Conservatives better debaters than Liberals?

[patricia92243]

LIBERALS ON THE TUBE....Via Suburban Guerrilla, Eric Alterman wants to know why there are so many conservatives on TV and so few liberals:

On the cable news networks and Sunday shout fests where conservatives love to pull the "liberal bias" charge out of their bags when confronted with facts they don't like, you would be hard pressed to find much liberal representation. It's odd that of most prominent liberals writing in the nation's newspapers and opinion magazines — E.J. Dionne, Robert Kuttner, Paul Krugman, Hendrik Hertzberg, Molly Ivins — not one has ever been given a regular slot on television, like say, Bob Novak, Fred Barnes, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Tony Blankley, Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly or Brit Hume.

Eric's point is that conservatives should quit whining about liberal bias when they're the ones who own the political airwaves. That's true, but at the same time he brings up a good question: why are there more conservatives than liberals on TV slugfests?

This has always been a mystery to me, ever since the famous "Point-Counterpoint" debates on 60 Minutes between Shana Alexander and James J. Kilpatrick. I remember at the time being annoyed at the fact that I thought Kilpatrick was wrong, but also that he was much the better debater. What's more, an additional 30 years of watching liberals and conservatives on TV hasn't changed my mind: conservatives usually do better.

Why? It's not that liberals don't get a chance (as on talk radio, which was taken over by conservatives very early) and it's not that network news honchos are unsympathetic to liberals. I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of the people or the quality of the thoughts. Liberals do fine on op-ed pages. Nor am I under the misimpression that liberals are unable to be nasty enough. And yet, in show after show, they're typically overmatched.

This is genuinely perplexing, and I think it's a big part of the reason that political talk shows have such heavy conservative representation: they're just livelier and more interesting on TV than liberals are. I don't have a clue why this is so, but since it goes directly to the core of recent liberal weakness at shaping public debate, it might be worth someone's time to give this some dispassionate study. How about it, Media Matters?

[TyeDye75]

1. Liberals have to be rational

or they get called on everything, Conservatievs can just spew BS blind ideology and they get away with it.....

maybe you could say its the liberals fault that they get away with it

[Arkana]

41. Exactly

If we just squawked random RNC talking points like the morons on TV do, we could be better master (de)bators than them. :eyes:

[retread]

49. What you are watching are NOT debates. They are more pro-wrestling than

debating.

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. Because shrill fear-mongering talking points can be

uttered within the time limit, but thoughtful intelligent analyses of the issue takes a bit longer. The media is worried about taxing our attention spans, yeah, that's it.

Honestly? I have no idea.

[sazemisery]

3. Conservatives are Master Debaters

[snowbear]

4. Without the "de"...

LOL :rofl:

[The Doctor.]

8. I am a Master Debater...

Because I am quite the Cunning Linguist.

[MadisonProgressive]

66. A felated thank you for that insight!

[googly]

46. I am master only at bating

:loveya:

[TahitiNut]

48. Nonsense. Argumentative? Sure. Debate? No way.

I've yet to hear a right-winger peddle anything but a flood of fallacies, with ad hominems topping the list. Even then, without anything even approaching a valid syllogism, they salt their verbal diarrhea with outright falsehoods, misrepresentations, amphiboly, and thin half-truths. On top of it all, they only trot out their pet "principles" when it's convenient and self-serving.


Just as a fer-instance, since the "supply-siders" pretend to think that lowering taxes will (eventually) increase tax revenues, why the hell haven't any of them argued for lowering the payroll tax as a method of solving the so-called "crisis" in Social Security?

[burythehatchet]

59. I am Master of my DOMAIN

my domain name is www.ltcrisk.com

[The Doctor.]

5. I doubt that is the case.

I believe it really does come down to the media moguls deciding who gets air time.

It's not that 'conservatives' are better at debate, it's that they are countered by weak debaters.

