Richard Cohen panned Colbert and got 3,499 nasty emails. In comparison, the emails he got after a column on Al Gore and global warming were much more even-tempered. His conclusion is that we lefties are brimming with foaming-at-the-mouth rage while righties are cool and rational.
This spells trouble — not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before — back in the Vietnam War era. That’s when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.
How soon they forget. Back in December 2004, Cohen was complaining that the righties were being mean to him.
When, for instance, I wrote a column suggesting that Bernard Kerik was a bad choice for secretary of homeland security, I got a bucket full of obscene e-mails right in my face. I was denounced over and over again as a liberal who, moreover, never would have written something similar about anyone Bill Clinton had named. This would be news to Clinton.
What struck me about the e-mails was how none of these writers paid any attention to what I had to say. Instead, they preferred to deal with a caricature — someone who belonged to a movement, a conspiracy, and was taking orders in the service of some vast, nefarious cause. E-mails are the drive-by shootings of the common man. The face of the victim is never seen.
Atrios suggests it’s time for Richard to retire. That’s a thought. Political commentary is not for the faint of heart these days.
Reaction to today’s column from leftie blogs so far has been dismissive. Digby points out that “There’s no political downside to hating Richard Cohen,” and he calls the column a waste of WaPo real estate. See also A Tiny Revolution.
It’s easy to be dismissive. One, Cohen is a wanker. He has fleeting moments of clarity — I link to him from time to time — but in the next column, or paragraph, he’ll be settled back into the foggy, clueless comfort of beltway insider conventional wisdom. He’s no Krugman. But then again, he’s no Krauthammer. He tends to bob about in the squishy center of the political spectrum, just to the left of the cognitively impenetrable David Broder.
We might, however, want to take Cohen’s charge a little more seriously. Beltway insider conventional wisdom already says that we netroots lefties are nothing but radical malcontents, and that close association with us is a political liability. Not exactly the effect we want to go for, I think. The VRWC could take charges like Cohen’s and turn them into a full-bore discrediting of us. In effect, we could be collectively swift-boated. Just as we’re trying to crash the gates, Democrats might put up bigger barricades. And a moat.
We know that rightie blogswarms can be vicious. Most of us have been targets of one from time to time. It ain’t fun, but it comes with the territory. However, I suspect — this is just a hunch — that righties are feeling less empowered than they were during the glory days of the Dan Rather smackdown, and are not swarming as strongly as they used to. But we lefties may be getting friskier.
On the other hand, the Al Gore column drew much less attention on the blogosphere than the Colbert column, which was a collossally stupid column. Among Cohen’s dumbest efforts, certainly. Technorati says the Colbert column was linked by 217 bloggers, whereas the Al Gore column had only 105 links.
I haven’t broken down these numbers by leftie v. rightie, but you can see at a glance that prominent bloggers who linked to the Al Gore column were mostly from the Left. The only prominent rightie bloggers (i.e., blogs with names I recognize) who linked to the Al Gore column were Gateway Pundit, Oxblog, Blue Crab Boulevard, and Carol Platt Liebau. No little green footballs; no nice doggie; no power tools; no instahack. The big guns of the Right, in other words, were silent.
The Colbert column, on the other hand — did I mention it was among Cohen’s dumbest efforts? — took fire from nearly all the big guns of the Left. Kos, Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, Wonkette, AMERICAblog, Eschaton, Pharyngula, Pandagon, Steve Gilliard’s News Blog, The Poor Man, The Carpetbagger Report, Booman Tribune, Seeing the Forest, Ezra Klein — definitely the A Team. Plus Democratic Underground, Daou Report, and Alternet. And me. (Links are on the search list.)
Cohen’s comparison of reactions to the two columns, in other words, was hardly a fair trial. Let him piss off Wizbang or RedState, and then see what happens.
Still, the anger thing does worry me. I am not saying we don’t have a right to be angry. And I have argued many times that the righties have us beat in the hate and fear departments. I get angry, too. But I think it’s possible that this angry left meme, as unfair as it is, could hurt us. (Since when is swift-boating fair?) And, as I argued here, displays of anger are counterproductive to persuasion. Cohen is right about the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helping to elect Richard Nixon. I remember it well.
So, I’m asking Mahablog readers to stop picking on Richard Cohen and to not indulge in sending hate emails to pundits or politicians who piss you off. Put your energy into something positive, like supporting Ned Lamont. Thank you.
