Avoidable? Yes. Still wrong.

I have been nagged by some goddamn nagging nagbobs of nagativity about commenting upon bad lefty scrawlings from around the interweb. Specifically, reading namby-pamby blogs and such, and then having the audacity to critique them. The idea seems to be that it's all shit, and it needs no pointing out to be recognized as such. One helpful reader even used the Bill O'Reilly analogy, as in "anybody who goes on the O'Reilly show should expect to experience the height of idiocy!" So, lazy thinking and stupid behavior by the left need not be pointed out, by that reasoning, because OF COURSE it's stupid.

Well, I can't agree. We're never going to get any better until we think about the things we say and do. And my problem with the left's style, as it manifests itself in writing or speech intended for public consumption, is that it assumes the wrong things about the mass audience.

First, leftist speech assumes that "normal people" are innately conservative and horribly stupid. Thus, talking down to them would anger them; so we must attempt to reach them on "their" level. And, being so smart, this will be easy. We just need some work boots, rolled-up sleeves, and small words. How's it hanging, my man? What is it that is up? Rock out with your cock out! ...and so on.

Second, we seem to think that the lumps will really appreciate some kind of analogy. Reagan was supposedly the "master" of common speech, and so we want to do like he did, and use pop culture references to bring high concepts down to the level of folks who can't visualize anything unless it's on TV. Now, Reagan was suffering from a disease that was eating big holes in his brain, and wasn't very bright to begin with, but that doesn't faze us. Goddammit, we want to show the people how motherfucking savvy and connected we are! I've seen the MT...uh, B? MTV? and I've stayed at the Paris Hilton! It doesn't get any more common than that!

This is the crux: people don't want leaders who are "dumb like me." They don't care, and never did, I'm sure, that GW Bush is a "havin' a beer with me" guy--that was the MEDIA'S fascination! Because in that created, phony-as-hell character they made, the elitist media saw it's own fondest wish: to be accepted as the "pal" of the ordinary American, even as it looked down upon, lectured to, and, like Bush, despised him.

If we on the left don't get out of this loop; that is, if we don't stop trying to relate to our homies on da' streets (phrasing that was moldy even when I was a child, by the way), then we'll continue to be a joke to citizens who prefer the whiff of patrician elitism that comes from the Republican Party.

In a word, voters want smart leaders. If they can't get serious, smart leaders, they will accept elitist pricks in a pinch.

But, alas, this showed up in my mailbox yesterday:





The subscription, it turns out, isn't up until December.






People who cite random, fictitious characters to make a point are not to be trusted. Is Bush Ivan Denisovich? Or, is he more like the Very Hungry Caterpillar? If he's most like Voldemort, can we banish him with magic? Are Congressional impeachment proceedings "magical"? Do you even know what reality is, you crazy bitch? Do you know how fucking stupid this is?!?

This woman is a civil rights lawyer for Gitmo detainees. By the way, while you were spinning your pointless, infantile little story about how Bush = fictional villain, your clients lost their appeal at the Supreme Court.