Where are the angry men on the left?

Denerick

The American ring wing almost has a monopoly on angry white men screaming nonsense into the publics ear. Where are these demagogues on the left?

The left seems to have:

A) A pretty lame ass character like Olbermann, who intimidates nobody.
A network of blogs, which come off as preachy and naieve.
C) The occasional buffoon like Michael Moore comes along, but he only steals the limelight for a few weeks and then disappears.

Limbaugh/Savage/O'Reilly/Beck/Hannity/Coulter are all sick and depraved individuals who have ruined American politics from its foundation. They make a parody of the existing parody of rabble rousing beatniks who make their living from rousing idiots to lift clubs and iron bars. But their style of politics undoubtedly works - they appeal greatly to their base and give American Conservatism an image that is tough, bullish, and energetic.

The Democrats on the other hand have since 1988 (When Dukkakis made the word 'Liberal' a bad thing in the popular perception by his ineptness) been afraid to adopt any coherent strategy other than a vague populism which tries to appeal to a big tent constituency (Something here for the Black vote, something there for the poor, something here for the Jewish vote, something there for the lower middle class/Women/pensioners etc. etc.) They have no 'set of ideas' by which they can be instantly branded with. Yes, they are the opposite of the Republican Party and conservatism (Though no-one doubts that there are loads more DINOs than RINOs) but why do they refuse to adopt Conservative tactics? Conservatives have a political movement that appeals to their base, and energises an angry section of the electorate... What do the Democrats do about this?

rovert

Too busy watching Pro Wrestling:

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/03/sports_viewers.php

kev9100

I have no problem with the left becoming more vocal, but I don't want it to go down the Limbaugh/Beck route. One of the biggest reasons people join the Democratic Party is that they find Beck and his ilk disgusting. If that's the case, why should we change?

Memnoch

I have a bad feeling that my answer on this issue is going to be in contravention of the charter, but here goes anyway.

First thing I want to point out is the recent survey on the popularity of Fox News as conducted by public policy polling (I've read they are associated with the democrats)

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/fox-leads-for-trust.html

Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.

CNN does next best at a 39/41 spread, followed by NBC at 35/44, CBS at 32/46, and ABC at 31/46.

Predictably there is a lot of political polarization in which outlets people trust. 74% of Republicans trust Fox News, but no more than 23% trust any of the other four sources. We already knew that conservatives don't trust the mainstream media but this data is a good prism into just how deep that distrust runs.

For Democrats the numbers are a complete opposite- a majority trust all of ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC while only 30% have faith in Fox News. Continuing the trend in our polling over the last few months that independents hate everything, a plurality of them distrust all five outlets we looked at.

This suggests to me that those who trust Fox News aren't really looking for multiple points of view/coverage, and have bought into the whole 'Fox is the only one looking out for us and the rest are crazy lefties,' mentality. While on the left, people in general seem to look to a variety of sources equally and thus are more open to differing points of view (this does not include Fox as they recognise it for the sham tabloid journalism it is.)

What does this have to do with anger?

If you look at the kind of stuff spouted by Limbaugh/Beck, it's ignorant, angry rhethoric, often with little basis in fact or reality. The kind that any REASONABLE person would reject pretty quickly and recognise it for the obvious nonsense that it is. I mean, we're talking about people who consider the word, 'liberal,' to be some kind of insult... I'd love to see statistics on education levels and economic indicators as well as religious preferences of these followers, I'd suspect the results would be pretty interesting.

The fact is that this kind of stuff will never be as successful on the left. Because this kind of blind ignorance is the anti-thesis of liberalism. Where the idea is to be tolerant and open to exploring different kinds of views. Liberals can get angry, but there needs to be something genuine to be angry about, some true injustice, that's been explored and exposed. They aren't likely to respond to simple rabble rousing.

Michael Moore is a great example. Since he's the closest thing we have to a Beck/Limbaugh. But he is a total pussy cat compared to them. Yet he doesn't command nearly the kind of following on the left as the above do on the right, simply because that kind of sensationalist journalism (and Moore actually presents a lot of solid facts and research, much more so than his compatriots on the right) just doesn't go down well with people who like to make up their own minds about things.

