Comments for La Politesse, an opposing view

La Politesse, an opposing view

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:11:45 -0600

When Boq first sent the pictures out in email, hey, I thought it was funny, too, though I suspected the story wasn't going to fit the pictures quite as well as our sense of schadenfreude might hope. I also liked Boq's description of La Politesse, something we all recognize, and some of us practice - Bill is probably our premiere artiste of the genre here at Castle Argghhh!Anyway, I got some pushback in email on Boq's post, and pushback in a way I can empathize with - a vague dissatisfaction with how we on the Right have been behaving since the ascension...

Comment from Casey on 2009-06-11

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:19:14 -0600

fdcol63,

I had focused on the first part of of your remarks; the combination of "if 'nice ... worked" plus "negative campaigning ... usually works," while skipping over the second half. Got the wrong impression. Well, that, and conflating your remarks with mister Cannoneer No. 4. :) My bad.

I still have to say I think the MSM goes for the negative because scandal sells, and good works don't.

Agree that first impressions count for a lot. Not sure many of "the left" are bright enough to think the way you say, but I might be wrong. :) I would say that at least half the time the MSM types (at least) don't challenge the conventional wisdom because it resonates with their unconcious assumptions about the world.

I'll even concede that always fighting fair can get you mucked over on occassion. My question is: can you cite at least one real-world example where conservative leaders gained a genuine advantage while slinging the mud? What I'm trying to do is differentiate between the concept that "sometimes you have to fight fire with fire" and real-world outcomes of that process. The last example I can think of was LBJ's 1964 "nuclear countdown" commercial that managed to tar Goldwater as nuke-happy jingoist, although that was a successful lefty campaign, not a righty. Not even sure if that ad campaign was decisive, since one could argue that Johnson was seen as a proxy for JFK.

Actually, that would be a good question for either side. How many examples can we discover where either the right or the left gained a significant advantage through mudslinging?

Argent: I agree with you, and there's lots of us out there. Alas, as I said before, the national GOP leadership seemed to operate on the principle that "no matter how bad we SUCK, Americans won't vote for lefties cuz they're really lame on national security." Well, there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11, we've more or less won in Iraq, and no one sees Afghanistan as a serious threat to the mainland United States. That pretty much torpedoed their last leg, and they had no other positive principle left, ideologically or argumentatively. Obama's win can be seen as much a vote against Republicans as it was for Democrats.

fdcol63, just caught your addenda. No, I don't object to "US vs. THEM;" rather I object to the "by any means NECESSARY" approach, not to mention "the ends justify the means," and "they did it to us, so we should do it to them." I hope that clears it up for you. :)

I will say this: I know at least some liberals who are just as decent and patriotic as you are, even if they do seem to hold some truly silly ideas. Some of them even write blogs with content that makes me want to pound my head against the wall, some of that stuff is so mindlessly tribal, but I knew them before all this crap started back around 2003 or so. Maybe it was the Iraq invasion which precipitated it, but that's when things seemed to get really nasty. Anyway. Point being that I can read their blogs today, get indigestion, but still remember that they really are decent, intelligent people. Annoying, maybe, but still genuine Americans. I just disagree with them

Now I'm not saying this is true for all liberals, and I definitely don't want any of those crazy mad-dog killers from the San Angeles metro area (bonus points for spotting the reference), but isn't it possible that at least some liberals are just as decent, or patriotic, or idealistic as you or I, but different as to the details? And wouldn't it be a good idea to remember that while fighting hard, but true, so they will understand you're arguing policy, and not attacking them or their
principles?

I have to say that most of the time, I don't include the Kossaks, or Huffpo in the above, although I do recall one time where the former showed more class than their conservative counter-parts; I'll have to check my blog archives, but it related to a death or terminal illness of a well-known political figure, but yes, the Kossaks showed better class that day.

Not all liberals are tree-hugging Berkeley Amerikka-hating idiots, any more than all conservatives are Pat Buchanon or Rush Limbaugh clones.

I see in your analogy, you only differentiate between weapons systems which may or may prove advantageous, nor not. Would it not be more appropriate to compare mud-slinging and defamation to weapons systems you normally wouldn't use, unless under severe provocation?
To further your analogy, if you are in a (say) 1944 eastern France situation, or 1991 Desert Storm, would you use poison or nerve gas just to win, or reduce casualties? Or would you only do so in response to an enemy gas attack? Does such a position make you militarily vulnerable, or just ethically?

Comment from MCart on 2009-06-11

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:34:16 -0600

Small difference. Our soldiers and police are appointed (well sorta) by the body of people they protect. We expect them to use weapons.

