Carpe Datum

Bouncing in the Mud

Get Ready to Spend the Next Two Months in the Gutter
(Image credit: Steve Jackson Games)

The ConservaBorg convention is history, and it looks like Bush is getting a really big bounce in the polls. Time and Newsweek both report that previously a nationwide neck-and-neck race has turned into a 10 or 11 point Bush lead. And so as a liberal, like many others, I am left to wonder what's up with America? I mean, I know it is a temporary swing in the polls, but how is it that people were positively moved by that spittin' mad hatefest. How can a party that is in control of everything be *SO FUCKING MAD* at American government when they are the ones in charge? And people are buying it! What is it going to take to get through to people that Bush is bad for the country?

Objectively, by any across-the-board measure, he's bad for the country. Huge deficits, unfair polices, environmental destruction (without at least the fig leaf of economic process as a result), brazen lies, and a country ruled by fear. But as a scientist, I know very well that once people get a stupid idea in their heads, no matter how wrong (like, say, creationism), they'll defend it to the death rather than admit they are wrong. You can throw any kind of credible evidence at them, and it just rolls off like water off a duck's back.

There has got to be a better way than joining the Republicans in the sewer and smearing them back, but crap, I sure can't think of it. Digby has a great post on this, with a couple of citations and a lengthy conversation that any depressed liberal should read:

Throughout the Swift Boat Liar controversy, I have been posting and exchanging e-mails and talking with various people who believe that Kerry should have been prepared and "fought back" sooner. But, we've mostly concluded that "fighting back" would have come down to more effective responses to the charges, a good rapid response team, better more pithy retorts, well prepared surrogates, more righteous indignation on the stump. And, my feeling is that none of that would have made a bit of difference. The whole point of smears is to raise doubts and get them out there however you can. And with the Mighty Wurlitzer and the cable networks being what they are, even if the major papers had debunked them on the first day --- with sheaves of refutations and rebuttals from the Kerry campaign, it still would gotten out there. It was an entertaining segment of The Politics Show and there was no stopping it.

I reluctantly concluded that the only effective response was probably to engage in the same kind of smear and hope it becomes a zero sum game. And, in the process, we would be forced to drive our politics further and further into a fetid sewer. I find the prospect of that deeply depressing which is what distinguishes me from a Republican. They do not have that emotional reaction. Indeed, they are energized by the prospect. It's a problem.

Still, the stakes are so high that we have no choice but to try to win today by any means necessary and begin the hard work of repairing our politics --- and honestly, our culture --- after we have wrested power from those who have brought us to this place.

Dirty, hate filled, testosterone fueled, phony political spectacle is what the public wants to buy. They are not going to turn off their car radios and TVs and suddenly reject the entertaining pageant they are enjoying so much. They will continue to assure pollsters that they hate all this negativity, but they will tune in to absorb the bloodlust and feel vicariously empowered by this show of masculine prowess. They want action. They will vote for the one who gives it to them.
As God-fearing, all-American winners in the game of politics and life, we have no choice but to give them what they want. It's time to dive into the mud. It's the only hope we have of saving the country.

Do we really have to "destroy the village" (in this case, the rational debate of ideas) in order to save it? Wouldn't that be the ironic if a Kerry victory were to require such a thing? I mean, here's a real poser: If the only way to win the election were to, say, question the president's sexual orientation, will Democrats do it:? Should they? The depressing answer may be "yes". It has become clear that what's true isn't what's important in this election. What's important is whatever the hell works, and the uninformed, easily persuaded Moron Americans have only themselves to blame. Which would be fine in theory. I'd say, hey great, let them get what they deserve as a leader. But in practice, it is my country, too.

Just remember this: In six weeks when everyone is sick of hearing all the charges about Bush's cocaine snorting, drunk driving, jail time, boy toys, 9/11 cowardice, whatever ... they started it. The difference is that about 90% of the crap being thrown from our side (for now, at least) is actually true. Not that it matters to the media, who will report Democratic tactics as "desperate" and "hypocritical" or "unhinged and angry like Dean".

Republicans are mad about Michael Moore? Who the hell do they think created him?

Posted by Observer at September 5, 2004 12:25 PM