Trump to Congresswomen: Go back to your own country!

[_EAllusion]

Republicans used their massive influence over the media coverage decisions in 2018 to make the migrant caravan story dominate pre-election coverage. It was relentlessly used as a scaremonger tactic on right wing media platforms - Fox, AM radio, Sinclair, Brietbart, etc. This pulled in mainstream media coverage to the point that it got extensive coverage on all cable media, literally hundreds of articles in the NYT, Washington Post, etc. Republicans effectively ran on whipping up xenophobia as a primary 2018 election strategy and got the entire media to go along with it.

Republicans got crushed in the House. Yet you saw basically no hand-wringing over hardcore xenophobia being bad election strategy in the wake of this. The criticism of Republican election strategy was fairly muted despite the terrible results. I guarantee if the outcome was different, we still would be hearing about how Democrats need to do more to appeal to xenophobes in diners.

I think part of the reason why is that happens is Democrats in the media significantly overestimate how popular conservative narratives actually are. Their desire to appear fair combined with a thirst for Democratic success causes them to constantly second guess and criticize Democrats for not doing enough to appeal to conservative narratives.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think part of the reason why is that Democrats in the media significantly overestimate how popular conservative narratives actually are. Their desire to appear fair combined with a thirst for Democratic success causes them to constantly second guess and criticize Democrats for not doing enough to appeal to conservative narratives.

Can you give a few examples of this?

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

I think we Democrats should fret less about the R base, which Trump can easily energize by simply lying to them, and act with more confidence in promoting our plans for making the US a better country.

I still see this as missing the point being made. That being, the narrative just shifted from Trump contrasted with any one of the diverse Democratic Presidential candidates along with Pelosi essentially wrangling in the progressive wing of the party into something almost manageable to one that is much better for Republicans. It's not about the R base.

American politics rarely gets beyond broad outlines and extremely simplified views of what is going on. What dominates the news is how many people see what is going on. The Republican narrative for 2020 is essential a play on the Reagan quote that freedom is one generation away from extinction. In this case, they are selling 2020 as the watershed election that could see socialism take over America. They want people to view the freshman congresswomen as the face of the party because they are successfully defining them as the embodiment of that threat. Their base already believes this and is not going to have their minds changed. They're locked in, and probably as energized as anyone when it comes to political participation. They are what they are.

Basic, overly simple narratives define elections. Hillary is a crook. That accepted narrative has as much explanatory power for why we're talking about a President Trump as any other factor. The narrative gets built up over time and through repetition becomes reality beyond question. So every event gets held up against that narrative and either confirms it or is seen as an anomaly that doesn't speak to it. What it doesn't get is uprooted once it's taken hold. Even people who voted for her feel she is an untrustworthy person. If people in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan who voted for Obama had not bought into that narrative and showed up to vote, we'd be complaining about whatever it is that alternate universe President Clinton is doing that we don't agree with while wondering why people could possibly be interested in tuning into Trump TV.

So, this is the narrative being created to form opinions in 2020. Democrats are going to make America a socialist country. Freedom is on the line. And somewhere left of the Trump base where the majority of voters reside are people who will come to accept that narrative as well. Some may embrace it (Go Progressivism! Free college tuition and healthcare for all! Reparations! National Debt is just a paper trick that doesn't matter!) or find themselves dancing around it to find alternative upsides if they disagree with it. What becomes very unlikely is a questioning of that narrative and what it really means for the US to take a hard left in 2020. Just like we've come to accept we're an election away from taking a hard right into irredeemable authoritarian rule, the polarization becomes fate where the removal of options between the two may leave no good options remaining on the table.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think I've developed a Left-Right Political Theater matrix. It goes something like this:

1. Something happens that sparks a lot of attention for individuals.

2. Those individuals use their news cycle fame to say something controversial or political, offending members of a political party in the process.

3. Supporters of the offended party respond to the "attack" ranging from civil responses to personal attacks.

4. Supporters of the opposite party pretend that the offended party is offended by a character trait and dismisses the original comments that started it all.

Rinse and repeat to keep the populace separated and hateful.

