The Potential of the Great Backlash Narrative

by Chris Bowers, Sun Dec 12, 2004 at 03:07:07 PM EST

For the Republican Party to present itself as the champion of working class America strikes liberals as such an egregious denial of political reality that they dismiss the whole phenomenon, refusing to take it seriously. The Great Backlash, they believe, is nothing but crypto-racism, or a disease of the elderly, or the random gripings of religious rednecks, or the protests of "angry white men" feeling left behind by history.

But to understand the backlash in this way is to miss its power as an idea and its broad popular vitality. It keeps coming despite everything, a plague of bitterness capable of spreading from the old to the young, from Protestant fundamentalists to Catholics and Jews, and from the angry white man to every demographic shading imaginable.

--Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas? p.8

Frank's sweeping claim of the wide potential of the Great Backlash narrative is perhaps a little overwrought. However, understanding the potential of the Great Backlash narrative is important, both for its implications as a broad social trend and because of its profound electoral implications. What is its remaining growth potential? How many more people can the narrative ensnare and further push the country to the right? In the extended entry, this post attempts to provide answers to these questions.

The Great Backlash Narrative specifically targets four institutions as the undemocratic sources of cultural power from which the liberal elite oppress the common: academia, the entertainment industry, the judiciary and the media. To understand the potential of the Great Backlash Narrative thus requires an examination of public opinion of these four institutions. Specifically, we need to identify the number of people who currently identify as independents and Democrats but who hold Great Backlash Narrative opinions about these four institutions, and thus could be swung to the dark side.

The Media

Constant assertions and complaints about liberal bias in the media is probably the most visible and familiar of the Great Backlash Narrative attacks against institutions that are supposedly dominated by liberal elites. Perhaps as a result of the familiarity of these attacks, or perhaps because of the rising distrust of the "corporate" media on the left, attacks against the media seem to have gained Republicans as many Great Backlash converts as they ever will. For example, look at the results of the following poll:

Chicago Tribune Poll conducted by Market Shares Corp. June 23-27, 2004. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).

"Thinking again about the media and their news stories about politics, elected officials, and election campaigns, do you think their coverage is biased or not biased?

	     Biased   Not Biased    Don't Know
ALL	      76		14	     9
Republicans    85		11	     4
Democrats      73		17	     9
Independents   74		16	     9

Asked of respondents who answered "Biased": "Generally speaking, do you think the news media are mostly biased in favor of Republicans, mostly biased in favor of Democrats, or does the bias favor each party about the same?"

	     Pro-DNC   Pro-RNC	Same / DK
ALL	      22		13	    41
Republicans    53		 4	    28
Democrats	       4		24	    44
Independents   14		11	    49

According to this poll, Independents do not view the media as containing a liberal or pro-Democratic bias, and Democrats clearly do not view the media this way. With only 14% of Independents buying into the "liberal media" Great Backlash myth, and a statistically equal amount of Independents believing that the media actually has a conservative or pro-Republican bias, this aspect of the narrative appears to have reached its peak. Obviously, complaining about the liberal media is still good for throwing red meat to the Republican base, but it does not appear to have the potential to win many new people to the conservative cause.

The Judiciary

Like the Great Backlash complaints about the "liberal media," Great Backlash arguments against the judiciary seem to have reached their peak in terms of making more people conservatives. Unlike conservative complaints about the SCLM, tirades against "liberal judges" seem as though they might in fact be counterproductive, and are not even very popular among Republicans. For example, here are the results from A Qunnipiac poll on the subject:

Quinnipiac University Poll. Feb. 26-March 3, 2003. N=1,448 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.6 (total sample).

Do you think the Supreme Court is too liberal, too conservative, or about right?"

		   All	 Reps	Dems  Indies
Too Liberal	    19	  29	 12	17
Too Conservative      26     12      37      27
About Right	    46	  51	 39	48
Don't Know	    10	   8	 12	 7

According to this poll, Independents, and the nation as a whole, actually view the Supreme Court as too conservative rather than too liberal. While other recent polls from Gallup and Fox showed more people believing the Supreme Court was too liberal than too conservative, neither poll broke the results down by partisan identification, and only showed 31% and 30% buying into the "liberal judges" myth anyway. Clearly, this aspect of the narrative is severely lacking in popular appeal, and seemingly has no chance to create more Backlash dittoheads.

The Entertainment Industry

Unlike attacks against "liberal elites" in the media and the judiciary, there appears to be broad support among Democrats and Independents for the Backlash position on the entertainment industry:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Nov. 18-21, 2004. N=885 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). "How worried are you that popular culture -- that is television, movies, and music -- is lowering the moral standards in this country: very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried, or not at all worried?"

