MaxedOutMama
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Electorate; The Mob: The NY Times Version Of Armageddon
This one's really off the wall: An NY Times column depicting the voters as a mob ruled by blood lust.
Perhaps it is good that the NY Times is about to disappear behind a paywall; it may induce a less fevered and more contemplative environment in the newsroom:
And the bloodlust! Don't forget the bloodlust! We got a vengeful, bloodlusting mob going to the polls here to vote in an angry, wounded manner.
Is it really worth using all this rhetoric over people going to the polls to vote, which has been happening for over two hundred years? How exactly do the Massachusetts voters in any way resemble a mob? Isn't the very act of voting a commitment to working through established, constitutional, peaceful time-honored methods to create change? Aren't mobs groups of people who have thrown aside the peaceful, legal methods and proceed to direct violent action?
I truly do not think we should blur the lines between the legal and peaceful and the violent and illegal. The distinction is important.
The op-ed (which is by a Charles M. Blow, who has a blog), ends by quoting Obama's explanation to Stephanopoulos, which was basically "we forgot to communicate", and then expounding:
And apparently more than a few NY Times columnists do have weak minds. Trying to inculcate a fear of the voters by depicting them as fundamentally irrational and violent is both ridiculous and somewhat dangerous, but it is not as ridiculous as failing to see the difference between voting and swarming the streets with pitchforks and lighted torches to commit group acts of violence.
Further, if one logically follows the ideas implicit in this sort of perverse punditry, which delights in depicting the voters as not being worthy of a vote, then one would feel concern about our constitution and feel a concern about whether the average person stands to lose his or her constitutional rights under it.
Perhaps it is good that the NY Times is about to disappear behind a paywall; it may induce a less fevered and more contemplative environment in the newsroom:
Welcome to the mob: an angry, wounded electorate, riled by recession, careening across the political spectrum, still craving change, nursing a bloodlust.
...
It seems as if Obama and the Democrats made the mistake of believing that a heart once won was forever won, that people would be patient, and that the mob would accept their reasoning for
lack of results.
They were wrong. The mob is fickle. And it’s back with a vengeance.
And the bloodlust! Don't forget the bloodlust! We got a vengeful, bloodlusting mob going to the polls here to vote in an angry, wounded manner.
Is it really worth using all this rhetoric over people going to the polls to vote, which has been happening for over two hundred years? How exactly do the Massachusetts voters in any way resemble a mob? Isn't the very act of voting a commitment to working through established, constitutional, peaceful time-honored methods to create change? Aren't mobs groups of people who have thrown aside the peaceful, legal methods and proceed to direct violent action?
I truly do not think we should blur the lines between the legal and peaceful and the violent and illegal. The distinction is important.
The op-ed (which is by a Charles M. Blow, who has a blog), ends by quoting Obama's explanation to Stephanopoulos, which was basically "we forgot to communicate", and then expounding:
He underestimated the mob, and his agenda will suffer now that the emperor has no clotureSo now the mob is kinda bright? Maybe this ChBlow guy is just trying to whip up some blogging fervor. Here's a sample of his blog, which really is more about numbers and less about adjectives, although lately he has been in a frenzy about mobs. From which I quote his own words:
As the comedian Bill Maher pointed out, strong language can poison weak minds, as it did in the case of Timothy McVeigh.
And apparently more than a few NY Times columnists do have weak minds. Trying to inculcate a fear of the voters by depicting them as fundamentally irrational and violent is both ridiculous and somewhat dangerous, but it is not as ridiculous as failing to see the difference between voting and swarming the streets with pitchforks and lighted torches to commit group acts of violence.
Further, if one logically follows the ideas implicit in this sort of perverse punditry, which delights in depicting the voters as not being worthy of a vote, then one would feel concern about our constitution and feel a concern about whether the average person stands to lose his or her constitutional rights under it.
Comments:
<< Home
...the NY Times is about to disappear behind a paywall; it may induce a less fevered and more contemplative environment in the newsroom...
Well, the empty desks will certainly help keep it quiet, I'll give you that. The echo chamber effect might be exacerbated, though, unless they put in some wall hangings.
Well, the empty desks will certainly help keep it quiet, I'll give you that. The echo chamber effect might be exacerbated, though, unless they put in some wall hangings.
Brian - I have been reading DU fairly regularly, so I can't argue about some of your points.
However, my bet is that many Democratic representatives have been pushed by their leadership further than they were comfortable. There is also genuine wrath in the left wing of the Democratic party over the health care proposals as they now stand. It's not so simple as left against right or GOP gainst Dem.
I do absolutely agree that there is an elitish strain of liberalism that is solidly rooted in insecurity and the need to believe that the average voter is a low-browed cretin picking unsuccessfully at his or her body lice - but many liberals don't fit that stereotype.
I think the Democratic leadership got themselves into this fix because they delberately quashed real debate in their own party, and this destroyed any internal corrections, thus launching the good ship USD Titanic Health Reform.
However, my bet is that many Democratic representatives have been pushed by their leadership further than they were comfortable. There is also genuine wrath in the left wing of the Democratic party over the health care proposals as they now stand. It's not so simple as left against right or GOP gainst Dem.
