I don't think a lot of people on DU get it.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

It's not about truth; it's not about what's right; it's not about vision; it's not about ideals. It is only, ONLY, about message. There are some on this board that I know who are either connected now or who have played the game in the past. Polling, especially in this administration, goes on 24/7. But the polling doesn't ask what's popular. It asks a simple question: here are my ends "x"; what are my means "y" of getting there.

I honestly believe this is the equation at the root of every conspiracy theory on this board (whether the theory is accurate or not). Truth DOES NOT matter. Intentions make no difference. Whether Bush is lyimg or not is onconsequential (and if we can catch him, we're damned lucky). It's message, and only message. So-called media bias is nothing other than the message that gets out that you disagree with. The message only gets out there because people want to hear it. What you call bias or corporate interests I simply call mass mimeticism. There are literally hundreds of stories out there that are either picked up or not. News organizations used to poll stories. Yes, they used to poll stories. I will say it again: they used to poll stories. With the advent of the internet, that's no longer needed. With the advent of Right Wing think tanks, that's no longer needed. There's already a buzz by 4:00 AM. There's already a story.

You can bang your head all you want. You can create complicated narratives all you want (many of which I think are "true"). But the fact remains quite simple: power lies not in truth, justice, or equality; it lies in the telling of the story. Whoever frames the the best story wins. It's not whoever wins the the facts of the story. It's who can frame it. Who has the most compelling narrative?

Here's why the republicans win every time: they frame every story, EVERY STORY, in a dichotomy (either this or that). You then have 3 1/2 minutes to construct an argument. That's it. Hell, it takes us (and by "us" I mean liberal-progressive-moderates) three minutes to explain why the dichotomy is a false dilemma (which, of course, it is). We need to have a litany of talking points in which we frame (or, in the case of our modern media, reframe) our talking points. There is one truth to the conservative mantra: they perceived that they were being wronged by the media and they got stronger. They understood the power of message over truth. They said "fuck it" to having their opponents framing any debate and constructed their own framework and repeated that framework until it stuck.

You can go down the liberal issuees that are historically the progressives' strongest: the right to choose and civil rights, for example. We have clear cut messages on these two. We cannot be shaken from our message. Why not? Because of "truth"? Do we not feel as strongly on other issues? Then why doesn't the nation come flocking to our side? Because of message. Because some piece of shit, monkey-fuck-wad can use "compassionate conservative," reformer with results" slogan and woo them over.

It's not truth, people. Truth, justice, and equality are on our side. It's message. It's not bias; it's how we frame our message. The media is easy to figure out. The repubs have a failed world-voew that unfortunately works well on T.V. (and this isn't some kind of bias either). We need to get off of our intellectual pedastals and our self-righteous high horse and fatten some lips (metaphorically, of course).

Of course, that's my opinion, I could be wrong. Heh, heh, heh (he's a mole; he supports Lieberman, he's 16 and doesn't know what's right; he's a freeper; he's a piece of shit drunk who's bored with translating Vulgate Latin on a Tuesday night). I report, you decide.

O.K., I admit, for that last one, if anyone, ANYONE, ever meets me in a cafe or a restaurant and asks, "You wouldn't happen to be grendlesuncle, would you?" I will buy you a piece of cheesecake or the pastry of your choice. Or, perhaps more fitting, you can kick me in the balls as hard as you like.

Enough.

[BeFree]

1. I got your message

It's Junk Politics.

We all know they lie to us. Let's not let them get away with it again.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

4. It's not junk politics.

It's poltics, pure and simple. You believe in your cause and you sell it. It's the selling of it that matters, not the cause. This is why WMD is a great issuse for us: we get to dig into the "selling of it." We get to sell the "selling of it." Better yet: we get to sell the "truth" of the way in which they sold the selling of it. Process is politics, and if you have any opportunity to show the process, you beat the mother fuckers into the ground. This is what we got. Now we have to frame it.

[gottaB]

76. American political culture

You understand where it's heart is. However there are countercultural movements to account for. The sell gets criticized from different vantages, showing variable degrees of sophistication. The critique of selling is more central to some countercultural movements than others, and there is probably some alignment with attitudes about the political economy: Do you percieve the "marketplace" of public discourse to be more like a free market, a regulated market, a monopolized market, a blackmarket, waiting in line for a handout-- or do you reject the metaphor altogether? Crony capitalism? Neo-Totaliarianism? Compulsory consumerism? Anarcho-Liberatarian Utopia? Your view on the system and your place in it will color your take on the sell of politics.

Is it any accident that DLCers are the great champions of this view of politics as sell? Without a doubt it was the dominant metaphor during the gogo 90's, but there are alternatives. Buy and hold, opt out, and popular revolt come to mind.

[LiberalLibra]

64. BeFree: It's not only the message but how the message is termed...

....neo cons have one or two word messages that stick in people's minds when repeated often enough. In other words liberals spend ten minutes explaining what neo cons say in three words. So people, the general public being the idiots they are, remember the three words.

If you don't believe me, try an experiment of your own right here at DU. Try to get just half of DU to agree on one message. Let's give DU members some leeway here and say the message has to be 8 words long or less and they have to repeat that message any time politics enters the conversation. It won't happen, not in this life time anyway.

That right there - the length of our message - is what is burying us. It isn't the message itself, it's been proven that the general masses will believe any dammed thing, it is the length of our message.

[BeFree]

74. Hey, hey, Liberal libra,

That's why I wrote: Junk Politics.

That's my message. Add to it: Junk Intelligence.

What we've been fed is a buncha Junk.

People don't like too much Junk. After reading the uncles post, I replied with that message. It's free, and sometimes you get what you pay for.

You are so right, rarely does DU ever come together on something. And usually our side's message is too polluted. But we are all pointing in the same direction....and that's cool. Peace

[JustJoe]

2. That's the point...

BushCo have lost control of the telling of the story.

[DEMActivist]

3. Sure we do....and...

if you'd simply stop and think for a moment you'd understand that the sent the goons out on Sunday to frame the message and tell the story they want told.....

There's only one problem now.....

Condi and Rummy were abject failures on Sunday.....

Sunday was their one shot to frame the message, to control the story....

and they failed.....

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

5. Go and read my posts

I have thought about it. The entirety of my posts is framing the message. The administration has failed, including what you note above. This nis why, the only reasoin why, the press has jumped all over it. They smell blood. And it's thick. The press loves the process so much that they forget to quetsion it rather than idolize the beauty with which it is delivered. But now they smell blood. The emperor is naked indeed.

[anamandujano]

29. They are entangled in a web of lies from which there is no escape

After awhile it catches up with you.

I respect the message of the original post but the press more creates the message than runs with it. How does the original poster feel about the so-called message of Jack Welch on election night forcing the anchors to call the election for Bush? He was making the message, not following.

