More on the Republican Brand

John Cole:

I have realized that many on the right in the blogosphere don’t have principles, they have a team they are rooting for, and nothing more. That doesn’t mean I have been converted, but it does make me disgusted and disgruntled.

It's not just the blogosphere. My rough estimate based on the Republicans I meet is that about 60% of them like the Republican party for the same reason they drive a Dodge, drink Coors, and root for the Yankees. It's a familiar brand that is marketed by tapping into positive images for them in some shallow way. And, most importantly, all their friends like the Republican brand too.

Comments

[calling all toasters]

Uh, no. Studies have consistently shown that conservatives are conservatives because they (1) are in constant fear of death (2) have little ability to deal with ambiguity and (3) need to justify the system so they don't have to address their guilt. It is anything but arbitrary; it is a profound pathology.

[Mithras]

Uh, you're missing the point. I am agreeing with Cole that Republicans are not Republicans as a result of their principles, but because of a emotional need to belong to a tribe. You're talking about why they have that need, which isn't what I was addressing.

[theoldguy]

see:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/usa_vote_facts.html

[RW]

but because of a emotional need to belong to a tribe

Cripes, could you project any MORE? Conservatives want less gov't (not those neanderthals who rightly lost their jobs in Nov., I mean the average GOPer) & by definition they're less likely to need to be a part of a tribe (which, one assumes, means you're dead set against voting for Mrs. It takes a Village).

Hey, let's get all the anti-union liberals to discuss why there are identity groups entranched with the DNC (NAACP, NOW, GLAAD, etc.). Or, better yet, hang out by the thousands at dailykos.com & get our daily sustenance. Nah, the nutroots gathering at the yearlykos convention wasn't about belonging to a tribe (UNITE!)...it was interpersonal networking, yeah.

It must be the PRINCIPLES involved that made people refuse to discuss Marcotte's statements & instead carry the water for the DNC and attempt to make Bill Donohue the subject.

Whatever....I realize that I've probably wasted my time as you don't seem to be the most open minded person in the world.

[Mithras]

RW-
Thanks for the comment.

Conservatives want less gov't ... & by definition they're less likely to need to be a part of a tribe.

Okay, could you please run through that one more time? You're saying a group of people (Us) who say they oppose large government (Them) but seem incapable of making government smaller when they run it, are in fact principled, rather than a tribe which maintains a certain shibboleth?

Hey, let's get all the anti-union liberals to discuss why there are identity groups entranched with the DNC (NAACP, NOW, GLAAD, etc.).

Well, I call those factions, not identity groups. The Democratic Party is riven by faction, it's one of its biggest weaknesses but also a strength. It's a reflection of the Democratic value of spreading power around to many different groups, rather than the Republican one of centralized, top-down management.

It must be the PRINCIPLES involved that made people refuse to discuss Marcotte's statements & instead carry the water for the DNC and attempt to make Bill Donohue the subject.

We did have a principled response. Amanda's writing, while vitriolic, was an attack on the policies that flow from Catholic beliefs, not an attack on Catholic beliefs per se. Republicans simply pretended otherwise.

I realize that I've probably wasted my time as you don't seem to be the most open minded person in the world.

I am open to evidence and rational argument. Most open minded in the world? Highly unlikely.

[calling all toasters]

Everybody wants to belong to a group to some degree. If the Republicans are less individualistic than Democrats, it's because they are more fearful. They didn't choose being Republican the smae way they chose there car, e.g. bowing to group pressure. Choosing to be a Republican and choosing to bow to group pressure are the same act--where the group decides to head in more trivial matters (like South Park or not like it) will only have an impact once you've decided to let the group rule you--and that is a political decision.

[calling all toasters]

"same""their", etc.
Oy vey.

[Mithras]

Toasters - I am trying to agree with you, and you keep trying to stop me.

[RW]

Thanks for the reply.
You're saying a group of people (Us) who say they oppose large government
(Them) but seem incapable of making government smaller when they run it, are in
fact principled, rather than a tribe which maintains a certain shibboleth?