- Doc

[Guest]

If it were a flow chart, 3 and 4 represent where things seem to end up pretty well. But what initiates it could take many different forms. For example, rather than someone using their moment of fame to insert their foot in their mouth or be seen as doing so it could go like this:

1. Someone says or writes something in a venue with limited or almost no broader circulation. Could be offensive or construed as such by a particular ideology but most people wouldn't ever hear about 15 years ago.

2.a crap stirrers mining the internet for controversial or political statements come across this event or statement and start circulating it on Twitter and/or Facebook as an example of some reductive trait of a particular ideology.

2.b This results in people who oppose that ideology amplifying the volume while reductively defining the content of the event/statement/whatever as they share and discuss the incident. Ideally, there will be a meme that says all that needs said as loudly as possible.

2.c Reductive, amplified event becomes newsworthy enough to get carried by more mainstream news outlets and takes on national importance.

3. Supporters of the ideology respond to the "attack" ranging from civil responses to personal attacks.

4. Supporters of the opposite ideology use the activity of the offended ideology to launch a counter attack, further reducing and amplifying until both sides yelling the most reductive, offensive trope available.

5. Repeat 1 and 2 as soon as the public seems fatigued by the shouting and stops caring.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think we Democrats should fret less about the R base, which Trump can easily energize by simply lying to them, and act with more confidence in promoting our plans for making the US a better country.

I still see this as missing the point being made. That being, the narrative just shifted from Trump contrasted with any one of the diverse Democratic Presidential candidates along with Pelosi essentially wrangling in the progressive wing of the party into something almost manageable to one that is much better for Republicans. It's not about the R base.

American politics rarely gets beyond broad outlines and extremely simplified views of what is going on. What dominates the news is how many people see what is going on. The Republican narrative for 2020 is essential a play on the Reagan quote that freedom is one generation away from extinction. In this case, they are selling 2020 as the watershed election that could see socialism take over America. They want people to view the freshman congresswomen as the face of the party because they are successfully defining them as the embodiment of that threat. Their base already believes this and is not going to have their minds changed. They're locked in, and probably as energized as anyone when it comes to political participation. They are what they are.

Basic, overly simple narratives define elections. Hillary is a crook. That accepted narrative has as much explanatory power for why we're talking about a President Trump as any other factor. The narrative gets built up over time and through repetition becomes reality beyond question. So every event gets held up against that narrative and either confirms it or is seen as an anomaly that doesn't speak to it. What it doesn't get is uprooted once it's taken hold. Even people who voted for her feel she is an untrustworthy person. If people in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan who voted for Obama had not bought into that narrative and showed up to vote, we'd be complaining about whatever it is that alternate universe President Clinton is doing that we don't agree with while wondering why people could possibly be interested in tuning into Trump TV.

So, this is the narrative being created to form opinions in 2020. Democrats are going to make America a socialist country. Freedom is on the line. And somewhere left of the Trump base where the majority of voters reside are people who will come to accept that narrative as well. Some may embrace it (Go Progressivism! Free college tuition and healthcare for all! Reparations! National Debt is just a paper trick that doesn't matter!) or find themselves dancing around it to find alternative upsides if they disagree with it. What becomes very unlikely is a questioning of that narrative and what it really means for the US to take a hard left in 2020. Just like we've come to accept we're an election away from taking a hard right into irredeemable authoritarian rule, the polarization becomes fate where the removal of options between the two may leave no good options remaining on the table.

That narrative was always going to be used in this election by the right. The right has worn out “liberal” as a scary word and has moved on (or maybe it’s back) to “socialist” as its scary word de jour. What you’re seeing now was the plan prepared in case Sanders had won the nomination two years ago. Without the “Crooked Hillary” meme, this is what they have. Hell, they’ll use it on a centrist like Biden — they already did it with Obama.

There is nothing that Democrats can do to stop Republicans from using this tactic. They’ve shown that going ugly is effective and they don’t care about truth. Blaming Democrats for this Republican tactic isn’t clear-eyed thinking — not when nothing Democrats do will change what the Republicans do.

[_honorentheos]

Blaming Democrats for this Republican tactic isn’t clear-eyed thinking — not when nothing Democrats do will change what the Republicans do.