Add in post #10

"Every bullet in a GI's brain is a little bit of truth that has NOTHING to do with the "message". That wasn't supposed to happen. When it does, the clowns who got us into this situation are exposed. Unless they have some magic formula for pacifying all Iraqis, there's going to be more and more "truth" at large in the world."

A bullet is both a simple message and a truth. You can't discount the truth but I agree it must be simplified and (to use an expression of a smirking chimpter, dbostrom I think), weaponized.

The press is saving up for another day. They are not on the side of truth, message or ratings. They are fully owned by evil people. Their message these days is working in service of the truth but time will tell why. Anxiously watching to see how it goes.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

33. You're still basing your analysis on truth versus lies.

I will respond point by point:

1)I respect the message of the original post but the press more creates the message than runs with it.
***The press does not "create" a message; it relays a message. True, it has the power to choose which message it relates or does not relate. But there has to be infrastructure to get that message out. This is where we get our asses kicked on a daily basis. The press is lazy. The tele-press gets faxes and memos and simply reports them as fact. They are simply a conduit, willing or not, for the prefabricated message.

2) How does the original poster feel about the so-called message of Jack Welch on election night forcing the anchors to call the election for Bush? He was making the message, not following.
***I'm not too confident in your sources about Jack Welch. But let's say it is true. He's not making the message. Do you not think Bish operatives weren't frantically making the calls to the networks (as were the Gore people)? How about pollsters at the voting booths themselves? Don't they shape message? What about the pre-narrative that made this election narrative possible--that Gore was a liar, "no controlling legal authority," part of a Clinton administration that would do anything to hold power by legal means? This was all a part of the election being called for Bush, even if Welch called for it himself. There was already an environment that allowed for all of this to happen.

3) A bullet is both a simple message and a truth. You can't discount the truth but I agree it must be simplified and (to use an expression of a smirking chimpter, dbostrom I think), weaponized.
***I agree. We have to frame this very carefully because it can be turned back on us. One never wants the death of a human to appear blatantly political (even if one is trying to reveal the truth of a bullet).

[anamandujano]

37. The repukes own the "conduit" and they CREATE the "message"

During the 2000 campaign, you must have been napping because the press worked harder than the repukes at creating their lying message about Gore. They created it out of nothing. They had people assigned to him to take dust from the floor and spin it into gold for their schlock newspapers and tv shows.

I'll see if I can dig up the article on Welch calling the election for you.

I guess I just want to say, the democrats have a powerful and simple message that gets distorted and buried by a powerful brainwashing right wing owned and operated media.

Bush himself (not discountng his ability to repeat a slogan endlessly--as Ann Richards warned) is a huge story/message, an incoherent bumbler. This great story has been rewritten by the press. Rove is not a genius, the press covers his every mistake. Bush is not humble or honest or plainspoken--it's all a big lie.

You can only talk about message versus truth because the message of truth, however simple, however powerful, is buried by the lying criminal press. That's all folks!

(I'm a little suspect that you would take words of poster #10 and say that we should be careful about being "blatently political" about the death of a human. Excuse me? We want those soldiers back but we can't have them. The repukes politisize everything. They try to label the truth as "politics only" in order to dirty it and sabotage its power. You wouldn't be one of them now, would you? Just asking.)

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

39. I agree with you about Gore.

He got hammered and quite unfairly. Eric Aletrman does a brilliant job of ceconstructing this in his book, "Whta Liberal Media." Bob Somerby, "The Daily Howler," is also a master of showing the phenomenon of which you speak. But you'll notcie that enither ascribe motives. They just show how the narrative we were given competes against another, more accurate, narrative. We've seen the whores now admit that they just didn't "like" Gore, that they thought he thought he was smarter than they (Dean's got to be acreful here: he doesn't think this, he knows it and will let them know it). They didn't create the Gore narrative out of nothing. The man was a Senator for 12 years, Vice President for 8, wrote a book that could be taken out of context (as were his lines about creating the internet and the Love Canal story). They just chose an easy script. Those who were covering his campaign just beat the hell out of him. The press proved to be immature, petty little whores.

Your last point (if I understand it correctly): "I'm a little suspect that you would take words of poster #10 and say that we should be careful about being "blatently political" about the death of a human. Excuse me? We want those soldiers back but we can't have them. The repukes politisize everything. They try to label the truth as "politics only" in order to dirty it and sabotage its power. You wouldn't be one of them now, would you? Just asking."
***I'm telling you point blank: the dems. MUST BE careful about how they frame the death of our soldiers. The repubs. will frame truth (the needless death of our soldiers) as the dems. trying to make "poltical hay." You don't think their tactic will win if we're not careful? Then I'd say you're the one who's been napping (perhaps through history class?). They will try to politicize anything if their polsters tell them it's a solid message.

And, no, I'm not one of them. Unless you want me to be. Perhaps then I'll be easier to dismiss?

[anamandujano]

41. "the narrative competes"??????

the narrative did not compete. It was the ONLY narrative available. The easy script would have been to REPORT what was happening, talk about the issues that people WANTED TO HEAR ABOUT. The press worked way too hard (I thougtht they were going to pop some blood vessiles) and they lost because the people voted for Gore.

Really, it doesn't matter what we do or say because the press will twist the most carefully worded message to give their guy the edge. I was watching everything during the 2000 campaign, the time would have been better spent sleeping--but, then I wouldn't have the ammunition to argue with you.

Your argument has been dismissed. It's all about the press. You say they were hurt because Gore thought he was smarter than they are? Gore is smarter than they are, unfortunately for us, too much of a gentleman and fair fighter. He didn't act haughty and condescending. They're always pushing that elite crap. The "liberals think they're better than you". And, it's a lie. And, the press passes it along merrily. It's not an interesting narrative, it's a boring lie.

There's a lot of competitive narrative that gets jettisoned because it doesn't serve the interests of the ruling elite, the owners of the media.

You are correct when you say that the repukes are a lot of sneaky corrupt bast@rds, but they have the press to ram their "message" down our throats.

[anamandujano]

47. link to article on Jack Welch calling the election for Bush

It's a long article but mesmerizing. This excerpt can be found towards the end of the piece.

"Welch’s successful behind-the-scenes campaign to influence media coverage in a way that would get Bush into the White House has not been visible to the public, with one exception. On election night, according to an eyewitness, Welch was so angry that his own NBC News team would not call the race for Bush that he personally went to the studio from which Tom Brokaw was anchoring the coverage. Welch quietly watched the broadcast for a few minutes. Two people who were present claim that, when Brokaw and Tim Russert did not take the hint that their boss had come into the newsroom because he wanted something from them, he explicitly announced that he wanted them to call the election for Bush.

