Lying is often a power move. Lying sacks of shit like Trump are fully aware of what they're up to, and those lied to often know they're being lied to. But they're too afraid to confront the liar, so he wins. The formula runs something like, "I'm lying to you, and you're not going to do anything about it because you're a goddamned coward." That is exactly the way Trump treats his ordinary followers and the members of his cabinet. They are terrified of him. It's schoolyard bully stuff, but it works.
"This was all one long effort for the American Right to reaffirm the dominance and superiority of the white race after a short-lived moment in which people suggested a national embrace of equality, fairness, and justice. This served as an accelerant for the fascism machine (social media)."
This strategy of the Right is a tacit admission that the white race is NOT superior, because it it were, it would win on a level playing field. "We are the Champions of the World and we need to stand on the throats of all the inferior people to hold that position!" Of course, they have no clue that Freddy Mercury was being ironic.
"The American mind, corrupted by 25 years of nonstop superhero movies, sees the Avengers everywhere it looks. Our Big Orange Thanos would certainly fall to the power of moderate Republicans with laser beams shooting out of their hands or whatever."
This isn't the time for heroes or better men. It's time for frank castle and Luigi mangione.
Unfortunately, the average American is dumber than a brick and proud of it. And that's on top of being some of the laziest narcissists to ever disgrace the planet, so the odds of enough people actually getting off their fat asses and doing the necessary work is about equal to getting struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket.
Another Repub benefit is that there are so many voters who love to be lied to. They would much rather hear what they want to hear (there are easy solutions to complex problems, someone other than white men are to blame, trumpy loves the middle class...) than anything even close to the truth. It makes them feel happy and safe.
I have to admit I don't quite understand what the thrust of this article is. Is our side also supposed to lie to get our way? Because to me the foundation of our side is existing within reality and not just making shit up.
If the idea is that we're at a disadvantage because we don't want to lie...sure, I guess?
I don't think Dems need to lie in order to be much better at messaging. Dems try too hard to explain things. They need simpler appeals to emotions. For example, "Make America Great Again' doesn't actually mean anything (other than that America is currently not great), but meaningless patriotic phrases are simple to understand because there's really nothin to understand.
One of the problems with American politics is that it has been focused on the baby boomers throughout their lives. The DNC still thinks boomer opinions are the only ones that matter. Every other generation has paid the price and we want to be heard.
Then be sure to vote for the Dems most likely to listen. If that's not possible, then vote for any Dem over any Repubs. In the House/Senate, head count determines which party runs the show; the minority party has very little power. Even lousy Dems have a head, though it may not be fully functional. Still better than the Repub's show "Weekend with Mitchie."
Which is exactly my point. The Dems are the less bad option. But I worry that the whole vote blue no matter who thing gives them license to ignore their base. For now, getting the fascists out of power is the top priority. But eventually, we need to demand better.
"Researchers have found that conservatives are more likely than liberals to seek in-group dominance, that is, they want their in-group to dominate and be superior to other groups."
That's called inter-group dominance, you bundle of language-deficient morons!
Or if you insist on using the word in-group, then it becomes "they seek inter-group dominance for their in-group", though I think that's a bad stylistic choice on it's own.
Maybe if the previous text clearly and repeatedly (at least three times) established the concept of the in-group and built a lot of arguments on that, then it could be excusable, but even then you'd have to specify inter-group and intra-group dominance where relevant.
I understood it and it didn't offend me even though I love words. You would be right if referring to a formal document, but not to something informal that is perfectly understandable the way it is.
I didn't. I had to reread it several times to figure out "in-group dominance" did NOT mean "dominance of the in-group", i.e. winning a power struggle within the in-group. The descent of political arguments into jargon is not a good thing. It is something that turns off a lot of people.