	   Very   Somewhat    Not 
All	     40       30	    30
Republicans   43       32	    25
Democrats     38       32	    30
Independents  39       27	    34

Worryingly, the Democratic, Republican and Independent positions on these issues are almost identical. This is clearly an avenue of attack where the Great Backlash narrative can have significant success. In the short term, the best counter for Democrats will probably be to engage in some attacks on salacious programming by companies owned by wealthy Republican donors. In the long-term, we are going to need a powerful narrative and noise machine of our own to prevent slippage based on this issue.

Academia

Another area of attack where the Great Backlash narrative seems it could have success is in its anti-intellectual arguments about supposedly pro-liberal academia. According to a recent poll conducted by the Chronicle of Higher Education, even many liberals seem to believe that academia is slanted too far to the left:

The poll, a telephone survey of 1,000 adults ages 25 to 65 from every state except Alaska and Hawaii, was designed by the consultant George Dehne in conjunction with The Chronicle's staff. The interviews were conducted this past winter by TMR Inc., of Broomall, Pa., and the data were collected and synthesized by GDA Integrated Services, a marketing-and-research company run by Mr. Dehne and based in Old Saybrook, Conn. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

While most of the questions in the poll were unchanged from last year, a few were added to reflect higher-education subjects that emerged as hot-button issues this year, like the supposed liberal bias of college campuses. David Horowitz, president of the California-based Center for the Study of Popular Culture, is leading a national campaign to urge Congress and state legislatures to adopt an "academic bill of rights" aimed at fostering a variety of political and religious beliefs at colleges.

College leaders have long said that the idea that their campuses are havens for left-leaning activists is more a perception than a reality. Still, that belief seems to be cemented among the public, according to the poll. Half of the respondents said that colleges improperly introduce a liberal bias into what they teach and that professors are liberal in their political views. Even among the respondents who described themselves as liberal, a surprising 30 percent said that colleges were biased toward the left in their teachings. Sixty-eight percent of conservatives agreed with them.

Considering the large shift among youth toward Democratic self-identification, don't be surprised if this typically muted line of attack (the "PC" wars from the early and mid-nineties have died down considerably) in the Great Backlash narrative grows in visibility over the next two years. Young voters go with Democrats because liberal professors are brainwashing them, conservatives will argue. We need to be ready for this and begin preemptively counterattacking, although I am not entirely sure what we should do as part of our counterattack.

* * * *

Overall, the Great Backlash narrative appears to still have significant room to grow in this country, as Democratic and Independent concerns over the entertainment industry and academia seem largely in line with the mythology of the narrative. The potential success of attacks on the liberal media appears to be non-existent except as a means to rev up the conservative base, and attacks against the judiciary almost seem counterproductive to the Great Backlash narrative. (I suppose it is hard for conservatives to complain about the judiciary when it installed a conservative who lost the popular vote as President). The two most important things for liberals to do in this situation is both to recognize that even though Republicans control all three branches of government that things can still become even worse, and that we remain in desperate need of a compelling narrative of our own.

Tags: Ideology (all tags)

Comments

29 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Start with the Economy

It would seem the obvious place to start developing a backlash narrative of our own is with the economy, right? I know I'm not really presenting anything new here, just responding to your call-to-arms. By (re)framing the economy as a cultural issue, we can convincingly argue that Republican leadership has swung our cultural-economic practices too far to the right. This one is so obvious that it's almost a no-brainer. The real challenge seems to be coming up with the most powerful frame possible for the argument.

by godotnut 2004-12-12 03:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Things can certainly get worse

The Republicans have tapped into a vein of resentment that runs deep among most rural, many exurban and suburban voters. They have, in general, succeeded in presenting themselves as the party of the culturally dispossessed. And no matter how much power they have amassed, they continue to see themselves, present themselves, and act as an embattled minority, fighting to defend "family values," religion, and America itself in a hostile world. And all that trumps the fact that voting Republicans is not in those voters' economic self-interest.

But here's the good news: give those voters candidates like the Salazar brothers in Colorado or the Democratic candidates in Montana--candidates they can identify with--and most of the Republican traction goes away. There are potential Democrats on the farms, in the small towns, and in the suburbs. They just need to see some Democratic candidates who look like them, who share their background, and who clearly respect them. It's time for some good old populist Democrats.

by Denver 2004-12-12 03:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

liberals and the entertainment industry

Here is the position that many of us are defending:

We ourselves wouldn't watch the crap they put on TV but we'll defend the industry to the death when it's being attacked by right-wing religious zealots and others of their ilk.