[FreedomAngel82]

37. I believe in the documentary "OutFoxed" it shows

on their shows at least for every democrat they have on the show they have two more republicans. It's very out numbered and the republicans use their talking points and have the host on their side. Go to http://www.mikemalloy.com and in his media section on his website watch him being on Fox and how they treated him. This is the perfect example.
It also helps that they twist and lie and when a democrat, or anybody apposing them, calls them on it they shout and scream etc. It's really ridiculous. The only one of these shows I bother watching is Bill Maher's.

[Vincardog]

6. What shows have you watched?

It's not that liberals don't get a chance
As if they ever were given a chance to complete a full sentence before being shouted down by either the radical right wing host or Rabid Radical Right Wing Nut in opposition.

and it's not that network news honchos are unsympathetic
Where have you seen a sympathetic news honcho?

The Reich Wingers spew lie after lie and stick to the talking points unchallenged. When ever the sacrificial 'Liberal' calls any of them on it they get shouted down.

[meppie-meppie not]

7. Conservatives just keep parroting back their talking points...

it's hard to debate a skipping record

[Lindacooks]

40. LOL! What a great quote:

It's hard to debate a skipping record - mind if I borrow that??

[meppie-meppie not]

45. not at all! :-)

:toast:

[LouKYDem]

9. Right-wing Debaters...

What I have noticed is that they are much better debaters because, well, they lie in order to make their points. And they are especially craftful in their lies, putting them in a way where it is difficult for liberals to demonstrate exactly where they lied.

[snowbear]

11. Dayum, Lou in KY.. you don't watch many debates, do you?

:o :o :o

[The Jacobin]

10. We lack the arrogance of certainty

Liberals have always been willing to look for a better solution. We are always willing to say "This is my idea, but there might be a better way." It comes from a broad education and a true tolerance of a range of ideas.

Conservatives have a strong anti-intellectual streak and are usually willing to follow a paster, say, who is willing to say "I know the truth and the rest of you be damned."

In a television debate, it looks like the liberal gets killed because he tries to assert only things that can be backed up by evidence and is willing to admit error. The conservative will arrogantly assume her beliefs are absolutely true (even if there isn't a shred of evidence to support them) and will die before admitting the mere possibility of error.

[sherman761]

12. Hillary Clinton gains support

52% of people now say they will very likely or be somewhat likely to vote for Hillary Clinton for President.

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

[snowbear]

13. Sherman... you used your 1st post on that?

:o

O'well.. hey... welcome aboard :hi:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

39. A smaller, more cohesive group that stays on message

is more powerful exponentially per member than a group of political-if-I-feel-like-it-Dems.
That's why they may only be 10-17% of the elctorate but they wield the power of 3X that - because they get out the vote and they vote cohesively. They have 100% turnout in their subgroup and they vote Republican.

[Turn CO Blue]

62. Pretty good guess. I would guess the same thing.

[newyawker99]

63. Hi sherman761!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Culture Mind]

16. you hit the nail on the head The Jacobin.

liberals want to win a debate by being truthful and right and fair.
The liberal may actually be listening to the opposing viewpoint. The liberal understands that the issues are rarely black/white and has some capacity to be swayed by reason.

The conservative already know they are right and will do/say anything to convince others. Reason/logic/truth be damned.

[Darkhawk32]

14. Thom Hartmann would WHOOP Limpballs' ass in a debate. n/t

[donkeyotay]

34. That is so true. Hartman would nuke him

I don't buy the premise that cons are better masterdebaters. I say, lets put Hartmann up against Limpballs to test the hypothesis.

Oh, and we get to choose the show's host. Now that would be refreshing, to have a tv head that doesn't sound like they came from the Karl Rove School of Crooked Journalism.

[drm604]

15. Don't Think of an Elephant...

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/19811

[NAO]

55. Lakoff's Progressive Think Tank - ROCKRIDGE INSTITUTE

Rockridge Institute - Lakoff's Progressive Think Tank
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org

George Lakoff correctly states that Conservatives are doing so well in part because they fund their intellectuals.

