defuse the demonization cycle

I took some heat in comments for arguing that Dean's rhetoric about Bush and Milosovic hurts rather than helps the Purple cause. David Neiwert, whom I admire tremendously for his yeoman's work in chronicling the illiberal extremism on the right, has a solid post that relates to the issue. He writes:


Unfortunately, the response of many blue-staters has not exactly been helpful. Somewhat unsurprisingly, they have in some cases returned the contempt with contempt. These have ranged from suggestions of blue-state secession and flights to Canada to rebuking the South in no uncertain terms. Some of this reaction is silly, and most of it is understandable catharsis, but liberals have to understand that it only fuels the dynamic at work here.

One of the keys to this dynamic is that both sides have been portraying the conflict in terms of broad stereotypes of urban, suburban and rural dwellers. When the red-state ideologues view the political landscape, they see pockets of godless, atheistic crypto-socialists populating the blue urban centers. For blue-state ideologues, the results of the 2004 election are proof that rural America is populated largely with gun-toting, Bible-thumping moralists who condone bigotry.

It's clear that conservatives have neither the incentive nor the intention of breaking this cycle; after all, they have benefited from it. It is indeed entirely by their design. If liberals are interested in breaking the cycle, they're going to have to discard their stereotype


The key is that the cycle of demonization serves to benefit extremist conservatives. For liberal moderates (and conservative moderates, who are clearly not wanted under the GOP's supposed "big tent") to prevail means fighting on fair turf. The voices here that argue we should meet venom with venom are, quote simply, playing directly into the extremists' hands. I reject the false dichotomy. So should you.

Highly recommend reading the rest of David's post, as it is far more eloquent and clear in its purpose than I am being.

Comments

Doverspa said…
FWIW, that is exactly what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would say they were doing: calling a spade, a spade. Truthful, honest, direct. I never liked their ads (although the ones on Kerry's 1971 testimony were more honorable) and I don't like Dean's comments. Neither are honorable or respectful without even commenting on their truthfulness.
Aziz P. said…
Good analogy, Adam. I was profoundly offended by the Swiftboat ads, not because they attacked my guy, but because they were an attempt to distort an honorable service record to serve a political end. Howard distorted history to serve his political end, which s an end I agree with, but the manner in which he did it only serves to give ammo to those who are masters of the field.

Comparing Bush to Milosovic DOES qualify as demonization. Ask a muslim about whether Milosoveic was a demon or not!

One is an elected leader, another a genocidal murderer and tyrant. Sorry, Todd, you're on the wrong side of history here.
I think the difference that you are papering over is that Dean said Bush used the "same device" that Milosovic used in Bosnia. That is not "comparing" him to Milosovic which I think is a serious distinction. If we cannot talk about how the behavior of someone is comparable to some other behavior that is undesirable without that being demonization I can't see how we can really have a discourse at all. Dean actually was very careful to explain how the behavior had a detrimental effect to make the point that we didn't want the same effect to happen here. I just think that is a world of difference then saying Bush was "like Milosovic" or was the same type of person which would indeed be demonization as well as being untrue.

Jim

Popular posts from this blog

A fair solution to Jerusalem

Conservatism's shari'a, liberalism's ijtihad