Something wrong here. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but our current position is not helping.

by sTiVo 2004-12-12 04:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: liberals and the entertainment industry

I agree. There have always been anti-obscenity laws. They wane and wax. If the FCC were to decide that this month, cleavage is off-limits, I wouldn't sweat it. I don't see any real harm done to our democracy in this way. Especially not when compared to the damage done to democracy by things like Guantanamo.

Of course, there's the question of consistent enforcement. I think Howard Stern was attacked, not because he has a potty-mouth, but because he's liberal. That is a threat to democracy.

by joshyelon 2004-12-13 09:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Analysis of next 20 years..

I think that the Republicans are positioning themselves to be able to blame the mass unemployment that I think is probable in the next 20 years on 'regulations', organized labor and the 'high cost of US labor' -

What we really need to be doing right now is making people aware that the kind of jobs that most people HAVE been doing are not going to be around much longer and that we need to RIGHT NOW, invest MUCH more than we have been doing in education and community infrastructure.

That will require a different approach to corporations.. We need legislation that will incentivise them to see the full life cycle of their actions through, not just simply try to take their profits now and ignore the implications or risks..

Dems need to be aware of the inevitable nature and also desirability of increased productivity, even if it does make unskilled labor obsolete.

We need to be facing the facts that, for example, when new technologies do these jobs, people will not be needed in them. In other words, we may be faced to lower the retirement age not raise it..

As new technologies that have been spawned out of the merger of computers and networks mature and take hold, literally millions of jobs that the working class hold now will disappear.

Its already happening. Human labor is expensive, and people's costs do not go down if their labor is no longer needed..

by ultraworld 2004-12-12 04:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Analysis of next 20 years..

Education? Maybe. But try telling that to a 50 year old programmer now out of a job because he's "overqualified."

The high-tech industry is just as implicated in the wage-reducing regime as the lower-skill industries. You shouldn't be so quick to buy their policy formulations.

by sTiVo 2004-12-12 04:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

it's deeper than that.

Whenever I see this "lack of education" frame, it makes me want to stop the conversation in its tracks, and beat that frame to death, because it's a very destructive, bullshit conservative frame.

Try a thought experiment: let's say we make everyone in America get a Ph.D-level education. What happens next? The answer is: somebody still has to move boxes in the warehouses, somebody still has to run the checkout line at the grocery store. These are essential, infrastructural functions. If nobody does these jobs, we don't eat. If we forced every American to get a Ph.D, then we'd have to force some of those Ph.D educated people to be cashiers and warehouse workers. We need people doing those jobs.

The conservative frame says that if you're poorly paid, it's because you're undisciplined, weak, and stupid. The "you're poor because you're not educated" frame is a thinly-disguised variant of the "you're poor because you're stupid and weak" frame.

But of course, the truth is: as long as our infrastructure workers are barely scraping by, then half of America will be barely scraping by. It doesn't matter matter if every single American is strong, smart, disciplined, and educated: half of us will get stuck doing infrastructure jobs, because those jobs are essential.

Here's the liberal frame: people doing infrastructural work are not stupid, weak, or undisciplined. They keep the country running, we rely on them, they are the ones doing the real work. For that, they deserve praise - and a decent living.

Here's how you know whether or not we really need more education: look at unemployment. If there is a serious shortage of workers at any level of the educational ladder, then you help people to move up to that level, to take the jobs that are waiting for them. But right now, there's unemployment at all levels.

by joshyelon 2004-12-13 08:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Analysis of next 20 years..

I think what the Republicans are doing is attacking institutions and groups that have historically supported Democrats. The fact that the institutional attacks also support pet GOP policies is a plus, but the main thing is to make sure that when popular discontent with Repug policies increases (oh...say, about 4 years from now), there'll be no support infrastructure capable of sustaining a progressive counter-attack. I would appreciate it if anyone has links that would help me flesh out these thoughts. A cursory survey:

The attack on laborin general, and public employee unions in particular, is central. See Borosage for all the ways this is happening.
The tort-reform effort is an attack on lawyers in general and trial lawyers in particular, as well as an attack on one of the few ways private citizens have of gaining some relief from renegade corporations.
No Child Left Behind is--especially in its current underfunded version--an attack on public schools and, by implication, teachers' unions (a key constituency for Democrats). It has the added appeal to the thugs of providing down the line (when even good suburban public schools are having difficulty meeting the unrealistic standards) a rationale for vouchers and charter schools.

by plunkitt 2004-12-13 04:36AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Analysis of next 20 years..