Massive right wing think tanks produce policy papers, integrated systematic philosophies, strategic documents, and debate tactic handbooks.

They exercise message control, where everyone is on the same page and reinforces everyone else's positions. They use carefully crated linguistic metaphors (frames) that evoke powerful emotional imagery far beyond the mere content of the words they are using.

George Lakoff is of course the most noted documenter of this phenomena, and he has tried to provide a way for progressives and liberals to win.

Rockridge Institute - Lakoff's Progressive Think Tank
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org

The right wing guru that is responsible for much of the success of the GOP is Frank Luntz.

Frank Luntz, the Propagandist of the Century
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/LuntzPropagandistOfCentury.html

His "Playbook" can be downloaded here:
http://www.yuricareport.com/BushSecondTerm/Luntz.pdf

[gratuitous]

17. Not to mention that liberals who are too successful

Don't get invited back. You ever seen that guy whose father died in the WTC attack invited back to O'Reilly's show? The one O'Reilly said he wanted to punch and kept telling to "Shut up, shut up, shut up"? Never heard from him again, did you? Ever wonder why?

[louis-t]

18. Conservatives HAVE to be better debaters

If you don't have truth, common sense, morality, honor or integrity, you'd better be a good debater.

[housewolf]

19. Conservative pundits don't debate

they spout talking points and take the moral high ground. They know well how to simplify issues into short snappy one-liners that have "sticking" power. Liberals fall before the moral high ground the conservatives have taken and get lost in nuance.

The conservative have training courses where they send folks to learn how to do conservative-speak. We don't.

[blm]

20. Because cons are never thrown off their attacks by distracting facts

so they can concentrate on ramping up the nastiness and ad hominems. They are also willing to lie blatantly and unapologetically.

[Warpy]

21. No, they just YELL LOUDER

or hadn't you noticed that part?

[snowbear]

22. Democrats are also better in bed...

Hey.. it's been documented.. :shrug:

Sorry lurking freepers.. your limp excuses won't work here. You can't debate and you suck in the sack.

Oh.. and according to the news today, most Republican men are going blind! (something to do about the meds they take) :o :o :o :o

[karynnj]

23. On an even playing field, many liberals beat conservatives

John Kerry was an incredible debater - if the media was like it was even a decade ago, his already obvious win would have been even more obvious because he made very very few mistakes compared to Bush's complete lack of knowledge. Al Gore beat Bush until a biased press played excepts of him sighing out of context. Kennedy beat Nixon.

I think much of what you are calling debate are unfortunate shows where (unlike the more civil point/counter point) you have 2 people shouting 20 second sound bites. Liberals lose that because the conservative answers are more simplistic. You also have the cable shows that are run by mostly conservative hosts how control the mike and of course always get the last word.

[spooky3]

67. Good points!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. They're not master debaters

They (1) simply shout down their opponents, (2) barrage them with questions so ridiculous that the only rational answer is "HUH?" and (3) attack them by purposely misunderstanding what they said.

Examples:

(1) ADMIT IT! YOU JUST HATE AMERICA LIKE ALL YOUR LIBERAL BUDDIES! JUST SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

(2) Don't you agree that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator? Don't you agree that Bush is the greatest president in modern history because we haven't had a terrorist attack since 2001? Don't you agree that Bush has reinstated moral values and ensured that we'll have oil and Social Security forever?

(3) Oh, so you're for abandoning the Iraqi people to the terrorists, huh? You must be anti-Muslim.

[ComerPerro]

25. Not hardly. Here are a few reasons why it may seem that way

(1) Conservatives are never asked to back up their assertions. They can lie without consequence, and their bullshit is given just as much respect as the truth.

(2) Conservatives usually outnumber liberals, especially on Faux News. Consider "The Factor". OReiley is the host, and he is a rabid conservative. Usually, in the interest of "fairness", he has one Dem and one Rep on. But, he invariably takes the side of the Republican, so we have a situation of 2 against 1 with the illusion of being "fair and balanced".

