Do you agree with what Keith Ellison said about right wing ideology?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I met him briefly at the DFL GOTV HQ on election day and he was talking with the people handling the food and another volunteer about something I really thought of the rest of the day and throughout. I was thinking about it now.

Basically he said that liberals tend to not realize just how flattering right wing ideology is to people and its adherents. It consists of things like "You know how to best handle your money, not the government", "You are a responsible, upstanding moral citizen unlike those social deviants", "You can become successful as long as you don't have the government holding you down." This is why a liberal message often doesn't come out so well or be so well heard. Liberals can often be brutally self-depreciating, something the right doesn't engage in.

What made me think about this now was wondering about the failure of Air America and the prominence of right wing talk radio. The stereotypical Limbaugh/Beck listener probably finds what they say very flattering, they keep hearing about how they are a good responsible upstanding real American, not some deviant liberal urbanite or parasite on welfare. Meanwhile Air America was mostly just bashing Bush and later the Tea Party folks. Even people who really hate Bush and the Tea Party aren't going to feel flattered just listening to them being thrashed constantly. It's probably no accident that the most successful liberal commentators are basically comedians, even someone like Olbermann practically falls into that category. I'll also admit part of the reason Alan Grayson had such a following is because he was so entertaining.

It really makes a lot of sense. It also explains the rise of xenophobia in Europe and whatnot.

[Mr. Taft Republican]

Yeah. Good conservatism always has egomania and a healthy does of paranoia. Your guy sounds like he hit it right on the head, at least on the first count.

[freepcrusher]

The idea of "You know how to best handle your money, not the government" or "You can become successful as long as you don't have the government holding you down" sounds good to me as it would to everybody. The reason I became a democrat was not because of what the republicans offered on economic isssues. I am a democrat because of the republican party's records on civil rights. If I lived in another time period (before 1964) I very well may have been a republican.

[courts]

Basically he said that liberals tend to not realize just how flattering right wing ideology is to people and its adherents. It consists of things like "You know how to best handle your money, not the government", "You are a responsible, upstanding moral citizen unlike those social deviants", "You can become successful as long as you don't have the government holding you down." This is why a liberal message often doesn't come out so well or be so well heard. Liberals can often be brutally self-depreciating [sic], something the right doesn't engage in.

I think there's some truth to that, but the perception is less that liberals are insecure than it is that they think americans are just stupid or naive as to what's in their own interests (e.g. Bill Maher, Thomas Frank, a good chunk of this forum, etc.). Regardless of how true the above is the 'liberal elitist' is a pretty destructive stereotype.

Although there's certainly a subsection of religious 'conservatism' that comes off as very negative towards america and people in general just by nature of their particular christian theology so I don't think even that's quite right... It's just that sort of thing gets more of a pass unfortunately for obvious reasons. And even in the case of the religious right you still have the influence of the prosperity gospel and all that.

[Roemerista]

I would agree, reasonone is one would wish to prefer when one comes to politics, but of course there is the emotional element to it as well. And I would like to submit to you that the politics of the left are certainly soft-comforting as well. I do not wish to throw the "elite" word out there, but those of left wing beliefs are flattered in that they are more caring, more understanding, and  see the "whole picture." To me both of these messages are trying to stake out part of the emotional territory of the human condition.

[Antonio the Sixth]

100% agreed. This is the populist rhetoric which has become so trendy in western country. And the saddest thing is that it works.

[minionofmidas]

It's the political equivalent of cocaine.

Though the identification of that tripe with the "right wing" becomes somewhat problematic (though never, in the modern era, entirely wrong) if you go but one generation back. Or just cross the color line.

[Person Man]

So, what are you or anyone else going to do about it? ...and I do agree with Congressman Ellison on this. Republican politics seems to be based on an arrogant ego trip about how you work so hard to have what you got and how people could be so stupid and lazy to not have what you have and how you give to charity and how greedy liberals are for taxing you or living off your tax money.

Remember- Hope, Faith and Charity.


...and this has always been true of right-wing thought. How else was the idea of a "master race" ever brought up?

