Disrupting Democracy

In his youth my father was a Socialist. Toward the end of his life he did an oral history in which he told this story, set during the Great Depression.

He was setting up the chairs for a Socialist meeting. The Communists (sworn enemies of the Socialists) turned up and proceeded to throw the chairs around and be otherwise disruptive. My father, though never a violent man, finally got fed up and threw a chair or two back. At that moment, naturally, the police showed up and hauled him off to jail. (The Commies got away scot-free.)

I was thinking of this story watching news reports of the latest Republican Conservative rhetorical move: disrupting town hall meetings on health care reform by shouting speakers and other audience members down, making it impossible to have a discussion on the topic or to share information about it. It occurred to me as well that that was far from the only non-cooperative form of discourse conservative speakers and writers have been honing for some time now -- just the natural culmination of their project.

Why do they do it -- not occasionally, but as a preferred strategy? I would suggest that abolishing rational discussion is the refuge of two kinds of politicians: those who have nothing of their own to contribute, and those who have contempt for democracy and its practices: totalitarians, actual and wannabe.

The false syllogism is one way to evade the facts. For instance: Major premise: Any form of health care reform means a total government takeover -- "socialism. "Minor premise: The full name of the Nazis was the National Socialist Party. Conclusion: Barack Obama is a Nazi. QED.

Another tactic is simply shouting louder and longer than everyone else. This is their tactic for disrupting discussion in town meetings. (If you want to see the same game as played in a non-town hall setting, watch Elisabeth Hasselbeck on The View -- she has mastered the art.) A sub-version of this subversion is exaggeration - making claims about an opposing position that go far beyond what the proponents of the position say. Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists." You can yell by raising your voice a hundred decibels; you can also yell by exaggeration. Both quash rational exposition of a position.

Closely allied to yelling is the Big Lie. Big Lies worked for Joseph Goebbels and his boss; they work for Rush Limbaugh too. Sonia Sotomayor is a "racist" because she suggests that women of color may see the world through a different prism than white men; Barack Obama is not a native-born citizen, despite public postings of his birth certificate.

All of these can be subsumed under a thuggish logical fallacy, the argumentum ad baculum, "argument by the club." If I swing my bat hard enough, you won't want to mess with me, and I will win. I don't need to have any rationality behind my behavior - just brute force.

Another favorite is the argumentum ad verecundiam, "argument based on shame." This is accomplished by setting up your opponents or their position as contemptible, so that a hearer would be embarrassed to take their side. Women use "empathy" instead of fully human masculine "logic." To oppose the war, or demand justice for torturers, is "treason." Who wants to be a Benedict Arnold?

The Founders, in particular Thomas Jefferson, were aware that, to make the fledgling republic successful, the populace had to be educated, to give them the tools to differentiate between rational forms of argumentation and antidemocratic logical fallacies and other illegitimate means of persuasion. But setting up an educational system is not enough -- especially when "education" is more and more apt to be defined by the ability to pass a cut-and-dried multiple-choice test. (Odd - conservatives favor these too.) We have to become able to distinguish a real argument from a fallacious one.

Finally, one may ask: why do they do it? Why risk identification as an anti-American, a totalitarian wannabe, yes, a traitor - if there exist legitimate and reasonable arguments that can be made for a conservative position? It just wouldn't make sense.

Hmm. Maybe that's it. The Republican Conservatives have constituted themselves as the NO Party -- no ideas, no program. NO is the cry of the Terrible Twos, who want power but don't yet have the linguistic ability to achieve it through persuasive discourse. The Conservative Republican strategy -- stop them from talking or from being heard because we have nothing of value to contribute -- is at best the strategy of the fractious child, at worst the weapon of the club-wielding troglodyte. In any case it is a throwback to immaturity, of either the individual or the species.

Liberals have devised ways to help the economically impoverished. Now we have to figure out what to do about the discursively impoverished. Give them food stamps. Enroll them in Medicaid. Just don't let them take part in any important discussions.

Comments

[sociocanuck]

You mention, but forgot to name, the Reductio ad Hitlerum.

This is strangely inevitable in modern American political discourse; somehow from both sides of the issue. And the more they do it, the further the sides push themselves apart, at the detriment of their common goals (and even compatible ideas, in more than a few otherwise noticeable cases).

[standard]

"The[ir] full name . . . was the National Socialist Party. "

As I've long said, to believe that National Socialists were therefore socialists is like believing that root beer is beer, New England is England, or Christian Science is science.

"The [current] Conservative Republican strategy . . . is at best the strategy of the fractious child, at worst the weapon of the club-wielding troglodyte."

True--and society can't safely bestow on fractious adults the same privileges it normally accords to fractious children.

Also: To be fair to traditional Republicans (who are usually quite civil and differ from mainstream Democrats chiefly on fiscal policy), we need a new term that describes only the current Republican leadership and their angry followers. What I've coined, in consequence, is "troglocrats", meaning "those who favor government by the least discerning or least mentally acute". As it refers only to what certain people want--not who they are--it's purely descriptive, not pejorative. While "troglocrats" may never catch on, it is just three syllables long and lacks the baggage that so many less-focused terms now in use carry.)

[nooel]

Whats the name for doing the same thing you are arguing against?

