Leave that 30% alone

Quit arguing with douchebags that everyone hates, part two 12

Following up a bit on my previous post, let’s make some more specific points.

Point number one:

Newt Gingrich is a douchebag and everyone hates him. Few figures in American politics (beyond Dick Cheney) are as discredited and unpopular as the bilious windbag Newt, whose renewed prominence as an “intellectual” on the right side of the aisle is the single best piece of evidence of irrevocable conservative decline. As Miles Grant reminded us last year:

If there’s anyone who proves time may not necessarily heal all wounds,  it’s Newt. Nearly a decade after he resigned from the House with an approval rating of just 28 percent, a 2007 poll showed remarkable 54 percent of Americans still held an unfavorable opinion of Gingrich. Cheney was only slightly less popular, rated unfavorably by 57 percent of those polled.

It’s true that he blatantly contradicted himself in his Congressional testimony last week. It’s true that his “solution” to climate change is a transparently industry-beholden stew of corporate welfare. It’s true that he lies like he breathes. But do progressives have to panic and hold strategy meetings every time he burps up more gas?

No. Everybody hates the guy. He’s a spokesdouche you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy.

Point number two:

Congressional Republicans are douchebags and everyone hates them. You might think from their program of uncompromising, unreasoning obstruction that they have some secret master plan to regain seats in Congress (which, as you might have noticed, they keep losing), but as Matt Yglesias points out, it’s not so. Even National Republican Senatorial Committee chair John Cornyn (TX) admits that it’s all but a fait accompli that Democrats will reach 60 votes in the Senate in 2010.

That’s because everyone likes Obama, and everyone hates Republicans. As Chris Bowers has documented in an ongoing series, they are less popular among the American public than Obama,  Congressional Dems, marijuana legalization, Venezuela, China, and probably this new pig flu, though no one’s polled that yet. They screwed up the country, they don’t have credible solutions to any of its problems, and the only people who listen to their increasingly loopy rhetoric are part of the 30% remnant.

Point number three:

Marc Morano is a douchebag and most people don’t even give enough of a crap about him to hate him. Once James Inhofe’s Senate butt boy, which gave him a modicum of relevance and credibility, Morano is now the proprietor of an obscure Drudge-wannabe climate denial site. He is useful to the 30% and their Congressional representatives; he supplies their climate-related talking points. But those talking points are crazy, and everyone hates the people repeating them.

Morano scammed his way into an NYT profile, but only as a flat-earth clown. The only way he gets any ongoing press coverage outside the 30% is by baiting progressive bloggers and journalists, jumping into their comment sections and sending them email every time they so much as mention his name.

But the public at large, outside the ideological tribe? They don’t know. They don’t care. And if they knew, they’d hate him too, like other mouth-breathers preaching conspiracy theories.

The same can be said of the whole constellation of   blogs and TV shows made by and for the 30%. There is simply no need to devote much attention to refuting the lies that pour forth from this revanchist remnant. Concern over climate change and support for action to address it is the mainstream position in America. Those writing and speaking in the mainstream ought to address themselves to the mainstream, helping to address its questions and concerns about the transition away from fossil fuels. (And there are plenty.)

Some time in the next hour, somebody will say something stupid on cable TV. Somebody will write an idiot op-ed.  Somebody will be wrong on the internet. Let. It. Go.

Focus on wavering Dems and their constituents and their constituents’ jobs. Focus on how energy/climate legislation will make the country cleaner, healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous.  The Newts can’t stop anybody, they can only distract and sap energy from those doing the work.

They are not Boogie men. They are douchebags, and everyone hates them.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Zephaniah Posted 12:04 pm
    26 Apr 2009

