What is the best way to fight the "politics of ridicule" ?

[kentuck]

The Repubs have perfected this style of politics. Just as they were able to ridiucle Gore for being a "liar" and "exaggerator" and "inventor of the Internet", they are now in the process of ridiculing Howard Dean as another "McGovern" and "too liberal" to be elected. This is the challenge that must be met if Democrats are to win.

How do we do it? Do we fight fire with fire? God knows there is enough fodder to ridicule in this Administration. However, that is not how the Democratic Party has traditionally worked. Our Party likes to talk about "issues" - Repubs like to talk about personal matters. We attack the Repubs for "giving taxbreaks to the wealthy". They attack Democrats personally for being too liberal and supporive of issues like gay rights, affirmative action, etc.

We talk about taxbreaks for the wealthy in the context of what it prevents our government from doing for the good of the people. They talk abut our candidate as being deficient in some personal quality or another. There is the distinction.

When our Party attacks Bush - not to be confused with the posters here on DU - they do so in the context of how his policies are destroying our country. For example, look what he has done to Medicare. Look what his deficits are doing to the future of our country. Look how he has alienated our "relationships" with our allies, etc, etc.

The Repubs attack us in an entirely different way. When we talk about the "taxcuts", they accuse us of "class warfare". They dismiss most talk about the issues as nothing but politics. They prefer to talk about how "angry" the Democrats are, or how one candidate is "crazy" or another is "too liberal" or another is "entrenched" in the Washington establishment, or another is from "Massachusetts". Do you see the difference? They attack in a more personal way. That is why they are successful. If they can destroy the messenger, it makes no difference what his policies are or how they might make us a better country. Issues don't matter. It is only if you are personally able to match up to the high quality and moral leadership of George W Bush. End of argument.

[BOSSHOG]

1. Fire with Fire and very loudly

bush is a deserter, bush is a corporate criminal, bush is a liar. cheney is a crook. Wolfowitz and Perle set policies that get our kids killed because of republican greed. Conservatives sole goal is to destroy the constitution so people not like them have no rights. I scream it in my small corner of the world. At best, I'm at a draw with the local neocons. It always amazes me that when I get loud with facts they slink away like the lizards they are.

[DinkyDem]

15. NO NO NO!

If we constantly over-state our case with the shrill hyperbole of a child tattle-telling then the People will become tonedeaf to our message when it matters.

We need to be reserved and dignified to earn respectability for the message we will present. We will be calm, cool, collected, unphased... and then with a smile and a twinkle in our eye, we unveil our vision for the Future for all to see!

And then all of their nonsense and lies will look so small and petty in comparison.

Then they will be exposed for the conmen and hucksters selling snakeskin oil that they are!

It is the right way, and the only way.
Let's not make it about THEM this time... let's make it about US!

[dfong63]

26. yes, yes, yes, a million times yes

fight fire with return fire. the truth is our weapon. let's use it. we don't need to exaggerate. we just need to tell the truth, and they'll think it's hell.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

29. Yes.

We repeat the truth. Every chance we get. We repeat it as often as we can.
Being calm, cool, and collected will not win us this next election.
It is about THEM. It is about how THEY have screwed over this country for a goddamn dollar. It is about how THEY are planning on making int impossible to really see how the populace voted in elections. It is about how THEY LIED, how THEY bured nearly everything they did under secrets and friday night votes, and how THEY call us "un-American" and "traitors".
That is the only way to get the message home to Short-Attention-Span America.

[kentuck]

32. Sorry, your message is meaningless if you let them minimize you with...

ridicule. It doesn't matter how terrible shape our country is in if we continue to let them and the media define us in such a way. We have to call both of them on it. If they want to put down the person instead of his ideas, we have to play that game also and they need to know that we are ready to play that game. They called Gore a "liar"? Look at who the real "liar" was! WMD? Nuclear materials? Imminent threat? troops are dying for an honorable cause? Who was in charge when the WTC was attacked? Was it Bill Clinton? We have to be ready to slap them down if they continue thei evil ways... :)

[NJCher]

2. good topic to bring up

I would love to hear the ideas of other DU-ers on this.

I favor sticking to the issue. Whenever a republican strays from the point or into attack mode, firmly return to the point. And do it visibly. Refuse to get drawn into an argument on their terms because we have the issues on our side. It is to their advantage to get us into a different arena.

I'm not advocating this universally, but for talk shows, news interviews, etc., I think this would be the best strategy.


Cher

on edit: and I would do the things bosshog describes above via letters to the editor, calls in to talk shows, etc. But for the candidates themselves, the strategy I describe above is what I think would work best.