I'm not going to vote for conservatives that use cheap smears and low brow character assassination, as political tools. People who do, are by my definition, not conservatives anyway.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-06-11

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:03:47 -0600

Forgot to add:

If my US or THEM attitude makes me as bad as the KOS Kidz and DU'ers in your eyes, then you're free to that opinion.

But I reject that belief on the same basis that I reject the moral equivalency between cops and criminals, as well as US soldiers and Islamist terrorists. Sure, they both use guns and they both use physical force, but there's a big difference in intent, values, and goals.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-06-11

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:24:07 -0600

"Yet you still think that this is a good idea."

Casey, thank you for the kind words - I'll gladly share a beer with you! - but I think you misunderstood what I wrote. No, I never said it was a good idea. I merely pointed out that it IS done, by both sides, because it works on a base level despite our public protestations and hoity-toity high-mindedness.

I also wanted to point out what I feel is the importance of being able to make the "first impression" about an issue in the public's mind, an immediate perception that is created by whatever information is presented at the outset, whether it's factually correct, bogus, or distorted in some way, and which is almost impossible to change afterwards no matter what "corrections" or "clarifications" are presented.

The Left - whose professions in academia, entertainment, and journalism are to shape and mold people's attitudes, behaviors, and actions - are masters at this, and they know full well the importance of making these "first impressions".

Just as in war, by refusing to use some of the same tactics and weapons that your adversaries use, you severely limit your own abilities, basically ceding the battlefield to them.

My personal belief is that we are, indeed, engaged in a broader cultural war, and I want MY side to win. Thus, while I'd prefer that we NOT use unsavory tactics and methods, and while I would prefer to challenge and debate the other side purely on the merits and substance of the issues and policies, I accept that my side MUST use some of these unsavory tactics and methods to counter those being used by the other side.

Failing to do so would be like insisting to use bows and arrows and horse cavalry in today's age of precision guided missiles and 50-ton, 120mm tanks.

Comment from Argent on 2009-06-11

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:57:21 -0600

Lightning Rod.

Anyone who has done professional shots done eg weddings or work will know just how much you can lie with those 1000 words. I mean is that really your mother in law? No crags? Who knew?

As an outsider looking in I do not think poo flinging makes for a better America and do not see the liberal monkey as better or worse than the conservative monkey. I think it just makes a mess. Whether liberal or conservatives win I want strong sides from both. It makes for a better person in power.

At the end of the day the right wing and left wing true believers and nutjobs will always vote one way only. The people with the real power who are more realistic everyday Americans don't like poo. They change their vote based on what they see and know, their vote very much counts. What frightens me is just how well Obama knows this and how little it appears Republicans do.

Comment from Casey on 2009-06-11

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:31:06 -0600

First, I'd like to say that Mme Bruni is, well, hot. First Lady Obama is not unattractive, but she has too many horizontal lines across her facial structure for my taste. She should practice not scowling. A lot.

I have to say that the esteemed AW1 Tim needs a quick history refresher. Invective has been a staple of American politics since at least Jefferson's campaign. If anyone needs a reminder, back in the day the claim that Jefferson fathered a bastard colored child was a slur, not a compliment to his open-mindedness.

One need not delve into the true viciousness visited upon Lincoln, although I found the campaign against Cleveland "Ma Ma, Where's my Pa?" wittily resolved after the election by the response "Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!"

Even the erudite Wilson was plagued by the quip that he was "Peck's bad boy."

Point being that gutter invective, slander, and innuendo have been a staple of American politics from the beginning. While some may call this a feature, I shall observe that disease and bad teeth have also been immemorial issues, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to eliminate them.

I also feel compelled to point out that both the illustrious Cannoneer No. 4 and the esteemed fdcol63 fall into the same trap: the assumption that "dirty" campaigns somehow led to recent Democratic Party success. Not so.

Their recent success resulted from the absolute, unimpeachable, inarguable, and very nearly incomprehensible STUPIDITY of the national Republican Party. You know, those idiots in Washington, D.C. who threw out very nearly every element of the conservative ethos (from Taft to Reagan) in the uninhibited pursuit of power and pork. From Trent Lott, to Randy Cunningham. to Ted Stevens, the Republican representatives showed themselves at least as corrupt as the Democrats, In fact, the GOP took only a dozen years to reach that level of dissolution, compared to the fifty years their opponents took.

Yet #4 and fdcol63 still insist that it was "dirty campaigning" that beat their side. That puts me me in mind of football fans who complain that their favorite team lost because of bad calls, or the refs didn't like their team, or jet lag, or... God forbid it was because the team sucked.