[Franzl]

100% agreed. This is the populist rhetoric which has become so trendy in western country. And the saddest thing is that it works.

"Populist" tends to be what people call something they disagree with I think European leftists use pretty populist rhetoric, for example.

[Antonio the Sixth]

100% agreed. This is the populist rhetoric which has become so trendy in western country. And the saddest thing is that it works.

"Populist" tends to be what people call something they disagree with I think European leftists use pretty populist rhetoric, for example.

Of course the word has many possible definitions. I think that the definition BRTD gave (ie a rhetoric flattering the "true people" and stigmatizing the "elites") fits pretty well with the word. Some lefties use this rhetoric either, but not the mainstream left.

[Person Man]

100% agreed. This is the populist rhetoric which has become so trendy in western country. And the saddest thing is that it works.

"Populist" tends to be what people call something they disagree with I think European leftists use pretty populist rhetoric, for example.

Of course the word has many possible definitions. I think that the definition BRTD gave (ie a rhetoric flattering the "true people" and stigmatizing the "elites") fits pretty well with the word. Some lefties use this rhetoric either, but not the mainstream left.

Makes sense. Is it just me, or does complaining about rich people usually get you in trouble for being a Socialist unless it is followed by justified "law and order" nativism, watered down folksy racism called "racialism", or by some sort of urgent call to make laws about killing babies? If it is followed by such things, you are called a "populist" or a "compassionate conservative" or  a "Tea Party Patriot". 



There's a very fine line between being a left-wing extremist and a right-wing extremist, really. Unless, of course you're the sane one and Obama is so far to the left, he's to the right or Palin and Bush are so far the the right, they are to the left.

[Redalgo]

Basically he said that liberals tend to not realize just how flattering right wing ideology is to people and its adherents. It consists of things like "You know how to best handle your money, not the government", "You are a responsible, upstanding moral citizen unlike those social deviants", "You can become successful as long as you don't have the government holding you down." This is why a liberal message often doesn't come out so well or be so well heard. Liberals can often be brutally self-depreciating, something the right doesn't engage in.

What made me think about this now was wondering about the failure of Air America and the prominence of right wing talk radio. The stereotypical Limbaugh/Beck listener probably finds what they say very flattering, they keep hearing about how they are a good responsible upstanding real American, not some deviant liberal urbanite or parasite on welfare. Meanwhile Air America was mostly just bashing Bush and later the Tea Party folks. Even people who really hate Bush and the Tea Party aren't going to feel flattered just listening to them being thrashed constantly. It's probably no accident that the most successful liberal commentators are basically comedians, even someone like Olbermann practically falls into that category. I'll also admit part of the reason Alan Grayson had such a following is because he was so entertaining.

It really makes a lot of sense. It also explains the rise of xenophobia in Europe and whatnot.

Keith Ellison seems to be right, yeah, but the thing is... if you swap out "the government" for "big corporations" and "social deviants" for "bigots" the tables can easily be turned around. Both parties exist in the same political culture on the two sides of one ideological coin. The neo-populist, conservative attitudes of the right-wing liberalists sound like, "Individual rights and our great system need rescuing from a government that thinks we do not know what is best for us." The elitist and liberal attitudes of left-wing liberalism sound more like, "The system is tolerable, but could be made much better if we applied the ideas of avant-guard or intellectual reformers."

The preferences of different audiences (or constituencies) overlap based on values but are not identical. What flatters one voter can seem absurd, naive, or manipulative to another. It is not innately part of right or left wing strategy, I would say. Those on the left could just as easily resort to flattery - especially on social issues. In my opinion this has more to do with how each side chooses to mobilize target audiences. The GOP is so much better at it (or the Dems so much worse) that they effectively compete despite having roughly 15 million fewer registered members than the Democrats.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, Cas Mudde once wrote about hard-core conservative ideologies in Western Europe. He characterized them as being nationalist or monoculturalist, xenophobic, intent upon a "strong state of law and order," and favoring welfare chauvinism to restrict benefits exclusively to those who are "true" members of the nation. This is all uncannily familiar, so perhaps you are right and the flattery contributes to certain European attitudes.

