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!

Comments

[BadChristian]

Bullies... Seems to fall short.

"Parsons was Winston's fellow employee at the Ministry of Truth. He was a fattish but active man of paralyzing stupidity, a mass of imbecile enthusiasms—one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the thought police, the stability of the Party depended."
--1984
“All animals are equal but some are more equal than others”
--Animal Farm

George Washington seemed to think liberals were alright.
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality­."

Squealer the pig owns the podium, and elite is the worst of the worst. Liberalism is the shame of the Democratic Party, while the moderates of the party are it's pride for assisting Squealer in attacking and/or hiding under the bed when liberalism dares to rear it's head.

You start to wonder... What COULD unite the Democratic Party?

[egal]

Its members. The same things that could make the GOP honest or racists moderate or liberals liberal or conservatives conservative. But we'd rather blame today's scapegoat than take action to change ourselves complain about the "party", the issues, or "them" than recognize our own complicity and the impossibility of overcoming that without becoming something better.

[111]

The Democrats will unite when liberal is no longer a dirty word among their ranks, when the DLC stops throwing the word elitist around to label fellow democrats that disagree with them, when single payer health care and other social programs are no longer rejected by the DLC as being too far left. Bring back the Democratic party's ideals and philosophies, leave the right wing DLC behind - then we can progress and heal.

[Dap]

Without question.

[anon004]

Of the three remaining candidates, Obama has the least money and came from the poorest background. So, the "elitism" he has been charged with obviously doesn't mean ecomonic elitism. What kind of eltism? It can only be because he is well educated and intelligent. Anti-intel­lectualism has been part of our republic since Andrew Jackson, and it seems to have become worse in the past few years. What are people thinking when they vote for someone for president based on the fact that they'd like to have a beer with him or her? It's like refusing to hire a plumber, no matter how qualified, unless he or she has a PhD in art history!

[egal]

They're NOT thinking.

That's the point. If it can be turned into an emotional issue, a matter of the appeal of certain terms or the gut feeling that an ordinary person without any special traits or capability can better understand us and meet our needs than those actually qualified and capable to do so, then those whose platforms are asinine, whose strengths are nonexistent, whose representatives are incompetent, whose organizers are corrupt, can avoid attention falling on those failures through our emotional reactions against the other guys.

So a lot of people buy into the fallacy of "ordinary guy" (yes, "guy"--not woman, not negro, not immigrant, et cetera) leadership being a good thing because the ordinary guy knows what they need. Fortunately, some of us recognize when we would be voting against our own interests, or at least when the same-old has utterly failed; and some even vote based on issues, results, policies, rather than getting wholly sucked into the emotional appeal (or dislike) of a party, person, platform, or set of issues that won't help us in any way.

But until we get a widespread change in the core of our education system and our media information (the latter of which is gradually happening regardless of who doesn't want it), a lot of peple will still fall for the tricks and vote based on their visceral reaction rather than based on what truly matters--how good a leader will be.

[LouisPWu]

Anyone who isn't willing to go with the pig-faced bullies of the NeoConservative Movement doesn't deserve to be a progressive. Let's get the fight started and let's leave the gloves outside the ropes.

[FirstShirt]

Typical liberal. Comes to a bat fight with his gloves off and no bat.

[indypete]

No... typical liberal... wants to fight clean and fair.

[kellygrrrl]

The NeoCon Agenda of Projecting their defects onto others
and hijacking and perverting and corrupting all that was once good
has become so tiresome and boring and predictable

[FirstShirt]

You are right. the republicans have accepted that their agenda was coopted by neocons. Hope you liberals as blessed.

[Gma11]

Good call!

[Igglesbee]

If you really want to understand what makes the neocons tick, read the book: "Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men" by Lundy Bancroft.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&tag=youarenotcraz-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&path=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F0425191656%2Fqid%3D1137460601%2Fsr%3D2-1%2Fref%3Dpd_bbs_b_2_1%3Fs%3Dbooks%26v%3Dglance%26n%3D283155

It's a book about domestic abusers, but, without a doubt, these ARE the tactics used by the Republicans. Ask anyone who works in combating domestic violence, it's clear that the Bush administration is an abusive husband and the whole country is their confused, isolated, and scared wife.

[Dap]

Excellent analogy, agreed.

[charon]

Calling Obama "elitist" is so obviously false it would be hilarious were there not a threat that some Americans are so gullible that they might buy it. Bush, from one of the wealthiest families in the world is elitist. Cheney, former CEO of multi-billion $ corporation Halliburton. is an elitist. Obama is far less elitist than either of them. But he is fairly smart, well-spoken. "Elitist" may be a code-word for "egghead," the old Republican smear against Stevenson. Smear has been the Republican stock-in-trade since the demise of the progressive wing of the Republican party.

[kellygrrrl]

exactly!
a bi-racial son of a single teen mom is "Elitist"
I'd laugh if I weren't already crying.

and since when did "Intellectualism" become a dirty word?

[MDTERP]

Since when did "intellectualism" become a dirty word...sin­ce Stalin, Hitler, Khmer Rouge, they come for the thinking people first.

[indypete]

Intellectuals are dangerous to the real elitists, unlike schmucks like me, they can see through every trick that's thrown at them. Me, I need some time to figure it out.

[davidpeace]

"Cheney, former CEO of multi-billion $ corporation Halliburto­n."

Former? Isn't he still being paid by them? He's just on sabbatical.

[Igglesbee]

Former CEO, but current major stock-option holder receiving "deferred" paychecks.

According to WikiPedia:
Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $34 million.[2­6] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.­[27] Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburto­n...