They did. As a result, Bush entered the Florida recount phase with the tremendous advantage of having already been declared the winner."


http://www.makethemaccountable.com/coverup/Part_04.htm

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

53. Thanks for the link (nt).

[EOTE]

61. Wow....

You know, I have been pondering the current state of the media for the past two and a half years. I have thought of literally dozens of explanations on how the media could have gotten so bad so quickly. Nothing really made sense, not only were they not working in the people's best interests, but it seemed as if they were not working in their own best interests as well.

Althought I'm not entirely convinced, your explanation seems to make the most sense to me. I don't know if it is merely intellectual laziness on behalf of the media, or if they feel it is their duty to provide the public with the most easily digestible message available for the topic of the day. Either way, I wonder if sinking to their level is the only way for us to provide a level playing field. Surely there must be some way to get the media to actually report the news as their primary function and set the spin aside for the debate shows.

Anyway, thanks for the post. Most interesting.

[KG]

6. some of get it so well that

we regret that this kind of 'message means more than the truth' politckin' ain't limited to the republicans.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

12. Truman's famous dictum:

"Give 'em hell, Harry."
"We'll just tell them the truth, and it'll feel like hell."

Great message. But that's all it was. Message. I believe in the progressive cause. But I couldn't sum it up into an hour debate. My positions are deeply felt, not based on polls. I'd have to write a 300+ page book outlining my positions. But I'd do better if I could come up with an 8 word phrase. But would you want the press to ask Harry, "Hey, Harry, how do you feel about Jews?" Of course not. Our defense is his deeds, not his words. But indefending his by virtue of his deeds, we engage in yet another form of rhetoric (my favorite kind, by the way--enough with the talk, what have you done?"). But it's all message. There's not an historical figure that doesn't have skeletons in his or her closet or who has been demonized who doesn't have some sort of personal moment of virtue.

Don't hate the player; hate the game.

[are_we_united_yet]

7. I believe being more succint

if that is what you espouse has it merits. I wouldn't get away from the truth or core principles for any reason. (I'm not suggesting you are recommending that)

[indigo32]

8. interesting, I agree to a great extent,

I at first objected to the idea that media isn't biased on the basis that... well frankly at least 1/2 the nation votes Democratic... why aren't we represented. But it does come back to how we get our message out, doesn't it. Why have we been failing so badly? (yes, we have). And certainly truth has very little to do with it in todays instant /internet polling world. Peoples opinions are not truth. The damn truth is the truth.

[lkinsale]

9. Can you boil your point down to 3 sentences, please?

I got lost about halfway through there.

*gentle nudge* have you considered that you might be part of this problem? ;)

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

13. 3 sentences.

Your request is my point. Thank you. Brilliant.

[ex_jew]

10. Every bullet in a GI's brain is a little bit of truth that has NOTHING

to do with the "message". That wasn't supposed to happen. When it does, the clowns who got us into this situation are exposed. Unless they have some magic formula for pacifying all Iraqis, there's going to be more and more "truth" at large in the world.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

14. I think you may be a bit deluded about truth versus message.

I don't mean to imply that I disagree with your point. But I'll go line by line:

"Every bullet in a GI's brain is a little bit of truth that has NOTHING" to do with the "message."
***They served a force greater than themselves. America. These were men and women who not only believed in protecting America's interests, they believed in sharing America's truth, value, and core system of belief with a part of the world robbed from these simple ideals we hold as true.

"That wasn't supposed to happen."
***Their lives, though a great loss to their families and to our great nation, has served a far more dignified and noble purpose: global democracy, global freedom, from the tiniest villages in Iraq, to the most deprived, disease-stricken plains of Africa. If America cannot defend the defenseless, and this is THE truth which guides our young men and women, then who will? Yes, we regret the loss of lives. But to those families, America says thank you, I say thank you, and the world, whether they know your names or not, says God bless you.

"Unless they have some magic formula for pacifying all Iraqis, there's going to be more and more "truth" at large in the world."
***Our men and women are prepared for the worst, but we hope for the best. We have learned from history and specifically from 9-11: those who turn a blind eye to the world's suffering, who fail to meet the challenges posed by our gloabl community, may indeed have to face the threats that immerge amongst us. We must turn to face this challenge. We will do what America has always done: face it with courage, strength, and kindness. Yes, give us your poor, your hungry, and your down-trodden. They WILL find a home in America.


****Please note: I don't necessarily buy any of this. I just imagine this is what people want to hear. And I certainly don't mean to brush aside any of your larger points. But "truth" is malleable.

[ex_jew]

20. Thanks for the feedback !

I will sleep on your response.

[aquart]

24. That some amazing contempt you have for "people."

Speak for yourself. You don't do a good job of speaking for "them."

Ask for yourself. Don't concern yourself with what you are imagining takes place in other minds, other homes.

If you speak up, you give someone else someone to stand beside.

But you can't worry about who will stand with you. And you can't tailor your "message" in hopes that will make them stand with you.

Stand up for yourself. If you haven't the courage to do that, you have some bloody nerve criticizing anyone else.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

27. Hmmmm, I don't quite get it.

You're asking me to speak for myself yet garner the most votes from the people, all the while I'm really not supposed to pay attention to my message, while some repub. is kicking my head in with a tight message he has constructed through polling. This ain't sixth grade class presidency.

I respect what you're saying completely. And I wish it were true. But it's not. And it can't be true. It doesn't even matter if our elections are publically funded (which is clearly the best idea). It will still be a matter of finding a way in which to get one's message across.

Here's a test: pick your dream candidate, someone who agrees with you on every issue. Heck, think about the candidate that America would agree with on almost every issue (impossible, fine, just play the game). Now give that person a horrendous stuttering problem (picture the first lawyer in "My Cousin Vinny"). This is a surface-level test. This is only about delivery of the message. Now go back a step and think about the message itself. It has to be crafted in every way. The "straight talker" is simply another character in our long political narrative.

Issues win? Bullshit. And everyone here knows it. The vast majority of Americans agree with our issues when they're stated in their most simple formulae (simple according to me--heh, heh, heh).

Finally, you write: "Stand up for yourself. If you haven't the courage to do that, you have some bloody nerve criticizing anyone else."

How is a post that challenges "a lot of people at DU" with my name attached to it not standing up for myself? Your proposition is quite silly at its face value, bloody silly when you think about it. I wonder how this very post (my response to you) itself rates on the courage scale. You're simply wrong about "truth" versus message. How's that for courage? Message will get you dinner with granny and nice little Lieberman quips about "re-election" (not that I am endorsinbg or not endorsin Lieberman). "Message" accuses your opponents of filing lawsuits while you yourself are filing lawsuits against these same opponents. And you win. They kick our frakin' skulls in on a daily basis. We win on issues, yet they have the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office. How does this happen?

