Long ago, I had a small epiphany at a county fair, when I saw the booths for the democrats and the republicans. First, the democratic booth had little thingies with their keywords on what the party was about - prosperity, fairness, and such - and then the republicans had the same sort of thing, but in the form of a 'you're a republican if...', with a series of questions which pretty much anyone but a monster would end up agreeing with (e.g., if you're for a strong nation...), and therefore concluding they must be a republican.
It clarified a fairly basic and obvious point, that the purpose of the marketing was not to accurately explain what the parties were about, but rather to recruit members. Any casual citizen who ran across the material was intended to see it and like the message and therefore decide he was a democrat or republican. It was hardly intending to really inform them on the parties' agendas, much less deal with controversial issues. It was nasty and misleading.
Further, the idea is to get people to 'self-identify' with the 'brand' of the party, to internalize it to their own characteristics. If they love justice, they're a democrat; if they hate big brother government, they're a republican; this further becomes if they are a 'giving person who tries to do good for others, they are a democrat, and if they're someone who has responsibility and doesn't wait for handouts, they're a republican, and so on, making the identification 'personal'.
High end auto makers try to do the same thing, by linking their brand to personal traits, sometimes with embarrassingly clumsy marketing such as Mercedes commercials which show the smooth, attractive person driving one, while their goofy ugly neighbor watches jealously. If you want to be smooth and not a dolt, you should drive Mercedes, and people spend thousands of dollars to feel that emotional 'benefit'.
A broad point is the effect this has on the political debate in the public, how it reduces it, how it makes it emotional and personal, because people take any criticisms of their party's political views as attacks on these personal traits they've come to identify themselves with. If they agree with the other side, they're abandoning who they are, to an extent.
Let me set up the more specific point I'd like to make, though, with an observation that the republicans consist of two very different groups. One is the large majority of republican voters, the ones who are the targets of the marketing above, the ones who are 'just trying to do the right thing for their country', who are republicans because of the nice little messages on the country fair card. They might be the religious right, or the 'fiscal conservatives/small government wing', or the 'individual rights' wing, etc.
The second group, though, is a group who has a different agenda, and which has 'taken over' the republican party because they need to get elected to have power in the democracy. This group puts out no marketing, fails to debate their issues publically and honestly - they merely work their agenda, and 'play the political game' by having a PR machine which turns out the public messages needed to, preferably, make the public not notice what they're doing and, if that's not possible, to make it look like a good thing.
Now, I can lay out the main point I'm wanting to make: that the public debate of issues is greatly crippled by the simplest of mechanics: the fact that the second group, because they are basically unnamed as a group, *cannot* be discussed in normal political discussion, and any attempt to do so is likely to end up instead using the term 'republicans', and then you are instead talking against all the many average republican voters, with their county fair agenda, a battle you can't win, instead of the second group.
Think about the point for a moment. Is it possible that the simplest of facts, the lack of a name for the second group, has a powerful effect on the public debate of issues?
I'm going to say it seems so. The left has countless demonizing traits - easy names (democrats, the left, the far left, the liberals, the radical left, the moonbats, and more.)
It has its 'poster children' to hate; the Jane Fondas, Barbra Streisands and Michael Moores. It's set up as a target so easy to demonize that it's largely a knee-jerk hatred.
But let's say two average citizens wanted to criticize the 'second group' of republicans above, the ones who are out pushing the agenda of crony spending, borrowing, a class warfare which is radically shifting the wealth of the nation into the hands of a few bringing back a very class-based society, etc. There's no handy name for the 'second group'. The discussion is likely to say 'republicans' - and that immediately brings onto the table all of the 'average' republicans, and you are now attacking the county fair attributes.
Sure, they could take the time to spend several sentences defining the terms to distinguish between the groups, but almost no one does that in casual discussion.
The result is that the second group becomes virtually invisible - if you can't name it, you can't discuss it and target it and hate it and build the public opposition to it.
It seems to me that this really is preventing the proper discussion of issues. If the democrats put forth a plan that gives a $150B windfall to their base, it's easy to say what they're doing and fit it into the preconceived stereotype - they get blamed for it even if they don't do it. But let's take the agenda item to keep the drug companies' financial support for the party, by giving them a $150B windfall paid for by the public in an undeclared tax, on borrowed money.
When the program was announced, there was no mention by them of the fact that they prohibited the government from negotiating prices, as the VA does, the effect of which is to pay $150B more for the drugs than otherwise, all profit. It was left up to the 'critics' and 'liberal media' to find and try to make an issue of that fact. They had buried it in the overall program, which killed multiple political birds with one stone, giving them talking points about helping the seniors - helping to dilute the democrats' getting all the credit for that - as well as to secure the loyalty of this large industry to their political base.
If republican voters wanted to criticize this, they had to get past that it seemed to only be the democrats, who they can't stand, saying anything bad about it; and the fact that their own leaders were telling them a *huge* lie. It was hitler who noted that effective lies are often because they are so big they're hard for people to believe; when the second group is saying over and over and over that they're the party against big government, it's difficult for many voters to conclude they're lying.
To this day, I see few republicans who will say Bush is a 'big liar', and they instead, while they've begun to be more critical, torture themselves to find other explanations.
So, in short, in our nation, we currently have a 'real war' and a 'phony war'. The 'real war' is the class of the ultra wealthy, pursuing an agenda which is barely heard of in public, and which is radically shifting our nation outside the process of democracy since people are unaware. The 'phony war' is the one about issues people think they're solving - abortion, gun control, higher taxes, illegal immigration but really more basic ones like 'big government' and 'appeasment' and such.
How do a few people 'conquer' the large majority who are less well off? One way is to split the large group against each other. While they're all occupied fighitng the 'democrat vs. republican' war, they're not noticing the 'real war' much. And it feeds on itself; it's not as if the big 'news magazines' are ordered what to print, but as long as the 'phony war' is going on, it's what people will buy, and that controls the content.
Which is going to sell more - a cover story on the redistribution of wealth to the top, or a cover story on something sexy?
In fact, one factor for the Iraq war may have been to create an issue for the 'phony way' to distract the public's attention from the second group's agenda going on quietly.
At the end of the day, you would not be surprised if I cited some statistics showing 0.1% of the population at the top seeing their income shoot up hundreds of percent while the rest of the nation was flat over the last couple decades - but the fact that you can't begin to tell me the specific facts, that it's not something you are doing anything about, while you know all about the 'phony war' issues, says it all as to how well they're doing at the agenda not being about the 'real war'.
If we just had a name for the second group widely used in America, it would go a long way towards being able to criticize and reduce their power, to seperate them from the rest of the republicans who are just unable to do so on their own and who mostly continue to vote the party line because 'the democrats are worse', allowing their party to be hijacked for decades in the meantime.
(To hear from a conservative who is able to make the distinction between the first and second groups of republicans, and who reacted by leaving the party he helped bring to national power, read Kevin Phillips. Even more helpful, he's written books detailing the situation and the betrayal. This after he was Nixon's campaign manager in the great southern re-alignment in the 1968 election).
The terms we have are inadequate. 'Neocon' includes too many intellectuals not part of the core group, and pretty much entirely excludes the domestic agenda. 'Wingnuts' is a blog pejorative which refers more to the followers who blindly follow the right-wing ideology than to the people really behind the agenda. We just lack a name for the powerful group who has 'taken over' the republican party and gotten elected on top of it, to enact radical policies in our nation.
And the lack of political debate, in no small part because of the simple lack of a name for the group, greatly hampers the democratic discussion process.
It clarified a fairly basic and obvious point, that the purpose of the marketing was not to accurately explain what the parties were about, but rather to recruit members. Any casual citizen who ran across the material was intended to see it and like the message and therefore decide he was a democrat or republican. It was hardly intending to really inform them on the parties' agendas, much less deal with controversial issues. It was nasty and misleading.
Further, the idea is to get people to 'self-identify' with the 'brand' of the party, to internalize it to their own characteristics. If they love justice, they're a democrat; if they hate big brother government, they're a republican; this further becomes if they are a 'giving person who tries to do good for others, they are a democrat, and if they're someone who has responsibility and doesn't wait for handouts, they're a republican, and so on, making the identification 'personal'.
High end auto makers try to do the same thing, by linking their brand to personal traits, sometimes with embarrassingly clumsy marketing such as Mercedes commercials which show the smooth, attractive person driving one, while their goofy ugly neighbor watches jealously. If you want to be smooth and not a dolt, you should drive Mercedes, and people spend thousands of dollars to feel that emotional 'benefit'.
A broad point is the effect this has on the political debate in the public, how it reduces it, how it makes it emotional and personal, because people take any criticisms of their party's political views as attacks on these personal traits they've come to identify themselves with. If they agree with the other side, they're abandoning who they are, to an extent.
Let me set up the more specific point I'd like to make, though, with an observation that the republicans consist of two very different groups. One is the large majority of republican voters, the ones who are the targets of the marketing above, the ones who are 'just trying to do the right thing for their country', who are republicans because of the nice little messages on the country fair card. They might be the religious right, or the 'fiscal conservatives/small government wing', or the 'individual rights' wing, etc.
The second group, though, is a group who has a different agenda, and which has 'taken over' the republican party because they need to get elected to have power in the democracy. This group puts out no marketing, fails to debate their issues publically and honestly - they merely work their agenda, and 'play the political game' by having a PR machine which turns out the public messages needed to, preferably, make the public not notice what they're doing and, if that's not possible, to make it look like a good thing.
Now, I can lay out the main point I'm wanting to make: that the public debate of issues is greatly crippled by the simplest of mechanics: the fact that the second group, because they are basically unnamed as a group, *cannot* be discussed in normal political discussion, and any attempt to do so is likely to end up instead using the term 'republicans', and then you are instead talking against all the many average republican voters, with their county fair agenda, a battle you can't win, instead of the second group.