Update: Avedon demonstrates how to challenge a bleephead like Cohen. Read and learn.
I take a bit of issue with the idea that the angry anti-war left elected Nixon. Remember that George Wallace was shot in May of 1968. Until he was shot, we expected a repeat of the 1968 election, when Wallace took damn near 20% of the popular vote. McGovern’s strategy to get the nomination — running as the unabashedly anti-war candidate on the far left of the party — also was a winning November strategy. WITH Wallace in the race. When Wallace was shot out of it, all those votes went to Nixon. McGovern got about what Humphrey had gotten, but it was a landslide loss instead of a squeaker. That fact, combined with a) the Eagleton debacle and b) the willingness of the Dem establishment to let an insurgent nominee go down were the source of Nixon’s victory far more than any reaction to the antiwar anger.
But I love your work and agree with your far more often than I agree with anybody else I’ve found in the blogosphere!
My whoops. Wallace was shot in May of 1972! Obvious by the context, but I am sorry for the mistake.
I take a bit of issue with the idea that the angry anti-war left elected Nixon.
You can take exception if you like, but I saw it with my own eyes. In 1968, of course, the angry antiwar left went after Democrats — remember the Chicago convention — but by 1972 Nixon had made the antiwar movement into a campaign issue in his favor. A vote for Nixon was a vote against those dirty hippies who were tearing down America. He won in a landslide, even though most people were unhappy with the war and several Nixon domestic policy initiatives.
His conclusion is that we lefties are brimming with foaming-at-the-mouth rage while righties are cool and rational.
Since the rest of your column seems to be a perfectly sensible response to the point Cohen was making, why include this seemingly non-accurate assertion?
I see nothing in his column where he offers an opinion on the possible impact of the Angry Right on the Democrat’s prospects in 2006 (or the Republican’s prospects). Nor do I see anything suggesting that he thinks Repubs are cool and rational. In fact, in terms of Democratic strategy, Cohen might welcome an enraged Right (1998 II).
His point, with which you seem to agree, is that the Angry Left may muck up the races for the, hmm, Electable Left. Nothing about the rationality or lack thereof on the Right.
I think you are setting up a situation where we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. No one challenged anything back in the Clinton/Gore days and look how well that worked out. All these so-called liberal pundits acquiesed to conservative talking points and they became accepted wisdom. Now they are being challenged, and even though they fight it, they are beginning to realize there is another point of view out there.
And I was also around back in the 60’s and I don’t think you can use that to generalize what happens today. Back in the 60’s, people were afraid of those dirty hippies but they also still believed that their government would never lie to them, especially about war. That innocence is gone. The only thing that evokes the same fear are foreigners. Upper class kids behind keyboards, seen as inexperienced and vulgar, don’t cause that same reaction. Noone fears that they will take over the country, the vested elite just fear that they may take over the party appartus. A worry for them but not for the man on the street.
Oh-and Cohen didn’t even read most of the e-mails. He claims he just opened a few inadvertantly because he thought they were from someone he knows. Tells you alot about whether he would ever listen to anyone who said something contradictory to what he believes.
No one challenged anything back in the Clinton/Gore days and look how well that worked out.
I’m not saying not to challenge people. Please read the post again. There’s a big difference between challenging people’s opinions and telling them to go bleep their mothers.
why include this seemingly non-accurate assertion?
It was clearly implied in the comparison he made. I am not retracting.
Fine, don’t retract. But can we ask for any sort of cite to back up the implication you were able to detect? A few sentences, or a phrase about “cool”, “rational”, even tempered Republicans?
Was it the early Gore email comparison, where he said this:
I instantly got more than 1,000 e-mails, most of them praising Gore, some calling him the usual names and some concluding there was no such thing as global warming, if only because Gore said there was.
Hmm, I will guess here that it was righties that called him the usual names and denied that global warming could exist because Gore said it did.
Is that your example of “cool” or “rational”?
“I’m not saying not to challenge people. Please read the post again. There’s a big difference between challenging people’s opinions and telling them to go bleep their mothers.”
But Cohen himself asserts that he didn’t read many of the e-mails. How do you challenge someone nicely when they don’t even read what you say? I’m sure he read a few blogs that criticized him and then assumed the worst about his e-mailers.