Oh wait, I know, "But you can't worry about who will stand with you. And you can't tailor your "message" in hopes that will make them stand with you."

[anamandujano]

32. You're totally discounting the lying press, distorting everything

During the campaign, every article and every TV news segment used the expression "Governor Bush meant to say" and they've been doing it all while he's been (p)resident. They did it again today to correct his misstatement (lie) that Iraq kicked out the inspectors.

They cover for Bush at every turn. They twist and distort or ignore the truth. So, I guess on that basis, you can say that truth doesn't count. They ignore it. They bury it.

And about the issues, yeah we do win on the issues and that's why Bush appropriated our issues during his lying campaign in 2000. Now everyone can see from his policies that he was lying, if the press doesn't spin them into oblivion. That is a very big "if".

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

36. All of this implies a motive I'm not ready to say exists.

We can name the the effects of the stories they tell--highly inaccurate, stupid, mundane, opposite of what is true. But it's highly problematic to name some sort of motive. I have a good friend who worked for the Wash. Post for a number of years a staff writer. Here's how he explained the environment when I called them all a bunch of lying whores: they are whores, no doubt. But they don't lie intentionally. They all play from the same script. The game is to see who can tell it best. The real game, he says, is the fax game--the faxes that come in the morning and give the talking points for the day. He said the absolute bullshit (from both sides) is astounding. Tele-media rarely checks any sort of veracity. So it's really a matter of repeated faxes, good looking sources, and juicy, easily consumed stories. What's the best story for our right and left wing pundits in a 7 minute segment. Oh, and guess what: we just happen to have the name of two conservative pundits to take up our side.

All of this being said, I'm inclined to think your post is right on. The problem is: he still won. He won't lose because of truth; he'll lose if we can make truth our message (and this is a message not unlike any other).

[anamandujano]

38. He did NOT win, but that's another story

that got buried by the brainwashing arm of the GOP, the mainstream media.

If he goes down, it will be because of truth, a truth that overwhelmed the whore press, and that's a powerful truth. Because if it's just "message", that's easy, you don't get to hear it and we will re-write the bumbler's words so that it sounds good. So says our press.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

40. I guess I just don't see why truth is separate from message

If truth were always there or were inevitable, then why don't we always win? I'm certainly not willing to say because we're not right. And I refuse to believe wholeheartedly in a bogeyman press (though they are imbecilic, petty, and vindictive).

You write: "If he goes down, it will be because of truth, a truth that overwhelmed the whore press, and that's a powerful truth."
***So when we win, it's truth? But when we lose it's the press? That's an equation for repeated disaster. Does the truth now really expose chimpy for anything other than what we ("we" meaning here on DU) always thought he was? No. We knewe what he was doing all along, predicting his many moves weeks (even months) ahead of time. That's primarily why I distrusted his rhetoric on the war (and tax cuts, education, etc.). He's a petty, self-absorbed, self-righteous, little man, who believes God is on his side (oh where art though Bob Dylan?).

Here's another example: This is nothing against you specifically (I don't know who you voted for in 2000), but there's hostility between Gore and Nader supporters here. Why? Is it about truth? Or is it about message? No difference between the two candidates? Was this truth or part of a message? If it's the former, can we really blame Nader supporters? If it's the latter, why did Nader think it could help him? Or, why couldn't Gore simply show how he was in fact different? Did his "truth" or message suck?

anamandujano, I really don't think we differ in our positions. It may just be a matter of emphasis. You look at the "why" of politics, and I focus on the "how" (never forgetting the "why"). And we differ in the fact that I may be a repub. operative. LOL.

[anamandujano]

43. "imbecilic, petty, and vindictive"--No, bought and paid for

The truth that overwhelms the press, the truth that they couldn't manage. They will certainly try. They buried the Enron story, the Harkin story, the AWOL story and are in process of burying the 911 investigation.

I'm not sure we are winning, if we do it's because the press have got new marching orders. If they decide to drop this story, it's over.

"I don't know who you voted for in 2000" (Don't tell anyone but, I voted for Gore.)

"You look at the "why" of politics, and I focus on the "how" (never forgetting the "why")."

I think if you re-read your posts you'll see that you said that there was no "why" but only a "how". Remember you said, it's not about truth, but message.

If no one hears the truth (thanks to the media) then can it be called a message? No. So, I guess I have to agree with you that we (the dems) don't have much of a message.

[Old and In the Way]

34. You cynic you.............

Of course, you realize you have a career awaiting you writing for the RNC, or the 700 club, or doing speeches for this administration.....

Yoour post to ex-jew's post is so well deconstructed Repubspeak it'd be hard to tell you from the real McCoy...

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

35. In my neck of the woods, those are fighting words

or at least a drinking contest.

We're all aware of how they've historically beaten us. If you can't parrot their rhetoric, then you're not thinking about it enough. Then you'll lose.

[Old and In the Way]

72. I certainly wouldn't want to test either your debating or your drinking

skills....I suspect I'd be on the losing end of both.... ;-) .

Actually, I think this thread reflects the very best of DU and the critical thinking that goes on here. Unlike certain other political sites that will go unmentioned, DU is far from an echo chamber. We don't tolerate fools well, but everyone here seems to like a well constructed argument.

Your points are well taken, too. We have to understand the rhetorical polemics used by our political opposites and learn how to parry their logic back at them.

[sandnsea]

11. Your post sums it all up

It's long and rambling with no talking point at all!!! :-)

Seriously, that is part of the problem. We are truthseekers. We like to make sure that every part of a debate is explored and expressed. We even like to throw in opposing positions so we can show we understand all sides of the debate. We like to offer possible solutions and then discard them in order to reinforce our own conclusions. And on and on. And so we ramble.

The Republicans don't care about any of that. Their cause is righteous and whatever way they get there is fine with them. Democrats do need to learn to do that.

One thing that I've heard that has worked is imminent threat. Driving them nuts. It was a pre-emptive strike don't you know. If the country buys into imminent threat, it'll completely screw up the Bush Doctrine! Not to mention bring the people back to their senses.

And so I ramble.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

15. Here, here.

And so I do ramble. But I'm amongst the brethren (and sisterhood), so I feel a bit of security in doing so.

The doctrine of preemption, which I've explained in other threads (some of which I started), really should be our issue. Some senators and congressmen are picking up on it. Kucinich gets it and has been hammering away at it (not that I am or am not endorsing him). The hawks who signed onto the war have a harder time with this. They can claim they were lied to, but they still signed onto a doctrine of preemptive war (not that I am or am not endorsing any of them). This is a key point, I think.