You're dead on.

NCLB is meant to hit the NEA, one of the last strongholds.

Tort-reform has the benefit of hurting lawyers though I wouldn't say that's the chief aim. The real reason is that the GOP are funded by the insurance industry to push this issue.

We need to attack the GOP the same way. Some suggestions:

Tax churches
Break the media conglomerates/trust bust
Take on the insurers with gov't health care
Raise taxes on corporations to help remove tax burden for workers.

by spectator consumer 2004-12-13 11:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

A Different Idea about this Phenomena

First, I haven't had the chance to read Frank's book, though I intend to. But the following is a theme I've developed that is probably different than Frank's, but may account for some of the same phenomena.

The idea is that in our age many ordinary (even poor) people find the self-esteem and spiritual challenges that they face to be greater than the economic ones. While Democrats have focused on economic solutions that help the American working class they have lost out to Republicans and new fangled churches who have focused on world views that tell people what they want to hear about the world and why they are unique and special. Consider the following in support of this view:
1) Republicans are often seen as the party of optimism, 2) Republicans accept ideas like the reason al-Qaida attacked the U.S. is because they hate our freedom, 3) Republicans are especially supportive of all forms of national self-congratulation, 4) Republicans often label critics of U.S. foreign policy as unpatriotic and rarely if ever accept the idea that our country may have acted in the wrong, 5) Republicans are especially distrustful of ideas like we may be running out of oil or we are causing global warming, 6) Republicans are especially supportive of attempts to claim that cultural ideologies close to U.S. forms of Democracy and Christianity are uniquely correct, 7) Republicans are more likely than Democrats to claim that U.S. workers are the best or hardest working people in the world, especially deserving of everything they have and more in the future, etc.

So Democrats support policies that are more materially advantageous to working people who are inclined to the Republican side of the themes expressed above and then they feel that the people have been duped when they vote for the Republican. Some of these same Democrats would be willing to spend many thousands of dollars in support of their favored candidates, so they do not actually believe that people should pursue a purely materialistic politics, but they don't connect that with the politics of working people who vote against their material best interest.

by LastToKnow 2004-12-12 04:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Disagree with you

Frank's thesis (which I do agree with) is that Democrats have recently done little or nothing of any real substance on economic issues. They have taken economics off the table and their rhetoric can't hide it.

Don't confuse real economic populism with the mere ineffective pandering to it that many Democrats do. Many Dems are trying to live off what past Democrats stood for, while up to their ears in corporate donations that make them as much corporate shills as their Republican counterparts.

Socially liberal but economically conservative has taken us as far as it can. Not far enough. Time to give other ideas a try.

See http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8917

by sTiVo 2004-12-12 04:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Disagree with you

Sirota's essay should be required reading.

You're right that many current Democrats are living off of what past Democrats accomplished. We do need start talking about "Tom Joad" issues (Sirota's term) and other economic matters.

But then it gets tricky. Do some lower-wage workers have valid concerns about illegal immigration? If you call NAFTA and other free-trade agreements into question, how do you respond to those who claim that free trade benefits developing nations? How do you distinguish subsidies that profit agribusiness from subsidies that help small farmers barely hang on.

I suspect that some Democrats have stayed away from econimic issues because they raise a host of issues, potentially divisive issues, that the Democrats would just rather not face.

by Denver 2004-12-12 05:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Disagree with you

I don't argue where Dems should be position on the fiscal and social liberal vs. conservative axes. Rather I'm pointing out that there is a big class of voters out there that like Republicans because they see Republicans as affirming their values and lifestyle, whatever that is, and they see Democrats as challenging it on some levels. Democrats can deal with that either by emulating Republicans and taking self-congratulation as part of their political job, or by exposing and attacking this strategy as fluff. Perhaps a bit of both is needed.

Regarding your point:

"Socially liberal but economically conservative has taken us as far as it can. Not far enough. Time to give other ideas a try."

I want to get clear on your meaning. Are you saying that if Kerry had stood for more aggressive taxation and more comprehensive govt. programs in the last election the Democrats would have done better?

by LastToKnow 2004-12-12 08:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Disagree with you

>>I want to get clear on your meaning. Are you saying that if Kerry had stood for more aggressive taxation and more comprehensive govt. programs in the last election the Democrats would have done better?