Even when you watch c-span you get the occasional crazy who calls in, but no one disregards every persons point because of it. At least not a person who isn’t so full of himself that he believes that no one else could bring some wisdom or insight into the situation. That is why these “pundits” get so much anger. And that is probably why they are so in tune to Bush–they both treat the American people as the little people who really don’t understand anything, that are dependent on them to lead the way. People are no longer willfully following them and its making them crazy.
I think you’re striking just the right balance. We do have to watch for the point when rudeness and anger become counterproductive, because their turned against us — it’s not that we should never be angry or rude, it’s that we shouldn’t think that lowering the volume is always equivalent to selling out or giving in or bending over.
As you said in the post about the immigration demos, look at the civil rights era. Those protestors were polite and well dressed but also relentless in challenging the status quo. A person’s level of insolence does not inevitably correlate with passion to see a wrong righted, or effectiveness in getting that wrong righted.
“They’re”! Not “their”! I can’t believe I did that.
Well, I was there also, and should remind you that Nixon ran against a war that was escalated by a Democrat. Much of he anti war anger was directed at a Democratic leadership that was to cowardly to take a stand concerning an obvious mistake made by the leadership. They were afraid of being branded as soft by the McCarthite running for President.
At no point do I recall the Dems branding Nixon for his support of Fascism in it’s McCarthite incarnation.
Add in his contempt for the rule of law, and y
It’s impossible to even know what emails to Cohen said – he admits as much:
“Truth to tell, I peeked into only a few of the e-mails.”
Oh, his virgin eyes. His shocked sensibilities. Is there a wuss test that Post employees have to pass now for employment?
But can we ask for any sort of cite to back up the implication you were able to detect?
A number of rightie bloggers inferred what I inferred — righties are blameless; lefties are unhinged. See Malkin for example.
Cohen didn’t think Colbert was funny because he spoke the truth about the media…..now some “media” hack is claiming since the left is mad at him(cohen) for writing a stupid article that we are “angry” and we will lose in nov….perhaps he missed the point that the left being mad at him has nothing to do with the upcoming elections….it isn’t all about HIM..what a vain jerk.
For him to believe a sample of his stupid e mails means anything other than he wrote a crappy piece , seems small minded at best.Mr. Cohen COULD have taken the time to think about what Colbert said and then written a thoughtful piece about how the media HAS fallen far short of doing their jobs, instead he wrote more of the very same CRAP Colbert was complaining about…a nothing piece that was whiney(waaa colbert was mean boo hoo)..what a big fat baby!
The media failed this whole entire country for the past 6 years (and then some) and someone FINALLY called them on it and what did they do? Cry when people called them on it(boo hoo Colbert was mean and not funny,,,waaaaaa! and then people were mean when I pointed it out…waaaaaaaaaa)…IF anyone has the right to be crying ,it’s the American people,, not some overpaid little puke at a paper not fit to line my birds cage…
I didn’t write him, personally he isn’t worth my time.But the idea that he is pissing and moaning about anger at him and others in the media for falling so short of doing their jobs does not equal Democrats not winning elections…..
He missed the point 100% it isn’t DEMOCRATS who need to change…..it is the media…..it’s the corruption of our current government……rather than HEAR what colbert was saying it was easier for cohen to point the finger of blame at someone else.
The man has a lot of nerve to worry about the REACTION from the left over the ACTIONS of the right and the state sponsored media…
The whole thing reminds me of a dog on a chain.Kids walk by and poke it with a stick and throw rocks at it until one day the dog gets free and jumps the kids… the dog could be missing an eye from the sticks and people would still be shocked at the dogs anger….I wonder when is it ok to be mad?When is it ok to look around and say ” You know what, this isn’t ok anymore!” ? When is it ok to look around and see the damage the government has done to this country while the media stood by without even telling us about it(and in some cases flat out lying about it) and say “This is bullshit!”?……perhaps we should wait until the country is gone to be angry.. would it be ok then?
Personally I am tired of trying to please the kool aide crowd.They can all kiss my tiny white behind if my anger at their actions comes at a bad time for them.TFB……..I think what voters want is a little honesty for a change ….rage is not a solution, certainly, but I think people are a bit outraged and I think that is in order.
The left is not the group with the global bloodlust, so cohen need not tell me about anger.(unless he wants to make me angry)…but my party isn’t the one who has fucked everything up the last 6 years so why does the left need to adjust their anger?It seems to me the right is the side who could use the help on how to behave..