Suggestion: One concrete thing the left can do, messaging-wise, is to STOP CALLING THEM "CONSERVATIVE." STOP USING THEIR PREFERRED GASLIGHTING TERM. STOP SPREADING THEIR LABEL PROPAGANDA. If you can't bring yourself to say "fascist" or "Nazi," use the neutral-ish term "right-wing." Or weaponize the word "Republican" by applying it broadly to include the extremist insane, Musk and Thiel and those subhumans.
Agreed. I am socially very liberal, but I am economically conservative. I just define that word very differently than Repubs do. In my own life I pay my bills, are careful with my spending, and save/invest for the future. For a country the top need is to invest in its citizens by giving them all good health care, a good education, and a wide variety of different opportunities. We also need a far less corrupt tax system so that the middle class isn't being wiped out by its own government.
Talarico supports transgender rights, though he is cautious about transgender care for very young people. Amy Acton only wants to limit transgenders in sport. I don't agree with that, but I wouldn't call it right-out transphobia. I have no reason to believe that either is not being honest about having reservations about a complex situation.
I think the problem is that the Dems are always more than willing to go negative against their own base, but always talk about reaching across the aisle when it comes to cons. Even when the Dems finally started opposing the orange one, they mentioned how much they love republicans in every speech. I stopped identifying myself as a democrat after that.
I will not stop identifying myself as a Dem until the Repubs change. For now, I will vote Dem even if I'm not crazy about the candidate. Power in the House/Senate for each party is based on headcount and even an inferior Dem has a head. Vote Dem for now without exception.
I still vote for Dems as the less bad option. But I'm tired of the leadership taking their base for granted and spending all their time on "swing voters"/ donors interests.
There is a huge difference between the Dem party and Dems, including many of the candidates. The Dem party, much like the Repubs, is primarily interested in keeping its power. I still remember how Ned Lamont beat Lieberman in a Dem Senate primary and the Dem party supported Lieberman. The party essentially gave the finger to Dem primary voters and not much else. I will vote for any Dem with the best chance of winning, but I only send money to individual candidates--never to the party.
"A big enough tent with a big enough group of people who could overcome their varied differences in economic and social matters would win the day against the shit slingers"
* A big tent with lots of people inside will pretty much guarantee that no consensus can be achieved. It doesn't matter if everyone inside has the same goal, there are too many people with too many differing ways of achieving the goal that it is impossible to winnow down the options; any planning is doomed to face a Pushmi-Pullyu. (This is obvious, at least to me, given the Dems still can't find an even semi-unified position on many hot button issues.)
* In the Before Days, shit slinging would be recognized for what it is, but not anymore. Economic concern is fake news from the RADICAL LEFTIST media trying to score points by lying and smearing the Fulvous Fuckwad and his Economy -- which has never been hotter.
* The shit slingers are believed more than those willing to tell the electorate the truth. HL Mencken (yes, I know, so please don't hammer me for quoting him) described today's situation pretty accurately:
> "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
--and--
> "As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
We used to have actual news, as with Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley. People believed and trusted them for good reason. Then 'news' changed into something profitable; now we have entertainment and political bias. One of the worst things that has changed about the US is the focus on short-term profit above all else. Executives have destroyed their own businesses if that means they get a lot of money quickly.
2 Venture capitalists, private equity companies, and many hedge funds practice Vulture Capitalism. They buy up companies, strip them of any salable assets then take the company into bankruptcy: Big Lots; Brookstone; Hooter's; Hudson's Bay: Joann Fabrics; Party City; Payless Shoes; Radio Shack; RJR Nabisco; Sears; The Limited; Toys "R" Us; True Value for just a few examples. (See: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bsf.asp and https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/vulture-capitalism/)
Thanks for the additional information. I am old enough to remember the early days of television news. It was actually news, even though there were few channels and weathermen could barely forecast a day or two ahead. One question: How would these guys not practice Vulture Capitalism given that they are Vultures? Second question: Why call if capitalism when the 'investors' take gambles and essentially risk nothing since they expect to get bailed out when the fail, like the banks in 2008?