(3) In many cases, moderate Dems or liberals are brought on to debate fringe or extreme right wingers. The best example would be having Alan Colmes vs. Ann Coulter. Therefore, since the con is more passionate and vocal out their position, they seem to be the better debater.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

26. Ya, W really cleaned Kerry's clock..............NOT

The liberal debaters on TV hardly represent the best debtors and the RW debtors are just aggressive and loud.

I believe Galloway could make mincemeat of Hannity, Coulter, etc. etc.

[Hello_Kitty]

30. Can't bluster & soundbite

Your way through a Presidential debate. * learned that the hard way on the first one. And Hannity and the rest of those cowards would never face Galloway.

[wyldwolf]

27. Why Won’t Republicans Debate Anymore?

Why Won’t Republicans Debate Anymore? (something I wrote a while back...)

I spent an hour recently meticulously and systematically refuting the latest rightwing mass e-mail that was inadvertently sent to me. I say inadvertently because most of my friends and acquaintances who are of the conservative persuasion know I have and will make then look quite naive for forwarding that rubbish around. My method is simple: I don’t just reply to the sender, I include everyone in the usually long e-mail list so that they all benefit from the exposed lie.

It didn’t take long to get a reply back from one of them. The message was straight to the point. After all the facts and sources I listed, this Einstein merely wrote ignorant liberal. That was it. No counter arguments. No vain protests of my sources. He basically said I was ignorant for believing what I did and all the facts, history, and sources be damned. He was probably patting himself on the back for that one. Whoo hoo! I could just hear the "ditto dittos" from the others reading it. Never one to be outdone, I again replied back to all who were on the e-mail list and challenged him to an open debate in a chat room with all his friends watching. I gave him the opportunity to prove I was an “ignorant liberal.” (I also do this with people on the left sometimes as well - seems no one wants to debate in real time but would rather spend days snarking on message forums)

Why won’t Republicans debate anymore? I mean, really debate? I’m not talking about a verbal orgy of rumor spouting, mud slinging, and name calling that they’re so good at. A good healthy exchange of ideas, policies, and opinions in front of an audience of fence sitters is probably the best way to win over those who are undecided about something. It used to be standard. Now it seems the right will run at the first hint of actually having to present and defend their positions in front of anyone other than a FOX News audience.

Watching (and participating) in political debates are fun in a cruel kind of way. Seeing one guy squirm while the other rattles off a litany of facts and figures is like watching your team hit one out of the park or passing for the game winning touch down. Unfortunately for conservatives, their exchanges with liberals in the last 30 years or so has more often than not resulted in their team being the one watching the ball sail over their heads and into the seats!

Witness the George H.W. Bush/William Jefferson Clinton debates of ’92. Before Clinton, by most estimates, summarily cleaned Bush’s clock , Clinton had to enlist a flock of costumed chickens to tail President Bush around the country until he agreed to debate him . Like father like son, George W. Bush also did his fair share of “ducking” Al Gore’s invitation for debates in 2000.

George W. Bush and his handlers resisted having prime time debates almost immediately. People wondered if he just didn’t want to debate Gore during the time when most people could view it. He finally agreed to the prime time debates but then suggested they be held on sole-broadcast forums such as CNN's "Larry King Live," quite possibly as a way to still limit the amount of viewers. Bush also didn’t want them to be held under the auspices of the Commission on Presidential Debates, an independent organization that has been the prime sponsor of such forums in the last three elections.

When Bush finally agreed to debates, he – like his father – was slayed by another so-called “ignorant liberal.” For example, after the first debate an Associated Press panel of high school and college debate coaches judged Al Gore the winner. According to William Woods Tate, debate coach of Montgomery Bell Academy in Nashville, Tenn., and president of the National Forensic League, “on the basis of six debate-judging criteria -- reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, cross-examination and presentation -- Gore was the better debater. Gore simply had more information at his fingertips.” Earlier panels, with some rotating members and some holdovers, also picked Gore as winner of his two previous debates against Bush.