    Dave Dave Dave. Mixed messages - name calling smackss of lack of confidence. It was fun though!  Talking about global warming can stir strong feelings. Staying cool while talking about it is important.Here is a list of short answers for most common comments. Using them helps me keep from feeling irritated or from taking until peoples' eyes glaze over.Please share if you like, and post your own lists.  Quick Answers to Climate Queries  Climate Change is not happeningThe Supreme Court stated: “The harms associated with climate change are serious andwell recognized.: a rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequencesand increases in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events.”  Mass v. EPA April 2007 National Academies of Science of US, Canada, China, Japan, France, Germany, Russia, England,  India and more agree that the climate is warming and the main cause is carbon dioxide emissions.  Climate Change is a political ruse,  an al gore ismPresident GW Bush, called global warming “a serious problem, and said we need to “get beyond the debate” and deploy new technologies to curb greenhouse gases.   John McCain said “The evidence is compelling””It’s serious and it’s generated by human activity.” Republican Gov Schwarzenegger leads in action to counter climate change. It’s been really cold latelyThat’s the weather; Climate is determined by averages of measurements taken over many years. Melting polar ice and glaciers, stronger storm surges, heat waves and rising ocean levels are clear evidence of the warming trend in world climate.  Sunspots or Earth’s magnetic field, or urban heat, or the elliptical orbit of Earth, etc is the real cause of warmer temperatures.These factors affect climate a tiny bit, but  only one factor clearly and consistently correlates with all of the evidence. That culprit is greenhouse gases which are accumulating from burning of fossil fuels.   Natural cycle or We are heading into an ice ageEarth’s climate naturally cycles between ice ages and warmer phases over 10,000 or more years. The global warming we are experiencing has happened over 100 years, a MUCH shorter time period.  Also, if the natural cycle were predominating, Earth would be getting colder not warmer now. We can’t afford to use alternative energy.The cost of damage to our economy and our society, the floods, fires, water shortages, storm surges, disease spread, refugees, insect infestation, and crop damage and will be far more than we spend to switch to a green low carbon energy, and the longer we wait the more it will cost. Electricity from wind turbines is cheaper than from natural gas plants, with costs spread out over 12 to 15 years. Costs of solar and geothermal have been decreasing steadily and will be competitive when they are mass produced.     .Forest fires put just as much carbon into the airBurning trees release carbon that was stored over the past hundred or so years. Burning coal, oil and natural gas release carbon that was stored over millions of years as they formed. Plants alive today cannot absorb the large quantity of carbon dioxide our society puts into the atmosphere.   Isn’t there a big debate over climate change?  Atmospheric scientists are united in their explanation of the science. The only real debate  has been over whether we act to stop it now or  wait and take the risk of  not changing in time.Fossil fuel companies have paid scientists and journalists millions of dollars to make people believe it’s not happening or that it doesn’t need immediate action.  It’s huge and it’s unpleasant, we don’t want to believe it.Newspapers and TV and radio present things having two sides because that is more entertaining.The science is new, only thirty years since computers first became able to handle the complexity of measurements.   If climate change cannot be reversed, why try?Climate change cannot be reversed, but it can be stopped. The world will continue to get increasingly hot for several decades because of the excess carbon dioxide in the air, but if we switch to clean energy now, temperatures could level off mid century.  

    Permalink

  2. PurpleOzone Posted 4:00 pm
    26 Apr 2009

    "Tell a big lie often, and people will believe it." Joseph Goebbels.
    Ask John Kerry if he had good advice in not refuting the swift boat garbage.
    BUT -- the trolls and whackjobs are distracting the national dialogue. We need to figure out how to move forward, not rebut the latest nonsense.
    Then again, I had a long discussion with a relative who finally quoted the infamous lie about only half the world's glaciers are melting. (Oh, excuse me, a mistake posted by an administrative assistant, not a deliberate lie.)
    One of my irritations with the dems has been that they haven't fought back against the utter nonsense dumped on them. They let the reps call them 'unpatriotic' when they questioned policies of the bushies -- they weren't back the president. So now the same buzzards are calling out Obama's foreign policies, usually on specious grounds -- why not call them 'unpatriotic'.

    Permalink

  3. PurpleOzone Posted 4:00 pm
    26 Apr 2009

    "Tell a big lie often, and people will believe it." Joseph Goebbels.
    Ask John Kerry if he had good advice in not refuting the swift boat garbage.
    BUT -- the trolls and whackjobs are distracting the national dialogue. We need to figure out how to move forward, not rebut the latest nonsense.
    Then again, I had a long discussion with a relative who finally quoted the infamous lie about only half the world's glaciers are melting. (Oh, excuse me, a mistake posted by an administrative assistant, not a deliberate lie.)
    One of my irritations with the dems has been that they haven't fought back against the utter nonsense dumped on them. They let the reps call them 'unpatriotic' when they questioned policies of the bushies -- they weren't back the president. So now the same buzzards are calling out Obama's foreign policies, usually on specious grounds -- why not call them 'unpatriotic'.