Not exactly. But I am saying that if Kerry had had a record as something other than a free trader, had he, when challenged on his "Benedict Arnold Corporations" line, had anything of substance to say about it, something more than "well, of course you can't stop offshoring" but we'll tinker around with the tax code, had he had the nerve to say that, maybe it is time we looked at NAFTA and what it has and hasn't accomplished - then maybe the atmospherics would have been different, and in a close race, that could have made the difference.

by sTiVo 2004-12-13 03:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

One year after Saddam, Are we safer?

Tomorrow will mark the the one-year anniversary of the capture of Saddam Hussein. One year ago, presidential candidate Howard Dean announced, to the disapproval of his handlers, that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." A year later, his sentiment still rings true.

The war (that led to the capture) and its reconstruction diverted resources from homeland security, the hunt for bin Laden, but most alarmingly, it has created the threat that president Bush always insisted was lurking in Iraq .

more info: www.politicalthought.net

by ivolsky 2004-12-12 04:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Disagree with you

Socially liberal but economically conservative has taken us as far as it can. Not far enough. Time to give other ideas a try.

See http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8917

by sTiVo 2004-12-12 04:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Disagree with you

Hmm, I was disagreeing with Last to Know's analysis. Must have pressed the wrong "Reply" button, sorry.

by sTiVo 2004-12-12 04:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Resentment Feeds On Resentment

I think that there's something very simple and basic going on here. Resentment is auto-catalytic.

Resentment doesn't lead to policies that work. Quite the opposite, it's a way to get people to vote for policies that intentionally don't work, that actively hurt people, so long as they hurt them more than they hurt us. In turn, these policies only make people more resentful and more cynical, thus setting up another round of resentment.

This, to me, is the heart of the resentment dynamic. And the way to combat it is to go directly for the heart. We have to confront this for what it is--a politics of blame, division and resentment that has nothing to do with building community, bringing people together and solving our problems together.

by Paul Rosenberg 2004-12-12 05:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Resentment Feeds On Resentment

Yes, confront it for what it is. But also--and I think Dean had a great point here--talk directly to the NASCAR dad who feels left out and pissed off and economically exploited, and who votes for Bush out of resentment for feeling left out and pissed off and economically exploited. And say, "Look, buddy, you're voting for the people who are shafting you." Wait, no. You don't say that. That would only increase the resentment. That was a moment of liberal stupidity, and we have to confess we have them.

You say, "Your job was sent to Mexico. We're fighting against that."

Of course, you have to have the right sort of organizer or candidate saying that.

by Denver 2004-12-12 06:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Liked the division into 4 areas

I think you're dead on for the 4, media, academia, the judiciary and the entertainment industry. The beauty of the GOP attack is that it can shift to any of these institutions, the target being amorphous really. Take the Judge with the 10 Commandments, he would be considered a good one, so that doesn't back up the anti-judiciary message. How do they adapt? They attack the portrayal of the Judge in the media, pretty sneaky.

What Frank does well is point out that conservatives have figured out the popular appeal of speaking for the "victim." The reason it's worked is that the Dems don't have anything to counter with. Frank is right in so far as it's apparent we need more talk of populist economics, but I'd like to suggest that the problem really is in our success this past century.

The New Deal worked. Unions worked. Progressive taxation worked. Social Security worked. Medicare worked. Anti-war liberals were right about Vietnam. Ralph Nader got the Corvair off the streets. Almost all communities recycle. Most Schools say Holiday break, not Christmas break. Affirmative Action worked. Sexual harassment in the work place is no longer acceptable. It's becoming more and more acceptable to be openly gay.

The point I'm getting at is that we sputtered out. The great underdog, fight for the little guy message no longer rang true in the 80s and 90s after all our wins.

So, if we've had all these great achievements, why are people voting for the losers and their loser policies? Well, that's where that narrative comes in. According to the narrative, the white Christian is the victim today. Conservatives have coopted the underdog message and point to all the reforms mentioned previously, all the liberal successes, as proof they are the disadvantaged.

Additionally, the Democratic party soldout, no way to deny it. The power of the GOP backlash is in large part due to Democratic sellouts in the 80s and 90s. Why didn't they block the anti-union rules when they had a chance? Why did they go along with Reagan's deregulation of media? Why did Clinton sign NAFTA? They took the MONEY. Corporate donors is why.

With Reagan to BushCo. what we're seeing is text book reactionary government taking advantage of a Democratic party that lost it's core message due ironically to Dems amazingly successful policies.