The idea of "You know how to best handle your money, not the government" or "You can become successful as long as you don't have the government holding you down" sounds good to me as it would to everybody. The reason I became a democrat was not because of what the republicans offered on economic isssues. I am a democrat because of the republican party's records on civil rights. If I lived in another time period (before 1964) I very well may have been a republican.

That may have more to do with how the message is phrased than what it implies though. The statements are sweeping, simplistic, and only partially accurate. Political one-liners condense complex issues into easily-digestible pellets of sugarcoated bullsh**t that, however flavorful, have contents seldom substantive enough to be fit for human consumption. If you are an advocate of the government enforcing civil rights then to some extent you also do not trust people to handle their own money and to some extent believe that the government empowers rather than represses people trying to succeed. Ya? D:

I think there's some truth to that, but the perception is less that liberals are insecure than it is that they think americans are just stupid or naive as to what's in their own interests (e.g. Bill Maher, Thomas Frank, a good chunk of this forum, etc.). Regardless of how true the above is the 'liberal elitist' is a pretty destructive stereotype.

I am inclined to agree somewhat.

Still, even if the elitism of some liberals is stripped from the equation, conservatives get away with their own brand of it due to the traditional legitimacy of the Founding Fathers and Bible. It is perceived to be less-than-damning "common sense" for many to place faith in conservative leaders who know better than the rest of us how the constitution, good book, and scientific research should be interpreted. So maybe diversity in values render people vulnerable to different kinds of elitist or, conversely, populist appeals?

100% agreed. This is the populist rhetoric which has become so trendy in western country. And the saddest thing is that it works.

It would be interesting to look back in time to see when in history this rhetoric has come and gone from Western politics. I suspect organized labor has put populism to use for a long time.

"Populist" tends to be what people call something they disagree with I think European leftists use pretty populist rhetoric, for example.

People seem to believe the elites they trust are wiser than their opposition's electoral base. Populism carries an uglier connotation than calling it the spirit of democracy or a grassroots movement. It is all a matter of perspective I guess.

Makes sense. Is it just me, or does complaining about rich people usually get you in trouble for being a Socialist . . .

Yes, because in the U.S. our society is biased in favor of trusting economic elites more than political ones. There is a double-standard. Leftist populism will come off as more militant and un-American whereas the rightist neopopulism sounds like civic responsibility and patriotism.

There's a very fine line between being a left-wing extremist and a right-wing extremist, really. Unless, of course you're the sane one and Obama is so far to the left, he's to the right or Palin and Bush are so far the the right, they are to the left.

Amidst the hyperbole and demagoguery it is easy to forget what "extremist" is in politics. To me at least it is a person so troubled by the condition of society that there are conditions under which she or he would embrace illegal methods to push their agenda. The difference is that radicals (left) want to move "forward" progressively and reactionaries (right) would go "back" to either preserve or restore what is being lost. I think that they are otherwise, as you mentioned, remarkably similar to one another.

Some extremists do not strike until the iron is hot. These are leftist revolutionaries, and right-wing militias preparing for a "government takeover" by socialists, Islamists, or fascists. There are also anti-abortionist, environmentalist, and animal liberation activists and sympathizers who are okay with doctors being murdered, sabotaging construction equipment, firebombing the homes of researchers, and so on. The extremist oft cares more for their ideals than abiding by legitimate electoral and policy-making outcomes.

Vilifying elites does not mean one is extremist though. Ultraconservatives and democratic socialists are on the fringes by U.S. standards, for instance, but it would be unfair to classify either as extremist because they are still willing to act lawfully within the existing system's framework. It is possible to be right of Palin or Bush or much further left than Obama yet still be sane. Nonetheless, in a consolidated, pluralist, liberal democracy it is a pretty hard to find an extremist who is not nuts or in some way deeply indoctrinated.

[Person Man]

Well, in one instance its the liberal Democrats who are the elitist and in the next instance the conservative Republicans are equally elitist. I think its pretty much a level playing field.