    Permalink

  4. Miles Grant's avatar

    Miles Grant Posted 5:51 pm
    26 Apr 2009

     As if on cue, this week's Washington Post-ABC News poll ...   Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling global warming?
    Approve 61%,
    disapprove 23%, no opinion 16%.   50% say country moving in right direction (first time 50 or over since
    April 2003).   Congressional Democrats Approve/Disapprove is 45/49. Congressional
    Republicans are at 30/64.   How much confidence do you have in [ITEM] to make the right decisions for
    the country's future - a great deal of confidence, a good amount, just some or
    none at all? Great/good: Obama 60%, Congressional Dems 36%, Congressional GOP
    21%.

    Permalink

  5. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

    Christopher S. Johnson Posted 5:56 pm
    26 Apr 2009

    David, I think you are 2/3 right. But neither Newt nor Rep Joe Barton were on obscure blogs. They were broadcasting to the world from the House of Representatives. It was a popular watching day because of Gore. There ARE people who now think ocean acidification doesn't exist because of these guy's speeches on Friday. And Morano DOES have a wide network echo chamber/network installed that goes pretty far. There is SOME power there. I still get denier emails forwarded to me from the nether regions of my own family.But your larger point is taken. Sometimes there are indeed bigger fish to fry and confidence is the attitude to project. Wasting time would indeed be tragic at this juncture.

    Permalink

  6. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 7:00 pm
    26 Apr 2009

    Hey, guess what?  The entire progressive community has this problem!  Have you watched Keith Oblermann lately?  I can't even watch him anymore, it's all Republicans all the time.  Now look at big blog sites (like huffingtonpost, dailykos, you name it), magazines, etc., and the vast majority of articles are on conservatives.I have two theories about this: 1) That's what the progressive readership wants.  Maybe, unfortunately, readers like to have their blood boil by reading about the nefarious goings-on of the conservative creeps.  this might relate to my second theory, that progressive media (and movement as a whole) has gotten so used to being in the opposition, there is a whole generation (or two) that knows nothing else.  In other words, they don't even know how to get out of their rut. I have one criticism, Dave; I think the problem is that the progressive media doesn't know how to promote interesting ideas, programs, policies, or legislation.  In otther words, the problem is to get into a more positive mindset, to actually spend much of your time advocating for something (shameless plug: I usually am advocating for something in my posts).  So progressive media should be criticized for not being positive enough, if that makes any sense.

    Permalink

    1. David Roberts's avatar

      David Roberts Posted 3:21 am
      27 Apr 2009

      Yes, I think that's all exactly right -- the habits that come with being in opposition and the unfamiliarity/inability with promoting and supporting good ideas/people. For progressives, for some reason, supporting anyone or anything that has any power is still selling out. You see this, of course, with cap and trade for carbon, which used to be a relatively radical idea -- now that it's supported by the Dem establishment, of course lefties need something new that's more radical and more pure (which bizarrely seems to be a carbon tax). Consequently it's basically impossible for Dems with power to garner grassroots support; when they get the power, they lose the support. The only person to have defied this dynamic (thus far anyway) is Obama. We'll see how long that lasts.

      Permalink

      1. hapa's avatar

        hapa Posted 10:26 am
        27 Apr 2009

        For progressives, for some reason, supporting anyone or anything that has any power is still selling out. You see this, of course, with cap and trade for carbon, which used to be a relatively radical idea -- now that it's supported by the Dem establishment, of course lefties need something new that's more radical and more pure.... i'm sorry, but when was it radical, when it was used in the clean air act? when it was made the center of kyoto? when mccain and lieberman proposed it? did i miss a controversy in the last 20 years? cap-and-trade's reputation for SO2 was solid, i don't remember people thinking it was real bad news. carbon trading OTOH lost credibility because of the fully-realized fears of flagrant abuses in the EU ETS and the kyoto CDM. it's lost further ground because finance bankers all over the world have shown themselves to be fraudsters with no interest whatsoever in public service, so the "trade" part looks that much worse, without significant guarantees, which no one sane would think to be a slam dunk -- based on the beltway set's multi-trillion kowtow to those interests since september. tell you what though. you know there's been blood in the background when econometrix fans start slinging accusations of irrationality.

        Permalink

      2. Jon Rynn's avatar

        Jon Rynn Posted 11:58 am
        27 Apr 2009

        Dave, I don't know if the problem is supporting someone in power, I think it's much deeper, a hesitancy to propose.  It's hard, first of all, to propose something sensible, and then you run the risk that someone  will criticize you.  This is actually a problem on the right as well, for the same reasons.  It's also much easier to be funny and witty when you're attacking, for some reason.  Maybe the emotion of anger is easier to conjure than hope and intellectual agreement with something.Nobody should get "unconditional support" (I can go into a discouse about FDR and the Jews in Europe, but I won't), and I think Obama is getting pretty decent support from the left at this point.   One other point -- a problem with nonenvironmentalist progressives at this point is that they're not paying attention  to climate dhange at all, they're not even up to the carbon-tax-vs.cap-and-trade debate.  Maybe the blue-green alliance stuff would help with that.