Melissa Maxcy Wade, debate coach at Emory University in Atlanta, said Gore used ‘assertive confidence’ to good effect in the debates. James Unger, director of the National Forensic League of Washington, which brings together high school and college debaters and educators to study competitive debate, said Gore had shown steady improvement. ‘Gore finally mastered the debate process, his debate opponent and himself," he said. ‘The newest Al Gore is the best.’”

Only one judge chose Bush as the winner in the St. Louis debate. Dallas Perkins said "Gore was woefully unprepared and pathologically incapable of following the rules." Incidentally, Perkins was the debate coach at Harvard University. George W. Bush recieved his Masters of Business Administration from Harvard. The Bush family breeds loyalty for sure!

The Republican elite aren’t stupid. They have their share of researchers and pollsters just like our side does. They should know research shows that debates don’t matter a whole lot. Usually a candidate's poll numbers only increase marginally – if at all - after a debate victory. That’s because only partisans tune in. Independents, the key swing voters, tend to be less engaged in politics. So they’re much less likely to watch the debates. Additionally, debates tend to reinforce preconceived notions, not change them. Most of each candidate’s supporters say it’s their guy who won.

If the above is true than why is there an overall trend in conservative politics – from office water cooler pundits and internet chat room participants to national level candidates – to avoid engaging liberals in open discussions of the issues? Could it be that, like no other time in history, conservative arguments are at best weak and at worst out right lies? Are they afraid of being exposed in front of just one person who will then spread the word of how “republican x” was caught lying or exaggerating to make a point?

During the Clinton years, the right engaged in what has since been termed “the politics of personal destruction.” They couldn’t beat Clinton on the issues (as daddy Bush so beautifully displayed) so they attempted to make character an issue above and beyond the economy, domestic, and foreign policy by attacking his personal life. By hammering their point so loudly and so often that Clinton was immoral (by their standards) they found a debate they could win. After all, and to be fair, Mr. Clinton did give them plenty of ammo on that front. So sure were they that attacking character was the way to win elections that in 2000, they managed to get a Federal Court to throw out rules during, and only for, the 2000 election. The rules that were suspended were ones that forced broadcasters to give candidates and private citizens a chance to respond to personal attacks and political endorsements. In other words, rightwing politicians were now free to slander liberal candidates and private citizens without fear of effective and meaningful rebuttal.

What does all this mean to you? Simple. This rule does not apply in public. If a right-winger begins spouting his simple minded rhetoric, you have the choice to correct him or her. Honestly, it’s not that difficult to do because they’re usually parroting some Limbaugh lines and will become flabbergasted at the mere suggestion of a challenge. When they begin huffing and puffing and calling you names, you know they're on the ropes. Once they launch into a tirade on Clinton’s penis, you’ve won!

I did receive a reply from the person I mentioned at the beginning of this article. As expected, he declined my debate invitation.

“I don't have to argue with someone whose thinking is an inch deep,” He wrote.

”Your whole approach is humanistic and therefore faulty. God was and is the original conservative. If you don't like the rules that he laid out for you take it up with him not with me."

With that, I challenged God to a debate. However I don’t believe a reply is forthcoming.

[snowbear]

33. You did an awesome job wyldwolf!

Great work!! You should be a research and PR expert for the DNC ~~ :headbang:

[Ravy]

28. Conserative talking heads can rely on false statistics provided by

the government.

[Lexingtonian]

29. oh, it's training mostly

For one thing, the conservative line in most issues has been worked out long and hard over the years, so there is a lot of briefing material and a lot of thinking over the fundamental ideas and connections. The money is also there to make the PR operation as efficient as possible.

Secondly, most viewers share the implicit bias that conservatives bring to the argument, which is that what was done in the past was in many ways correct and justifiable.

Thirdly, the people Republicans put on TV are well trained and well briefed. They may be personally stupid, but behind them are people with good educations in classical rhetoric and with a lot of material organized on how to rebut their opposition.

