Using Victimhood as a Sales Tool for Rightwingers
So we're all starting to adapt to the new Republican Minority in our capitol and we're starting to see how it will try to build itself, how it will burnish it's image and present it's facade. I wasn't sure how they were going to go. I mean, it's been since '94 that the Republican Party took over the House & the Senate majorities. And 2000 that they won the Executive branch. It's been a long time that they've been able to put forth their preferred image to the public and the media lapped it up as if it were mana from heaven & ordained by god. Life was easy for Karl Rove and the backroom RNC media geeks then. Now, it's a whole new ballgame.
Without much originality, I see they've reverted from their "Holy Guardians of Freedom and Liberty" image to one of "Victims of Opressian and Defender of Individual Rights" mode. I'll use the example of Ari Fleischer stating the reasons the Bush Adinistration wouldn't ask to conserve energy nor raise auto milage standards was:
"Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem? MR. FLEISCHER: That's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country."
to illustrate the former. It's got it all. The Holyier than thou tones, the connotations of divinity, the John Wayne delivery. And does a great job of obscuring the subject by linking Goodness and the American way of life with abject & unencumbered consumption.
Now though, we've seen the adjusted post 2006 minority status image. It's been played across so many venues and subjects that I can only assume it's the new paragrim. It's the later. They are now the official victims and they should be supported because they support fighting this new oppression. Examples abound. They run the full gamut from today's derision & sleight of hand in Senator Boxer's comments to Secretary Rice when she asked Secretary Rice about the 20,000 strong troop increase in Iraq:
"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young," to serve, Boxer told Rice. "You're not going to pay a price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.''
Rightwingers immediatly used the change the subject ruse: "vicious feminine politics" which both implicitly called Senator Boxer undignified and unworthy, no better than a teenager, and then the sleight of hand:
"I think it was more than cheap -- it was degrading," Fox News commentator Karen Hanretty said in an interview. "There's nothing more vicious than feminine politics, and Boxer proved herself a shrill harpy.'' White House spokesman Tony Snow -- a former Fox commentator -- called the comments "outrageous" and opined that Boxer had made "a great leap backward for feminism.'' Fox News ran headlines all day Friday on the topic, such as, "Will Boxer Apologize?'' and "Boxer Slimes Rice,'' and some conservative critics charged that Boxer inappropriately raised questions about Rice's personal life. Rice, speaking Friday to Fox News, suggested the comments were unduly personal. "
Completely ignoring the actual subject which was that the leaders, the rulers nor their families will be the ones who pay the actual price in lives and injuries.
It sweeps across media in general too. Recently in SF, we've been treated to an ongoing saga of local KSFO rightwing AM talk radio talk hosts Melanie Morgan , who mimic also local legend Mike Savage, claiming that the left is trying to supress her free speech. You see, lately Morgan said, on numerous occasions:
"we need to put a bulls-eye on Speaker Nancy Pelosi now" as well as other station hosts calling Senator Obama a Halfrican American because his mother is white.
Well local blogger Spocko has been emailing advertizers to KSFO with clips of the statements made and asking if those views represent what they are trying to sell in their advertising. Not surprisingly, several large national & international companies promptly asked that their ads buy times not include the hours those hosts were on. Dkos has a good diary of the whole affair up here .
So, again, the right claims supression of free speech as a sleight of hand. It changes the subject from analysis of suggestion of violent acts and racist speech to one of you're infringing on my rights. It changes the subject from should an individual have the right to notify advertising companies that they are supporting these views by buying time on these shows to liberals infringing our god given rights. KSFO recently sued Spocko and made him remove the audio clips from his website. They never denied the content. They just claimed he didn't have the right to post it.
I shouldn't be surprised though. So much of selling rightwing republicanism to the average joe out there is building the anger they face in everyday life. That anger is their linchpin. With it they can get their supporters to make decisions from an emotional space and state of mind, rather than a critical and reasoned state of mind. I am saddened though. I really would like to expect more of conservative america. I'm not seeing it though. I'm seeing a facade once again.
- kindness's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Orwell rising, amplification of speech equals suppression.
They are not mad at Spocko because a small, self described 5th tier blogger, forced the Wholly Rodent Empire to curtail their speech! Like he had any such power to do so?
What Spocko did was Amplify what they said so that their advertisers could hear it! He was not at all negative to the advertisers, never threatening boycott or any such thing (actually showing unusual genius in that).
It was the Advertisers who gagged at what they heard and removed their ads. So now the Great Rodent is attacking little Spocko, and superheros from across the blogosphere, are coming to his defense. It promises to be an epic battle, with even this place not uninvolved.
The Rodent has picked a poor battleground, as everyone else has the higher ground.