If our next leader doesn’t get up and say they are mad about the way things are now in this great country, they are no leader of mine …as judge judy said “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”……I , for one, have had enough smoke blown up my , well you know, to last me a lifetime… the truth won’t be easy to hear and it will cause anger, but I don’t think we should avoid it to keep cohens panties from being in a wad.But thats “just me”
At no point do I recall the Dems branding Nixon for his support of Fascism in it’s McCarthite incarnation.
I don’t know about the Dems, but I was in college in those years and we antiwar students sure as hell called Nixon a fascist. Loudly and often. And you’re still talking about 1968 and refusing to look at 1972.
Mr. Cohen COULD have taken the time to think about what Colbert said and then written a thoughtful piece about how the media HAS fallen far short of doing their jobs,
Responders to his column could have just said that instead of telling him to bleep his mother.
But Cohen himself asserts that he didn’t read many of the e-mails. How do you challenge someone nicely when they don’t even read what you say?
Per Cohen, the verbal abuse was in the subject lines, which he did read.
I’m taking Cohen at his word that many of the letters he got did amount to “raw, untreated and disease-laden verbal sewage.” And yes, maybe he is a wuss, but as I said I’ve been the target of hate blogswarms from the Right, and it’s not something I’d wish on anyone. We can do better.
Am I the only one who agrees wholeheartedly with what Richard Cohen was putting out there? I haven’t read him much before, but on this subject it seemed to me that Cohen was complaining about the hate on both sides of the aisle. I believe that’s called civility. Maybe it makes him a wuss, but that’s the kind of argument you’d hear from bullies. “Did you see him be polite to that old windbag? What a wuss.” Or children, “Well they’re doing it, too!”
Indulging in this behavior makes bloggers come across as two-year olds having a temper tantrum. Like you say Maha, “I’ve been the target of hate blogswarms from the Right.” Well, so was a close member of my family. I couldn’t believe that mature adults would indulge in something so vitriolic. It’s cowardly, too, since it’s anonymous. And it would look ridiculous if it wasn’t so scary.
If you have a point to make, make it competently. I thought blogging was a communications breakthrough in insight and persuasion.
“Remember the shoulders we stand on.”
Justme…it is your kind of articulate anger which can save us in this country. You so passionately took the discussed issue and expanded it with facts and a wider view. Thank you once again for being sooo justyou.
The kind of hatefilled name-calling vulgar anger that pretends to be passion is really pathetic inarticulate venting and ‘negative pleasure’, and only results in the listener shutting off and bunkering down. That kind of anger may titillate with short-term pleasure but it is long-term destructive.
‘Responders to his column could have just said that instead of telling him to bleep his mother”
I agree there 100%… you are correct. I tend to wonder if those kinds of posts may be plants, but IF someone on the left wrote that it was in poor taste.
But I still don’t understand how small minded anger at him (Cohen) equals a loss at the polls in November, especially since there is no way to know who that e mail is coming from.The right has a lot to gain from making the left appear “unhinged”….we don’t even know if this small minded person is a voter..Cohen “assumes” a lot….it could be some nut case kid addicted to tv with some weird thing for Colbert..what on earth would someone like that have to do with Democrats in the Nov elections?
There seems to be a bit of a double standard here….it’s ok for him to write crap, then make the leap the e mailer was a democrat and therefore the left will lose in Nov…..but heaven forbid anyone be as unreasonable as him and tell him to bleep his momma.
I think the right likes to play this game with us..they slap us, and if we slap back they call us “unhinged”,, if we do nothing they call us weak and say we probably want to be friends with the terrorists too…
IMHO ,, I don’t see where the responder was anymore out of line than Cohen was..they both said pretty much the same thing, Cohen just used nicer words to tell us to go bleep our mothers …what I got out of it was , that one of “ours ” had insulted the media and they are not amused then another one of “ours” dared to call Cohen on , using a very poor choice of words, so therefore the party is doomed…..(so I guess that means the media won’t be on our side?snark)…how dare we let two of “ours “step out of line?? oops we blew our chances of ever winning another election…both of their statements seem to lack reason or thought…..the difference is one of them is getting paid to be a professional.
