|
||
See Me, Feel Me, Touch Me, Smear Me
"Elitism": the new "Liberal".
Which was the new "Card Carrying Member of the ACLU".
Which was the new "Pinko". Which was the new "Jew-boy". And each manifestation, each new framing of radical right wing conservative expressions of disdain was and continues to be extrapolated from one source: fear. Fear of losing profit, losing identity, losing hegemony, losing power.
And just plain losing.
Some people are desperate to identify what vexes them so they frame it in ways they can wholly accept even if not consciously choosing to entirely understand. The idea of thoroughly analyzing the object of their wrath, let alone admitting their own foibles and vulnerabilities is anathema, tantamount to weakness. After all, their analyses might result in exoneration. And that would leave these people feeling as though they lacked purpose. We smear, we're here, so get used to it.
It's always been a tactic for a bully to assume the characteristics (however unbelievably) of the bullied. In this past election year rather than dwell for too long in the area of intellectual exchange and civil debate, the bully inherent in the American persona could stand it no more, shoved all the pantywaists aside and assumed its dominance over the scene by accusing the remaining participants of things any normal person would find repugnant. Elitists. Appeasers. The real problem is that the bullies are our brothers, our sisters, our selves. They're no longer just the usual suspects.
Again, Republican strategists have a cynical but canny understanding of American nature, how susceptible it is, how easily (if one is patient) a subliminal suggestion can be planted, take root and then, when the time is right, be brought to unquestioning kinesis at the utterance of a choice word or piquant phrase. Evil, brilliant and effective, it has recently been co-opted by the traditional victims of this very maneuver except with a result that brings a smile to every intelligent right wing designer's oily lips.
Being a bully means never having to say you're sorry.
They simply can't. It ain't in 'em. But in anyone else's hands, bullying is toxic and the user can't handle the concentrated amount as it seeps through the skin and into the bloodstream, eventually breaking down the ersatz bully's intention and causing chaos under their roof.
It would be disingenuous to say after so much vitriol "Come on now, all's fair in love and war. Let's be friends!". But would it be sensible to scuttle years of righteous anger at the politics of division and the opportunity to right the fatal wrongs of the Bush Dark Age? Could it be that in some way the self abasing sniping between the Obama and the Clinton camps in fact plays perfectly into the soulless game plan of the bullies and their unrivaled genius for manipulating the behavior of the average American? Have years of frustration given way to the same desperate need to frame what vexes us in ways that we can accept but not dare to fully understand? Are we...them?
Elitists of the world unite! You've nothing to lose but your lattes!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The3 neocons, like any bullies, cry like little girls when they are challenged. the manifestation of that is when they start accusing their opponents of the most bizzare things in their Orwellian doublespeak.
Oops... scratch that 3... my fingers must be getting bigger!
We'll never run out of bullies to be sure. But, the one thing that will always true of bullies is that people always get sick of them and eventually turn on them. Why do you think the Republicans are doing so poorly in the polls this year and stand to lose so many seats in Congress and the Senate?
Soft on terrorism does sound very much like soft on communism, a favorite Republican smear tactic for decades. The Republicans always find a bogeyman to scare people into voting against their own best interests.
Steven -- I've been perusing your posts for a while now, and must say you're finally getting your tendency to over-write under control. This one in particular shows that you've made some real progress in making the salient points resonate while using language to better effect and showcasing a combination of bile, perception and wit without stepping over the line into pedantry. I've recognized the particular sort of op-ed style you seem to be aiming for, but have been longing for you to get your "curve" over the plate. Good show!
As for FirstShirt, how certain are you that what we've got here is just another McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry type of scenario? Just an egocentric American with an exceptionalist mindset perhaps? Funny how Carter actually stated he wanted a government as idealistic and decent as the American people themselves. Could be we only got what we had coming to us in 2000, eh? Walt Kelly is pirouetting in his grave to have his embellishment of Oliver Hazard Perry's coinage put to such a high egalitarian purpose as reminding one and all just what kind of person it is who is so open-minded as to engage in self-loathing and "hating America."
Interesting points. One thing I have found interesting is that the news media in the US is largely controlled and shaped by big corporations and they all seem to say similar things. Because of that, I sometimes go to foreign newspapers just to see what they are saying.
I just recently read an article form a European newspaper that is estimating that the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is already costing the Democrats a 20% loss in votes vs John McCain.
They mean both candidates, not just one or the other. I have yet to see anything comparable in media here.