Ways Dems might regain control:

Terrible economic depression. Unlikely because we have the biggest military in the world and we can force countries to prop us up.
Terrible war. This is a sadly likely way, Iraq looks like Vietnam all over. Also a possible World War, not getting much press, but you sit back and consider what these aholes did to start a war in Iraq, who knows how they will respond if we have another major terrorist attack in the US? Concentration/internment camps for muslim americans is seems very likely in my estimation, also remember the ultimate control Bush has over the media during war time.
Scandal. BushCo. is rotten to the core, they may just sink themselves pulling a Nixon. Impeachment wouldn't be likely but with a failing war a serious enough scandal could screw the GOP. Somewhat likely.
Mundane failure leading to a Dem President in 08 that will have no power given congress is still GOP. By 2010 or 2012 we might regain control of Congress given a bad enough Bush failure this term and a very popular Dem leader. Somewhat likely.

NO MATTER WHAT WE NEED TO DO THIS WHEN WE GET BACK TO POWER:
When the Dems regain control, we need to make damn sure this doesn't happen again. We need publically financed elections and the media conglomerates and other corporations trust busted. We need restore power to unions, they represent the vote that has swung GOP in the backlash. Re-mission the military industrial complex to focus on moon colonization, getting to mars, whatever high tech, the original NASA idea, industrial work that isn't making weapons. We've stood by and let this military grow out of hand, we need to make sure our military isn't designed to fight around the world, or guess what, it will be used such. Leave NAFTA and end free trade, return to fair trade, where we only freely trade with other industrialized nations similar to ourselves. We cannot allow corporations to exploit the poor of the world and taking our US jobs at the same time.

by spectator consumer 2004-12-12 06:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Sensors, Intuitives, Republicans, and Democrats

The Myers Briggs Type Indicator divides individuals into 16 separate types. One of the four divides explains the way individuals process information.

The great majority of people are sensors (about 73%). Sensors do not geal well with abstractions, like firmly rooted plans, and tend to deal with the immediate present, rather than the longer term future. SJs (sensor + judging) believe in firm rules, hierarchy, and being dependable and responsible. SPs (sensor + perceiver)like to live in the moment, love emergencies (and may create them), and "are great in a crisis." They tend to flock to jobs like fireman or emergency medical tech.

Quite obviously, W is an SP. The normal lines of attack here would be that he is reckless and not responsible. Bush's claims were obviously meant to balance his risky style with an aura of false dependability: you know where he stands, he will not give up, he is "principled", etc.

Appealing to the future is not a good bet here. Nearly 3/4 of Americans are looking at the present. Showing the Republicans as risky, not dependable, and (believe it or not) uncaring is a winning hand.

I suspect most Democratic leaders are intuitives. They have a preference for the theoretical and a tendency to think in longer terns and to use "fancy" plans. A heavy majority of college and graduate school professors are intuitives (especially outside of engineering and accounting). This may lead to the general disdain of much of the public for higher education in general and for academia in particular.

by David Kowalski 2004-12-12 07:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Sensors, Intuitives

I see the Democrats as SP. I mean look at how the issues are framed: The worst economy since Hoover, Iraq like Vietnam, the sky is always falling with some of these leaders. In this election the people said quit crying wolf. Be honest with America that is how you get back in control.

by Classical Liberal 2004-12-13 03:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Sensors, Intuitives

There is more of an opening on the SJ front. Bush does represent authority at a high level but he is not the dependable workhorse. Pounding on HIS lies, flip-flops, etc, will hurt. Punding on his rip-offs of wounded vets and the elderly will hurt. Pounding on the harm done to children will hurt.

by David Kowalski 2004-12-13 07:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

The entertainment industry poll

One thing to point out, three of the polls asked about whether there was a perceived liberal bias. The one about the entertainment industry that had almost identical responses across party lines asked about "lowering the moral standards."

That probably explains the poll results. Heck, I would have answered in the affirmative to that particular poll. But then, I see Republican economic policies, especially media deregulation, as the main reason for the declining moral standards in entertainment. To the extent that the conservative movement attacks all things that have a moral basis (such as peace, welfare, minimum wage laws, labor unions, Social Security, protecting the environment, etc.) the conservative movement is amoral to begin with, maybe even nihilistic.

What the religious right fails to understand is that the totally unregulated capitalism that the Republican Party promotes, leads straight to the lowest common denominator in entertainment and popular culture. Reaganomics has done more to destroy traditional American values than anything the religious right imagines the left ever did.