[sandnsea]

22. Yes, Doctrine of Pre-emption

They should go after that. But most of our candidates aren't as bad on that topic as you might think. I've read their statements before the war. They specifically only gave Bush authorization for war if it was necessary for protection. The Authorization itself only allows militry force to disarm in order to enforce UN resolutions or protect U.S. security. It also calls for Bush to work with the UN. I don't know about Lieberman and Gephardt, but Kerry and Edwards both said that. Kerry was quite emphatic about it. But changing that perception now would be quite difficult. Still, I've seen the PNAC letters where they are boldly touting the Bush Doctrine. Our Democrats need to let the people know that there actually is a Bush Doctrine. I'm not sure they get it. I'm not sure the whole thing going on right now isn't a ploy to get the anti-prempters out completely. Kind of scary.

[LiberalLibra]

65. sandnsea: Thank you - someone GET'S IT

:bounce:

[FreedomReload]

16. Plaid Adder Got It Months Ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/05/13_story.html

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

18. Thanks for the link.

Delightful reading. Made me feel a bit dirty.

And, by the way, Aristophanes got it millennia ago. Cervantes, centuries ago. Hell, I'm simply piss-poor retread just trying to remind people about their "truths." Thanks again for the link.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Willie Horton, Cadillac Welfare Moms and Gore's a liar

Junior's a liar. Everything's for the rich. Kenny Boy Lay. It doesn't trickle down. They laugh at you. They despise you, feed off of you and laugh at you. The more scared and broke you are, the better.

Take the first one, repeat it endlessly, and you almost can't lose.

It: "You hate America." You: "You hate the entire world."

It: "Government is bad." You: "Only criminals think that."

It: "Regulation is bad." You: "It's what got us out of caves."

It: "Religion should be in government." You: "Works great for the Saudis." or "The Dark Ages were a blast."

It: "Regulation destroys corporations." You: "Only dishonest ones."

Simple, harsh and repeated is how they do it. It works. People have to look other people in the eye and tell them that Junior's a liar. If they object, then say lying greedy murderous fraud.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

19. Great line, very funny.

"People have to look other people in the eye and tell them that Junior's a liar. If they object, then say lying greedy murderous fraud."

Can I get that on my IHOP happy breakfast plate pancake? Please?

[ewagner]

21. Framing the question

That is the most significant of the truths you spoke.

We are allowing the Repubs to frame the question and the entire debate....remember in August? You were either for the war(A PATRIOT) OR you were a godless, pot-smoking, homosexual, Saddam-loving, LIBERAL. Like it or not, public opinion picked PATRIOT.

The great thing about the Bush lies is that for once, we are framing the debate....and the administration doesn't like that one bit.

The struggle now is to see who continues to frame the debate; who gets to set the agenda. Fortunately, "lets move on" didn't wash.

Thanks for the Great post....sorry if I'm preaching to the chior........

[Lostnote03]

23. Good Point Uncle.....

....Simplicity is the name of the game....the politics of perception....file the edge down sharply and shoot so that no matter where it strikes the oppostions body politic, the damage is done.....the simple talk radio call-in show is the perfect training ground for practicing to overcome the long-winded rebuttals necessary to distinguish between the spin and the truth.....You have at best 30-45 seconds to refute the spin.....in order to maximize your attempt you must selectivly highlight rebuttal points and then condense them to a point of clarity that is recognizable as the truth....never get excited and remain in monotone delivery....pretend that you are on a microphone in a large hall waiting for the reverbration effect.....in any case thank you for the emphasis upon the delivery of the message.....

[hedgetrimmer]

25. TRUE PATRIOTS OPPOSE BUSH!

do you support the constitution?

do you support the bill of rights?

.... then you oppose bush!

lets get this chump out'a there....

you want to be a patriot then be a true patriot, true patriots oppose bush!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

thats the nuts of it... any question can be framed to fit that category....

"how does this effect the information coming from the white house about iraq?" sorry ass reporter...

"bush lied lots of folks died! bush is selling the people of the u.s. out... the one thing true patriots can do is oppose bush, true patriots oppose bush!" smartass barrista.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Cronus Protagonist]

26. Stated in 20 words - (not mine)

ISBN: 0140094385

"...political leaders need not trouble themselves very much with reality provided that their performances consistently generate a sense of versimilitude."

Neil Postman
Amusing Ourselves to Death



http://kucinichforpresident.com - Kucinich Is The One
http://cronus.com/prayer - One of Kucinich's speeches

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13 - cute little buttons
http://bushspeaks.com - sardonic political toons
http://cronus.com - enlightening and educational liberal fun

Conceptual Guerilla

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

28. This is a VERY good post

The Democratic Party needs to sell their product better IMO.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

30. Of course, first it has to have a product to sell.

Message only goes so far (perhaps election 2000 proves this wrong). Or, to put it another way, ideals transmitted through the proper message is the ultimate poltical tool.

Real conservatives despise Bush. If Bush wins reelection, there will only be two terms of the neo-cons running things. You'll see a group on the right rail against the neo-cons, either in the primary or as a third party in the general election (and I don't mean the Libertarians).

I'm not trying to sell message only. I'm just trying to get at the fact that we lose for a reason. And it's not a conspiracy. We have to better uderstand the game and equip ourselves to play in it.

[nolabels]

42. Wait till it's broken, the real fixing begins at that point

Some people are really funny, they always have a new way to make it work, work until it turns into nothing but a monument, that's when the real fixing will begin. It is getting close, but maybe they will figure out a few more lies to tell.

Either way it will all work out either now or later, no one person will decide, it is all just part of process; some are along for just the ride while others are pulling some strings and levers.

It don't matter though, for its all part of process, a fixing, a monument and a plan for now and later, we won't get to decide really all that much, but we all will be there at the end of the ride, wherever and whenever that might be for us individually or collectively. Maybe I will see you there :hi:

[jafap]

46. the devil has all of the good music

two stories that I like to use.

It's a wonderful life - Potter (Repubs) vs. George Bailey (dems)

the wizard: I am OZ, the great and powerful.

Dorothy: I am Dorothy, the small and meek.

the wizard: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The great and powerful OZ has spoken.

Sic 'em Toto!

[foo_bar]

31. it's not about pronouns

It's not about truth; it's not about what's right
It is only, ONLY, about message.
It's not truth, people
I don't believe in Beatles

What is "it"? Mass persuasion?

[ParanoidPat]

44. Perhaps many DUers understand 'it' more than you give them credit for...

....:evilgrin:
If I read you correctly, you seem to have given in to the flawed reality of the uninformed masses! You sound as though the 'reality' you accept is that public opinion and framing arguments somehow affect what truth is. Please pardon me if I'm incorrect in that assumption.