Its the modestly wealthy 30 year old Middle-Class Democrat from Chicago with the Master's degree, Prius and $70,000 a year government job (probably rents out a pretty swanky studio or loft in a high-rise for 1800 a month) who states that "most Americans are uneducated, barely make any money, can't take care of themselves and yet 'cling to religion and guns' and vote for people who want to slowly starve them to death with while making millions and even billions in the process. These people only care about being angry with people who are different from them and are dangerous"

That's very elitist, arrogant and is direspectful to those who he depends on, no?

Then again, its the Working-Class 48 year-old Republican couple from Grand Isle, Nebraska who has 5 kids. The father is a Mechanic at a local garage, making $30,000 a year. The mother works part time with her neighborhood knitting group, making about $15,000 a year. The mother has only a High School diploma, the Father went to Mechanic’s school for a year. To them, “most Americans are childish and irresponsible. They spend $400 on drinking and drugs on the weekend and yet complain they don’t have any money to live. They are totally dependent on big business and big government and because of that, they have no morals. Any person who raises their child like that should have their children taken away from them. Children should be raised in Christian homes and not neglected or aborted. These people vote only for people who tell them what they want to hear and are proud of it because they don't know right from wrong.”


If that doesn't sound arrogant and elitist, I don't know what does. It defintely seems like they belong in this country no more than the follow on top.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The idea of "You know how to best handle your money, not the government" or "You can become successful as long as you don't have the government holding you down" sounds good to me as it would to everybody. The reason I became a democrat was not because of what the republicans offered on economic isssues. I am a democrat because of the republican party's records on civil rights. If I lived in another time period (before 1964) I very well may have been a republican.

All because Goldwater put ideology over reality and Nixon put electoral victory over morality. But hell, the GOP leadership had given up on making any serious effort to end segregation first due to political reality and then for political expediency. They certainly moved or tried to move the dial a tad one way or the other which only served to either stir up the heat (probably causing more damage then anything else) or to just get at those evil Southern SOB's (why Teddy appointed a black woman to a post office job in MS). But really, the GOP had an effective Southern strategy since the 1920's. The difference with Nixon's was that he openly through blacks under the bus whereas previous "southern strategy" like efforts atleast tried to pay lip service to the concerns of blacks. So its not like the GOP prior to 1964 was much different. However, it should be said that Goldwater's actions on the issue did far more harm then good.

It is interesting that the despite the indifference though, both wings of the GOP remained more for the civil rights efforts then against (Only three GOP Senators voted against the 1964 CRA and they were Goldwater, Young and Tower. The bulk of the Conservatives led by Dirksen and all of the moderates supported it).

As I stated elsewhere, the southern strategy had become essentiall for the GOP to escape New Deal Democratic domination, however it wasn't necessary to burn so many bridges with African Americans in the process and to embrace several disgusting individuals who had previously skulked around in the Democrat party.

[Person Man]

The idea of "You know how to best handle your money, not the government" or "You can become successful as long as you don't have the government holding you down" sounds good to me as it would to everybody. The reason I became a democrat was not because of what the republicans offered on economic isssues. I am a democrat because of the republican party's records on civil rights. If I lived in another time period (before 1964) I very well may have been a republican.

All because Goldwater put ideology over reality and Nixon put electoral victory over morality. But hell, the GOP leadership had given up on making any serious effort to end segregation first due to political reality and then for political expediency. They certainly moved or tried to move the dial a tad one way or the other which only served to either stir up the heat (probably causing more damage then anything else) or to just get at those evil Southern SOB's (why Teddy appointed a black woman to a post office job in MS). But really, the GOP had an effective Southern strategy since the 1920's. The difference with Nixon's was that he openly through blacks under the bus whereas previous "southern strategy" like efforts atleast tried to pay lip service to the concerns of blacks. So its not like the GOP prior to 1964 was much different. However, it should be said that Goldwater's actions on the issue did far more harm then good.