1 You seem to forget about Richard Nixon’s history of criminal manipluation of the very presidential campaign you speak of. Whatever appearances were at the time, it is as likely that ‘anti-war’ sentiment was engineered into an inflammatory wedge issue via such deliberate and pervasive dirty tricks.
So don’t really draw such firm conclusions about what caused the loss back then. And it certainly seems misleading to your current inquiry. After all, it was THE POLICE that rioted in Chicago in 1968, contrary to what the media story was.
and it was THE POLICE that shot 4 people dead at Kent state 2 years later.
That’s actually quite worthy of an agry reaction.
2. Anger is an expression of an unmet need.
This is a critical point. This is not just an effective ‘framing” – it appears to be a common human experience. “Underneath” the anger is an unmet need.
What is the unmet need that we are so “angry” about?
it is a need for honest leaders, integrity, accountability, participation, justice.
These are quite easy to find ‘within’ the space of anger, so to speak, once you notice WHY the anger is there.
Your needs as an American Citizen are not being met. Your rights are eroding.
This is the narrative which can begin an effective dialog, and it emerges authentically from that anger, that passion for the American ideals, that we all feel deep down is being abrogated, eroded, disminished and eventually disappeard.
(kudos to Marshall Rosenberg, who articulates this and other powerful and effective distinctions in his work on non-violent communication. more at http://www.cnvc.org/sbytes.htm )
Well, I read Avedon’s reply to Cohen, and I wish I could clone myself so I could second, third and fourth everything Avedon said! Mr. Cohen needs to learn that it ain’t all about him.
Excuse me, joanr16, but I got the opposite reading from Avedon – that Mr. Cohen needed to learn that it was all about him. 🙂
And if Avedon and others had put forth those very thoughtful points instead of the 3,000+ others who were telling him to “bleep” his mother, maybe Mr. Cohen would have learned something.
Charles — There is righteous anger and there are temper tantrums. You are confusing the two.
Your history is a tad oversimplified; certainly the Chicago cops and the Ohio national guard grossly mishandled the situations you mention, but in Ohio some students — not the ones killed, but others — had torched buildings and threatened local business owners. And after the shooting public sympathy was overwhelmingly against the students and for “lawnorder.” Nixon exploited that sympathy to get re-elected. Angry demonstrating pushed too far will backfire.
And I have no sympathy for “they made us do it.” That’s childish.
i agree that we shouldn’t tip over into vitriolic when we communicate with the media or elected officials (or indeed, anyone that we don’t know personally). i always caution my readers to be polite when emailing or calling. raising uncivility does not do anybody any good.
however, there are ways to be snarky and insulting, and still make your point, without cussin’. unfortunately, cohen and his ilk (think deborah howell and jim brady) take clever and pointed barbs (especially ones rooted in fact) as the same as calling someone a m*therf*cker.
basically, by waving the “they cussed at me, ma!” flag, they imply that they would have listened (or read) and engaged in discussion with those of us who are clever but make salient points (witness the whole jim brady-taking-down-comment-on-washpost.com fiasco).
anyway, my take on the msm’s non- or extremely-late take on colbert’s take on aWol is here.
For one I am getting pretty sick of the lack of intellectual honesty in all these rants (I would say debates, but why even use that word?) on all sides. I am a moderate to conservative in my political leanings and think that political disagreements should be debated rather than screeches. That goes FOR ALL, liberal, conservative, democrat republican, et. al. What Cohen was saying and rightfully so is that the “Angry Left” and their actions are going to scare the bejeebers out of the moderate portions of the electorate and make it very hard to bring about a democratic victory in 08.
A very useful fact to keep in mind is that no democratic presidential nominee in the past 30 years has garnered over 50% of the popular vote. The name calling and vituperative rants out there aren’t helping the cause one bit.
A last point, I respect and honor your comments. I may not agree with them and it certainly doesn’t make any of us bad people. That’s what intellectually honest debate is about.
I’m not really confused about righteous anger and temper tantrums. I’m not speaking of temper tantrums at all. I am speaking about what you are calling ‘righteous anger.’
As your link mentions —
“Honor your anger. But before you express it, sort out the righteous from the unrighteous. Immediately after a storm, the water is muddy; rage is indiscriminate. It takes time to discriminate, for the mud to settle. But once the stream runs clear, express your outrage against any who have violated your being. Give the person you intend to love the gift of discriminating anger.”