Liberal pundits bring to the table is a far less systematic effort and a much greater reliance on instinctiveness and inadequately analyzed claims and evidence. There are no think tanks that have people who remember how the argument was successfully made (either way) in the past, or have written up and updated the cheat sheets. There is no central intellectual and Constitutional interpretation/tenet set on which the whole ideology is based.

Liberal punditry wins when it can explain how the present social or political reality is different from that bygone era which the conservative pundit implicitly pretends we still live in. And how that distinction, once drawn, breaks up the conservative logic into incoherence. But few liberal pundits have the historical education to see the conservative reference frame, know its weakness, or the acuity to really nail the two things down in a sharp phrase very often.

Many of the younger pundits have no depth of education in grammar, in semantics and semiotics, or formal rhetoric proper. They don't have the ear for the language that strikes people as prestigeous and acute (despite its diminished substance- see George Will), they don't get the whole traditional English semantics and its prestige and force and cultural conventions of argument right (see George Galloway for someone who does) when they try, and on top of that they don't get the traditional rhetorical gesture "language" and flourishes right either much of the time (Dubya is fairly good at this, Clinton is/was amazing; Gore was awful except for his concession speech). I don't fault liberal pundits for this defect, because they are not and should not be traditionalists of the British sort, but they haven't really worked out an alternative that really works. We have a lot of Jewish-American pundits doing fairly well with the variety that derives from their tradition, but it has limited appeal. We have black American pundits with similar virtues and limits.

The solutions to this are pretty easy in theory. First of all, Democrats have to work out their center in the Constitution and reconfigure all arguments to reflect the central principle(s) solidly. Democrats have to stop trying to demonstrate liberalism and have to start talking about the fruits of it and take the correctness of it as a given.

Secondly, Democrats/liberals have to find their language and mature out its rhetorical style and its semantics and semiotics. The words will all be English ones, but the thing has to be American rather than British in all its psychological qualities. There is an awful lot of British Islands bias in American English, far exceeding the demographic rationale, and its (very conservative) guardian WASPs who believe they own and rule it have code words for language that obeys traditional Anglo-Saxon rules and usages and assumptions- "good writing" in written materials, and "very articulate" or "persuasive" in oral presentation. (Of course, not much of what they call these things really exhibits these qualities to other Americans.) Democrats and liberals have to find and reimplement the language qualities that lie in the continent's other major cultural tradition- the American Indian languages, many or most qualities of which also pervade Latino Spanish. Imaginativeness, strong similes and metaphors, reliance on first principles, practicality as first virtue, respect for things outdated and yet a cutting humor without real humiliation or status consequences, a certain contempt for theoretical emphasis and nostalgia, strong and real personal autonomy and yet utter social commitment, a strong pragmatism and ability to watch other people and proclaim them crazy.

That's where the future is. We have a version of this language, as humor and not quite grappling with American middle and upper class political issues, in things like "The George Lopez Show". We have pieces of it in such things as the famous speech of Chief Joseph, and the famous speech of Chief Seattle. Bill Clinton got better and better at this language throughout his Presidency. We have wonderfully perfect admixtures of it and and Anglo-Saxon political language in the speeches of Abraham Lincoln. John Kerry swings between all three kinds with lesser skill, but he can get it perfect at times- now if he could only use fresh language with it, he'd be golden....

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

32. Could Galloway MP be a consultant/coach?

Because I thought he was magnificent in the Senate hearing. Simply the best.

[Lexingtonian]

35. Couldn't hurt. n/t

[bvar22]

36. Becuase Republicans...

...."repeat the same things over and over again to kinda catapult the propaganda".---george bush* 2005

Geobbels would love george bush*
and today's republican party!

GOEBBELS' PRINCIPLES OF PROPAGANDA

Based upon Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda by Leonard W. Doob,
published in Public Opinion and Propaganda;
A Book of Readings edited for The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.