[kentuck]

3. I think it might be effective for the Democrat to say...

"Look, we don't want to get into personal attacks because we have a lot to attack your candidate on. We prefer to talk about the issues but if you insist on saying our candidate is too much like McGovern or too liberal or immoral in some way or other, then we will have no choice but to tell the truth about those in your Party, including George W Bush. We don't relish calling people liars, deserters, incompetents, but we can back it up with facts if that is the direction you want to go."

[BOSSHOG]

5. If they want to play in the mud

then bring it on.

On a related topic. They trash liberals and want to build up their own. If they want Reagan on a dime, then we insist on full disclosure of all documents relative to Iran Contra just to make sure we don't make a mistake. Once again facts trump whatever conservatives do because when facts are on the table, conservatives lose, that's why they resort to slinging mud.

[Nay]

17. This is exactly how to do it, Kentuck.

Let them know that you know it's a personal attack. All Dems need to stop reacting in predictable ways to the Repub attack mode. They really need to respond as adults do to children when children become irrational. Not talking down to them, but remaining calm and explaining that you know what they are trying to do, and that you have seen through it and it won't work on you.

[kentuck]

18. That may be the way to do it Nay...

without getting down in the mud with them. I think it would work! The same response would also work against the talking heads on cable TV that assist the Repubs with their incompetent "reporting"..

[deminflorida]

4. Well in Dean's Case...I would think that the best thing to do in

light of all the recent attacks, would be to open his records before the primaries.

[kentuck]

6. See what I mean?

We are good at personal attacks on our own but we hesitate to ask Bush the same questions...

[arewethereyet]

7. I'd start by not giving them any more ammunition to use

trust me, they have an ample supply already and it will be difficult enough to manage as is.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Just tell people the truth

about this cabal.

The difference between us and them, is that the other side has to make up shit to attack us with, we don't need to do that.

[kentuck]

9. Also, we should not overlook the fact that the media...

..by and large, knowingly or unknowingly, assists the Repubs in the personal attacks on candidates. They need to be called on it. Are we going to talk about the personal "deficiencies" of the candidates or are we going to talk about the issues?? And if we are going to ridicule one candidate or another, then lets make damn sure we give equal time to both Parties. Okay guys?

[patricia92243]

10. Best Posting I've seen seen!!

and so very true. Taking the high ground is great. But the cold reality is that "making fun" of something or someone is the best way to make everyone else cower and be afraid to speak their own mind. People are too afraid that THEY will be the next one ridiculed or "made fun" of.

I say present facts, but not just facts alone. We MUST fight fire with fire if we intend to win. We need sarcasim, ridicule, brainwashing, and whatever it takes to win. The pubs are absolute masters of doing this. They set our agenda - without our even realizing it. Ex. - getting us Democrats to discuss if Hillary or Gore, or whoever will run in '08. This indicates we don't believe we will win in '04. I"ve seen Democrat announcers speculate like this on tv - fell for a republican trick like a ton of bricks. The pubs would never speculate who else beside their own candidate was going to win.

Clinton said "strong and wrong" will win. We might be right in presenting just facts, but we will loose. He also said the repubs had made the democrats into "cartoon" characters. If we don't stand up and fight back with whatever is needed - then we deserve to lose.


they are

[kentuck]

11. You've got it, Patricia!

The choice of "evils" is always between Democrats and the Repubs or the media never speculate about who might be better for the Republican Party, for example... good point!

[Cocoa]

12. remind people our troops are dying

say this isn't a time for children's games.

Show video of Bush reading a children's book on Sept. 11, ask "isn't it time to have an adult back in charge?"

If the candidate is Dean, say something like, "while Bush was living out his extended adolescence at age 40, Howard Dean was practicing medicine."

[gulliver]

13. Clark said Bush was "prancing around in a flight suit"

That was a classic example.

Then think of Al Franken...

I hope we are saving some lines for the general election. Bush is truly a laughingstock.

[DinkyDem]

14. "What I'm telling you, Neo, is that when you're ready, you won't have to"

When we finally have the courage to pick a real Democrat candidate with a real Democratic message, then it will ring out with Truth.
It will actually be DIFFERENT than a modified spin on the same things the Republicans are offering. The People will hear it and it will INSPIRE them for what our Country COULD be.

It will not be a trite debate over "fuzzy math" vs. "lockboxes".
It will be a true debate of IDEAS and VISION. And it is one we will WIN.

How do we think we possibly win when we keep fighting the Republicans on their own home turf?
We must change the paradigm.

[many a good man]

16. Points of attack

What you say is oh so true, kentuck. How can we possibly maintain the moral and intellectual high ground while at the same time fight fire with fire? I think it can be done.