In my view of 'reality', I see myself living in a country whose populace has been manipulated to believe as 'fact' many lies and half truths. I also see myself living in a country that possesses the finest framework ever agreed upon for the basis of a society capable of being fair to all.
In my reality the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights are more important to me than anything anyone else happens to believe! It's from none other than that framework that I will rationalize my view of reality to others. :)

Those 'self evident' truths that so many people have fought and died to protect are paramount to me in the creation of my reality. I would proudly lay down my life along with those who've done so before me to protect that which is uniquely American, our Constitution.
To allow myself to stray from the cold hard reality I've come to embrace, in an effort to somehow sway the thinking of the masses, would be nothing short of self defeating. It would only serve to reinforce some portion of their flawed views.

The Constitution provides us a means to choose the representatives we feel will best fulfill the role of a government 'of, by, and for the people'. To evidence that fact, all of our representatives must swear an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution' as their first official act upon entering office. Far too many people have allowed themselves to lose sight of that simple fact. They've allowed themselves to accept a distorted concept of what 'leadership' is. A representative can only be an effective leader if they lead people to the truth. The truth is contained in the Constitution. Any elected representative who must distort or otherwise 'manage' the truth in order to lead the people is not really a leader, only a dictator with a willing following.

If your trying to say that, how an argument is framed is important, then I agree with you to this extent, the only proper way to frame our arguments is within the framework of the Constitution. Nothing else matters. NEVER SURRENDER any part of your reality to the masses, instead, use the reality of the Constitution to frame your reality to them! The pre-amble alone works for most arguments...

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Powerful words. If you can't utterly destroy the rational for this administrations actions with those words alone, you're not really trying! :)

Reasonable people will see the truth and logic of any argument framed in such a manner. Those who don't, when faced with the prospect of fighting for their beliefs will usually back down when painted as the unpatriotic, un-American people they are.

[anamandujano]

45. Beautiful!

has a nice beat, and I can dance to it--or something like that.

[ParanoidPat]

48. LOL! Thanks.....

.....I stole the idea from some old white haired coot on C-SPAN!
He seemed to make a lot of sense to me. Use it or lose it! :)

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

51. Yours is an excellent post.

I will reply to your points throughout (many of which are very good):

1) If I read you correctly, you seem to have given in to the flawed reality of the uninformed masses!
***Somewhat, yes, I do believe the masses are uninformed, or at least not fully informed. I teach and have taught at public universities for the last 10 years. What I've seen is frightening.

2) You sound as though the 'reality' you accept is that public opinion and framing arguments somehow affect what truth is. Please pardon me if I'm incorrect in that assumption.
***I don't know if I want to say it affects what Truth is (note the capital T), whatever Truth is, but it certainly shapes what "truth" is. Politics is nothing other than a group of individuals wresting power away from another group. Language is the means by which we attempt to achieve power. If we can make people believe a "truth" as we have constructed it, then we will win the power. This power, of course, can be for the working poor, a belief in a living wage, a globalized economy that does not take advantage of third world labor, etc. Those are our ends, but by what means?

3) In my view of 'reality', I see myself living in a country whose populace has been manipulated to believe as 'fact' many lies and half truths.
***So you see the same uninformed masses I see. Or by the word "manipulated" do you imply that they have no free-will in this? If that's the case, then how do we have DU?

4) I also see myself living in a country that possesses the finest framework ever agreed upon for the basis of a society capable of being fair to all. In my reality the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights are more important to me than anything anyone else happens to believe!
***Or at least your reading of that framework, your analysis and interpretation of it.

5)It's from none other than that framework that I will rationalize my view of reality to others. :)
***Great, now all we have to do is fight over what that framework means. Isn't this why the fight over judges (and the very framing of that argument) is so important? The "rationalizing" part is where we have fun (and wrest power away from one another). For me, it's this "rationalizing" part that's the biggest part of the game (not the only part).

6) If your trying to say that, how an argument is framed is important, then I agree with you to this extent, the only proper way to frame our arguments is within the framework of the Constitution.
***I think you're assuming that there's a stable "framework" of the Constitution to which we will have already agreed. But there isn't. This is why we have a Supreme Court. This is why the repubs. love using the word "strict constructionist." This is how they frame their framing of the framework of the Constitution. They try to feed us the line that meaning remains stable for over two hundred years; or that meaning even then was stable. Meaning was never stable, nor is it today.

7) Nothing else matters. NEVER SURRENDER any part of your reality to the masses, instead, use the reality of the Constitution to frame your reality to them!
***Now you're talking my language. This is what politics is about. But this "reality" of which you speak is an a priori assumption of yours. This "reality" is a construction of yours, your analysis of the Constitution,, that you want us to believe is reality. This would be your "strict constructionist" position.

8) The pre-amble alone works for most arguments...
***You're absolutely correct here. It works best because it is so malleable, so apllicable over the ages, to various people's constructions of each term used. In fact, when Licoln had to make an argument against slavery, he turned to the preamble. Dred Scott was deemed Constitutional (Article IV, I believe) and within the "reality" of Constitutional law at the time, it was. So he ran an end around. He appealed to the very foundation of every Article. He tried to go back to the origins and redefine the reality of the language. He won. His rhetorical framing of the debate won (Please note: I will not engage in slavery debates at this point. This really isn't the point of my brief example).

9) If you can't utterly destroy the rational for this administrations actions with those words alone, you're not really trying! :)
***You are absolutely correct. Perhaps, like Lincoln, the preamble IS our message. Let's debate the republican platform in terms of the preamble. We'd kick their skulls in. They can't win that debate becuase our message is simpler. They would try to go back to 1776 and define EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers meant. They couldn't do it in 3 1/2 minute soundbites. We'd make simple either/or propositions. And we'd win.

11) Reasonable people will see the truth and logic of any argument framed in such a manner. Those who don't, when faced with the prospect of fighting for their beliefs will usually back down when painted as the unpatriotic, un-American people they are.
***I think you've come full circle to my very point. In the end, rhetoric and message win. We could try to make our points in a hundred different ways, but the preamble may be the best (though it's a bit cliched from a rhetorical perspective).

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

By the way, I only titled the lead thread (People at DU don't get it)the way I did so that I could get people to respond. I've tried similar threads to this one, but got very little response. I find that when one challenges people's intelligence or their acuity (especially political hipsters like the ones here at DU), they're more likely to respond. They're more likely to want to prove you wrong. Oh dear, does that mean that even the title of this thread is framing yet another debate?

[ParanoidPat]

73. Thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent response!

You are absolutely right about your post title. It worked as a perfect 'hook'! It sure captured my attention! :)

I must say that I understand and agree with every statement in your reply.

In point 3 the manipulation I speak of is based on the perception of reality created by multiple media outlets presenting similar, incomplete, presentations of what the 'truth' is via everything from simple omissions of facts and distortions of context to blatant repetition of outright lies! In retrospect, I must then fully agree with your original premise that the message is more important in the context that you stated. As far as 'free will' is concerned, that is one of my favorite tools to explain my view of reality. For example...

