|
Edited on Thu Oct-25-07 05:43 AM by calimary
may not produce the desired results. We certainly don't have any proof that it would.
But that's just the point. We DON'T have any proof that it would make any difference because it's hardly been tried. All we DO have is a consistent track record of one kind of response that has clearly produced many different varieties of HUGELY unsatisfactory results. Six-and-some long, miserable YEARS of these sucky results.
We've done the collegial thing again and again and again. Cave, compromise, cut slack, waffle, and - ultimately - give in to bush and the republi-CONS yet again. And again. And again.
It is no wonder that the Democrats are widely viewed as not having any spine. That's exactly why I think a much more hard-ass approach is worth trying. bush himself campaigned compellingly enough in 2004 with such phrases as "you may not agree with me, but you know where I stand." This conveniently contrasted - rather glaringly - with the nuanced, more complicated (and harder for simpler, more gullible, and favorably-predisposed minds to wrap around) "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." All that did, no matter how legitimate and circumspect the argument on our side, was read "waffle." "Uncertainty." "Flip-flop." "Wishy-washy." "The Democrats don't stand for anything." "No spine." In fact, closer to last November, there were even some republi-CONS and pundits who flat-out said "well, if you really wanted to end the war, you'd stop the funding for it." Boom. Period. That's that. End of sentence.
Risky? Yes. But sometimes you have to take great risks. Sometimes you have to tilt at the windmill. Sometimes you have to go for broke, just to make one stand.
Furthermore, I think if the Dems changed battle tactics and went all out, it might start changing public perception of their purported spinelessness. It would show they had some fire in the belly. People seem to like that. People seem to like the underdog who goes all out. What was a more heroic image than that, used in some avatars here, of the single little Chinese guy standing in the road blocking a row of huge and rather fearsome-looking armored tanks? Gestures, maybe. But gestures contribute to public perception, and the modification, manipulation, and management thereof. That's HUGELY important.
It's seemed, for a long time, to me, as though the Democrats exhibit a great deal of battered-spouse syndrome. I've read other explorations of that same observation, also. The view is - our side is the meek, submissive, battered wife - the battered "mommy party" wife - to the domineering, aggressive, stern-father, all-powerful "daddy party" husband: the GOP machine. Their way is not "tough love." It's frickin' ABUSE. It's battery! And we get kicked in the teeth over and over and over. Never any kicking back. The GOP didn't have invincible majorities, either, while they ran things. But they bullied and swaggered enough to be intimidating and to make it stick. My question simply is - why can't we not just push but SHOVE back? Give 'em a taste of their own medicine? See how they like it? They're basically bullies. Why else would they have such a geo-political power complex? And bullies don't stop unless somebody MAKES them stop, by shoving it back in their faces. At least, by challenging, blockading, outmaneuvering. Why must we always be the maneuver-ee?
Ballsy is as ballsy does. It seems to me that if our Dems had consistently stood as solid as this time with SCHIP and made more noise about it, said more noticeable things like Pete Stark did (which attracts public and press interest). When more people start speaking out, that strengthens the resolve of those who agree, and encourages some of them to dare speaking out themselves. As that movement gathers momentum, the more you hear from more quarters, the more general public perception receives encouragement and reinforcement to change. Pete Stark spoke up. There was a huge explosive fart of indignation and he backed down. But then, John Garamendi spoke out, thank goodness. linbaugh accused Iraq war veterans who dared to criticize the war and pro-war policymakers as "phony soldiers" and a 12-year-old accident victim are given the scorched-earth treatment complete with death threats - and where was the angry roar in Congress? I know they can do it because they DID roar and shout down that nauseating "mean jean" schmidt when she had the nerve to question John Murtha's patriotism. John McCain didn't erupt like a volcano over what the bush/rove machinery did to him in 2000 in South Carolina - slandering his adopted daughter. Why the hell not? Patrick Leahy should have hung EVERYTHING up in the Senate Judiciary Committee unless he got ALL the paperwork he asked for from the White House. Yet he backed off of that after awhile, finding a way to give bush, again, what he wanted. I've watched panel discussion after panel discussion with two opposing sides (yes, it does seem as though more Democrats are getting face time on TV) where the republi-CON apologist is allowed to spew a number of falsehoods and distortions of fact - and none of it is verbally checked. As it should be. OUT LOUD. No more letting the bad guys have the last word, and say whatever the hell they want without having their deceptions busted. That's. Simply. Got. To. Stop.
We HAVE to keep speaking out, not allowing ourselves to be shouted down, not possible to ignore or downplay. We HAVE to keep at it. It has to become far more commonplace. We have to play harder. It's the only way to show and tell that we ARE hard. It's like dressing the part. Acting as if. The perception becomes the reality. People's resistance tends to wear down after awhile. I think if we stayed forceful and stopped bending and backing down, we might actually turn a little of the intimidation in the opposite direction for a change, and compell more republi-CONS to bend OUR way. They gravitate toward perceived strength, balls, if you will, like moths to open flame. Like maybe five to ten times the pressure of one of those TV MoveOn.org ads that target individual races. TONS of those, not just a few. And hard-hitting language that grabs attention and churns up public debate. The momentum would be moving our way.
Sometimes people who feel inferior or inadequate or insecure are drawn to the perception of "having balls," rattling cages, making a stink, imposing one's will. They're drawn to it. They're drawn to anybody perceived as having those qualities. Makes 'em feel better, like they're more in command and not impotent. bush's swagger and arrogance and his whole "lone cowboy gunslinger who's gonna git 'em, dead-r-alive" schtick feeds that, perfectly. And presto - enough of the public is hooked. Had - at the end of a fork. Because nobody else out there is attracting attention for speaking out and hitting hard - like Pete Stark, unfortunately only for a moment. The message has to be reinforced - THIS way is BAD! ENOUGH OF THIS! It MUST STOP NOW!
CRIMINY! It's late and I am SO rambling. But I'm glad we're talking about this. It's VERY GRAVE stuff. We need to look at it carefully, from many sides. I certainly need to for my own conclusion-drawing and view-finding. Somebody has to. Lord knows we're probably putting more thinking and deliberating time into these issues than some of "the president's finest." You know - all those swell people who plan these things out so carefully and thoroughly, and realistically? :sarcasm: We can't continue to let these people fuck things up!!! It's Just. Not. Acceptable. Especially when Americans and others are needlessly dying.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