If the poll had asked "is there a liberal bias in the entertainment industry" instead of "is it lowering the moral standards," I think we would see results more in line with the other polls.

by ACSR 2004-12-12 08:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Hyper-Capitalism and Class Warfare

There's a reason Hannity and the right wing echo chamber have been accusing Dems of class warfare even when they aren't doing anything of the kind. I believe their think tanks realize conservatives are vulnerable and have been sending out talking points to stage a pre-emptive attack on a powerful liberal message.

The most amazing thing about the attack on the "liberal" Entertainment Industry is that the Entertainment Industry/Hollywood may be the most capitalistic oriented industry in America. Aside from Wall Street, I can't think of a single industry that worships profits more than Hollywood. Anything for a buck and since sex sells, we'll sell sex; and violence and any culturally depraved movie we can sneak into the theater. If there's a market, Hollywood will make a movie for it.

Hollywood stars may be liberal, but the studio owners and producers are only after the almighty buck. Calling Hollywood liberal is like saying Safeway is pro-union because it's employees are in a union. The grocery clerks and Hollywood stars don't set policy.

Franks and Sirota both have touched on the problem. Liberals have to fight back. A "Class Warfare/Privileged Wealthy" attack with complementary kitchen table economic issues should work. I think Dilbert has shown the way to attack corporations. Americans still don't trust the Enrons and Global Crossings that we all know are still out there just sitting back and waiting for a chance to screw us again.

The attack on Academia has succeeded based on sheer repetition. Check out today's "Get Fuzzy" cartoon linked text Radio talk show hosts and Faux News cable presenters have been repeating the liberal Academia mantra for so long it has taken hold.

The only answer to a lot of our problems is a bigger megaphone. In today's media information smog world it's better to be loud than right. Another reminder of our media problem from Tom Tomorrow linked text

by Gary Boatwright 2004-12-12 08:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

What Billions Buys

I also like the division into four areas, and note how the orginal Powell memo, which inspired the Right to fund and build a network of advocacy/communications organizations to change America's politics, also had four targets: Academe, TV and other media, politics and the courts.

Here's what I think is missing in this discussion -- Anyone can "come up with a message" but how do you get that message into the minds of the public? And how do you stick with it long enough to be effective? The Right DID THIS - and we all know the results - so let's look at how they did it.

The Republicans have put billions of dollars - literally billions of dollars - into their think tank/communicatons engine, which exists largely OUTSIDE of the election/political process but weilds great influence on that process. They have followed a stragic plan over a long period of time. Read that Powell memo (a link to the actual memo is in the left column of the article), and look at today's structure of their network of organizations, and tell me if they funded and followed a plan for three decades or if they didn't.

A current example is the current Social Security "reform" proposal -- how long have they been working toward this? Anyone who studies this will tell you that their think tanks have been pounding out a consistent strategic lie for a long, long time. They formulated the idea of convincing the public that "Social Security is going broke" or is "in crisis" quite some time ago, and have been repeating amd repeating and repeating that message through many, many channels. Only now is this investment coming to fruition. It's so hard to fight because the puboic believes the lie. "Everybody knows" that Social Security is in trouble. It is a lie, they knew it was a lie from the beginning, but they also knew that the path to getting rid of Social Security lay in convincing the pubic that it would "go broke."

At election time Republican candidates don't have to formulate issues or messages about Social Security. They don't have to spend a dime educating the public on this issue. They only have to say they will "fix the problem." Contrast this with the burden Progressive candidates have explaining an issue like single-payer health care.

Any marketer can tell you what billions of dollars buys. If the Demcorats were ready to put billions into ANY message, repeating it for several years, through hundreds of different channels, they'd be doing pretty well. No?

So we need to examine not just the nature of the Right's messages (Lakoff, etc.) and not just come up with good messaging ourselves. We also need to be ready to make the necessary investment in setting up organizations designed to formulate and follow long-term strategic plans, and effectively get our messages to the public.

We've been great at organizing Progressive money INSIDE the election cycle, for short-term work. Now we need to start recognizing and explaining that real money needs to go to organizations that educate and persuade, long-term. We need to fund and build organizations that emulate the Right's think tanks - without lying, etc. -- organizations that exist OUTSIDE of the traditional election process. AND we need to build media outlets like Air America... To get this done we all have to work to help our funders understand this need.