I am suggesting that you honor your anger and get clear on the righteous and unrighteousness of it by looking for the unmet human needs and trying to articulate that clearly and simply.
I’m angry because ‘he called me names’ is different from ‘I’m angry because i’m on the no-fly list by mistake.’ or
‘I got fired because I had a anti-war bumper sticker on my car.’
As a matter of fact you can see how effective this approach is cause that’s the one that Avedon uses to close his argument– he contrasts the concerns behind the anger, Cohen’s on the one hand and the world-at-large on the other.
” But put this in perspective:
Our Constitution has been shredded, and you complain that those who criticize the guy who did it are rude.
Our economy is hemorrhaging, and you think we should be reading about your mail.
Thousands of people are dead, and you want to complain about our language.”
Add just a little snark and the total effect argument-wise is quite powerful
Why? Because we all viscerally understand the dimensions of human needs. Contrasted simply and directly, the point makes itself.
Anger can be transformed into effective action, or it can burn things all up, righteous or no.
To get to the effective action you must discover and articulate the unmet needs. And in such a way that you can take action.
The challenge, as i see it, in the political arena, is first to understand that ‘anger’ will be a polarizing agent NO MATTER WHAT – already is. worked before. and it will be used again. It will be framed negatively – and used against ‘us’.
Therefore, to your point, we must look into it and channel it into a more effective direction – that direction, that narrative, seems both authentic and simple when you relate the anger to the unmet needs.
Using your descriptions, I would say that the needs show up either as puerile and selfish (temper-tantrum) or worth taking action about (righteous).
A couple other points–
I agree, angry demonstrating pushed too far will backfire. That’s no solution, that’s merely visibility, and not necessarily effective visibility, as you point out.
I have no sympathy for ‘they made us do it’ either.
Don’t think i said that.
My sense of history may be more than a tad oversimplified, and even confused, but i don’t think public sympathy is an effective indicator of much of anything, justice-wise, so I’m not sure why you mention it.
My point was that dirty-tricks experts have been operating to manipulate the opinion and actions of the American electorate since Nixon’s days, so its iffy to attribute cause to ‘our’ actions or anger.
Avedon’s approach is best. Her piece is rooted in a series of indisputable facts. Her anger comes thru, righteously driving the damnable facts. This is a model for how we should use our anger.
Cohen has a point about the left’s anger turning off voters, but I agree with justme (so well expressed, comment 16), that weenies like him absolutely disgust me.
Once again, Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen avoids the whole point of Colbert’s speech and those who defend Colbert, and instead embarks on another rant of illogical ad hominems, this time against Colbert’s defenders.
Boo! Hoo! Nobody likes Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen because he doesn’t know how to write a civil and logical editorial. Everybody is so mean to him for emanating raw hatred towards Stephen Colbert in his past editorial. Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen’s cry baby rant is simply pathetic and an embarrassment for him and the Washington Post.
This is just more proof that Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen is irrelevant. Besides Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen, the Washington Post, by allowing such nonsense to again be published on its editorial pages, is irrelevant as well.
Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen, why are you such a Waa! Waa!???
Charles: One of the first rules of commenting here is “don’t lecture maha.” She is old and cranky and doesn’t need it. 🙂
Second, please see Maha’s Rules for Protesting, in particular #5, “Be sure your opposition is uglier/more hateful/snottier than you are.”
Someone above said that Cohen said that the angry left is going to turn off the moderates. My question is why weren’t these moderates turned off by the angry right who have been calling the left (angry or not) traitors, liars, people who bleep their mothers, etc., since Clinton ran for office? If a person were to do a serious study, I believe they would find that the angry right has been much more vicious and hateful in comparison to the angry left for a much longer time.
I personally believe that as long as the left has the facts on their side, which we have, we need to speak up; but, speak up politely–loudly and often sometimes–but do not stoop to the low brow tactics of the Malkins, Coulters, Limbaughs, etc. Those on the left who do stoop to those low standards don’t do the left any favors. The right treats any person with the opposite beliefs as theirs as though they are not human. They try to deny us our dignity. The disrespect us because they think they are so superior that the rest of us are not worthy of any human decency. I have no intention of stooping to those tactics myself. Maha doesn’t, which is why I read here blog. Sometimes I think we would do better if we killed the Malkins, Coulters, etc., with kindness. However, for right now, let’s just inundate them with the facts.
