One absolutely fascinating element of political psychology is liberals are absolutely convinced that over the years Republican Party politicians have demonstrated more skill at the black arts of spin and PR and conservative have the exact same beliefs about Democrats.
« A Simple Question | Main | My Mistake »
The Flinchers
08 Mar 2008 12:02 pm
Comments (10)
Matthew, umm, that text just doesn't say what you say it does. What is says is that conservative politicians are wimps:
"That’s a character weakness on the part of Senator “A.” We don’t need a new “meta-theory” about how Americans, including conservatives, now want the government to do more to help them, in order to explain a personal character weakness."
That's a far cry from saying, for instance, that Bill Clinton is the Luntz of liberalism....
Hello? Politics is spin. Creating Manichean camps of liberal vs. conservative is spin. It's the theater, the drama, the "ratings," the demonization, the deification, always has been, see ancient Roman political graffitti. Most of the political blogosphere is spin, though I remember there was one blogger who used to brag about being "reality-based."
sd's explanation is sound. I also prefer mine:
"The sad fact remains that our leadership in the GOP is very good at flinching in the face of leftist jabs."
That there would be an example of the "black arts of spin and PR." Pretending that conservatives are helpless in the face of liberal rhetoric shows the superiority of conservative rhetoric, which includes the pretense of helplessness.
Well, to some extent, both these claims are true.
As Matt has himself pointed out on several occasions, over the last few decades there's been a gigantic shift in the American national consensus in the direction of "social liberalism" as well as an equally gigantic shift in the direction of "economic conservatism". Just compare the 1950s to the 2000s.
So conservatives look at the issues they've been losing on, and call their guys wimps and losers, while liberals look at their own losses, and say much the same thing.
The political ideology landscape just isn't a one-dimensional space...
No, I don't think it's that either, RKU. The guy writing in to NRO asserted that conservatism is dominant in American ideology because "the all hate government" or whatnot. He didn't provide proof, and mistakes Americans' dislike of self-identification as liberals for a dislike of progressive policies.
And, for that matter, his bit about personal attacks was laughably naive, since he pretended that all conservatives are honest and forthright and that all attacks on them are the work of dishonest "leninists".
Honestly, Matthew, it strikes me as one of those "perception vs. reality" things. Even if both sides claim the same actions of the other, the truth is not in the middle. There really is a Frank Luntz, and Republicans really are notorious for being ridiculously paranoid even when they're winning. False equivalencies aren't "a fascinating aspect of political psychology", except in those who construct them.
Part of this comes from different standards.
If, for example, a newspaper is unwilling to condemn homosexuals 24/7 and 100% of the time, plenty of people consider that sufficient to be "liberal".
If a college campus has a humanities department with a tiny budget dominated by liberals but a business school with hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate donations and a thoroughly conservative professoriat, those humanities liberals are enough to render the entire university a seditious hotbed of radical outrage.
Frum's correspondent: The sad fact remains that our leadership in the GOP is very good at flinching in the face of leftist jabs. They go something like this: Senator “A” is a bigot, and a meanspirited reactionary for opposing my bill. He wants to see seniors eating dog food and children dying of malnutrition, and ten million homeless people living under bridges.”
Hey, his theoretical leftist jab sounds exactly like a Matthew Yglesias post! After all, we know that Matthew is prone to calling people racists at the drop of a hat. And Matthew also likes to impute hateful intentions on the part of his opponents. So I'd say the correspondent is pretty accurate.
Don't forget Al, that if you oppose expanding a welfare program into the upper middle class, paid for by cigarette taxes on the poor, then that means you desire to see the deaths of millions of children in a great Republican-orchestrated holocaust.
What unexamined people accuse you of doing is always exactly what they are doing.
So, yes, of course Rethugs will relentlessly accuse Dems of lying, spin, and media control.
Comments closed March 22, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
This isn't that interesting at all. Most people believe in democracy. Basic faith in the civic enterprise is instilled in the young and is remarkably stable over time.
But if you fundamentally believe in democracy you have to do some mental gymnastics when the "other guys" win elections. After all, how can democracy be good when it produces such clearly wrong results? How can the will of the people be trusted when they so often choose poorly? And both sides face this quandry a lot - America being divded roughly 50/50 across the partisan divide over long stretches of time.
The easiest way to resolve this paradox is to convince yourself that the other side is not playing fair. That surely the people would recognize the wisdom of liberalism/conservatism if it weren't for the evil machinations of the conservatives/liberals.
Its a lot easier to believe this than it is to believe that you are wrong. And its a lot more satisfying to believe this than to believe that while democrarcy may be grand, its grand in a "correct 51% of the time" kind of way that makes it better than all the alternatives, but still wrong 49% of the time.
Posted by sd | March 8, 2008 12:20 PM