2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority. (Rove)

a. It must issue all the propaganda directives. (Talking Points)

c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have propaganda consequences. (Tight White House Control)


a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence (Embed reporters, CorpoMedia censorship of News, marginalizing and ridiculing the opposition)

b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions (Lead the Democrats to "compromise")


6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium. (FOX NEWS, CorpoTelevision in general)

7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false. (george bush* is an honest and godly man..bush* talks to god...god told him to invade...Party of Moral Values (WTF)...Culture of Life...:puke:)


12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige. (all the prestige of the White House)

13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.

a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.

b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment

c. A propaganda theme must be repeated

14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans. (whiney, welfare, latte drinking, weak, liberals)

a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses (hate, fear)

b. They must be capable of being easily learned (Bumper sticker, one liner sound bytes) (Someone tell JKerry)

c. They must be utilized again and again


16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level. (Terra alert!!!...Terra Alert!!...WMDs...mushroom clouds!!!...)

a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat (We must fight them therei instead of here. SS is bankrupt!!)

17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.

a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated

b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective (we're turning the corner...Elections!!!...they are killing us because we are winning...)

18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred. (Liberals, obstructionist Democrats, Arab terrorists, immigrants, gays..godless liberals)

*List partially edited
**My comments in italics

http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html

george bush* and the NeoCons owe this man EVERYTHING!


george's grandpappy didn't just finance the Nazis,
he stole the playbook!

[many a good man]

38. Kicking!

Lots of cogent analyses here!

:kick:

[patricia92243]

54. First time I've ever had a post "kicked." My posts are usually drivel.

:)

[kodi]

42. you don't know? its that too many liberals have bourgeois's affectations

i know quite well that what i am about to say will get me the reprobation of many duers, but those of us on the left who are not afraid to get bloodied in a fight know exactly what i mean.

the right wing acts like the Borg and all the majority of the left does is complain and suck their teeth appalled at the ugliness of the conversation from the right. its nasty, low-down, mean-spirited stuff and the left has an aversion to getting their hands dirty in fighting the right with such tactics.

this type of rodney king "can't we all get along" bullshit will get us all put in concentration camps.

protest matches don't mean shit to those people. they respect only force and a punch right in the mouth.

i do not back down with right wing mouth breathers and am willing to bust a head or get my own head busted whenever i confront right wing sons a bitches who try to dehumanize or attack me with their rhetoric. i am unwilling to bend over for them and i spit in their eyes whenever i deem it appropriate.

i have had to pull out a firearm twice since 1997 when accosted by a group of nazi rednecks in the parking lot of a bar and i had NO qualms about having to shoot them right in the face if they continued to threaten to attack me and my gay friends, and those bastards knew it.

until the left pushes back and takes an eye for an eye from the right when they attack, they will continue to bully those who oppose them....yeah and i know all about gandhi's remark about how an eye for an eye blinds the world, but gandhi lived under a society that had at least some modicum of respect for the law, but had he lived in the third reich, gandhi would have been kindling for the furnaces at auschwitz.

the jews know what happens when one does not fight back, and they will never let it happen again.

good does not always triumph over evil. that is a saying you teach young children, but adults ought to know better and be prepared to fight the right wing bastards whenever they act in a threatening manner.

anyone recall what happened to larry o'donnell when he confronted the swift boat liars on tv, and called them that, repeatedly? he was ostricized by the left for his confrontational approach. but had john kerry done just that he would be president today.

on wednesday i was behind a pick up truck that had a bunch of anti-gay, anti-liberal, right wing bumper stickers on it. one especially caught my eye that said "liberalism is a curable disease" i pulled up next to him and leaned out the window and told him he was a fucking idiot for being a conservative piece of shit and i kept hollering at him to come and see if he could kick my liberal ass. he just drove on.

i am old enough to remember what happened in 1978 at the "death to the klan" march in greensboro, north carolina, the klan shot dead 4 unarmed people in the streets that day and not a single one of them ever went to jail for it.

never again, never, ever again.

and if it happens again, i intend to send as many of them straight to hell before i join them there.