My question is why weren’t these moderates turned off by the angry right who have been calling the left (angry or not) traitors, liars, people who bleep their mothers, etc., since Clinton ran for office?
I think one of the reasons Clinton’s approval ratings stayed so high through the Lewinsky saga is that the hate and vitriol thrown at him by the Right was so over-the-top. People get turned off by relentless smearing.
Charles, #23 and #30
How wonderful to see your reference to Marshall Rosenberg.
Marshall remains one of the key influences in my life and my happiness. I count myself fortunate to have learned from him back in St. Louis in the late 60’s and early 70’s, and today appreciate that what I gained in his workshops has forever after given me an edge.
A few months ago…I wanted the lyrics to one of Ruth Bebermeyer’s songs, so tried to find her or the lyrics by googling.
I did not find Ruth or her songs [I think she may be in Europe], but I did catch up on what Marshall is doing nowadays. As they say in Australia, “Good on him!” Truly, he is an angel in this world.
So…..I think this is an appropriate place to offer a few lines of Bebermeyer’s lyrics:
“Words are windows, or they’re walls
They sentence us, or set us free…..
When I speak and when I hear…
Let the love light shine through me…”
Darn….I have forgotten a lot of her lyrics…..and so wish I could find them.
Here’s another on-topic set of her ‘having fun’ kind of lyrics:
“Here’s the problem….A + B equals conversation.
A speaks first and nervously B’s in consternation,
Doesn’t think A really means what her words imply,
Doesn’t want to be obtuse, so offers in reply
a safely, general, he thinks, statement of his own.
A thinks B ignored her, feels cut off and alone.
This division multiplies at an alarming rate….
How do we solve so A + B equals communicate?
First of all, go back…….”
I think I do remember the rest of the lyrics to this one, but just awoke to…. uh oh, better stick a pin in this….this is Maha’s band-width, you know….
Again, thanks Charles….just remembering Marshall and Ruth has me sitting here with good cheer.
Of course being civil is always the most effective way. That’s not the point. I’m not too young myself but I quickly learned that the internet allows people to say a lot of mean things that they would never say to someone in person. It’s a way that people vent. Skip over those e-mails and move to the ones that aren’t that way. But snark is not vulgarity and I think that is the problem. Cohen is not being treated like a kool kid-he is being laughed at and he doesn’t like it.
But snark is not vulgarity and I think that is the problem. Cohen is not being treated like a kool kid-he is being laughed at and he doesn’t like it.
No whitewashing allowed. I have no reason to doubt that what Cohen got hit with was a lot more than snark. Some of the vulgarity I’ve seen at antiwar demonstrations is enough to persuade me that there are lefties who could very well have sent Cohen emails that were extremely vulgar, hateful, and ugly.
I hate intellectual dishonesty, and I hate it when people make knee-jerk excuses for “our” side.
I didn’t mean for this to be an excuse for our side. Wrong is wrong. But how can the hatefulness be attributed to a point of view? When you see those hateful protests, don’t you think that they are idiots? Do you then think that everyone who is protesting is an idiot? Idiots are everywhere, as are crooks. No political side has a monopoly on them. Do you believe that the idiots who write the hateful things are going to act differently because of Cohen’s column? Or is he trying to get other people to keep them from being idiots? And how are we supposed to do that when they are anonymous people who we have no control over? I just don’t understand what this will accomplish.
But how can the hatefulness be attributed to a point of view?
It’s not attributed to a point of view; it’s attributed to expression.
No political side has a monopoly on them.
I never said otherwise. And of course these people are idiots, mostly. But I think some of them have poor judgment or were raised wrong. That’s why it’s important for us older and wiser types to speak out and ask people to please behave.
Do you believe that the idiots who write the hateful things are going to act differently because of Cohen’s column?
Lordy, where did that come from? What a stupid thing to say!
I have a low tolerance for dumb, son. Please engage your brain before commenting. If you’re trying to argue with me for the sake of arguing, please go away. I don’t have time.
maha, you are brilliant, and you exhibited as much in the last paragraph in your last comment right before this one.
I hate intellectual dishonesty
But I love a sense of irony.
My point remains unanswered – contra the original post, not only did Cohen not state or imply that Repubs are cool and rational, he explicitly offered an incident of name calling and irrational global-warming denial based on Gore-phobia that almost surely did come from the right.