It's the same thing with everything else...

Those of a fundamentalist mindset watch the same news channel, rely on a handful of sources of information. They aren't interested in questioning this information. Are generally ignorant about what's really going on in the world (remember the polls conducted around the iraq invasion and the sheer ignorance on display by the supports of the war amongst the general American populace?). Are often driven by religious agendas, and history has shown us how easy it is to get religious people to pick up their spades and pitchforks.

That's not to say the left doesn't get angry. We got quite angry about Bush. Considering the fact that he started two wars (at least one of them obviously illegal), murdered tens (hundreds?) of thousands of innocent people and created torture camps. Which the Beck/Limbaugh audience were HAPPY to go along with but hey, let A black guy try and enact provisions to provide health care to the poor and they're ready to fukin' revolt.

Denerick

Your post was good, except this:

Michael Moore is a great example. Since he's the closest thing we have to a Beck/Limbaugh. But he is a total pussy cat compared to them. Yet he doesn't command nearly the kind of following on the left as the above do on the right, simply because that kind of sensationalist journalism (and Moore actually presents a lot of solid facts and research, much more so than his compatriots on the right) just doesn't go down well with people who like to make up their own minds about things.

Propaganda is not the ability to tell lies, its the ability to present your opinion whilst simultaneously and deliberately omitting facts. Michael Moore is frequently guilty of this.

Memnoch

Denerick wrote: »

Your post was good, except this:



Propaganda is not the ability to tell lies, its the ability to present your opinion whilst simultaneously and deliberately omitting facts. Michael Moore is frequently guilty of this.

It's true that Moore doesn't always give a fair hearing to the "other side of the argument." But it's still a damn sight better than simply making up facts to suit your agenda and calling everyone else an evil liar out to murder babies and destroy freedom.

Besides, as I said, Moore isn't followed nearly as fanatically by the left as are Beck/Limbaugh.

Denerick

Memnoch wrote: »

It's true that Moore doesn't always give a fair hearing to the "other side of the argument."

I think thats the difference between demagoguery (Demonising the opposition) and propaganda (Twisting the facts to suit your prejudices) I think Moore is more guilty of this that most to be perfectly honest. His films have a slick veneer, but underneath is a murky undercurrent which is rife with intellectual dishonesty.

But it's still a damn sight better than simply making up facts to suit your agenda and calling everyone else an evil liar out to murder babies and destroy freedom.

Besides, as I said, Moore isn't followed nearly as fanatically by the left as are Beck/Limbaugh.

Hey, I don't like those guys either!

Exile 1798

The two parties of American politics arent divided on a Left-Right basis.

The division is one of the know somethings vs know nothings.

The Left-Right divide you'll notice exists within the Democratic Party, the know somethings.

The Republicans don't represent the Right so much as they represent the know nothings.

It's very easy to be a Right Wing Democrat, it's very hard to be an intelligent Republican.

It's only natural that the know nothings should have the strongest demagogues and hate mongers. The know somethings can't really hope to match them, if they could they'd be know nothings.

steelcityblues

Of course, messrs Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Sharpton, Rangel, Gates, etc. are such towering intellectuals who have never said anything patently embarrassing or untrue on public record?

Face it, BOTH parties are filled with a plethora of overeducated, isolated, pompous, corrupt idiots!!

The masses could reach breaking point with Washington soon enough!

Memnoch

steelcityblues wrote: »

Of course, messrs Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Sharpton, Rangel, Gates, etc. are such towering intellectuals who have never said anything patently embarrassing or untrue on public record?

Face it, BOTH parties are filled with a plethora of overeducated, isolated, pompous, corrupt idiots!!

The masses could reach breaking point with Washington soon enough!

Since when are Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh over educated?

What the hell does over educated even mean? I'm sure there are idiot politicians on both sides. But I've yet to see credible examples to compare to the names listed above.

That's the difference. The extremists (listed above) embraced by the conservative base in America.

Exile 1798

steelcityblues wrote: »

Of course, messrs Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Sharpton, Rangel, Gates, etc. are such towering intellectuals who have never said anything patently embarrassing or untrue on public record?

