In reply to On the distinction between

The difference in popularity? They're both factors, and I don't know that it makes sense to speculate about which is larger. Context is also a big factor; it's no coincidence that Olbermann's ratings have dropped under a Democratic administration while Beck's (and those of other FOX commentators) have risen.

Or do you mean the difference in the level of anger? Part of that is again context. The right is angry under Obama, just as the left was angry under Bush. But's there's something else--the right was also angry under Bush. There were already paranoid theories buzzing about. Remember the war on Christmas? Big conspiracy by George Soros, the ACLU, and the NY Times to pave the way for euthaniasia, gay marriage, and socialism. That was Bill O'Reilly's idea, not Beck's. Thus, there is a difference between the audience, but that difference is due in large part to the right wing presenters who have been stoking the flames.

Would a Beckish schtick work with a liberal audience? Maybe not. He has a "regular shmo" thing going, and modern liberals do not tend to think of themselves that way (though FDR liberals did). But I do think that a progressive O'Reilly could be effective at inciting the left. And even if provoking liberal anger requires different techniques than provoking conservative anger, I still maintain that today's conservative presenters are much better at it.

On the distinction between

Nebton — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:02:02 +0000

In reply to I'll take the implication one

On the distinction between Olbermann and Beck, do you think it's more the presenter that makes the difference or the audience? I posit the latter.

One difference I think Fox makes is it lets the crazies know they're not alone. Knowing that empowers them even more, IMO.

I'll take the implication one

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:49:00 +0000

In reply to The Real World: America

I'll take the implication one step further. Sanchez did not fail to exercise the filter out of negligence or because his anger simply could not be contained. Anger sells, baby. It's the new, new media.

And after having spent so much time with the conservative anger-mongers lately, I was also struck by how much better they are at it. Sanchez seemed to be channeling Olbermann's seething indignation--the mad-as-hell-not-going-to-take-it-anymore liberal. But FOX understands well that stoking anger does require you to appear angry. While Olbermann's ratings drop, TIME coverboy Glenn Beck incites hordes of furious teabaggers without ever raising his voice.

Great post.