Comment 15 offers the defense that Michell Malkin also says/implies that Cohen said righties were blameless. Having followed the link, I can’t see it – maybe a specific quote from her post would help.
On a better day, of course, you would simply point to the specific evidence from Cohen’s column, rather than present Malkin as an authority.
One thing to take into consideration (just to add to the complexity of all this) is that the “angry left” meme actually tends to change the behavior of the right. The more the left gets caricatured as “moonbats,” the more incentive there is for the ranters on the right to shut up. (“Even a fool, if he keeps quiet, is thought wise.” Prov. 17:28.) In addition, if the right thinks the left is coming unglued, they tend to get happier–and happy people don’t curse as much as unhappy people do.
So…
I’m encouraging my readers to “love their enemies,” and I mean it. Hate doesn’t win elections in the US.
My point remains unanswered – contra the original post, not only did Cohen not state or imply that Repubs are cool and rational, he explicitly offered an incident of name calling and irrational global-warming denial based on Gore-phobia that almost surely did come from the right.
I think we’re reading two different columns. In today’s column, which is the one I’m ranting about, this is all he said about the response to the Al Gore column:
That’s it. Nobody called Cohen names as a result of the Al Gore column. Then he compares that to the reaction to the Colbert column, which he called “a bucket of raw, untreated and disease-laden verbal sewage right in the face.”
Comment 15 offers the defense that Michell Malkin also says/implies that Cohen said righties were blameless. Having followed the link, I can’t see it – maybe a specific quote from her post would help.
The implication is screaming out loud. If you can’t see it, the fault is in you. You are either cognitively impaired or deliberately obtuse; since I don’t know you I can’t say which. However, I’ve already had to deal with too many stupid righties today. I don’t have time to allow myself to be hectored further by the likes of you.
Bye.
Maha, thanks for a great conversation here today on this topic..once again your piece(as well as your comments) were smart and well written..as well as thought provoking….
I also wanted to say thanks for having a place where your readers(fans) can express themselves unlike the rightie blogs(you know who you are)….to me that shows a intellectual honesty and it is more like having a conversation with you rather than you speaking down to us (like some bloggers)
Thanks to Donna and Alyosha for their very kind comments. :))
I really don’t see Cohen implying that the right is civil & rational compared to the left. He states clearly that the right insulted Gore & dismissed the arguments simply because they came from Gore.
That they did not insult Cohen for the Gore article is a function of the fact that the colum the righties were responding to was about Gore and Gore’s ideas, so that’s who they insulted. The column the left reacted to was about Cohen’s personal rejection of the Colbert bit. The ideas were Cohen’s so that’s who they attacked.
I really don’t see Cohen implying that the right is civil & rational compared to the left.
Of course you don’t. And you didn’t notice that Cohen didn’t warn the angry Right that their anger will hurt Republicans in the November elections, did you?
Maha-
Which group gets most of the press out there in the “MSM”…a kid on his/her second tour of Iraq or Cindy Sheehan? Look at Ray McGovern scolding Rummy…have you read and heard McGovern’s anti semitic rants? When the moderate portion of the electorate gets the full, and I mean full, record of these individuals attitudes they get put of by them…Do you want the Democratic Party associated with them? If you want a progressive government you and the progressives out there are going to have to tone down the rhetoric. Remember a Democratic presidential nominee hasn’t gotten more than 50% of the popular vote in 30 years. And with the division in the electoral college picking off a southern state is going to be tough if the moderate portions of the electorate think the “angry left” controls the party.
Again, it is easier to rant and rave rather than discuss. But it is more intellectually enlightening to discuss and debate.
have you read and heard McGovern’s anti semitic rants?
I have seen quotations from McGovern on right-wing web sites that are alleged to be anti semitic but aren’t, IMO. Expressing an opinion that American foreign policy is too much influenced by the interests of Israel is not anti semitic. I happen to agree with that, especially given the various scandals surrounding AIPAC.
Do you want the Democratic Party associated with them?
With Ray McGovern? Oh, yes, I do. I realize you troglodytes and Kool-Aiders will swift-boat him and smear him, but people like him are what is standing between you and jack-booted totalitarianism. If that opinion makes me a radical, so be it.
My ultimate goal is to get people to wake up to how far to the extreme right our government and our country has become, before it’s too late. .
Here is another good answer to Cohen’s commentary:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/5/10/84616/5039