What arguement are you responding to? The one you made up in your own head.

steelcityblues wrote: »

Face it, BOTH parties are filled with a plethora of overeducated, isolated, pompous, corrupt idiots!!

I'm can't say that I've ever heard the term "overdeducated" in my life.

Strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron. More that that, it seems like a very anti-intellectual term of abuse.

steelcityblues wrote: »

The masses could reach breaking point with Washington soon enough!

Possible, the ignorant rump that mobilised to elect Bush twice still exists.

Fortunately though it seems a good chance the election of Obama signaled a rallying cry from the much maligned "know-something" segment of the American population. Hopefully the overall tide has turned.

steelcityblues

Exile 1798 wrote: »

What arguement are you responding to? The one you made up in your own head.

You talked earlier about the know-somethings and know-nothings. I was pointing out, who I think are the know-nothing Democrats.

I'm can't say that I've ever heard the term "overdeducated" in my life.

Strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron. More that that, it seems like a very anti-intellectual term of abuse.



Possible, the ignorant rump that mobilised to elect Bush twice still exists.

Fortunately though it seems a good chance the election of Obama signaled a rallying cry from the much maligned "know-something" segment of the American population. Hopefully the overall tide has turned.

What I meant by overeducated, is that many higher ranking US politicians (media heads like Hannity and Beck don't really count) have qualifications from the more elitist third-level institutions like Yale and Harvard, rather than more 'normal' third level centres.

Certain people who have attend these institutions have been accused of having an inflated sense of their own importance. I think Bush Jr. could fall into this category, despite the faux-cowboy act:D

I heard enough vox-pops around the time of Obama's election from people who said that their electricity bills/educational future/lfinancial status was all sorted now that their man was in the White House.

Nothing ignorant about those folks, right?

Denerick

steelcityblues wrote: »

What I meant by overeducated, is that many higher ranking US politicians (media heads like Hannity and Beck don't really count) have qualifications from the more elitist third-level institutions like Yale and Harvard, rather than more 'normal' third level centres.

Certain people who have attend these institutions have been accused of having an inflated sense of their own importance. I think Bush Jr. could fall into this category, despite the faux-cowboy act:D

I heard enough vox-pops around the time of Obama's election from people who said that their electricity bills/educational future/lfinancial status was all sorted now that their man was in the White House.

Nothing ignorant about those folks, right?

What is elitist about getting a good education?

This kind of attitude underpins most of the anti-Americanism on this planet.

I found it sickening that Obama had to 'dumb' himself down just so idiot Americans wouldn't think he was 'elitist' for using big words. One of the major criticisms levelled against him was that he was too smart.

Only in America.

steelcityblues

Obama wasn't 'forced' to dumb down. He, along with his campaigning team decided to do that, just like Bush and others in the past!

As U.S. Presidents go - he only possesses average intelligence. 20th century Presidents like Nixon, Clinton, Carter all have higher recorded IQs, compared to Obama.

The fact that the current President's college records haven't been opened to the general public probably speaks volumes.

Denerick

steelcityblues wrote: »

Obama wasn't 'forced' to dumb down. He, along with his campaigning team decided to do that, just like Bush and others in the past!

As U.S. Presidents go - he only possesses average intelligence. 20th century Presidents like Nixon, Clinton, Carter all have higher recorded IQs, compared to Obama.

The fact that the current President's college records haven't been opened to the general public probably speaks volumes.

What?

Obama is the first intellectual in the White House since Woodrow Wilson. IQ means very little, it records your ability to do an IQ test. Besides, what does that even matter. And yes he was forced to dumb himself down because the likes of you would call him elitist otherwise. :rolleyes: You are part of the problem mate.

steelcityblues

What exactly makes him an 'intellectual' compared to the other Presidents after Wilson? I would like at least one or two definitive examples.

I mentioned the non-release of college records maybe giving a clue as to somebody whose intelligence could have been overhyped by a savvy campaign team and, not to mention, lapdog media commentators (are you watching Olbermann?).

I wouldn't have voted for either him or McCain anyway, as they are two more forced puppets on the American public!

Denerick

steelcityblues wrote: »

What exactly makes him an 'intellectual' compared to the other Presidents after Wilson? I would like at least one or two definitive examples.