        Permalink

  7. Billhook Posted 5:59 am
    27 Apr 2009

    Dave - I think you are quite wrong to call them douchbags- it is an wholly vague metaphor -when what is needed is a precise descriptive critique -I'd suggest "Genocidal Racist Bigots" on grounds thattheir prevarication is directly advancng the probability of unprecedented mega-famines (genocide)in Africa & Asia (racism)and they obdurately ignore all rational discussion of the scientific evidence (bigotry).Until the genocide & racism issues are properly presented,there seems little prospect of the public recognizing, and responding to,the moral issue of climate destabilization.You are of course entirely right to discourage further debate with deniers -but for the sake of good public information they do need effective labelling.
    Regards,
    Billhook

    Permalink

  8. drocto Posted 2:44 pm
    27 Apr 2009

    Grist can do better than this kind of divisive, childish crap. What is the point of claiming that "everyone hates" certain people that were elected to Congress? Is the point to make yourself look like a fool?

    Meanwhile, perhaps you should look more deeply into the responses of the Obama administration to the financial crisis. Ask yourself how you would respond to these programs if Bush had put them in place. You would probably be outraged. And you should be. But since so many people are busy patting themselves on the back for his election, his handlers are creating by far the most massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to bank shareholders and bondholders that the world has ever seen. And there are much better alternatives. They're getting away with it because so many folks are smugly wagging their fingers at Republicans.

    Permalink

  9. sawthesun Posted 8:45 am
    28 Apr 2009

    In a way, I would have to agree that these racist, bigoted, right-wing extremists should be ignored.  They and their ideas, espescially when presented on a national stage such as congress, only serve to distract from any real attempt for meaningful change or discourse, while at the same time stoking racism and bigotry amongst their sympathizers.  Ignoring these jerks does not mean they will go away, though.  To an extent, ignoring them can marginalize them and their ideology.  The only problem with ignoring these types is that, in their minds, ignoring them will lend credence to their position, which may allow these people and groups to fester and grow.  What I don't understand is how "wingnuts" are able to get away with publicly airing their hate rhetoric while hiding behind the guise of free speech. Recently, there have been some great examples of how hate-mongers should be treated publicly:  At the University of Texas, campus witch-hunter David Horowitz was booed, heckled, and protested to show him that there is vocal opposition to his outdated, racist, and bogus ideas of  "Academic Freedom."  In fact, the protestors called out his lies and deceptions in the Q&A section to which he had no answers for and left the stage in a huff.  It is worth noting that Horowitz attempted to have protestors arrested several times by making vocal pleas to the cops, but as the protestors were within their rights, the cops stood silently by.  Another example is when Tom Tancredo (hiss) slithered out from under his rock to speak at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill.  Tancredo, a former US Congressman, is supported by hate groups such as the Minutemen and is outspoken in his hatred of immigrants.  When he came to speak at UNC-CH he was met by a multicultural force of hundreds of protestors both inside and outside of the auditorium.  To summarize, the protestors basically shut him down by refuting and calling out every "fact" he came up with.  Yes, in this instance, the campus police decided to get violent, using pepper spray and force on the protestors after a window was inadvertantly broken from outside.  Tancredo then left without finishing.The point to be taken from these examples is that we cannot let right-wing ideologues and hate-mongers push us around.  They will fight and cry until they get what they want or they will attempt to take the whole ship down, in flames, with them.  Progressives must stand confident and must be willing to confront and argue with those who wish to see the Progressive Movements demise.  Progressives cannot afford to sit back and try to take the moral high road of "not stooping to their level."  Progressives must shape the field on which we are playing or risk being bullied or marginalized as the movement was during the previous administrations tenure.  The time is now to fight for the ideals we know are right and not sit idly by in the hopes our elected representatives will come around.  Only the voice of a strong, organized people will reverberate with the powers that be.  It is time for us all to not only tell the wingnuts what we think of their ideas, but to also make it clear to the current majority in Congress and the White House that we will vocally hold them to their promises and in many cases demand even more than they have promised. 

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement