The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 11-29-2002, 03:34 PM

I think Daschle was right and wrong at the same time. Here's my novel on the topic, sorry.

To really understand Rush's show, you have to be an outsider. The show claims it's speaking to the masses, but it isn't. It's speaking to a very well-understood, reliable audience of 15 million people who basically agree with Rush and enjoy hearing evangelism.

In that group are a very small set of whack jobs. Just like there is a similar set of whack jobs in the equivalent group of lefties.

Rush's show involves a lot of demonizing the opposition.
Evangelize and demonize for a long enough time, to the whack jobs, and a small percentage will eventually flip out and try to change things on their own. Call it probability, call it chaos theory, whatever.

I've seen it; we had a dude in the PA LP who was clearly unstable, and it surprised nobody when eventually one morning he woke up, armed himself, shot up a utility truck and drove it towards DC with the intent to kill Clinton (until a moment of sanity came back into his head, and he surrendered, naked, to the cops).

So yes, Rush's ranting does produce more death threats for Daschle. (I wager you ten packets of weaponized anthrax.)

But here's where Daschle went wrong: he has no room to talk. "Evil" evangelism is just as likely to be found on the left. The Bush administration isn't delaying implementation of a questionable clean water regulation, it's poisoning people with auto-immune problems. It isn't trying to solve the Social Security system's eventual bankruptcy, it's stealing the life savings of grandmothers.

Both sides need to make strong arguments like that, partly because they need to invent stronger differences between the parties when the differences are smaller than you'd think. In marketing, that's called "product differentiation". If you think there IS a very big difference between the parties, you have successfully been convinced by the marketing. (Around here we measure results by results, not by one side's description of them.)

But they also both need to do that because it's vitally important that the hard edges of the parties are highly motivated. If you think the opposition is "delaying policy implementation" -- well, so what. But if they're "poisoning people" -- OMG, we must take volunteer positions with the campaign, to save gramma from the evil mean men!

Leftist evangelism can produce the same kind of results, too. It's helpful to remember that (theoretically rightist) Tim McVeigh shared prison space with the (theoretically leftist) Unabomber.

So when one side is complaining about it, I say that's hypocracy. If Daschle wanted to elevate the debate, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. Instead he played the usual politics just like all his predecessors.

11-29-2002, 03:34 PM	#28
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I think Daschle was right and wrong at the same time. Here's my novel on the topic, sorry. To really understand Rush's show, you have to be an outsider. The show claims it's speaking to the masses, but it isn't. It's speaking to a very well-understood, reliable audience of 15 million people who basically agree with Rush and enjoy hearing evangelism. In that group are a very small set of whack jobs. Just like there is a similar set of whack jobs in the equivalent group of lefties. Rush's show involves a lot of demonizing the opposition. Evangelize and demonize for a long enough time, to the whack jobs, and a small percentage will eventually flip out and try to change things on their own. Call it probability, call it chaos theory, whatever. I've seen it; we had a dude in the PA LP who was clearly unstable, and it surprised nobody when eventually one morning he woke up, armed himself, shot up a utility truck and drove it towards DC with the intent to kill Clinton (until a moment of sanity came back into his head, and he surrendered, naked, to the cops). So yes, Rush's ranting does produce more death threats for Daschle. (I wager you ten packets of weaponized anthrax.) But here's where Daschle went wrong: he has no room to talk. "Evil" evangelism is just as likely to be found on the left. The Bush administration isn't delaying implementation of a questionable clean water regulation, it's poisoning people with auto-immune problems. It isn't trying to solve the Social Security system's eventual bankruptcy, it's stealing the life savings of grandmothers. Both sides need to make strong arguments like that, partly because they need to invent stronger differences between the parties when the differences are smaller than you'd think. In marketing, that's called "product differentiation". If you think there IS a very big difference between the parties, you have successfully been convinced by the marketing. (Around here we measure results by results, not by one side's description of them.) But they also both need to do that because it's vitally important that the hard edges of the parties are highly motivated. If you think the opposition is "delaying policy implementation" -- well, so what. But if they're "poisoning people" -- OMG, we must take volunteer positions with the campaign, to save gramma from the evil mean men! Leftist evangelism can produce the same kind of results, too. It's helpful to remember that (theoretically rightist) Tim McVeigh shared prison space with the (theoretically leftist) Unabomber. So when one side is complaining about it, I say that's hypocracy. If Daschle wanted to elevate the debate, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. Instead he played the usual politics just like all his predecessors.