I mentioned the non-release of college records maybe giving a clue as to somebody whose intelligence could have been overhyped by a savvy campaign team and, not to mention, lapdog media commentators (are you watching Olbermann?).

I wouldn't have voted for either him or McCain anyway, as they are two more forced puppets on the American public!

He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and taught Constitutional Law in a university. Wilson was also an academic. (So was Teddy Roosevelt, who as far as I know was the only President to have also been a professional historian)

Are you one of these obama truthers? You guys really need to chill out.

steelcityblues

From what I know, Harvard Law Review was only a minor step up from any typical college publication here. I'm sure Obama was a capable editor, but i'm just putting this into perspective.

He was a 'senior lecturer' in Constitutional Law but not exactly a professor.

Don't get me started on the birth certificate confusion, ha!

Obama mightn't be 'chillin' himself when the mid-term elections take place, along with approval ratings!

Exile 1798

steelcityblues wrote: »

What I meant by overeducated, is that many higher ranking US politicians (media heads like Hannity and Beck don't really count) have qualifications from the more elitist third-level institutions like Yale and Harvard, rather than more 'normal' third level centres.

Certain people who have attend these institutions have been accused of having an inflated sense of their own importance. I think Bush Jr. could fall into this category, despite the faux-cowboy act:D

I heard enough vox-pops around the time of Obama's election from people who said that their electricity bills/educational future/lfinancial status was all sorted now that their man was in the White House.

Nothing ignorant about those folks, right?

You're talking past me.

Know one would doubt that there are ignorant Obama voters.

The point is that the Republicans make a virtue out of ignorance. This would be amusing if it didn't have very serious consequences. It gave the world Bush, Alberto Gonzales, Don Rumsfeld. It nearly inflicted Dan Qualyle, Sarah Palin and Harriet Myers on us too.

What you're alluding too, the charge of elitism, in American politics is often a coded attack on intelligence.

We know this is so because the attack was leveled against John Kerry by Republicans. Now obviously they weren't accusing him of being an elitist in the proper sense of the term, because the man they supported, Bush, was the very definition of the word. Kerry's crime wasn't that he was well off, it was that he wasn't an idiot.

To tie this to Denericks original point, it's the reason Rush, Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly exist. They're filling a niche role in American politics - appealing directly to the ignorant and attacking knowledge. The Democrats don't do this, which is why they have no equivalent.

steelcityblues

Exile 1798 wrote: »

You're talking past me.

Know one would doubt that there are ignorant Obama voters.

The point is that the Republicans make a virtue out of ignorance. This would be amusing if it didn't have very serious consequences. It gave the world Bush, Alberto Gonzales, Don Rumsfeld. It nearly inflicted Dan Qualyle, Sarah Palin and Harriet Myers on us too.

What you're alluding too, the charge of elitism, in American politics is often a coded attack on intelligence.

We know this is so because the attack was leveled against John Kerry by Republicans. Now obviously they weren't accusing him of being an elitist in the proper sense of the term, because the man they supported, Bush, was the very definition of the word. Kerry's crime wasn't that he was well off, it was that he wasn't an idiot.

To tie this to Denericks original point, it's the reason Rush, Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly exist. They're filling a niche role in American politics - appealing directly to the ignorant and attacking knowledge. The Democrats don't do this, which is why they have no equivalent.

How come most of these 'intelligent' people could not forsee a banking crisis, vote for illegal/unconstitutional wars, enable further racial tension between Americans, etc. This is not a party political point because people in BOTH parties have been guilty of above!

Not much difference in Bush and Kerry - both were big government, war is OK types with, yes, an elitist Ivy League temprament.

I agree the above media figures mainly appeal to the ignorant, but the fact that you decline from mentioning the likes of Olbermann and Matthews in that sentence may point to your own wee bias.

Denerick

steelcityblues wrote: »

How come most of these 'intelligent' people could not forsee a banking crisis, vote for illegal/unconstitutional wars, enable further racial tension between Americans, etc. This is not a party political point because people in BOTH parties have been guilty of above!

Not much difference in Bush and Kerry - both were big government, war is OK types with, yes, an elitist Ivy League temprament.

