Via
SULLY I see this line:
And hey, no one does amorphous and emotional platforms like the Left.
I personally take offense at that line. It's historically been easy to lob "fags!" at Democrats and portray them as tree-hugging hippies, but the bottom line is the GOP of the last ten years has turned from it's old credo of "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" to dog whistles of Tea Party-fueled emotionalism, as I mentioned years ago
HERE:
One thing that has surprised me is how quickly the GOP went from the party of no-nonsense, button-down seriousness to one of symbols and histrionic emotions; there is no argument they think they can't win with a moving, tear-jerker anecdote about soldiers, flags and Jesus.
The Democratic Party has had to become the party of financial responsibility and scientific pragmatism
(is there another kind, I suppose?), while the GOP has become very adept at winning elections by appealing to platitudes, bumper stickers, and baseless hysteria to generate over-wraught longing for the sentimentality of yesterday/year. I don't expect the old cliche about the tree-hugging Democrat will go away anytime soon because that's how cliches work, but for the Right to claim to have a monopoly on gravitas of any kind is beyond laughable at this point.
1 comment:
Nonsense. They both have pretty simplistic credos encased in emotional appeals on largely irrelevant topics. The credo is the only thing that matters in the long run, and more often than not, it overrides pragmatism. Obama had an inspired moment of honesty when he said, you know, if we get people working, we're talking a one term deal here. It reminded me of when Bush was asked about the future if Iraq and said, basically, I don't know, that's gonna' be another president's problem. These are pragmatic, straightforward answers, which in politics, where legacy and perpetuation are the standard, is anathema.
Here, I imagine that for all the intelligence of Obama's quote, you instinctively rely upon his credo and your revulsion of Romney's. Thus, all the emotional appeals on the left, you miss, and yet you focus laser-like on this Tea Party loonies on the right.
This is not a criticism. It's a distillation. Ask yourself, if unemployment was at 16%, would you vote for Romney? Probably not. The Tea Partiers and plutocrats cannot win and more importantly, you will not endorse a credo that you revile.
This is why emotionalism is so critical on both sides. Because when the credo is weak or does not appear to be doing very well, we have created an emotional response to the opposition that makes them evil, stupid, immoral and dangerous. No matter what the numbers, who can get behind that?
Post a Comment