Bottom line - you could be dead on the money about this playing into the hands of the bullies.
I appreciate Steven Weber as an actor. I'm amused that the HuffPost only requires its bloggers to have and maintain some element of celebrity to qualify.
While I can appreciate the emotion and intention behind Weber's post, he continues to communicate with cliches and an emotionally reactive point of view. A good healthy argument doesn't have to hurt but those who're easily hurt have a tendency to go into 'cover their heads' mode at the slightest hint of anger or disturbance.
As far as I'm concerned, the best way to deal with a bully is to turn the tables and face him down. And if necessary, go at them hard. They usually crumble. On an extreme level, rapists and bashers should simply be thrown off a very high bridge. In Politics, if the tussle exposes viewpoints and helps illuminate issues more clearly, great; clean your wounds and move on.
Everybody says the same thing. Bush and Chney and their cohorts were traitors to the core. They stole an election and raped the treasury. They leave with their spoils just as any con men would do.
Cheney has always been an opportunist and Bush, a rich mans spoiled son with history of cheating and quitting when it suited him. We say these things in many books and columns and countless documentaries. They failed the Saudis plans and we are over the preverbal barrel.because of it.
"The real problem is that the bullies are our brothers, our sisters, our selves. They're no longer just the usual suspects. "
This is classic Jimmy Carter self analysis. Something akin to "we met the enemy and he is us". Much self loathing and anti country rhetoric. And alot of analysis of "feelings". Great stuff. You leave with a warm feeling and a simmering hatred of all things american.
With any luck, and an assumtion that the democrats won't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, we will have not only a democratic president but also a democratic Congress. Last time that happened after two years the repubs took both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. After 4 years of Jimmy Carter telling us how bad we were, Reagan took everthing but Jimmy's own state.
de ja vu
Dear Steven,
Count me in with the other commenters that enjoy your thought provoking work and efforts, another fine essay, which lead to many excellent comments also. Agape.
I love Steven Weber. That was a slam dunk piece on just how wacky politics is.
This one gets me where I live Weber. Bullies are all pussies. From the wife beater bus driver to the CEO of the multinational. If you cannot be in the presence of another human being without trying to control them, then you are missing a key ingredient to your humanity, self confidence.
I know the face of fear. It is of a person whose presumption of dominance has just been thrust aside by effective confrontation. There is that instant of utter desperation before the ego reels in a defensive dissonance, from bully to victim in a blink. And it is the victim that is their true self, camouflaged and practiced in the bathroom mirror every day. I love to break that practiced countenance down. Not because I want control, but because I refuse to control or be controlled. And the merchant of fear, with his edifice left unchecked, can create a maelstrom of delusion that can suck down a super power.
Elitist: What insecure under-achievers call people who have more stuff than they do.
"Come on now, all's fair in love and war. Let's be friends!".
This statement is an example of the Rationalization manipulation tactic. “A rationalization is the excuse an aggressor tries to offer for engaging in an inappropriate or harmful behavior. It can be an effective tactic, especially when the explanation or justification the aggressor offers makes just enough sense that any reasonably conscientious person is likely to fall for it. It's a powerful tactic because it not only serves to remove any internal resistance the aggressor might have about doing what they want to do (quieting any qualms of conscience they might have) but also to keep others off their back." -- Dr. Simon
“Could it be sniping between camps plays into the plan of the bullies? Are we them?”
Regardless of what benefits the bullies, we must hold ourselves accountable for our own behavior. We can't control them, but we can control ourselves. One's willingness to manipulate correlates directly to the health of one's own conscience. Persons with little to no conscience (i.e. sociopaths) may happily embrace this dark side. Persons with a healthy conscience would have difficulty allowing themselves to becomes what they hate.
My point is those with unhealthy consciences lack the capacity to make a conscious choice about this question and will instead keep doing what is in their nature, be they Democrat or Republican.
http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2008/3/8/103948/4418/Diary/Fighting-Effectively-Against-Dirty-Rovian-Tactics
"...to become what they hate."
- Tom
STEVEN:
The politics of "fear of losing profit, losing identity, losing hegemony, losing power," and the trump card of fear “terrorism” are all divisive tactics that undermine the fabric of our society.
The amount of time, energy and resources spent on the politics of fear and divisiveness allows other countries to "eat our breakfast, lunch and dinner."
So much is lost in maintaining the cultural/race/gender divides that our educational system suffers - i.e. the affirmative action wars and special tax districts for schools.