[standard]

Isn't that called "nooelism"? ;-)

[nooel]

lol i like it! :)

[nooel]

read up

[kathy001]

I tried, I really did, to read the comments that you obviously put so much effort into. But the babble simply made my head swim. I suggest you crack those book and crack 'em hard. You've still got a lot to learn.

[nooel]

I'm a college student at UW-Madison, so I've seen a couple of professors who are loyal to something other than the truth. You try not to question a prof like this, as you must adhere to the idea of "what makes you think you know any better then them," but you at least notice them. In this case, as a guy who claims to be mostly libertarian (and therefore anti-both parties), I can see the situation without emotion. And if I were a college prof, I would think before I put my credibility on the line with a piece like this.

[nooel]

I'm just so surprised that a prof would be so intellectually dishonest. This Dem rant is purely emotional, and even the White House made one of its biggest follies in going along with it. Essentially the argument is that the protesters are either too dumb to be able to protest or not even "real" protesters. Its so offensive unless you're in the bubble that ascribes to it. Its the same thing that made independents like me go "Whoa!" when Palin brought up "real Americans" during the campaign.

And think about this for a second. Most of the protesters actually are against a stimulus-style politicized health care reform. And if you're sitting on the sidelines with those beliefs, and you hear these people called "racists," "idiots," or "fakes," it will stir you up more. All the Dems are doing is firing up the group more? Its going to be a positive feedback system if the Dems keep ratcheting things up? As salesman, they need to be selling the sizzle, not the steak, but they're selling the trash scraps in the garbage. They need to be focused as a laser on what the plans offer, not distracting (as the protesters want). But again, like I said, its an emotional thing (as most downfalls usually are), hubris.

[nooel]

This emotion has caused the Dems to come off like a Sarah Palin speech--- incoherent and angry. When you see racism pulled out of the grab bag of Dem lines, all you can say is "really?" Its like the South Park episode talking about how Family Guy comes up with jokes (with the manatees).

Lastly, to call this "Astroturf" is to call almost everything "grass roots" in nature "Astroturf." I mean if you look at Organizing for America, that's supported by a whole host of campaign donations (from the public funded rule lifted campaign) that includes banks and, I guess not coincidentally, UC-Berkeley. Obama called his campaign grassroots? Is moveon.org autonomous?

[nooel]

Wow, even a prof at Berkeley has hopped on the "oh no they didn't" bandwagon. I'm frankly baffled hearing it come from journalists but now a prof? Wow. Just amazes me. Both sides protest things?

I thought everyone with a great brain knew that there are extremes in everything, and the justification for this emotional outlash from Dems is basically finding the craziest nuts protesting and snapping a picture or taking a video. I've seen/heard "keep your government hands off my Medicare," a gazillion times on MSNBC but they don't quote the guy who's yelling, "it took you 6 months to pick out a dog, why are you jamming health care through in 3-4 weeks." For every crazy there are 9 non-crazies (thats a generous number allowing for a lot of crazies). If you watch the whole videos of these instead of the "highlights" (Sportscenter reference)/"quotes taken out of context" (as is seen on both political sides in the news) you'll see that, while angry, these people are booing comments that are coming from Dem congressmen who are horrible salesmen stumbling on Pelosi talking points.

I understand how the "oh no you didn't" feeling has arisen in Democrats, the king of the organized protest. Its hard getting beat at your own game.

[doriath22]

Well said. These "protesters" are playing the same role as Orwell's sheep in "Animal Farm". They are only a symtom, though, not the problem. It's the pigs that need to be stopped.

[ThanksMatt]

Robin, thank you for this excellent article. The only thing I don't agree with you is your conclusion in the end. For these people need to be engaged in meaningful discussions. But HOW to engage them there I don't know.

I follow the link from Meddling Monk below to get a better sense of the whole picture.

[catrst]

I live in an area where as a progressive I stick out like a sore thumb as soon as I present my case. I recently read about the "three feet rule" meaning you will listen to me if I am in a one on one conversation with you. I have struck up conversations everywhere I go. Sometimes it is in response to someone else's opening. Then they are surprised when I don't agree with them but they listen and are too polite to go on the attack. Other times I seque from something we are talking about and go where I want to go. It helps to be up on the issues and have as many verifiable points as possible. Also when they see a real live normal person who doesn't fit the "evil" label they have associated with progressives I hope it makes an impression. Most of the people I''m talking to just don't seem to mingle with anyone who has other opinions or listen to any other sources. For my environment this seems to be my best approach.

[MeddlingMonk]

Anyone not already familiar with it should read The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba. It makes the motivations and behavior of far-right individuals somewhat more understandable. It's a downloadable freebie.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[ThanksMatt]

Thank you for this comment and the link, MeddlingMonk!

[CTtransplant]

People, we can no longer afford to stand by and do nothing! The only way to get solid health care/health insurance reform is to continue to push for it - and not let up! To this end, I have set up a petition to have paid health care removed from our representatives in Congress until such time as they reform health care - to include a strong public option - for 'we the people' who they are supposed to represent.

If you agree with what I am doing - I am going to ask you to do what I have been
asking others to do...sign it, then spread the word to anyone and everyone you know!

I am but one person - and cannot make a difference on my own...but there is
strength in numbers and, if we work together, with assistance and determination, all things are
possible! Please do what you can to help us further the cause of health care with a strong public option! Thank you!

http://www.petitiononline.com/PubOp676/petition.html