It is interesting that the despite the indifference though, both wings of the GOP remained more for the civil rights efforts then against (Only three GOP Senators voted against the 1964 CRA and they were Goldwater, Young and Tower. The bulk of the Conservatives led by Dirksen and all of the moderates supported it).

As I stated elsewhere, the southern strategy had become essentiall for the GOP to escape New Deal Democratic domination, however it wasn't necessary to burn so many bridges with African Americans in the process and to embrace several disgusting individuals who had previously skulked around in the Democrat party.

I think you're half right. After the Civil War, the GOP supported civil rights until the depressions of the 1880s made it clear that people just wanted answers on economic issues. So they dropped the civil rights stuff and just ran on economics for 40 years. I guess that was part of their 50 state  strategy. However, the economic plan that was baseically meant to encourage the orgy of the dollar that was the turn of the 20th century caused a new class of indentured servants to emergence.  Things went well enough to give at least enough of them opportunity until the Great Depression hit.  I'm guessing they try to fight the new deal and even entry into the war for a while but eventually there weren't enough resources in FDR land for all that the Democrats wanted. Eventually, they were able to stop the Democrats but the "damage" was already done. By the post-war years, it became clear that they were competitive again until the Democrats began to steal their thunder on civil rights. Eventually, it was the Democrats  with the 50 state stragegy, so the Republicans had to pull an entire 180 by opposing civil righs. By opposing Civil Rights and by letting the Democrats run their course again, they literally had a 50 state party by Nixon and Reagan's time...but eventually they ran their course too and now the Democrats are trying to run their Northern and Sunbelt Strategy with a modernized civil rights platform that seems to help Hispanics.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The idea of "You know how to best handle your money, not the government" or "You can become successful as long as you don't have the government holding you down" sounds good to me as it would to everybody. The reason I became a democrat was not because of what the republicans offered on economic isssues. I am a democrat because of the republican party's records on civil rights. If I lived in another time period (before 1964) I very well may have been a republican.

All because Goldwater put ideology over reality and Nixon put electoral victory over morality. But hell, the GOP leadership had given up on making any serious effort to end segregation first due to political reality and then for political expediency. They certainly moved or tried to move the dial a tad one way or the other which only served to either stir up the heat (probably causing more damage then anything else) or to just get at those evil Southern SOB's (why Teddy appointed a black woman to a post office job in MS). But really, the GOP had an effective Southern strategy since the 1920's. The difference with Nixon's was that he openly through blacks under the bus whereas previous "southern strategy" like efforts atleast tried to pay lip service to the concerns of blacks. So its not like the GOP prior to 1964 was much different. However, it should be said that Goldwater's actions on the issue did far more harm then good.

It is interesting that the despite the indifference though, both wings of the GOP remained more for the civil rights efforts then against (Only three GOP Senators voted against the 1964 CRA and they were Goldwater, Young and Tower. The bulk of the Conservatives led by Dirksen and all of the moderates supported it).

As I stated elsewhere, the southern strategy had become essentiall for the GOP to escape New Deal Democratic domination, however it wasn't necessary to burn so many bridges with African Americans in the process and to embrace several disgusting individuals who had previously skulked around in the Democrat party.

I think you're half right. After the Civil War, the GOP supported civil rights until the depressions of the 1880s made it clear that people just wanted answers on economic issues. So they dropped the civil rights stuff and just ran on economics for 40 years. I guess that was part of their 50 state  strategy. However, the economic plan that was baseically meant to encourage the orgy of the dollar that was the turn of the 20th century caused a new class of indentured servants to emergence.  Things went well enough to give at least enough of them opportunity until the Great Depression hit.  I'm guessing they try to fight the new deal and even entry into the war for a while but eventually there weren't enough resources in FDR land for all that the Democrats wanted. Eventually, they were able to stop the Democrats but the "damage" was already done. By the post-war years, it became clear that they were competitive again until the Democrats began to steal their thunder on civil rights. Eventually, it was the Democrats  with the 50 state stragegy, so the Republicans had to pull an entire 180 by opposing civil righs. By opposing Civil Rights and by letting the Democrats run their course again, they literally had a 50 state party by Nixon and Reagan's time...but eventually they ran their course too and now the Democrats are trying to run their Northern and Sunbelt Strategy with a modernized civil rights platform that seems to help Hispanics.