I agree the above media figures mainly appeal to the ignorant, but the fact that you decline from mentioning the likes of Olbermann and Matthews in that sentence may point to your own wee bias.

Matthews attacks left and right. I wouldn't describe him as a liberal attack dog, more like an Americanised Jeremy Paxman.

As for the leadership of both parties been different, what an absurd point. Most people of intelligence on both sides of the pond got the financial crisis wrong, don't buy into such lazy arguments. And quit this elitist bull****, it might work in some American dive bars but most people think that crap does nothing other than degenerate American politics into the idiotic muddle it is constantly in.

Exile 1798

steelcityblues wrote: »

How come most of these 'intelligent' people could not forsee a banking crisis, vote for illegal/unconstitutional wars, enable further racial tension between Americans, etc. This is not a party political point because people in BOTH parties have been guilty of above!

Not much difference in Bush and Kerry - both were big government, war is OK types with, yes, an elitist Ivy League temprament.

I agree the above media figures mainly appeal to the ignorant, but the fact that you decline from mentioning the likes of Olbermann and Matthews in that sentence may point to your own wee bias.

I have a very strong bias in favour of facts and truth.

Chris Mathews like most of MSNBC was pro-Bush, pro-war. He only changed when it became convenient.

I don't know about Olbermann, haven't seen a single show but he doesn't strike me as a demagogue so I don't regard him as the equivalent of Beck/Hannity/Rush.

steelcityblues

Denerick wrote: »

Matthews attacks left and right. I wouldn't describe him as a liberal attack dog, more like an Americanised Jeremy Paxman.

As for the leadership of both parties been different, what an absurd point. Most people of intelligence on both sides of the pond got the financial crisis wrong, don't buy into such lazy arguments. And quit this elitist bull****, it might work in some American dive bars but most people think that crap does nothing other than degenerate American politics into the idiotic muddle it is constantly in.

Don't EVER compare Mr. 'thrill goin up my leg' with the GREAT Paxman (His book the 'Political Animal' is definitely worth a read, btw!).

Still love this clip where he gets flustered by an 'ordinary Joe'. Great TV!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUmCj4yud4

Denerick

steelcityblues wrote: »

Don't EVER compare Mr. 'thrill goin up my leg' with the GREAT Paxman (His book the 'Political Animal' is definitely worth a read, btw!).

Still love this clip where he gets flustered by an 'ordinary Joe'. Great TV!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUmCj4yud4

That ordinary joe was a nutjob, Matthews was just right. Here's another entertaining video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c&feature=related

Completely wrecked this idiot!

steelcityblues

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I have a very strong bias in favour of facts and truth.

Chris Mathews like most of MSNBC was pro-Bush, pro-war. He only changed when it became convenient.

Which is proof that he should be considered nothing more than a faux-liberal

Better off not watching Olbermann - he should have stayed as a sports presenter at ESPN!

southsiderosie

steelcityblues wrote: »

From what I know, Harvard Law Review was only a minor step up from any typical college publication here. I'm sure Obama was a capable editor, but i'm just putting this into perspective.

Um, no. Editor of the HLR is a ticket to any legal position you want in the United States. It is one of the most prestigious accolades that any American law student could hope to achieve.

steelcityblues wrote: »

He was a 'senior lecturer' in Constitutional Law but not exactly a professor.

.

At University of Chicago, one of the top law schools in the country. And he was offered a full professorship, but turned it down.

steelcityblues wrote: »

Don't get me started on the birth certificate confusion, ha!

Do you really think that the RNC would have let that one slide if they realistically thought he was born outside of the US? Please.

steelcityblues wrote: »

Obama mightn't be 'chillin' himself when the mid-term elections take place, along with approval ratings!

Here we agree.

There are plenty of policy reasons to disagree with Obama. But I think his intellectual and academic accomplishments and his commitment to his family are two unassailable aspects of his persona. He is a bright man, and appears to be a good husband and father. Whether or not he is a strong leader or a good president is a different issue altogether...

Sandvich

On opne hand, you raise a good point. The reason things have gone to **** right now is because people just tend to let it happen rather than raising their hand and saying "no".

On the other hand a "Democrat Ann Coulter" would be terrible for the left.