Religious arguments on Choice or anti-choice, birth control and sex education, stem cell research - keeps us from addressing substantive health care concerns and medical research.
Green-lining and red-lining of communities allow minorities and the poor of all races to bare the burden of hazard waste siting and those impacts on their quality of life increasing their morbidity rates.
Republicans skillfully played the environmentalist against the rest of America 28 years ago.
The Reagan/republican divisiveness put a halt to America's innovations in addressing our dependency on petroleum and coal and now 28 years later America is behind on the development of green-technologies as oil approaches $130 a barrel and Americans are paying the price with the loss of life in Iraq and an economy in turmoil.
The divisiveness of fear does not serve America well; regrettably there are many who will allow bigotry and fear tactics to prevail, as a result Obama will ot win in November.
Having trouble deciding who you wanta be when you grow-up? Either, an Owellian (double talk) or a Aristotelian (using sophistry) ?
Either way, you are a part of the problem, shame on you!
I believe both major political parties engage in their share of name calling and labeling, Steven, throwing as many digs as possible against opponents in the hope that something, ANYTHING, might stick. It's usually supporters doing the dirty work, allowing the candidate themselves to remain above the mudslinging fray, although that seems to have changed lately.
There's been plenty of 'anti-intellectual' labeling directed at the preznutz, which sometimes even characterizes him as downright dumb, even though with daddy's help he did attend an Ivy League college himself. Somehow, he's also managed to publicly dumb himself down several rungs without a great deal of opposition help, such as even after being informed there's NO word NOOK-U-LAR, and it's an incorrect pronunciation, he just 'decidered' the rest of the world was saying it wrong and refused trying to improve. I laughed like crazy when his veepy dick then used that pronunciation for quite awhile to seemingly provide duhbya with 'stupidity cover'.
I have to admit, I DO find it a little bizarre that when it comes to electing a national leader there's a large number of voters actually proud of selecting someone they'd rather have a beer with, instead of someone they KNOW is smarter than them, and it's mostly the fault of a main stream media with sycophant's disease. A better example of shooting your self-interest in the foot, than electing someone to run OUR country - because they're NOT 'intellectual', would be difficult to find.
Good points. The problem has always been less one of intellect and more one of insight. As Skinner once said, insight never changed behavior.
As always, I love the depth of thought and expression that Steven puts into his comments. He is one of the most insightful and provocative writers on HuffPo, and his perspective is always "spot on". He asks the questions we should all be asking.
Which makes the comment "Elitists of the world unite! You've nothing to lose but your lattes!" all the more difficult to digest.
I am sure it was meant to be "witty", but it really is an oversimplification of the issue at hand.
Those Americans who could currently fit the description of "elitists" are plentiful. They wouldn't describe themselves as such, but careful inquiry into their "life choices" will confirm the perception.
They purchase large, gas consuming vehicles.
They purchase the "latest technology" whether they need it or not.
They purchase bigger and newer homes whether they need all that square footage or not.
They send their kids to the best schools, whether these schools offer a superior education or not (or they "home school" if they can't find a school that is teaching what they see as the "right" kind of education.
They are caught in the never ending race for a better life, and likely will go to the grave believing that all the "material goods" they procured, means they won.
They have more to lose than their lattes!
They are protecting their entire way of life!
Steven asks: "Are we...Them?"
I think the answer is obvious.
But most of us aren't that. And the ones being called elitists in my experience only have one characteristic that makes the self-obsessed among the religious denigrate them: a desire to learn. For wanting an advanced education, for trying to see other points of view, for talking instead of fighting, for refusing to make a show of patriotism just because we believe having sacrificed in the military or the volunteer services or elsewhere is more meaningful, we are equated with the top 1% when we're closer to the middle 30 (and often far, far below it).
"Them"? Those are the people who fear so much that they have to make the us-them delineation, that they make us ignore their own success and undeserved money because we can be more easily made to hate those they term as elitists even though "those" ARE us.
"Which makes the comment "Elitists of the world unite! You've nothing to lose but your lattes!" all the more difficult to digest.
I am sure it was meant to be "witty", but it really is an oversimplification of the issue at hand."
SirReal1,
It was meant as sarcasm to highlight the point of his post that bullies 'oversimplify' others to smear them and control the conversation. They boil a whole person down to a talking point, they stereotype them then proceed to whip up anger against the stereotype. At least that's what I got from it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