In arguments concerning military personnel who, IMHO, rightly refused to participate in what my reality clearly revealed as an unjust, preemptive invasion with no Constitutional basis, others were compelled to cry treason! :scared:

Many people claimed that military personnel forfeited their right to question what they were being asked to do simply because they 'signed up' for the service.
However all one need do is examine the facts to reach a different conclusion.

Fact: We all have 'free will'.

Fact: All service men and women swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution and are subject to the UCMJ.

Fact: The Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses situations arising from the issuance of 'illegal orders'. (Although in a roundabout fashion.)

Fact: "I was only following orders" is NOT a valid defense.

Fact: It is ONLY the free will of the individual service members that will determine if the military backs an administration that would attempt to seize power permanently via nullification of the Constitution!

When confronted with the above facts, the 'they have no choice' crowd suddenly are confronted with a different reality that, in a very real fashion, our freedom ultimately depends on our soldiers exercising their 'free will' to choose their actions!

Should they surrender their 'free will' to higher authority and just follow orders because they 'signed up' to do that or should they, of their own 'free will', honor their oath to support and defend the Constitution?

In the above example, the message is as important as the way it is framed! I guess we're both right. :)

So now that we agree on how best to frame the debate, what in your opinion is the best way to get the rest of us 'on message'? :evilgrin:

[salmonhorse]

49. Whether you 'get it' or whether you merely think you do ~

Beware of Push Polls...

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ncppolls/push.htm

I perform, and don't laugh; but reputable, non-partisan social science research with a firm that is out from under the FTC vis-a-vis our means with which we collate data so there's that. I have worked legislative analyis and it is true that you can 'work' the numbers any way your client choose' you do do so.

Still, my sense is that DU'ers do have sense about what is going on.

[Lexingtonian]

50. I think you're half right

In a sense your central point is on the mark. But for the wrong reasons.

I've looked into the matter myself and my own conclusion is that Democrats are ultimately held to a higher standard. No one admits it, but our side has to put in more real work and meet higher expectations. In the press/media Democrats are either the helpless and bizarre and marginal or they're the people ahead of the curve who get things right. Republicans in turn are the party of mediocrity and cleverness- who thrive when people are bored and tolerate cheating, or frantic, but fail when the going gets tough.

Republican arguments are easy- all they have to do is appeal to the conventional shoddy standards of doing things, to the everyday frame of half-civilized American middle class experience. They're fully identified with the Establishment, with The System, at this point (whatever the truth of that). Democratic arguments have to work with a much larger initial intellectual space and get to a simple answer that has to work in a more complicated frame- we are Not The System, even in most places where we are majorities, and to be credible/of relevance our side always has to maintain an edge in truthfulness to counter that.

So you are right that our side needs to achieve succinctness and doesn't have to try to bring All Of The Truth to the table. When our side is right there is no need to insist on proving our credibility. But we are clearly held to the higher of a double standard; when we do meet it we are handed the win, when we don't we lose. Truth is, the People is acting according to its needs- they brutally force us into excellence but then, with gratitude, reward it well; Republicans do the dirty work that is also necessary and are treated according to their usefulness also. We can't play their roles, and they can't play ours either. We should admit that there is a real or imagined double standard and just work to meet it in such ways as you suggest, or whatever others it may take.

[Q]

52. I disagree with your view about the media...

...not being biased...but just telling a 'good' story. It has already been well documented that the majority of the media is owned by neoconservatives that make sure negative stories about Bush* end up on page 8.

- But you're right about the 'message'. Dems should be framing this debate around NATIONAL SECURITY...and how Bush's* lies harm the security of this nation and the world.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

55. I don't know if I've ever said they're not biased.

I just have a hard time stating with fact someone's motivations. The media are very biased in the narratives they choose to give to people. If you want my take on the media, go read Alterman's "What Liberal Media?" With few exceptions, I agree with his analysis. Bob Somerby over at "The Daily Howler" is also priceless.

Look, CNN didn't get a conscience all of a sudden with their questioning of the Niger story. People were tuning in. They like the narrative. Scandal and crisis sell. Right now, they are getting blasted with faxes from every right wing think tank out there. These think tanks aren't calling them biased and unfair. They're trying to reframe the debate. They're giving them dubious sources and non-sequitors. They're giving them poll-tested talking points. These talking points are the battle field. Ours must be better, more compelling, if we want the media to keep going on this story.

Edit: had to insert "not" into the title.

[Q]

58. The Right Wing Owned Media had to cover this story...

...to keep up the facade that they're reporting the whole truth. But you'll NEVER see them follow a story to its logical conclusion or connect any dots that might point to Bush*. They're protecting him...just as they have been since the 2000 campaign.

- Yes...people were 'tuning in'...but now the media has 'moved on' to the next story. You won't hear ANYTHING about this scandal in a week or two...unless the Democrats keep up the pressure.

[sangh0]

54. You are absolutely correct.

RIght and wrong may matter to us, but we can't depend on it being the critical factor in most people's mind, for the simple reason that different people have different ideas about what is right and what is wrong. Instead of trying to convince people of our moral superiority, we should be working on the development of stories that frame the issue in a manner that makes it more likely they will agree with us.

Welcome to DU

[sendero]

56. I could not...

... agree with you more.

[poskonig]

57. grendel -- One criticism

Polling numbers are not static. Sometimes the idea is not to be reactive, but to be politically active and change those numbers, and society in the process. The "message" you speak of needs to take these variables into account.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

59. I agree with you.

How does one become active in changing those numbers? Well, first we have to have numbers. Every White House has hordes of numbers. They have a point they want to get across; now the question is how to sell it. The Bushies are purely Machiavellian in this regard. They lie, plain and simple. They have an idea that's not popular but find the least offensive way to sell it.

I took a stats. class many, many years ago. We did a unit on presidential polling. There was an equation that went like this: If public opinion trends up or down substantially in a short enough time period, you can expect a residual rise or dip in that same direction based on the imitative tendencies of society. Though the numbers will level off, they will level off on a new plain. There will again be small rises or falls but there is a new base created.

We see, then, that "message" not only should take these variables into account; but that the variables (polling) can, in fact, become part of the message.

Your point is well taken.

[Iverson]

60. the emptiness of value-free strategy

Declaring "it" to be limited to technocratic or marketing problems is merely an opinion, and one that sacrifices the very reasons that "it" is important in the first place.

Such an approach, which is to my eye at the heart of centrist ascendancy in the Democratic Party, is a false dichotomy. You need both the pragmatic and the idealistic for success.

[IrateCitizen]

62. I disagree with your take on this, Iverson -- I see it as "selling ideals"

The Republicans are idealistic to -- albeit in a selfish, greedy, "everyone for themselves" kind of way. But in packaging their idealism, they don't sacrifice it. They simply look for the most unobjectionable way in which to float their proposals -- and of course, this involves obfuscation to outright lying, because their policies are so disastrous for the majority of people.