- Dave Johnson, Seeing the Forest

by davej 2004-12-13 08:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Republicans Are The Party of The Workers

Democrats want to raise taxes and leave less money in the family checking account. Raising taxes stifles economic growth. Fewer jobs for the little people.
Tax cuts stimulates economic growth. They put more money in the family checking account. More jobs are produced for the little people.
The little people see how anti-growth and anti-business you leftists are. They know which side their bread is buttered on. They flock to Republicans.
Keep up the good work my socialist friends.

by Robert A August 2004-12-13 09:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

How many people are emplyed by the gov?

"Workers" as the poster alleges don't like paying taxes. True. But do they like being unemployed? I'd say about a third of the work force is directly employed by the government, and millions more can work because those people are given effective demand by government redistribution.

I would argue that when times are good people hate government, but when times are bad they flock to it.

Another dynamic is that the boomers loved taxes and spending when they were in their youth, after all that money was going to them. Now that they are in their prime earning years they hate taxes and they would rather have future generations pay for their gluttony. I forsee that after the economy goes to hell and the American Middle Class is destroyed, Boomers as a whole will re-embrace the welfare state. Who gets the shaft? My generation and all future ones to come. Thanks.

by Paul Goodman 2004-12-13 10:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Republicans are the Party of the Fat Cats

GOP the party of workers? You're smoking the GOP backlash narrative like Snoop Dogg hits the chronic. The lower taxes nonsense is meant to sucker people. Those lower taxes today are loans, we're 7 trillion + in debt because of them. We're taxing our future selves and our children and adding interest on top of that. Furthermore, the GOP is shifting the tax burden on to the worker away from the wealthy. While you trumpet tax cuts across the board you aren't paying attention to the rising local and states taxes needed to compensate, or the even the extent to which the very wealthy are getting more of the tax cuts than yourself.

Anti-growth? You're out of your mind on that one. Sure leftists are against unrestrained capitalism, your party is as well, note the conservative media conglomerates, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance industry, big oil, and all the defense contractors. Those are just a few of the many industries that the GOP favors regulation and in some cases direct subsidy.

The truth is that the GOP favors legislating on behalf of their cash cow industries. For these special interests the GOP will deregulate when needed, or regulate as the case maybe, always looking out for the interests of the people already with the money. The way to keep uncompetitive businesses still profitable is to incrase productivity by decreasing the cost of labor(meaning lowering wages.) For example, there is a damn good reason the GOP fights min. wage laws, that directly help workers, they aren't about the workers but the companies. Does it help the American worker to compete with the Chinese, having jobs outsourced? Anywhere the GOP isn't trying to govern on behalf of money, they sell the free market idea. This silly idea looks good on paper until you connsider western history the hundreds of years modern industy has existed. Robber barons, child labor, terrible workign conditions, hell slavery all prove it doesn't work out to benefit the vast majority of people, the working classes.

Laissez-faire capitalism, as practiced in real life and not paper, produces third world conditions. Laissez-faire really doesn't exist, hasn't existed, what exists is laissez-faire where it benefits certain interests. Look at countries with little centralized gov't, what you see are corrupt businesses that exploit the working man. Without restraint, the pursuit of profit would pit man against man selling their labor. If you don't allow for collective bargaining, closed shops, government health and safety requirements you get predictable results that can be seen throughout the third world today and in the history of the western industrialism. This isn't a new lesson.

The New Deal with it's higher taxes, it's social spending and it's regulation of industry produced the prosperity America enjoyed the past half century. Take a look at the problems our country faces today, they largely come from deregulation (see the death of the small farmer and the rise of ADM and Monsanto) free trade (decline in manufacturing jobs) and union busting (producing the "service economy" where part-time,no benefit jobs, go nowhere jobs are to be found).

The great GOP scam is nothing but laissez-faire all over and it's doomed to fail as it did in the 30s and the 1890s. You're already seeing all the silly mergers, the repeated scandals...how long until the swindle breaks? The only saving us is global war and defecit spending out the ass, but how long can we sustain this? Take a look at the remortgage industry, so rife with fraud the gov't is too scared to even think about reforming it; we owe the continued low rates to a dollar that fallen over 1/3rd its value and Japanese banks having to go even more heavily into the US in an attempt to bail us out. You also might want to look at our consumer credit industry as well, look at the average debt Americans are having to carry these days.

You say the GOP is about helping workers? It's true that they sure claim to be. But in truth, you couldn't be more wrong. The policies of the GOP benefit those that are already out of the labor market, the fatcats. If you happen to have to work for a living,like 99 percent of those employed, the great benefits promised by the GOP are illusory and ultimately insure you will pay more taxes, get fewer benefits and live in a less stable economy.

by spectator consumer 2004-12-13 11:10AM | 0 recs