There are a lot of generalizations in this post and so it is difficult to respond to them all.

1. It wasn't the depression of the 1880's. The worst Depressions took place in 1873-74 and 1893-94. The GOP got massacred in the midterm elections of 1874 and this put the Democrats in controll of the House. Because of state legislatures electing Republicans, the GOP held the Senate, narrowly. All of the Democrats were completely hostile to any efforts on Civil Rights and many of the Republicans wanted to move on to more pressing concerns. In many ways the events surronding the immigration reform in the mid 2000's (it could have been any issue but this is the one that most closely follows the same trajectory). The GOP house made sure that any effort to pass comprehensive reform was doomed. However, GOP defeat in 2006 and the Dem takeover of the house made it possible, if it could pass the Senate which was seen as more favorable to the issue. The Senate, being dominated by enough anti-civil rights Senators was the most hostile chamber by virtue of the rules, while the House had been the more sympathetic. After the defeat an effort was made to appeal to electoral concerns that were most pressing kind of like their was pressure to embrace immigration reform to appeal to Hispanics. Only in the case of Civil Rights and the 1870's, the electoral minded won out.


Also, some of your timeline does not make sense. The New Deal Coalition lasted for decades. The GOP was competative, but they couldn't maintain control or even parity in either chamber, except for two elections (1946 and 1952) and in both cases the Democrats regained strong majorities just two years later when Union and ethnic white turnout (in a Truman reelection campaign and then a GOP midterm) drowned the Republicans in the NE and Midwest. And if you look at the maps of the house delegations (look up on wikipedia an random election in between about 1880 to 1992-1996) the Democrats dominated in both the SE And SW for decades with only short temporary breakthroughs prior to the 1960's and then a slow and steady building up that was often interupted untill finally the GOP got most of the SE and SW delegations in the 1990's and held them consistently. There are a few exceptions to this in a few states but for the most part it is the case. Thus breaking the Democratic stranglehold and creating a reliable, consistent base were essentiall for the GOP. Hence the southern strategy.

GOP Landslides don't trouch south (VA and NC had Republican leaning areas that were completely dominated usually by the rest of the state voting Dem, So the gains there are explained by that fact and Ike's victory in both)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1946
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1952

The Price of Victory is defeat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1948
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1954

And you guys think President's get one bad midterm?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1958

The closest the GOP comes to victory before 1994:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1972

Some more substatnial break throughs in the South, still a see of blue though.

Even Reagan couldn't do the job:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1984

The South cracks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1994
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1996

[Person Man]

The point is that eventually the two parties had to switch issues in order to survive.

The Depression of the 1870s turned the Socially Liberal (for the time) GOP into a Libertarian party that could compete with a Conservative Democratic Party. Eventually, the GOP's 50 state strategy forced Democrats to appeal to neglected GOP constitutiencies and eventually the Democrats became a big-Goverment party into the New Deal. The point is to ask which came first?- The Democrats changing from a Big-Government 50-state party based in the South to a Liberal Urban Party that could only compete where there were cities and had basically written off the Interior South and Southern Plains  or The Republicans changing from a mostly Libertarian rural and Midwestern party to a Conservative party that basically added the South to what it had and lost what grow to urban?

Another thing that makes my dates sooner than the 80s and more like 50s and 60s is that though that was the height of prgressive thought and Democratic might, much of that might rode on top of a non-supportive Dixiecrat wing that helped Nixon and Reagan get things done even when they lacked control of Congress. Eventually, that doomed Johnson and Carter and greatly restricted Clinton. The only reason Obama got what he did and then lost what he did was because of the fact that there are only like 10 dixiecrats in the house by the time he got there....and half of them lost in 2010....and of course the reason why Obama lost the house was because Democratic Presidents are only supposed to have nominal control of congress. This was the first time since the 60s that any Democrat had any type of full Governing power.