Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35568

Some good points.

I hadn't heard the Dobson quote, for some reason. Dobson's not a Falwell or a Michael Moore, a Coulter or a Kos; Dobson's important to the GOP, he has an organisation and he's relatively slick. The GOP public platform I could support (if they hadn't turned into a bunch of lying shysters worse than the Dems that they replaced, of course) but people like Dobson, and the power they wield inside the party, are scary.

I have no idea why the population of MA keep re-electing Teddy Kennedy so blithely. He's a whore. Not that Congress and the Whitehouse aren't full of them (Inhofe sounds like an utter cunt) but he's high-profile and he could do so much more good than he does, for his electorate and his party and the country.

quote:

---

Save the Sharks
By Kathleen Parker

The poor shark can get no rest these days. Everyone is jumping him.

For those whose shark metaphors stalled on "Jaws," "jumping the shark" refers to the moment when something, usually a dramatic production, runs - or strays from - its course. Coined by Jon Hein (jumptheshark.com), the phrase evolved from the episode of "Happy Days" where the show's writers, apparently out of ideas, had Fonzie literally jump a shark while water skiing.

It was so over-the-top that the show was deemed dead by those who monitor such things. People are said to jump the shark when, desperate for ratings or attention, they make over-the-top statements.
Click to learn more...

Of late, we seem to have armies of shark-jumpers, from Dr. James Dobson to Sen. Ted Kennedy to Ann Coulter to my hands-down fave, Sen. James Inhofe - all of whom have taken their own mantras a trope too far. Through them, hyperbole and hysteria have formed an uncivil union, casting national debate into a miasma of self-mockery.

Let me put it this way: Dobson and Inhofe, who seem to think that the devil made gay people, make me want to marry a lesbian transsexual; Coulter, who has attacked a group of 9/11 widows to make a political point, makes me want to wash Cindy Sheehan's feet and hug a war protester; while Kennedy, who has been baying "bigot" about anyone objecting to same-sex marriage on even rational grounds, makes one yearn for the comforting sound of a car alarm.

No wonder Americans can't stand politicians, or that our nation has become a quagmire of insult and ad hominem. Here's a sampling of what has passed for debate in recent days.

Commenting on the proposed constitutional amendment to declare marriage a union only between a man and a woman, Dobson said during a recent chapel service (later broadcast on radio) that "marriage is under vicious attack ... from the forces of hell itself."

Same-sex marriage has plenty of intelligent, knowledgeable supporters and critics, from clergy to laymen to legal scholars. However this issue gets resolved, whether as a federal or state issue, the process can't be helped by implications that gays (our friends, family and neighbors) are evil for wanting to marry.

Meanwhile, if Satan's crib is what stimulates the Republican base, Democrats may enjoy an embarrassment of riches come November as rational conservatives seek saner company.

Giving you-know-who his due, perhaps Dobson was just joshin'. And perhaps Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., was just braggin' during the marriage amendment debate when, in a memorable show-'n'-tell, he displayed a poster-sized photo of his extended family and said:

"As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop we'll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship."

Quite likely, the operative words here are "recorded history." I'm pretty sure our family Bible doesn't reflect the sexual orientation of our gay cousins, either, but just the same, Inhofe might consider dusting off the family rabbit's foot and padlocking the closets.

Kennedy, whose self-caricature is helping put political cartoonists out of business, has declared that all opponents to same-sex marriage are bigots. Right. And all opponents of state-mandated seat belts are child abusers. And anyone who disagrees with me is a moron. Next.

Finally, Coulter may have jumped the shark with her unfortunate tirade against the 9/11 widows in her new book, "Godless." Which is too bad because Coulter had a point that got lost amid the inevitable outrage.

Her point was that debate becomes strained to impossible when one of the gladiators on the other side has recently suffered a grievous loss. No one wants to challenge a wife whose husband has been killed - or a mother whose son has perished in battle - even if they have become public political players.

The opposition will always look like insensitive bullies, as does Coulter, who undermined her own message more than her critics could. Calling the widows "witches" and saying they were enjoying their husbands' deaths was chum to the other side.

Rabble-rousing, fear-mongering and race-baiting may keep local constituents happy, but none of it gets us where we need to go - toward sane remedies for a united nation. And, yes, happier days.

In shark-free waters.

For the children.

While staying the course.

Because we love freedom, and they don't.

Glub, glub, glub.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24317

Good piece. He forgot the old favorite: "The American people"; as if any of the meatsacks in Washington have a fucking clue what "the American people" want.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Den
Posts: 11000

Yeah, what DO they want?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

Demagogues, yes, but not especially populist in most cases. The ChristCons kinda go out of their way to define themselves as defending a relatively small segment of the population against majoritarian ethics. One doesn't hear the phrase "moral majority" from them anymore.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

Really, in terms of POPULIST demagoguery, can any of those people hold a candle to Bush, Kerry, or particularly Gore in 2000?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35568

With the anti-gay marriage thing, they're playing populism. They're mobilsing a whole raft of arguments ('what next? Polygmay? Marrying livestock?') to hit as many buttons as they can. They're using it to rally their base, which isn't that small, for that matter.

Populism probably doesn't hit even the majority of the actual population on any individual issue, anyhow.

But in any case, it was me that used the word 'populist' (rather than the author of the article). I don't understand by it that it has to hit a majority of the population, or close to.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

The polygamy/bestiality bit is a legit argument, populist or not. Not one I agree with, but if we're going to debate a redefinition of marriage, there is nothing unreasonable about asking for a consistent standard on which the definition is going to be drawn.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
But in any case, it was me that used the word 'populist' (rather than the author of the article). I don't understand by it that it has to hit a majority of the population, or close to.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35568

It's also not just the extent of demagogy, it's the nature of what they're aiming for and how they are doing it. Demagogy is a political currency, but that of David Duke was more worrying than that of, say, the past few Presidents. It seems to me that the more extreme the demagogy, the smaller a fraction it will hit home with; that doesn't make it less alarming than the widescale nonsense practiced by, say, Bush. What's scary about Dobson is that his power hasn't scaled inversely with his lunacy (in the way that it has for, say, Falwell).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35568

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
Uh...what does "populist" mean if it doesn't mean an appeal to instinctive, irrational majority sentiment?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

Seems to me that you mean by "populism" what I generally define as "demagoguery". The two often coincide, but I wouldn't conflate the two. There have been a number of populists who didn't attempt to appeal to their audiences at a primarily emotional level...both Roosevelts, for instance. And there have been a number of demagogues who weren't especially populist, like Mosley.

EDIT: as examples, think of people whose sentimental appeals rely on their audience thinking they're somehow elite--explicitly different from, and superior to, the majority.

Last edited by CHiPsJr on 06-11-2006 at 04:20 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24317

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coincidence
Yeah, what DO they want?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35568

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
Seems to me that you mean by "populism" what I generally define as "demagoguery". The two often coincide, but I wouldn't conflate the two. There have been a number of populists who didn't attempt to appeal to their audiences at a primarily emotional level...both Roosevelts, for instance. And there have been a number of demagogues who weren't especially populist, like Mosley.

EDIT: as examples, think of people whose sentimental appeals rely on their audience thinking they're somehow elite--explicitly different from, and superior to, the majority.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged