Demonization and Demoralization

[sigerson]

This is a Disinfopedia.org piece, largely quoting Paul Krugman, about the process of 'demonizing the opponent' in politics.



Excerpt:

"As a result, many people in the center become turned off by it all and no longer bother to vote. Political dialogue becomes a series of epithets and bombast hurled at opponents over the airwaves in attack ads or on talk shows. It even becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since centrist voters find little to like in either party, they quit voting. That just prompts both parties to try even harder to mobilize base voters to win increasingly low-turnout elections. Fewer centrist politicians run for office or work in politics. Instead, the humorless zealots and true believers rise to the top."

Gee, now why does that sound vaguely familar?

I continue to be tired of anger and helplessness. I must do SOMEthing--and I don't want it to just be throwing money at the issue. But what?

Comments

[2h2o.livejournal.com]

It's too early to try to predict what the turnout will be like in November. In any case, the fact that Kerry won the nomination argues against the thesis presented here. Even Bush, with his new drug benefits, is relatively centrist. If we had Dean versus Forbes, I'd be more inclined to agree.

The fact is that centrist voters do matter, and that both sides are trying to win them over. The people who get ignored are the zealots on either side, who have no options in a two-party system. That was Sharpton's whole point. Nader and Perot muddied that, of course, but the pattern is still clear: the candidates move as far toward the center as they can without losing their bases. And arguing about "bases" misses the point that both sides are made up of relatively heterogenous groups. "Republicans" might be the Christian Coalition, lost Libertarians, war hawks, or any number of other groups. "Democrats" include feminists, environmentalists, and pacifists. Yes, there may be some overlap among those groups, but by no means do they all believe the same things (or have the same priorities), and each party also includes any number of groups voting for their own self-interests (unions, businessmen, etc) - which tend to change their affiliations across time (e.g., the migration of blacks from the Republican to the Democratic party).

Kerry's victory over Dean is a perfect example of why Disinfopedia.org is wrong.

[sigerson.livejournal.com]

Minor WTF--not at you, at the link--why didn't it show?

I think you're right, but I also think that there is a fair amount of demonization going on between the two parties, and that this results in disheartened centrist voters.

Neither side is totally polarizing themselves; in order to demonize the other, you don't have to. You have to say, "Look, centrist voters, I am in the center! He, on the other hand, is a foul-mouthed defeatist blue-collar-hating baby-eating traitor. So you want to vote for me, right?" or "You might not agree with all my ideals, but you don't want to vote for the next thing to Hitler, right?"

I think Krugman's wrong, because I believe the demonization that happens is an attempt *not* to mobilize base voters but to sway centrist ones, and that the demonization increases as centrist voters become more disheartened.

But I hadn't thought about it at all in the context of Dean and Kerry. Thanks.

[2h2o.livejournal.com]

Brief followup:
It's actually not clear to me whether Dean lost because he was extremist or whether the Democrats perceived him as too extreme to win in a general election. That is, I can't tell whether other Democrats listened to the press saying "this guy has no shot at Bush" or whether they legitimately preferred Kerry on his own merits. It's an interesting question because if the former is true, the candidates could in a sense be giving their bases exactly what they want by betraying their interests.