Another point: has it no occurred to the above mentioned (and all those who agree with them) that the lefties are thinking exactly the same thing, but in reverse? That their unrepentant attitude just provides more grist for their "conservatives are a bunch of intolerant bigots" disinformation mill? That conservative justification for mudslinging ("they did it first") can be echoed by the left with cries of South Carolina 2000, or Willie Horton? That in fact this leads to the idiotic Balkanization of American politics by way of justifying your current slander by your opponents slander, wherein they justify their future slander by your current slander, then twenty years down the road the future conservatives justify their slander by the previous slander (which is still in our future), ad nauseaum? All you are doing is justifying an ethos where "we" get "them" because "they" got "us" beforehand. And the other side can rationalize their dirty tricks with the exact same excuse.

Yet you still think that this is a good idea.

And I haven't even begun to discuss the idea that John brought up, that political discourse should be oriented towards persuading those not so disposed, as opposed to throwing red meat to the True Believers...

But, hey, if you want to appear to those who aren't tribally doctrinaire on every issue as True Believers who Must Win By. Every. Means. Necessary... Knock yourself out.

You do realize that makes you look like mirror images of the Kos Kids and Huffpo, don't you? They're the "winning is the ONLY thing" left-wing, who justify their behavior by wingnut Rethuglican Gestapo tactics. You're the "forget the moral high ground" right-wing, who justify their behavior by moonbat leftard Socialist/Communist/ACORN repression tactics.

And, frankly, both groups look like intolerant bigots to us non-tribal folks.

And, and... just to re-emphasize something above: the Democrats didn't win because they were better at dirty campaigning; they won because the national Republican Party representatives were (for the most part) incompetent idiots. Different thing entirely.

P.S. I want to say that I don't doubt that #4, fdcol63, and many others are wonderful people with whom I would happily share a beer (and I'm picky about that). This is not meant to be a personal attack.

Comment from Cornholio on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:54:20 -0600

I am Cornholio. I need TP for .......

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:05:51 -0600

Capt. H's funny UTube link is to arrive at T Minus 5 Minutes and counting...

Comment from Maggie on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:47:35 -0600

And, Ry - I've lain with more pigs that you have, boyo.

Oh, the rest of you, quit tittering like Beavis and Butthead.

I didn't. I laughed out loud....like someone prettier and smarter than Beavis and Butthead.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:31:03 -0600

And, Ry - I've lain with more pigs that you have, boyo.

Oh, the rest of you, quit tittering like Beavis and Butthead.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:27:24 -0600

Don't forget to pull the *really good tequila* bottles out of the axles, Ry. You break those, you're dead.

Comment from ry on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:12:45 -0600

Ah, the victory uber alles argument. Joy.

Ah, the 'if you aren't angry you aren't paying attention' thing. Joy.

Ah, the reason why I became a one issue voter instead of being a republican or democrat with a 'side', since taking sides requires me to, many times, lay down with pigs. Joy.

Bartender! Rootbeer float please, heavy on the float, and then I'll be outside in the courtyard, playing with the catapult(beets don't fling themselves, y'know).

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:13:55 -0600

Ooooo, I think that Massa John is getting the hang out of this Politesse thing.

He's that irony and sarcasm down pat. He just need to interject a couple of "kindlies" and "may we's" and he'd be there.

Comment from Pogue on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:32:00 -0600

*snort!* :)

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:09:55 -0600

Okay, Cannoneer, I accept your terminology. I want the Right to lose.

And, in fact, if we can't find the people who can win, and win on ideas, then we *deserve* to lose.

On this day, in this space, I declare myself a Lefty.

Long live the Revolution!

Comment from MCart on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:13:13 -0600

One caveat, Boquisucio didn't 'smear' her. I'm arguing this point as a general principle, because there is a LOT of smearing going on. I could see this more as a mistake. Or rather, the smear belongs to the person who intentionally cropped that picture.

But I disagree, Mrs. Obama is not looking at Mrs. Bruni. She's looking at Mrs. Brown, with partial or full line of sight, and the depth queues are stripped away with this picture being cropped down as it is.

It's possible for a momentary image of a facial expression to be 'revealing' in some way, but I don't think this meets the bar.

Comment from MCart on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:53:22 -0600

McCain promised to run a clean campaign. He failed. I would argue, because people on 'the right' surrounding him, but not under his control, flailed about with garbage, like 'he's a secret muslim' or 'born in Kenya' or any number of easily disproven, or lacking in substance personal attacks. How much of that was far right moonbats, and how much was agents provocateur, I don't know. I suspect a bit of both.

