Before I get into the remainder of my argument I need to make a clarification. While I do believe that certain individuals in the leadership of the Green Party and Justice Democrats movements are behaving as if they are assets of the Russian Government, I do not believe that every person who is involved in that movement is seeking to subvert liberal ideology. As I mention in The Perpetual Hamster Wheel of Stupidity, the study of agitative political rhetoric is an issue that was lost to history for decades. Democratic Party leadership and the American Media seem to be completely unaware that key works of propaganda analysis even exist. During the years when television was the dominant medium in American culture the programming managers of America's large tv networks played a gate-keeping role that generally led to a moderation of American politics. The proliferation of cable channels, and the nearly unlimited number of venues that can be created and promoted via the Internet has led to an explosion of political extremism and crankery that the American public was not psychologically equipped to handle. Anxiety over American politics in the modern day is largely a natural response to living in a world where the cranks and conspiracy theorists have nearly unlimited reach, and are no longer limited to xeroxing their irate screeds and then mailing out their "zines" at the post office. While there are some recently elected members of Congress who occasionally behave in an agitative manner, I believe that their behavior is not the result of malice, but simply a matter of them reflecting the general lack of knowledge of how to interpret agitative propaganda that is endemic throughout the American public. The arguments presented here only apply to a handful of online agitators, none of whom are elected officials.
Some would argue that topics such as Medicare 4 All or The Green New Deal do address particular issues, but they do so in an overly broad way, and supporters are often more interested in the catch-phrase than they are in discussing specifics of a piece of legislation. One of the tactics of political agitators is to call for grand political efforts, and insist that anyone who tries to break that talking point down into approachable components or take an incremental approach is opposing the movement and is "part of the establishment". If you ask a Green New Deal supporter on Twitter to describe which technologies they think are most promising for reducing CO2 emissions, they often respond with open hostility. If you ask a supporter of a particular Presidential candidate how he expects to get Medicare 4 All past a Republican filibuster in the Senate, they respond with a statement of faith (and one that's rather shocking in its consistency) that "Once he's president there won't be any filibuster, and he'll have a huge majority in the Senate", but if you ask how supporters of that Presidential candidate expect to build that majority when Justice Democrat candidates haven't been able to win Senate seats in any red states, and why they think creating schisms in the Demoratic Party by engaging in rampant name-calling and spreading conspiracy theories will magically result in a Senate majority, they have no answer. Supporters of a particular presidential candidate, are often sympathetic to messages from voices in both the Green Party and Justice Democrats organizations, and one can even see them being goaded into spreading conspiracy theories by individuals who self-identify on social media as right-wing libertarians. Voters should be suspicious of any candidate who insists upon a very broad approach to a political topic, but refuses to name any of the steps involved in reaching that goal, or who has a hostile tone towards anyone who asks for a description of specific elements of the grand design. This particular approach is a strategy for increasing the malaise of one's audience because by presenting the plan as a catch-phrase, it creates a broadside for the opposing political party to rail against, whereas creating a detailed plan could easily result in points of agreement that would lead to at least partial success, rather than wholesale rejection of a goal. By focusing on the catch-phrase grand-scheme, and refusing to even name elements of a plan that could become points of agreement, the political agitator is able to present a narrative of constant resistance, thereby increasing the malaise of his or her audience.
Another common element of political agitators is self-sabotage. Often times the followers of the agitative political leader won't even notice the act as it occurs, but self-sabotage is an important tool for agitative political leaders who want to ensure that their policies fail, so they can continue to portray themselves as the under-dog, and as an endless victim of "establishment conspiracies". One example involved when Green Party and Justice Democrat supporters echoed candidates who had publicly discussed the issue of getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate, during a period in time when Republicans had recently eliminated the filibuster for judicial appointees, and when the Democratic Party held only 47 seats to Republicans 53. To publicly engage in that kind of conversation and insist "once we're in power the filibuster is going away", at a time when the US Senate is being led by a sociopath like Mitch McConnell is either a tactical blunder of monumental stupidity, or an invitation to cause harm to the Democratic Party for the purpose of enhancing the malaise of the politically frustrated. Another example of self-sabotage was when a particular Democratic Presidential candidate insisted that there should be a nationwide ban on fracking, and that his supporters should not support any Democrat unless they signed on to the fracking ban. Again, this is either a tactical blunder of monumental stupidity, or an invitation to do harm for the purpose of amplifying the malaise of liberal voters. In an election year where Democrats are at a 47 to 53 seat advantage, and are hoping to pick up 4 seats (possibly including seats in Kansas and Kentucky) it is incredibly stupid to suggest something like a nationwide fracking ban, as doing so immediately alienates many moderate voters in those states who either work in fracking, or have friends and family who do. It would be fine to say that we need increase financing for research into the effects of fracking, and to consider new regulations to make sure that water supplies are protected and that there isn't unnecessary discharge of methane, but to call for a nationwide ban effectively constitutes intent to concede Kansas and Kentucky before they've even held their primaries.
American voters have a lot to learn about how to identify the difference between politicians who are presenting an honest agenda for reform, and those who are merely seeking to amplify the malaise of voters for their own benefit. I hope that this essay has shown you why the leaders of the Justice Demorats and the Green Party have engaged in behaviors that appear to be either the product of rampant stupidity and lack of political savvy, if not a willful desire to sabotage the Demoratic Party and increase the malaise of liberal voters. This is a topic I will be addressing again in the very near future.
Troll image credit: Wikimedia Images: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Folksagor_Carl_Larsson_165.jpg
Carl Larsson [Public domain]
If you enjoyed this essay, please consider picking up a copy of my book The Perpetual Hamster Wheel of Stupidity. You can find the Amazon page for my book by clicking on the link below:
Comments
Post a Comment