From comments I've read on Nextdoor and X, it's clear that the right wing has fully embraced Trump's "lie about everything" philosophy. It's the kind of stuff that's so completely ridiculous you can't believe anyone could take it seriously.
Great article by Denny Carter. It's important that Mr Carter found, examined and shared the Journey of Marketing study about Republican in-group lie and cheat to win at all cost mindset. Where I differ in thought about what is inherently different about liberals and Democrats is that the where liberals are weak is not in their distaste for lying and cheating to win, IT'S THEIR FEAR OF TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT AND NAMING LEARLY THE FASCISM, UNLAWFULNESS, RACISM, SEXISM, CORRUPTION AMD MURDER OF EACH REPUBLICAN. Liberals and Democrats don't need to lie. Republicans do horrible, horrible democracy eroding things every day. Democrats just need to speak truthfully to the American people, everyday. They don't need to lie.
I agree, but need to point out that it wins elections. Telling people what they want to hear, works. When Michael Dukakis ran against George H. W. Bush for President, Dukakis said he would need to raise taxes; Bush said "No new taxes." Bush won and soon raised taxes. It isn't just the politicians at fault. Many voters are co-conspirators.
Lying is often a power move. Lying sacks of shit like Trump are fully aware of what they're up to, and those lied to often know they're being lied to. But they're too afraid to confront the liar, so he wins. The formula runs something like, "I'm lying to you, and you're not going to do anything about it because you're a goddamned coward." That is exactly the way Trump treats his ordinary followers and the members of his cabinet. They are terrified of him. It's schoolyard bully stuff, but it works.
"This was all one long effort for the American Right to reaffirm the dominance and superiority of the white race after a short-lived moment in which people suggested a national embrace of equality, fairness, and justice. This served as an accelerant for the fascism machine (social media)."
This strategy of the Right is a tacit admission that the white race is NOT superior, because it it were, it would win on a level playing field. "We are the Champions of the World and we need to stand on the throats of all the inferior people to hold that position!" Of course, they have no clue that Freddy Mercury was being ironic.
If you don’t watch anything but RW teevee then you don’t know shirt! (Damned spell-check!)
"The American mind, corrupted by 25 years of nonstop superhero movies, sees the Avengers everywhere it looks. Our Big Orange Thanos would certainly fall to the power of moderate Republicans with laser beams shooting out of their hands or whatever."
This isn't the time for heroes or better men. It's time for frank castle and Luigi mangione.
Unfortunately, the average American is dumber than a brick and proud of it. And that's on top of being some of the laziest narcissists to ever disgrace the planet, so the odds of enough people actually getting off their fat asses and doing the necessary work is about equal to getting struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket.
Another Repub benefit is that there are so many voters who love to be lied to. They would much rather hear what they want to hear (there are easy solutions to complex problems, someone other than white men are to blame, trumpy loves the middle class...) than anything even close to the truth. It makes them feel happy and safe.
I have to admit I don't quite understand what the thrust of this article is. Is our side also supposed to lie to get our way? Because to me the foundation of our side is existing within reality and not just making shit up.
If the idea is that we're at a disadvantage because we don't want to lie...sure, I guess?
I don't think Dems need to lie in order to be much better at messaging. Dems try too hard to explain things. They need simpler appeals to emotions. For example, "Make America Great Again' doesn't actually mean anything (other than that America is currently not great), but meaningless patriotic phrases are simple to understand because there's really nothin to understand.
"Thou shalt not bear false witne.... oh fuck it"
- The MAGA bible
One of the problems with American politics is that it has been focused on the baby boomers throughout their lives. The DNC still thinks boomer opinions are the only ones that matter. Every other generation has paid the price and we want to be heard.
Then be sure to vote for the Dems most likely to listen. If that's not possible, then vote for any Dem over any Repubs. In the House/Senate, head count determines which party runs the show; the minority party has very little power. Even lousy Dems have a head, though it may not be fully functional. Still better than the Repub's show "Weekend with Mitchie."
Yup. I"m stuck voting for Klobuchar and Morrison, even though I know they have no interest in representing me.
I tend to agree except that I don't know if it is possible for them to have less interest in representing you than the Repubs do.
Which is exactly my point. The Dems are the less bad option. But I worry that the whole vote blue no matter who thing gives them license to ignore their base. For now, getting the fascists out of power is the top priority. But eventually, we need to demand better.
"Researchers have found that conservatives are more likely than liberals to seek in-group dominance, that is, they want their in-group to dominate and be superior to other groups."
That's called inter-group dominance, you bundle of language-deficient morons!
Or if you insist on using the word in-group, then it becomes "they seek inter-group dominance for their in-group", though I think that's a bad stylistic choice on it's own.
Maybe if the previous text clearly and repeatedly (at least three times) established the concept of the in-group and built a lot of arguments on that, then it could be excusable, but even then you'd have to specify inter-group and intra-group dominance where relevant.
I understood it and it didn't offend me even though I love words. You would be right if referring to a formal document, but not to something informal that is perfectly understandable the way it is.
It's a quote from a larger body of work. I knew exactly what they meant.
I didn't. I had to reread it several times to figure out "in-group dominance" did NOT mean "dominance of the in-group", i.e. winning a power struggle within the in-group. The descent of political arguments into jargon is not a good thing. It is something that turns off a lot of people.
Most appropriate quote for liberals right now:
Leila: But what about our relationship?
Otto: Fuck that.
Suggestion: One concrete thing the left can do, messaging-wise, is to STOP CALLING THEM "CONSERVATIVE." STOP USING THEIR PREFERRED GASLIGHTING TERM. STOP SPREADING THEIR LABEL PROPAGANDA. If you can't bring yourself to say "fascist" or "Nazi," use the neutral-ish term "right-wing." Or weaponize the word "Republican" by applying it broadly to include the extremist insane, Musk and Thiel and those subhumans.
Agreed. I am socially very liberal, but I am economically conservative. I just define that word very differently than Repubs do. In my own life I pay my bills, are careful with my spending, and save/invest for the future. For a country the top need is to invest in its citizens by giving them all good health care, a good education, and a wide variety of different opportunities. We also need a far less corrupt tax system so that the middle class isn't being wiped out by its own government.
Zohran Mamdani did not win by "embrace ends-justify-the-means politics and the in-group dominance that animates the American Right".
This is the thought process that encourages people like Talarico and Amy Acton to go transphobic, because it works for the GOP.
Talarico supports transgender rights, though he is cautious about transgender care for very young people. Amy Acton only wants to limit transgenders in sport. I don't agree with that, but I wouldn't call it right-out transphobia. I have no reason to believe that either is not being honest about having reservations about a complex situation.
I think the problem is that the Dems are always more than willing to go negative against their own base, but always talk about reaching across the aisle when it comes to cons. Even when the Dems finally started opposing the orange one, they mentioned how much they love republicans in every speech. I stopped identifying myself as a democrat after that.
I will not stop identifying myself as a Dem until the Repubs change. For now, I will vote Dem even if I'm not crazy about the candidate. Power in the House/Senate for each party is based on headcount and even an inferior Dem has a head. Vote Dem for now without exception.
I still vote for Dems as the less bad option. But I'm tired of the leadership taking their base for granted and spending all their time on "swing voters"/ donors interests.
There is a huge difference between the Dem party and Dems, including many of the candidates. The Dem party, much like the Repubs, is primarily interested in keeping its power. I still remember how Ned Lamont beat Lieberman in a Dem Senate primary and the Dem party supported Lieberman. The party essentially gave the finger to Dem primary voters and not much else. I will vote for any Dem with the best chance of winning, but I only send money to individual candidates--never to the party.
