--- joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> Then how do you account for the success and
> dissemination of
> "in-your-face" repug/conservative verbiage and
> posturing? Anne Coulter,
> Geraldo, Bill Reily, etc.. IT's exactly what you're
> complaining about,
> but seems to have great appeal and to have set the
> standard for "debate"
> and public speech in this country.
Good point, but I think it is more complicated than just "playing it nice" vs. "in your face." I think that the contents of the message does matter. The right-wingers might be in-your face, but they portray themesleves as the defenders of the common sense, whereas left wingers are either seen or deliberately portray themselvs as, well, way-in-the-left-field. So it makes all the difference in the world if someone acts like an in-your-face jerk to defend the ideas that most people perceive as "familiar" and "common sense," and someone else acting like an in-your-face jerk to push ideas that most people perceive as "strange" or "wacky."
People generally respond to what they see as familar and are suspicious of anything that seems to be at odds with what is familiar to them. The right-wingers understand that very well when they portray themselves as the radical defenders of the status quo. That allows them to steer the discourse in a conservative status-quo or even reactionary direction, and at the same time captur the rebel sentiments and energy that the left always took for granted as their exclusive fiefdom.
The problem of left-of the center politics is that the right will always "out-populise" the left in this country. The reason is very simple. What most people in this country consider "common sense" and "familiar" is closer to the right than to the left. So the playing field itself is not level, not to mention disparity in resources between the left and the right.
The only way to change it is to inclucate the public with the proper set of "left" ideas to the point that they become "common sense" and something that looks familiar to most people. Only then large segments of the population will positively respond to programs and candidates that now seem "radical" and "way-in-the-left-field."
Such inclucation is only possible when it is done by institutions already considered legitimate - which in the US means the Democratic party, the media, especially television, major cultural instituions, as well as civil society associations. It is a long term process, the repugs took 30-40 years (since Barry Goldwater) to built a solid layer of right wing institutions whose main role is to "normalize" right wing ideology by making it appear as "familiar " and "common sense."
In marketing this is sometimes referred as a niche that swallows the whole industry. Something that initially appeals only to a small niche of dedicated supporters (like the Nike shoes, SUVs or the hip hop cult), gradually 'catches on" - with a massive marketing effort, of course - and becomes a popular and familiar icon (Keith Bradsher describes this process of SUV niche "swallowing" the auto industry rather well in his book "High and Mighty" - for those who are interested in this kind of stuff).
This also addresses the issue discussed elsewhere on this list what Democrats should do capture the "middle class" (or whatever class) voters - start building instituional infrastructure - not social movements that come and go - but a solid instituional network with paid professional staff, secure material resources, and the aura of legitimacy, starting with a political product that initially can capture a niche of receptive audience (e.g. large cities or blue states) but which also has the potential of having a much wider appeal.
The point here is to develop a niche that has a realistic chance of swallowing the industry, rather than building a niche that will always remain on the fringes (which the left tends to do). Something bold but not too weird, something new yet familiar, standing out yet not very threatening, something that makes a fashion statement yet seems comfy and practical, and something firm and solid yet promising emotional gratification and comfort instead of sacrfice and guilt tripping - a political SUV, if you will. Sorry, but gay marriages will not do it (although personally I am for them) - I even suspect that this issue is manipulated by the Right to further entrap and discredit the remaining liberals. Health care might do, if it is actually implemented in a niche and shown that it can work here. I recall someone (Marvin?) posting an article saying that this is how the single payer plan was implemented in Canada.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com