The speech they are protecting is hate speech, Spocko is a tiny underdog, that makes them look like the bullies they are even without the hate speech to confirm it, Spocko amplified rather than suppressed their public speech, by picking this battle at this time they put at risk much more than what the battle is about.
I do indeed hope that this grows to a needed wider quagmire, that not only preserves free speech on the net, but even gets some freedom for the wider media as well.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Spocko was completely within his rights to point out
the comments of the disc jockeys during their shows. And it worked!
He was also correct in calling the changing of the subject routine. The point wasn't suppression of free speech, it's exactly what they were saying. Again, it's just a way to sell themselves as the underdog and fighter for the American way of life.
Not my american way of life though.
I am suprised
that the advertisers don't run even a spot check of the programming where their ads are run. After all a pissed off listener will do much more damage to their brand image than someone who has no ax to grind. Who in his right mind would want to have their product associated with racist or hateful commentaries?
And what Spocko did does not have anything to do with suppressing anyone speech. If you read the 1st amendment, it starts with "Congress shall make no law..." So unless Spocko IS the Congress and he passed the law prohibiting certain kind of speech at KKKwhatever they can just p*ss of with their sanctimonious "oh, we're so violated" whining.
People have the right to say whatever they like - but they are not within their rights to demand that someone pays for that privilege if he/she/it* does not like what they say.
* a legal entity
Sic semper tyrannis
it's all marketing for the R's
they lost because their actions contradicted there main themes since the '80s:
-small govt: they increased the size of the military govt. but decreased the size & the competency of non-military govt, with the exception of incredible earmarks like bridges to nowhere. It was waste like this that contributed to Dem losses in the 80s-90s. The whole idea of MBA-managed govt. is more efficient and effective. CEOs are fired for business performance as bad as the incompetence we witnessed with Katrina.
-moral govt.: "points of light", "compassionate conservatism" all appealed to an idea, that regular people can help more than a govt. bureaucracy. Well, until Terry Schiavo destroyed that concept and laid bare that Reps will take govt into individuals private lives, including the President foregoing vacation, to force their morality on the people.
-low taxes: this is a no-brainer. noone wants to pay more taxes than necessary. the problem is that Rep govts. have reduced the current tax burden, while using debt instruments to maintain increasing pork-barrel expenditures on top of govt operations.
-Defense/Nat. Security/Strength: everyone wants to be strong, but the Iraq disaster is showing you can't re-play Vietnam, cutting taxes while mortgaging our children's future, and creating more insecurity for the country.
Its clear to everyone but the True-Beleivers that the marketing language is hypocritical, the policies are contrary to American goals of life-liberty-happiness, and the management has been wholly incompetent.
2004 was the Reps "benefit of doubt" moment with American public ("political capital" jibber-jabber notwithstanding). The Reps proceeded to blow it big, and 11/7/2006 was their wake up call.
They're falling back to what worked before: we're "regular people just trying to make a buck"; govt is too big and mismanaged; the leadership is immoral and concerned only with their enrichment (tuna fish anyone?!); and the leadership is weak. The problem is that that is the exact description of govt under Rep control. The Reps will be lucky to get back control for at least two elections.
elections matter (ed!)
Dems only have two years......
.... to repair the structural changes that have been put in place to guarantee a permanent Republican controlled house and likely the rest.
The House has been severely Gerrymandered so states (especially Florida, and Texas) elect 75-80% Republican congressmen with a 50-50% vote. with computer programs to identify both voter preference and likelihood of voting they can and do Gerrymander down to the household level.
"Safe" Democratic districts are won routinely by 85% and better because nearly every Republican vote is pushed into a Republican district. The remaining Democratic areas are sliced up into small enough pieces that the Republicans can still win unless caught up in such voter outrage as was this last case.
In two years if there are not changes, and there are no new Foleys found, the basic arithmetic will prevail and the Republicans will take back the house.
For the rest standard (and the new standard) tricks will slant the elections, voter suppression, magic Blackbox voting and the rest, could well bring us to the kind of government usually found in the Third World.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
I agree that in many districts, newly elected Dems
need to show something for their support. But I'm inclined to think that in conservative districts for instance, they just need to show they are looking out for their constituents interests and aren't the crazy heathen Dems Republicans try to paint them as.
Even Pelosi won't be a bomb thrower. But holding hearings on past mistakes is a good idea and making this Administration accountable to ALL americans will only be seen as good.
Here's some perspective.
Here's todays post from Media Matters
reviewing the claims & counterclaims.
Here's todays link from Little Green Footballs going over the same story.
Notice who isn't telling the truth and notice further the comments as to which group is completely unhinged.
I'm not against the right. I probably don't agree with the right a whole lot, but they certainly have a right to say what they say. My difficulty here is that some individuals knowingly say things that are false. Both sides do it. But it would seem that some of the right out there, particularly likes to play the feeble. Does that get them more dates?