If you make a personal attack on someone, there are times when that's fine, many people have some glaring weaknesses in their character. But if you want to do it, it has to be correct. It has to stick. If it doesn't, you just lost part of your audience. You just lost credibility. The photo issue above is exactly that. A weak attempt at character assassination, easily dispelled.

We have moonbats on both sides of the political fence. There's nothing that will sway either side. We have to fight for people in the middle, a fight we will continue to lose if we resort to easily disproven smears.

We've lost the ability to frame so much of the debate. We can't even control how our own party platform is presented. Require parental notification for minors getting abortions? Clearly a step toward banning all abortion. etc. End of discussion. We need to win back that ability to frame at least how our side of the debate is presented. Right now, we don't even have that. No credibility. No leadership. Getting ugly and vicious, and taking cheap shots might feel good, but it's no substitute for real debate, real leadership, and a strong character. We've worked the 'scary' nature of our opponents angle for all it's worth. We're going to keep losing if we don't change course.

Want to win this fight? Oust the corrupt Republicans. (Craig, etc.) Publicly repudiate and cut off the right wing moonbats. Stop the smears. Stick to platform planks. I'm tired of living in a glass house, I like concrete bunkers. And no Reagan MK II is going to step up and lead in our current political climate. Not when both sides accept and embrace the politics of personal destruction.

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:13:54 -0600

Anyway, I got some pushback in email on Boq's post, and pushback in a way I can empathize with - a vague dissatisfaction with how we on the Right have been behaving since the ascension of Teh One -

So you include yourself as part of the Right but you do not want the Right to win?

You want the Right to lose, then.

Accepting the Left's terminology for those who are not with them is pretty binary in itself.

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:59:06 -0600

The thing about still pictures, is that it captures reality from a specific point of view, as it happened in 1/60th of a second. My understanding is that those pictures were not cropped to leverage a particular agenda. It is just what the Reuters (that right-wing nut-job agency) Photojournalist focused on at that specific moment in time. I also came across pictures from the same pool of photographers. All of them seconds apart, but giving a completely different narrative to their story.

While I thank-you for your point of view MCart, I don't agree that Michelle was looking a Mrs. Brown. The way the three ladies are arranged, Mrs. Brown is if anything forward in the grouping (in relationship to the angle of the camera). Michelle's eyes are looking backwards, at either Ms. Bruni's back of her head (avoiding the chance of direct eye contact), or looking behind Ms. Bruni all together.

When I first came across THIS picture, all the comments were directed on Michelle Obama. No one focused on Ms. Bruni. Then I came on the OTHER picture. That's when everything clicked to me. Ms. Bruni must be needling someone; doing so in that Parisian fashion, that is hard to pick-up on, but I've come to recognize. Ms. Bruni's expression is like that of the cat that got the canary - Eye Avoidance, and Almost Imperceptible Curl of the Lips.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong, as we do not have audio of the conversation said. But my gut is telling that Ms. Bruni is barbing someone in that duplicitous and polite French form of social art.

In this public forum, I've always strive to keep the vitriol out. That is either kept to myself, of shared sparingly amongst close friends i.e. (Intra Denizens E-Mails). As I've stated before, I'd hate to see this here Castle degenerate like OTHERS have.

Oh and Grumpy... TINS stands for "This Is No Scheiß", and Crotte de Chien stands for what's HE's producing: ;-)

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:21:50 -0600

No, #4, I don't. But then, in the hot war, I don't want them to kill civlians, either. Just because it's hard to avoid, and makes our job harder to do doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to not do it.

That, and I just don't believe the choice is as binary as you do.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:41:03 -0600

I meant no disrespect, and I agree with your sentiment, John. I'd prefer that we maintain the moral high ground, too, and do as you suggest ... debate serious substance, not manufactured petty BS.

I'd prefer that we not fight wars with dangerous weapons that kill and maim, too.

But, alas, we know how that goes ..... and the parallel is there.

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:04:53 -0600

Do you want "your" side to win, John?

Comment from eric on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:43:52 -0600

you are talking politics instead of looking at the ~~mademoiselle~~ madame!

Comment from eric on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:40:48 -0600

you know you are old when ........

Comment from R Jewell on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:24:00 -0600

For what it's worth, I think John is right on this one........

But then that is probably why everybody has dropped me from their right wing rant frequent forward email list over the years.

And, I guess that's why I lurk here day after day after day........

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:43:52 -0600

Cannoneer#4 and Frank both point out why (among other reasons) this space isn't anywhere near as popular as it once was.