[NAO]

43. Conservatives fund their intellectuals...massive right wing think tanks

Produce policy papers, integrated systematic philosophies, strategic documents, and debate tactic handbooks.

They exercise message control, where everyone is on the same page and reinforces everyone else's positions. They use carefully crated linguistic metaphors (frames) that evoke powerful emotional imagery far beyond the mere content of the words they are using.

George Lakoff is of course the most noted documenter of this phenomena, and he has tried to provide a way for progressives and liberals to win.

Rockridge Institute - Lakoff's Progressive Think Tank
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org

The right wing guru that is responsible for much of the success of the GOP is Frank Luntz.

Frank Luntz, the Propagandist of the Century
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/LuntzPropagandistOfCentury.html

His "Playbook" can be downloaded here:
http://www.yuricareport.com/BushSecondTerm/Luntz.pdf

[dajoki]

44. check this link

recruiting young conservatives. look here:http://www.phc.edu/about/default.asp

[jfxgillis]

47. I HATE to date myself citing Marshall McLuhan, but ...

... I gotta date myself.

To make up for it, I'll use a hip new trendy term from that typing machine called the "internet."

In a nutshell, television is a WYSIWYG medium. The very shallowness of conservative:

1. Logic

2. Rhetorical style and

3. Visual presentation

is a huge advanatage on a cool medium like TV. Example: That idiotic "Red vs. Blue" map. It's visually striking in and of itself but any, and I mean ANY reasonable interpretation reveals it to be just a lot of dirt colored red. However, where conservatives have "The Map," liberals need the "The Map" PLUS an interpretation.

Can there be any doubt that the rise of the American Right and the insinuation of television as our primary media coincide almost exactly?

Any new media out there we lefties might be better at?

:^{)

[orpupilofnature57]

52. Why, his genius of the" Gutenberg Galaxy" told us about Kkkarl and..

Manipulation of media as a viable tool.

[bvar22]

56. THAT stupid piece of propaganda!

I replaced it with this one.

[LuPeRcALiO]

68. No accident. They get amateurs to debate pros.

There's a reason you'll never see Alexander Cockburn on any of those shows. :shrug:

[retread]

50. What you are watching are NOT debates. They are more pro-wrestling than

debating.

[orpupilofnature57]

51. Wrong ! Politician liberals kick pukers ass, the very nature of media..

lends it self to Sugar and easy solutions, and thats the only reason TV idiots do well.

[agincourt]

53. I beg to differ here

Corporate honchos want conservatives to do well. If more liberals were on TV people might vote liberal. Then we might ,get oh my god, actual corporate taxes. There are plenty of liberals out there who can give RWingers a beat down. They will not get expensive airtime earmarked for GOP advertising.

[aspberger]

57. CONSERVATIVES ARE MORE MACHIAVELLIAN

and are concerned with power verses policy. policy is whatever keeps them in power.

[newyawker99]

64. Hi asperger!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DuaneBidoux]

58. Better? Is more primal better. The liberals debate with the

cerebrum, conservatives with the reptilian brain, and nerve signals make it to the reptilian brain more quickly. A damn shame.

[bobbieinok]

60. 2 conservatives + conserv host to 1 liberal.....good liberal debaters NOT

asked back

conservatives talk over or ignore liberal points

liberals are interrupted, given less time to speak, are not allowed to finish a thought

[leesa]

61. I think conservatives are terrible debaters. They just use slogans and

meaningless phrases and just keep repeating them over and over again.

[MadisonProgressive]

65. It's very difficult to explain complex subjects and the

dependencies of numerous complex variables when you are being interrupted evry 5 seconds or shouted down. Problems in this world cannot be solved by sound bites, they are complex. The pubes know if there is a true debate and all the facts are layed out on the table and independently verified - they lose EVERY TIME!