We don't need to sacrifice our idealism, we just need to learn how to package it. A good article on this was on TomPaine.com a while back (I wish I could find the link!) discussing how the right has used the "Leave us alone!" slogan to advance its agenda. It also floated how "We're all in this together!" is a proposal for a counter-slogan, one that succinctly sums up what we believe, as progressives, liberals and even (gasp!) a lot of centrists.

The point is, we are HORRIBLE at selling our ideas. We automatically want to make everything into a detailed policy discussion, the first sign of which most people's eyes glaze over. We need to MARKET our ideals better -- and we all know that truth and detail are not the keys to good advertising. Connecting with people on the most basic of levels is -- and that's what we need to do.

[Iverson]

77. Well, here's where our impressions diverged.

"It's not about truth; it's not about what's right; it's not about vision; it's not about ideals. It is only, ONLY, about message."

You can see, I'll bet, why I thought that substance was being sacrificed to form. I still do think that about the original post, although the writer has modified that stance in subsequent comments.

I agree with you that we don't need to sacrifice our idealism and that we do need to articulate it more effectively. I just don't agree that that was the meaning of the grand overstatement that began the discussion.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

63. I have no disagreements with you.

I didn't say one shouldn't have ideals. I just said that isn't what the game is about. It's a matter of packaging those ideals. Packaging doesn't have to shift the ideals. I'm no centrist. In fact, those who are now centrist and who don't believe in the ideals of centrist positions are simply whores. They allowed the message to swallow the ideas.

My propostion is simple: language is the conduit through which we communicate our political ideals. We must choose language carefully, as language IS power. The game is to make the language one chooses to use appear stable, that it cannot shift over time. At the same time, you want to desedimentize your opponent's language, own it, appropriate it. You can then take it away, make it your own, or even discrad it, and then convince people that the language is now stable (even through the process of redefining it).

[Gingersnap]

75. Language IS power

Grendel, this is an interesting post. I agree with you that more should be done to package our message and that to an extent the press reports what it understands and thinks will sell. I also don't know if I'm ready to fully subscribe to a "vast right wing" conspiracy controlling the press or attribute intentions to reporters.

BUT, I think what we're looking at is a hegemonic rhetoric--the debate itself, the linguistic form it takes, which questions can be asked, etc. seem to me to be governed by the powerful (for the sake of maintaining the status quo) though not in the sense of direct interference (though for all I know they are trying directly to shape what the press covers) but in the sense that now we, the relatively powerless, have to respond to the debate in their terms to even make our message make sense to most of the average Joes out there. The terms of discussion have already been set.

I think we can really only get an edge if a "new" issue emerges--then we can take the opportunity to shape the rhetoric, or when "evidence" seems to point to problems in the GOP message.

[Iverson]

78. rejoinder

"We must choose language carefully, as language IS power."

Exactly right. That is why "it" is either a poorly articulated object or else a mischievous construction that allows the reader to pour whatever meaning into it that he wants. Your sensitivity to language surely allows you see that this ...

"It's not about truth; it's not about what's right; it's not about vision; it's not about ideals. It is only, ONLY, about message."

... enjoys some, ummm, tension up against this statement:

"I didn't say one shouldn't have ideals."

If you agree that idea(l)s inform our desires to use language to some end, then "it" is entirely about truth or justice or whatever underlying value moved you to write the original post.

I also think that we're about 90% in agreement.

[onecitizen]

66. I'm curious why you think we don't get it?

I think we do get it. We just don't know what to do about it exactly.I do think we're getting better as of late. They are better at the message. We know.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

67. A bit of an admission

I've already unearthed my motives on this thread in another post. Here it is, and you should read the entire discussion with Paranoid Pat, who makes some very good points:

By the way, I only titled the lead thread (People at DU don't get it)the way I did so that I could get people to respond. I've tried similar threads to this one, but got very little response. I find that when one challenges people's intelligence or their acuity (especially political hipsters like the ones here at DU), they're more likely to respond. They're more likely to want to prove you wrong. Oh dear, does that mean that even the title of this thread is framing yet another debate?

[EAMcClure]

68. Very eloquent, grendelsuncle

The GOP has become the manichean party. I wish I could get through life by making only two choices at a time. Right or left? Up or down? Yes or no? Fundamentally, this kind of dualistic thinking is what all of our brains do. But, consciousness is a pyramidal affair. Much like the back of our dollar bill shows, it takes a lot of thinking to narrow our thoughts to the simplest course.

The GOP gets away with this by a simple maxim. WE HAVE DONE ALL THE THINKING FOR YOU. Therefore, you are preesnted with a false dichotomy. Either do as we say, because WE HAVE THOUGHT IT ALL THROUGH, or reject it at your own peril. This is an appeal to the electricity in all of us, who believe that happiness really can come from the path of least resistance.

Do we really elect out government to think for us? Is this what representation means? Of course not, but it is so much simpler to believe in the righteous authority of your GOP because that is the ethos they spend so much money establishing. All of those polls simply find the best way to present the false dilemma to the greatest number of the fearful... or what the classists call "the lazy and simple-minded," and "the middle-american."

What is the solution? Emulate them? With education steadily eroded for a generation, this may be the most simple and elegant solution. I don't think so. The solution for me is to take the responsibility of government away from the officals and back on the shoulders of the governed. This means that I personally tell everyone whenever I can that this is their government, their society, and it is their right to boycott, call, write, and participate. In order to do this, I and many many many others volunteer in service to their brethren. Establish your own ethos that contradicts daddy GOP. Tell the world to be your own man/woman. Celebrate the democracy of the individual through word and deed, and hopefully your peers will follow suit and a cultural trend will be established. Quit waiting for the Dems or the Greens or the Messiah to do it for you. I wish I had a better answer.

[Karenina]

69. Hallo Grendelsuncle!

I was fascinated by your post and your deportment in discussing it. You make quite EXCELLENT points that deserve thought. SOOO.... :kick:

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

70. Thank you for the kind words

though I'm ceratin most of the points were far from execllent.

[bobthedrummer]

71. I know that this army of one

rejects the truncated message {if there is one} contained in your first sentence-but this is only my perception, of course.

DU is a great American website, the new features here {such as recording how many reads of a thread}, the wealth of information, all of this can be used within the simple DU rules, to lessen the fears generated by the media and to counter the historic false images about public figures.

Just like America's Most Wanted, DU can also be used to bring criminals to justice by documentation of public figures, against all odds, so long as it is true, and via all this 21st century tech the truth gets out at hyper-velocity, justice takes a while longer through the generations.

Fear no evil.