The solution, IMHO, is for the candidate himself to keep the high ground while the troops attack on all sides. Attack using all the various weapons at disposal. From sound bites to detailed policy discussions; emotionally-charged positive ads to emotionally-charged negative ones; grass roots and tree tops.

There has to be more than one message or general strategy, but with a unifying theme. We need non-campaign-affiliated groups to hit hard with ads that target all the different social, cultural, and economic subgroups. Official campaign stuff should be high minded and beyond approach. I think this is what the current campaign rules will allow.

People who can't understand the issues fall for the "values" and "personalities" propaganda that you cite. That's why we have to stand up for our values: Medicare, SS, international cooperation, justice, rights, fairness. People over greedy corporations. Attack Shrub's leadership, judgment, courage, work ethic, intelligence. Expose the blatant lies he's told us. Let people know the vision for America expressed by Republican advisors like Rove, Norquist, and the neo-cons. Show what this has done to America's reputation and leadership around the world. Show how his policies are making America less safe and less prosperous.

I don't think any Republican president has ever given us such a rich collection of points to attack him on. Their party has been taken over by crazies and it shouldn't be too hard to get at least some of them out of lock-step. I heard someone propose the underlying theme should be that he is a "phony." In that context it is easy to explain all his positions and at the same time attack his character.

You said our candidate must "...match up to the high quality and moral leadership of George W Bush". I don't see a single Dem candidate who doesn't far exceed him. The right campaign must make that obvious to all.

[Armstead]

19. You're right. They perfected "dismissive" propaganda

The prime exponent is Rush Limbaugh. His snide cracks and cute names for liberals are the model of their success at defusing us -- and real issues.

It's a subtle way of saying "These people are so lame we don;t even have to take them seriously."

Unfortunately, a watered-down version gets into the mainstream media ho's too. Whenever the name "Al Gore" comes up, for example, they get this knowing smirk and some cute remark.

We probably are too earnest. We need more smartasses out there too.

[kentuck]

20. We cannot win talking about the issues....

As long as they are able to discredit our candidates through ridicule or whatever method they choose. We know the deficits, Medicare, education, Iraq, are all important but voters will not listen if our messenger has been discredited and minimized by the Repubs and the media with personal attacks, with no regard for any of the issues.

[gulliver]

21. We need laughter on our side ... bad.

We need to laugh at Bush -- not with him.

We need to laugh at the Rush-Republican tendency to laugh at the same thing over and over again.

Man, we have been dealt a hand here! We need to make use of it.

Rush-boy the drug abuser. Tom DeLay, ugly-stick victim. Dick Cheney!!! Come on! Dick Cheney!!!

Last week one of our GOP fans offered the opinion that lawsuits were "typical Democrat whining." I said, "Republicans only like lawsuits when they're used to put someone in the Oval Office." That shut him up a lot better than arguing the value of citizen access to the legal system.

[Pepperbelly]

22. once again, Kentuck ...

you have put your finger directly on what should be paramount in all of our eyes.

The Politics of Ridicule has been perfected by these sleazy assholes since around 1988, with Papa Bush's run against Dukakis. Bill Clinton overcame it, Al Gore did not. So what did Bill Clinton di differently from Al Gore?

I think it might have been the instant reponse offered by BC's war room in '92, the experience of overcoming the gop thugs that way, and the continuation of it all the way through his years in the office. Respond quickly, respond hard, use surrogates while staying above it.

:shrug:

[gulliver]

24. Gore vs. Clinton. Anger and self-deprecation vs. cool.

Clinton's humor was not self-deprecating as Gore's invariably was.

For example, remember Clinton's video where he figures out you can get free sodas from the White House soda machine. Hilarious, but not self-deprecating. Also remember Clinton's line about Bush, "My daddy was president, how bad could I be?" Great stuff.

Gore's humor was usually self-deprecating and played to his reputation for being wooden. But I think that backfired to some extent, because it left people wanting to keep Gore pigeon-holed as a dweeb. Gore played the self-deprecating humor like a maestro. It was very funny, but it was not politically effective.

Gore needed to make the other guy (Bush) the laughingstock. The laughter should have served to destroy the other guy's "creative tension." Bush built a lot of sandcastles that Gore could have kicked down or ridiculed. Gore didn't. He got "angry."

Anger plays right into the other guys hands.

"I thought he was going to hit George," (at the debate) said Bar Bush...

On edit: I do think anger has a place, however. Caustic humor (if very funny) can be devestating.

[kentuck]

30. And if you think about it, they used it on McGovern many years ago

He was weak on defense. He was allied with those "peace-niks"...

[sandnsea]

23. Genetic engineeering

Find the Republican gene and get it the hell out of our gene pool!!