I do absolutely agree that there is an elitish strain of liberalism that is solidly rooted in insecurity and the need to believe that the average voter is a low-browed cretin picking unsuccessfully at his or her body lice - but many liberals don't fit that stereotype.
I think the Democratic leadership got themselves into this fix because they delberately quashed real debate in their own party, and this destroyed any internal corrections, thus launching the good ship USD Titanic Health Reform.
Neil - it requires numbers to maintain the type of ego reinforcement needed to maintain the belief that Massachusetts has been overrun with a bloodthirsty mob of, um, voters.
CF - you did, and I haven't yet. I just haven't had time to buy the book or read it.
But still, nothing about this looks mobbish. Few rational people can look at that 40%! excise tax without genuine concern.
But still, nothing about this looks mobbish. Few rational people can look at that 40%! excise tax without genuine concern.
MOM,
I agree with you that a lot of Dem reps were pushed out of their comfort zone by their leaders, but the Dems also put the inmates in charge of the asylum - for example by replacing Dingel with Waxman and putting Pelosi in charge rather than Hoyer. Maybe they wouldn't be that much different, but I think Waxman and Pelosi are are so far left they are in danger of falling into the Pacific.
I know the liberals are not happy with the Senate bill, and some aspects of the House bill too. But this is the group for whom it is not enough to have a Democratic majority, but who insist on essentially "cleansing" the party by targeting, through the agency of MoveOn and the Soros backed entities, those incumbent Democrats that aren't "liberal enough". I have some liberal frieds who are thoughtful and realize there are two sides to the argument, but I don't see any liberals denouncing the scortched earth extremism of these groups who are essentially fascist if you listen to what they actually say.
Agree with you about the impact of stifling dissent. They also made a grave mistake in dismissing the tea parties and the ferocity of those who showed up at the town hall meetings last year. The intensity of that response should have been a sign not to overplay their hand, but they dismissed all those people as wackos. In hindsight that was really dumb - how ofter do you see white people with jobs out protesting on the streets? That should have been their first clue.
I agree with you that a lot of Dem reps were pushed out of their comfort zone by their leaders, but the Dems also put the inmates in charge of the asylum - for example by replacing Dingel with Waxman and putting Pelosi in charge rather than Hoyer. Maybe they wouldn't be that much different, but I think Waxman and Pelosi are are so far left they are in danger of falling into the Pacific.
I know the liberals are not happy with the Senate bill, and some aspects of the House bill too. But this is the group for whom it is not enough to have a Democratic majority, but who insist on essentially "cleansing" the party by targeting, through the agency of MoveOn and the Soros backed entities, those incumbent Democrats that aren't "liberal enough". I have some liberal frieds who are thoughtful and realize there are two sides to the argument, but I don't see any liberals denouncing the scortched earth extremism of these groups who are essentially fascist if you listen to what they actually say.
Agree with you about the impact of stifling dissent. They also made a grave mistake in dismissing the tea parties and the ferocity of those who showed up at the town hall meetings last year. The intensity of that response should have been a sign not to overplay their hand, but they dismissed all those people as wackos. In hindsight that was really dumb - how ofter do you see white people with jobs out protesting on the streets? That should have been their first clue.
# posted by 
: 6:09 PM
: 6:09 PM
I am from Massachusetts (born and raised my whole life) and nobody is an angry mob. People are just sick of the bailouts and especially the mortgage stuff because there is no point in paying full price when your dumb arse neighbor is getting a free ride. If this is not fixed soon we may have an issue.
Tommy D'alessandro's daughter is a lefty? please,she is one of america's oligarchs and is without scruple or principles,but a lefty...And MoM anyone who takes the op eds of the times seriously has a problem distinguishing shit from shinola.the people who write these are more out of touch with reality than the beltway bandits.It is like arguing about which of Marie Antoinette's handmaidens is most in touch with the peasants.
# posted by : 9:14 PM
: 9:14 PM
Voters are a mob, we prove it time and time again.
The only difference here is that when HL Mencken said it he did actual research and wrote well. As elitist as Mencken could be, he at least had an understanding of the mob even if he didn't like it.
Charles Blow is merely pissed off that his side lost - when the mob chose his side they were rational and intelligent and when they chose the other side they were stupid, fickle, and angry.
A ninth-rate man like Charles Blow is taken by surprise at the MA election whereas an actual intelligent, thinking person trying to gauge public sentiment knew this was brewing. Obama supporters like to think Obama's intelligence ws the reason he got elected when more likely is was simply that McCain is an unlikeable sort. Charisma wins democratic elections more so than intelligence and policy, but it is the rare voter than will admit to such a thing.
Post a Comment
The only difference here is that when HL Mencken said it he did actual research and wrote well. As elitist as Mencken could be, he at least had an understanding of the mob even if he didn't like it.
Charles Blow is merely pissed off that his side lost - when the mob chose his side they were rational and intelligent and when they chose the other side they were stupid, fickle, and angry.
A ninth-rate man like Charles Blow is taken by surprise at the MA election whereas an actual intelligent, thinking person trying to gauge public sentiment knew this was brewing. Obama supporters like to think Obama's intelligence ws the reason he got elected when more likely is was simply that McCain is an unlikeable sort. Charisma wins democratic elections more so than intelligence and policy, but it is the rare voter than will admit to such a thing.
# posted by : 8:05 AM
: 8:05 AM << Home