Think about the point for a moment. Is it possible that the simplest of facts, the lack of a name for the second group, has a powerful effect on the public debate of issues?
I'm going to say it seems so. The left has countless demonizing traits - easy names (democrats, the left, the far left, the liberals, the radical left, the moonbats, and more.)
It has its 'poster children' to hate; the Jane Fondas, Barbra Streisands and Michael Moores. It's set up as a target so easy to demonize that it's largely a knee-jerk hatred.
But let's say two average citizens wanted to criticize the 'second group' of republicans above, the ones who are out pushing the agenda of crony spending, borrowing, a class warfare which is radically shifting the wealth of the nation into the hands of a few bringing back a very class-based society, etc. There's no handy name for the 'second group'. The discussion is likely to say 'republicans' - and that immediately brings onto the table all of the 'average' republicans, and you are now attacking the county fair attributes.
Sure, they could take the time to spend several sentences defining the terms to distinguish between the groups, but almost no one does that in casual discussion.
The result is that the second group becomes virtually invisible - if you can't name it, you can't discuss it and target it and hate it and build the public opposition to it.
It seems to me that this really is preventing the proper discussion of issues. If the democrats put forth a plan that gives a $150B windfall to their base, it's easy to say what they're doing and fit it into the preconceived stereotype - they get blamed for it even if they don't do it. But let's take the agenda item to keep the drug companies' financial support for the party, by giving them a $150B windfall paid for by the public in an undeclared tax, on borrowed money.
When the program was announced, there was no mention by them of the fact that they prohibited the government from negotiating prices, as the VA does, the effect of which is to pay $150B more for the drugs than otherwise, all profit. It was left up to the 'critics' and 'liberal media' to find and try to make an issue of that fact. They had buried it in the overall program, which killed multiple political birds with one stone, giving them talking points about helping the seniors - helping to dilute the democrats' getting all the credit for that - as well as to secure the loyalty of this large industry to their political base.
If republican voters wanted to criticize this, they had to get past that it seemed to only be the democrats, who they can't stand, saying anything bad about it; and the fact that their own leaders were telling them a *huge* lie. It was hitler who noted that effective lies are often because they are so big they're hard for people to believe; when the second group is saying over and over and over that they're the party against big government, it's difficult for many voters to conclude they're lying.
To this day, I see few republicans who will say Bush is a 'big liar', and they instead, while they've begun to be more critical, torture themselves to find other explanations.
So, in short, in our nation, we currently have a 'real war' and a 'phony war'. The 'real war' is the class of the ultra wealthy, pursuing an agenda which is barely heard of in public, and which is radically shifting our nation outside the process of democracy since people are unaware. The 'phony war' is the one about issues people think they're solving - abortion, gun control, higher taxes, illegal immigration but really more basic ones like 'big government' and 'appeasment' and such.
How do a few people 'conquer' the large majority who are less well off? One way is to split the large group against each other. While they're all occupied fighitng the 'democrat vs. republican' war, they're not noticing the 'real war' much. And it feeds on itself; it's not as if the big 'news magazines' are ordered what to print, but as long as the 'phony war' is going on, it's what people will buy, and that controls the content.
Which is going to sell more - a cover story on the redistribution of wealth to the top, or a cover story on something sexy?
In fact, one factor for the Iraq war may have been to create an issue for the 'phony way' to distract the public's attention from the second group's agenda going on quietly.
At the end of the day, you would not be surprised if I cited some statistics showing 0.1% of the population at the top seeing their income shoot up hundreds of percent while the rest of the nation was flat over the last couple decades - but the fact that you can't begin to tell me the specific facts, that it's not something you are doing anything about, while you know all about the 'phony war' issues, says it all as to how well they're doing at the agenda not being about the 'real war'.
If we just had a name for the second group widely used in America, it would go a long way towards being able to criticize and reduce their power, to seperate them from the rest of the republicans who are just unable to do so on their own and who mostly continue to vote the party line because 'the democrats are worse', allowing their party to be hijacked for decades in the meantime.
(To hear from a conservative who is able to make the distinction between the first and second groups of republicans, and who reacted by leaving the party he helped bring to national power, read Kevin Phillips. Even more helpful, he's written books detailing the situation and the betrayal. This after he was Nixon's campaign manager in the great southern re-alignment in the 1968 election).
The terms we have are inadequate. 'Neocon' includes too many intellectuals not part of the core group, and pretty much entirely excludes the domestic agenda. 'Wingnuts' is a blog pejorative which refers more to the followers who blindly follow the right-wing ideology than to the people really behind the agenda. We just lack a name for the powerful group who has 'taken over' the republican party and gotten elected on top of it, to enact radical policies in our nation.
And the lack of political debate, in no small part because of the simple lack of a name for the group, greatly hampers the democratic discussion process.
Facebook
Twitter