(That's my husband's solution!)

[kaybea]

25. Use the 'politics of the backhanded compliment' instead

like Clark did a few weeks ago. When the 'journalist' asked him a question along the lines of "Say something nice about Bu$h because I luuurrrvve him soooo" Clark said, "I give Bu$h a lot of credit for overcoming alcoholism and his serious family troubles."

It was an instant classic. That journalist looked absolutely fist-fucked after that. But what could he say? It was, literally at least, a compliment.

That's the way to go.

[gulliver]

27. That was a doozie!

Burrrrrrrrrnnn!

Thanks for the reminder.

[sandnsea]

31. Clark is very very good

He makes these quiet little zingers that don't really antagonize, but let's the opposition know "don't go there".

[Hamlette]

28. and don't forget to laugh

when they get truly outlandish or keep trying to change the subject we should laugh: "Isn't Clark just a stalking horse for Hillary?" reply, after a laugh: "Oh, how silly. How is that important? What is important is that our country has been hijacked by a group of policy makers who don't represent American values. We value...blah blah... You gotta do it fast, don't pause, have a talking point ready.

Works with the cons at work all the time and DK won the last debate by doing just that with Nightline (he would have been a tad more charming had he laughed at the question...but hey, he was great anyway and as a disclaimer, I'm a Wes Winger._

[frustrated_lefty]

33. Our nominee should make

a brief statement, saying "if you really want to go there, we can talk about Dubya's year spent AWOL, or his failure in every business venture he ever pursued. We can talk about how his daddy bailed him out of failure after failure throughout his life. I would, however, prefer too talk about how we're going to make America a better place."

[snippy]

34. The "politics of ridicule" is just one example of one of the fundamental

principles of republican politics. That principle is to make sure that it is the republican party, rather than the democratic party, which establishes the definition of the democratic party and democratic candidates in the minds of as many voters as possible.

Since Newt Gingrich took over GOPAC in the 1980's, the republican strategy has emphasized trying to marginalize the democratic party by painting it as extremist in its liberalism. This is why a republican candidate for any office higher than dogcatcher is trained to use words from the famous GOPAC list when referring to a democratic opponent or the democratic party. It is also why the republican party spends millions of dollars every year and employs hundreds of people solely to make the democratic party appear too liberal for most independent voters. In fact, the republican party spends far more money and far more time defining the democratic party than the democratic party does.

Creating a negative impression or definition of a democratic candidate is always the very first thing the republican party does. Once a negative impression or definition of a candidate is established in a voter's mind, it is extremely difficult to change it by debating the issues or arguing that the negative impression is wrong. Republicans would much rather wait until they have created that impression or definition before they debate any issues.

The comparison of Dean to McGovern is an excellent example of this. The republican party is defining Dean in the minds of independent and republican voters as being so unqualified and so unacceptable to the American people that he will lose to Bush by a margin similar to that of the McGovern loss to Nixon. The idea is not necessarily to criticize Dean as much as it is to create the impression that he is a liberal loser. If Dean attempts to debate the issues while the republicans are creating that impression of him in independent voters' minds he will be at a huge disadvantage.

What Dean should do on this one question is redefine McGovern's loss to Nixon. McGovern was defeated by a campaign that was nothing more than a huge criminal operation led by a ruthless and vindictive liar who was willing to do anything to win. No intelligent analysis of McGovern's loss to Nixon can omit an examination of the crimes committed by Nixon and his staff.

Dean should say that McGovern's loss was due in part to the criminal actions of his opponent rather than solely to McGovern's qualifications, and that as a matter of fact, the behavior of McGovern's victorious opponent was so criminal that the American people found it necessary to have him removed from office before his term had ended. Dean should go on to say that, if he will be facing a campaign and an opponent just as ruthless, vindictive, dishonest and criminal as McGovern faced, the comparison may be apt.

[sendero]

35. The fact is..

... that voters make their selection not on "facts", which nobody on either side believes any more (thanks to the 'fact' that there is no objective source of news and no objective analysis in the vast media sphere) but on emotional responses.

The Reps are masters of engendering bogus moral indignation using shrill half-truths. Think it hasn't worked for them?

Attacks have to be answered swiftly and decisively. This is one reason Gore lost, he let them hang all that nonsense on his back and it stuck.

[rucky]

36. Being on the right side of the issues

gives us license to be disrespectful of the other side. With that frame of mind we can attack viciously and stay on topic at the same time.

It goes against the nature of many good people, but these aren't good people that we're up against.

Best thing I learned in riting skool was "show - don't tell"

You can talk about slashing medicare, but punctuate the general issue with an emotional story about a person or persons who will die broke because of this decision.