And why I will never be managing someone's political campaign.

And why I will never run for office.

That said - tough noogies. I still think it's better to save your cleverness for attacking them on substance than it is to manufacture bullshit, simply because bullshit works.

I got your point. But I'll leave that to others who do it better than I, because their heart's in it. And I will tut-tut it regardless. Not that I won't slip up myself now and then.

And I'll slide into comfortable irrelevance.

Oh, wait - I already have!

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:19:46 -0600

If being "nice" and maintaining the "moral high ground" worked, negative campaigning would not.

Everyone criticizes the use of negative campaigning, but it's still being used because it actually works. It succeeds by influencing exactly those people in the "middle".

For better or worse, people tend to remember and be impacted by "bad" news and "bad" information. It's why the MSM always focuses on negativity instead of flooding us with good news.

It's also why corrections to stories never work. Once the "first impressions" that are caused by lies, errors, and omissions are made in the public's minds, it's virtually impossible to change those perceptions later, no matter how prominently those corrections are made.

The MSM, Hollywood, and academia are very aware of this. Indeed, they count on this phenomenon to shape people's opinions and behavior, and they use it to promote their candidates, products, and agendas.

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:42:40 -0600

The way the squishes who weren't paying attention until election time were "won over" last time was through incessant, relentless psycho-political warfare weaponizing ridicule and demonizing the eventual losers.

Worked like a charm.

Do you want "your" side to win? Then quit tut-tutting when "we" defend "our" virginity in the shower using Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu not sanctioned by the Marquis of Queensberry.

Nobody is restraining "them," and self-imposed restraint won't win "us" any Brownie points with the squishes.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:40:33 -0600

Well, when I say that I *hope* that's why. That he's *changed,* donchaknow.

Comment from AFSister on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:38:18 -0600

When Obama won, my Mom told my boys that they "had to support Obama, because he's our President". I completely, whole-heartedly disagree- and told them so.

We live in AMERICA and have the right to FREE SPEECH. We are a REPUBLIC, and have the ability to publicly support, or disagree, with anyone we wish, for any reason we wish.

What matters is HOW we voice our opinion. There is nothing wrong with Boq's post, and I have no qualms about my "Dayyummm! If looks could kill!!" response the first time I saw that picture. I also stand by my initial claim that I'd be proud to earn the scowl of Michelle Obama.

The only saving grace we have as a country right now is that Obama is such a wimp he's not following through on his campaign promises. John will probably say that it's because he's finally put his big boy pants on, and he may be right- I don't really care why he's doing it; I'm just glad he's not.

Comment from AW1 Tim on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:37:26 -0600

Yup. Concur. :)

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:27:37 -0600

Um, MCart comes at this from the Right, not the Left, in case that wasn't clear.

And I'm with him, more or less. I understand the impulse and the fun in going after the Left hammer and tongs, and I'm perfectly willing to do so on matters of substance.

But - that fact is the fight is for the people in the middle, and the Chimpy McBushitler and Barack HUSSEIN Obama schtick plays to the home team peeps, the already committed.

And, I believe, it works *against* winning over the middle, which is where the maneuvering space is.

Show yourself to be a spittle-flecked splenetic loon (which isn't what Boq did, I'm talking to a larger issue) and you aren't going to sway the mushy middle, no matter how clever your own homeys think you are.

So fight - fight hard. Just don't fight stupid.

Doesn't mean you can't have fun - but make it clear you're having fun, and aren't serious.

As with flame wars in the comments of a blog - the argument is to sway the silent reader, not satisfy your claque.

Comment from AW1 Tim on 2009-06-10

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:51:43 -0600

So, basically, the left can dish it out but can't take it?

   Must be that "two Americas" thing John Edward kept harping on.

Look, I understand well that whole "moral high ground" thing. That's fine for those who want to be armchair generals, sipping port and smoking cigars while harrunphing about this or that. Down in the trenches, there isn't time for those sorts of niceties, and anything that can legally be done to drive the other side OUT of office and keep them out for as long as possible is fair game to me.

I'm not interested in being a model of comportment, standing prim and proper while community organizers are doing their level best to destroy this nation, illegally seizing businesses, banks, and setting up a socialist (or even worse, fascist) nightmare in my country.

We did our best to stay nice, to play by the rules our fathers taught us, and look what it got us. We came to debate the issues, and instead, the other side brought bricks, bats and knives, enabled by a fawning press corps, and forced the issue.

   No more. The left shouldn't even THINK about anything approaching civil treatment, after having set a standard that would make Attilla blush. It's time we took the gloves off and settled the issue once and for all.

   respects,