I recall when Newt company were actually in the process of passing bills that
addressed the size of gov't. Clinton shut down the gov't and the starving the children campaign began shortly thereafter. I'm old enough to remember that stuff it won't go unforgotten very soon.
Well, I call those factions, not identity groups.
Why not tribes? Those "factions" sure seem to feel the need to get together...and a whole lot of them are Dems. Funny, that.
rather than the Republican one of centralized, top-down management.
What? Surely you recall the many instances of the Republican/conservative mantra of returning the power to the states amp; away from the central gov't. If things have changed and the Dems are really the party of local gov't, sign me up. Last I heard they were for single-payer health care, expanding Bush's idiotic prescription drug plan to cover even more people (everyone?), using the federal gov't to expand family leave (paid?), using the federal gov't to tax the estates of the dead and using the federal gov't to mandate what businesses should pay unskilled entry-level employees (minimum wage). I know the reasons why Dems are supporting those various measures - no need to go into detail - but
I'm a conservative with a large libertarian streak, not a Republican (there is a vast difference) and thus I want the central gov't as small as possible, thankyouverymuch.
Amanda's writing, while vitriolic, was an attack on the policies that flow from Catholic beliefs, not an attack on Catholic beliefs per se.
Not so sure that godbags and mythology covers policies. Sorry, that one won't fly: she isn't fit for anything other than blogging on her personal site. Apparently, Edwards agreed.
Look, my main point (which I probably failed miserably to address) is that a liberal or a conservative are essentially people who simply share different beliefs. I used to be a liberal Democrat in my youth (voted for Wyche Fowler Max Cleland) and the only thing that changed was my perspective. It's not like someone is sitting around saying you know, I want lower taxes, a strong military and local control over things like education health care, so I feel the need to belong to a tribe any more than someone on the left says hey, I think taxes are too low (on everyone else, that is) there should be universal health care....I need to unite with my bretheren because I feel a familiar brand of marketing. Come on, that's narrow-minded thinking with the one and only objective being to marginalize the 'opposition' as mind-numbed robots willing to follow the best catch phrase. Someone who thinks that taxes are too high or that federal spending is too high (yes, even when out-of-control Republicans are in power) have no more emotional need to belong to some tribe any more than some pacifist hand-wringing lilly-white-yet-guilt-ridden liberal feels the emotional need to belong to a group....whether or not they've signed up for the moveon.org mailing list or they registered for the yearlykos convention.

The assertions put forth were nothing more than group generalizations laced with hegative intentions apparently done in order to give sustenance to your own sensibilities (that's a guess and I could be wrong on that ASSumption, but since logic is nowhere to be found & even anecdotal evidence was presented, I'm left to guess). Most definitions of 'bigotry' also fall under that rational. Memo: when one attempts to mind-meld with the opposition and assumes the worst, its usually a case of a strawman. In this case, it's a pretty weak one, IMHO of course. I mean, I see an attempt to smear Republicans as nothing more than weak-minded sheep while independent thinkers on the left (who band together & want me to pay for their health care, their retirement insurance, their relief, their medicare, etc.), oh, they can think for themselves. As illustrated by Mr. Cole's recitation of Amanda Marcotte's talking points.

Sorry, I must respectfully refuse to concur with such a ridiculous and ill-thought notion.

[calling all toasters]

I am trying to agree with you, and you keep trying to stop me.

Ain't I a stinker?

I guess my major beef with your post is the word "marketing." I think Republicans choose their party because of their personalities, and that have to find the fear-mongering party--it's not a choice. Social pressure can get them to do a lot of stuff, but politics (for them) goes right to their core. That's why they lie so much about it--to have their (racist, hysterical, etc.)identities revealed would destroy their already fragile egos. If they moved into a social circle full of Democrats, they would change their clothes and car and keep their mouths shut about politics. But they would still believe in and vote for the Party of Fear.

[Mithras]

I never meant to imply the marketing was causative of them becoming Republicans in the sense of convincing them. I said "marketed by tapping into positive images for them in some shallow way" and I meant "shallow" - the marketing is just a collection of symbols designed to attract the attention of those already primed for it, by their very nature.

Again, we agree.

[calling all toasters]

I guess we do.

Dammit!