"A big enough tent with a big enough group of people who could overcome their varied differences in economic and social matters would win the day against the shit slingers"
* A big tent with lots of people inside will pretty much guarantee that no consensus can be achieved. It doesn't matter if everyone inside has the same goal, there are too many people with too many differing ways of achieving the goal that it is impossible to winnow down the options; any planning is doomed to face a Pushmi-Pullyu. (This is obvious, at least to me, given the Dems still can't find an even semi-unified position on many hot button issues.)
* In the Before Days, shit slinging would be recognized for what it is, but not anymore. Economic concern is fake news from the RADICAL LEFTIST media trying to score points by lying and smearing the Fulvous Fuckwad and his Economy -- which has never been hotter.
* The shit slingers are believed more than those willing to tell the electorate the truth. HL Mencken (yes, I know, so please don't hammer me for quoting him) described today's situation pretty accurately:
> "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
--and--
> "As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
fnord
We used to have actual news, as with Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley. People believed and trusted them for good reason. Then 'news' changed into something profitable; now we have entertainment and political bias. One of the worst things that has changed about the US is the focus on short-term profit above all else. Executives have destroyed their own businesses if that means they get a lot of money quickly.
1 We also had Christiane Amanpour (still active, as you know); Tom Brokaw; John Chancellor; Connie Chung; Katie Couric; Harry Reasoner; Andy Rooney (earned his creds well before "A Few Minutes"); Diane Sawyer; Barbara Walters... (see list: https://www.ranker.com/list/best-retired-news-anchors/ranker-tv and https://prnews.io/blog/list-of-top-female-journalists.html, but still abridged)
2 Venture capitalists, private equity companies, and many hedge funds practice Vulture Capitalism. They buy up companies, strip them of any salable assets then take the company into bankruptcy: Big Lots; Brookstone; Hooter's; Hudson's Bay: Joann Fabrics; Party City; Payless Shoes; Radio Shack; RJR Nabisco; Sears; The Limited; Toys "R" Us; True Value for just a few examples. (See: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bsf.asp and https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/vulture-capitalism/)
fnord
Thanks for the additional information. I am old enough to remember the early days of television news. It was actually news, even though there were few channels and weathermen could barely forecast a day or two ahead. One question: How would these guys not practice Vulture Capitalism given that they are Vultures? Second question: Why call if capitalism when the 'investors' take gambles and essentially risk nothing since they expect to get bailed out when the fail, like the banks in 2008?
From comments I've read on Nextdoor and X, it's clear that the right wing has fully embraced Trump's "lie about everything" philosophy. It's the kind of stuff that's so completely ridiculous you can't believe anyone could take it seriously.
A lie is just the truth as you’d like it to be.
Great article by Denny Carter. It's important that Mr Carter found, examined and shared the Journey of Marketing study about Republican in-group lie and cheat to win at all cost mindset. Where I differ in thought about what is inherently different about liberals and Democrats is that the where liberals are weak is not in their distaste for lying and cheating to win, IT'S THEIR FEAR OF TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT AND NAMING LEARLY THE FASCISM, UNLAWFULNESS, RACISM, SEXISM, CORRUPTION AMD MURDER OF EACH REPUBLICAN. Liberals and Democrats don't need to lie. Republicans do horrible, horrible democracy eroding things every day. Democrats just need to speak truthfully to the American people, everyday. They don't need to lie.
Agree 100%. Lying and cheating is icky, even if it's for a good cause. Telling the unvarnished truth, now there's a strategy we haven't tried.
I agree, but need to point out that it wins elections. Telling people what they want to hear, works. When Michael Dukakis ran against George H. W. Bush for President, Dukakis said he would need to raise taxes; Bush said "No new taxes." Bush won and soon raised taxes. It isn't just the politicians at fault. Many voters are co-conspirators.
Yup. Icky. 😞