I'm not blaming Democrats for the Republicans using the tactic. I'm disappointed that we didn't learn anything about Trump in 2016 by ceding the narrative to him and the conservative press by playing along.

Calling it out as a tactic that serves a purpose opposed to the Democrat message for 2020 rather than getting caught up in the Republican-preferred narrative itself seems to be asking too much I guess. Perhaps we deserve it, too. But it would be a better approach to not just running into it like an enraged bull charging into a sword held behind a waving red cape.

[_Res Ipsa]

Blaming Democrats for this Republican tactic isn’t clear-eyed thinking — not when nothing Democrats do will change what the Republicans do.

I'm not blaming Democrats for the Republicans using the tactic. I'm disappointed that we didn't learn anything about Trump in 2016 by ceding the narrative to him and the conservative press by playing along.

Calling it out as a tactic that serves a purpose opposed to the Democrat message for 2020 rather than getting caught up in the Republican-preferred narrative itself seems to be asking too much I guess. Perhaps we deserve it, too. But it would be a better approach to not just walk into it like an enraged bull charging into a sword held behind a waving red cape.

Anything the Democrats said or did would feed the narrative. The Republicans accused Obama of being a socialist non-stop. They did it when he promoted a health insurance program created by conservative think tanks. They did it when he tried to introduce legislation originally proposed by Republicans.

Relief Society have always manufactured a bogeyman (well, lately, a bogeywoman) to paint as a threat. It was Pelosi, then Clinton, now the Squad. So, when the Relief Society began targeting the four congresscritters, what should Pelosi have done in your opinion?

[_canpakes]

Anything the Democrats said or did would feed the narrative. The Republicans accused Obama of being a socialist non-stop. They did it when he promoted a health insurance program created by conservative think tanks. They did it when he tried to introduce legislation originally proposed by Republicans.

Relief Society have always manufactured a bogeyman (well, lately, a bogeywoman) to paint as a threat. It was Pelosi, then Clinton, now the Squad. So, when the Relief Society began targeting the four congresscritters, what should Pelosi have done in your opinion?

This.

A truth is just that. A truth. It’s usually pretty well defined, fact-based and specific. There aren’t too many ‘or’ options that go with, say, “unripe tomatoes are green”.

But, choose to lie about something, and the options are limitless. The sky is purple, black, or plaid. Whatever you like. Then keep repeating it with conviction. Doesn’t matter which option works; if one doesn’t, substitute another until your followers accept and repeat it due to their unflinching loyalty to your authority.

This is what so many Republicans or their supporters do so often, these days. It doesn’t matter if they’ve lost the ability to call the Democratic candidate a ‘crook’ this time; they’ll just swap to a new lie - socialist - and stick with that as long as it seems to work. And if that badge loses effectiveness, they can invent another one. The list is potentially endless, because it isn’t fact-based. It’s myth, spoken to people prone to believe in and promote myth, if it gives cover to their desires.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

If it were a flow chart, 3 and 4 represent where things seem to end up pretty well. But what initiates it could take many different forms. For example, rather than someone using their moment of fame to insert their foot in their mouth or be seen as doing so it could go like this:

1. Someone says or writes something in a venue with limited or almost no broader circulation. Could be offensive or construed as such by a particular ideology but most people wouldn't ever hear about 15 years ago.

2.a crap stirrers mining the internet for controversial or political statements come across this event or statement and start circulating it on Twitter and/or Facebook as an example of some reductive trait of a particular ideology.

2.b This results in people who oppose that ideology amplifying the volume while reductively defining the content of the event/statement/whatever as they share and discuss the incident. Ideally, there will be a meme that says all that needs said as loudly as possible.

2.c Reductive, amplified event becomes newsworthy enough to get carried by more mainstream news outlets and takes on national importance.

3. Supporters of the ideology respond to the "attack" ranging from civil responses to personal attacks.

4. Supporters of the opposite ideology use the activity of the offended ideology to launch a counter attack, further reducing and amplifying until both sides yelling the most reductive, offensive trope available.

5. Repeat 1 and 2 as soon as the public seems fatigued by the shouting and stops caring.

I like it. I defer to your version.

- Doc