Boycotts of Ideological Leaders

Originally posted to this entry in the politics subreddit.



On the subject of boycotting Rush Limbaugh for his comments about Sandra Fluke.



As righteous a cause as this might be, I don't think this will achieve as much of an impact as it could if there was another approach taken. There are those who can keep their cool and draw commonality with these hosts' audiences. Why does that matter? Oh they're just stupid southern racist elderly white rich men? Maybe some are, but there's millions of people who listen to Limbaugh's program and the countless other talking heads. They are, in my view, no more robots and parrots than we are, but what they get from these programs are effective means to frustrate or shut up liberals and progressives in their own lives. Push the 'libs' into making a statement that questions how compassionate they are, how intelligent they are. Then it is an issue of assuming bad faith and self-righteous shouting wins the day.

This boycott will be seen as a symbolic victory, but not just for people 'on the left' or for 'people in the middle'. It will be seen as a symbolic silencing of one of the conservative vanguard, and it will be trumpeted as proof that conservatives are the victims of an oppressive liberal fascist communist statist plot to crush dissent. No, it doesn't matter that this isn't a freedom of speech issue.  Remember this? Responded to like that? And that?(Read the comments to see it's not just 'leaders') No, it doesn't matter that consumer boycotts are utilized by people like Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity and O'Reilly to attempt to impress their views via their audiences on other organizations and businesses.

The point is that while there will be a smaller and smaller minority of people who will stick by the Limbaughs and and Schlessingers and Becks as these statements go forward, those who do stick with them will become a more and more inflamed and potentially radicalized element in our own society, lurching away from the civilized discourse, reviling what is considered the 'other' even more, and despising those they see as traitors. It'll be more appealing to people who are in a precarious place in their life or perhaps less able to comprehend what is going on politically and are more prone to take action, even violent means to do what they feel is 'necessary'. Or maybe they won't and it'll be yet another festering wound in our country like the unfortunate way that the Civil Rights Movement is seen by some. Like the way revisionists cast 'The War Between the States' and glorify antebellum life.

We don't need to play their market games with boycotts to defeat the opinion and outlook of a person like Limbaugh. We don't need to actively splinter and divide his audience and constituency the way he does ours with fear, uncertainty and doubt. We don't need to compete. That's their values and tactics and methods. We can go on his turf, play by his rules, with half our brain tied behind our back and still win in rhetorical sport. Because we really are the ones that are right, and it's a matter of putting it in words and values and principles more people can understand and relate to. When there's someone who says "Well if not loving our socialist president makes me a racist, then I'm a proud racist" be the one to say "If being willing to talk with you about your actual views deeper than what you don't like(the president) makes me a hippie, then I'm a proud hippie". Instead of boycotting these shows we can find the best representatives, the most flexible and witty and relatable people that can not just stand their own with communicating a liberal point of view, but do it in a way that doesn't stoop to shouting matches. Exercise disciplined decorum that is so sorely lacking in our public square these days because the talk radio, the Fox, the ideologues on our own side as well lower our aptitude for greatness. Instead of competing with them, offer cooperation(though always keep our own ideals and principles at the heart of such cooperation. Instead of offering the FUD of 'the other', demonstrate that everyone is an other, even those we mostly agree with, but we can do better only together.

Perspective On An Occupier Arguing With Sean Hannity

Posted originally to this Republican subreddit submission.


     I'm certainly not an organizer or even involved in OWS beyond occasionally posting in their subreddit, but Schultz seems to do a rather poor job being a spokesperson for the movement at least in this debate/argument. I could certainly try to say he was sought out specifically for this interview with Hannity because of his combative and condescending tendencies, but those're big positives for visible people in movements; get the most assertive and aggressive person who talks the most crap about those on the 'other' side because they'll energize like minded individuals. Unfortunately, that drives away people who are less inclined to agree and may very well come off as pedantic to those who disagree. Nobody likes being smirked at and talked down to.

     In any event, I'll do what I can to address some of the things brought up by these two men at least from my own perspective.

     With regard to the reliability of the NYT and FoxNews, I personally would put the former over the latter but only slightly. They're both top-down organizations disseminating ideas in a mostly one-way medium. Both have examples which can be pointed to as selective coverage, both have staffs which could be derided as biased. Ironically, while I think I might agree with some ideas of Schultz(that's a bit of an assumption on my part), his point of not needing someone such as Hannity I think is misplaced. While he might not fit this stereotype, I would wager he doesn't have a problem with Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher and, fundamentally, I don't see them as all that different from the man he's arguing with here. Talk Radio, Hannity's own background, I think actually holds potential for a lot more of what I consider a modern media interface, in that there is an ongoing dialogue between the audience and outlet. A good idea or point doesn't simply propagate on its own, and a good 'salesman' is needed to convey an idea in a way that is relate-able to others. That's the place these talking heads currently enjoy for very good reasons.

     On a similar note, ratings and circulation do not equate credibility or public need as each of these men seem to imply. It's just a rough estimation of how well these outlets draw, sustain, and engage their audiences. Our popular media demonstrates, for me at least, this does not always mean quality content but rather titillation and outrage.

     Capitalism isn't 'broken' nor is it not working 'anymore'. It was never perfect to begin with just as with any human institution. As such, we as the people living within this system must be willing to soberly look at the way it operates. Appreciate and protect the positives associated with it while recognizing and acting to mitigate the negatives because ultimately those will be the real threats to the long term sustainability of the quo, not the existence of alternatives. The point I would make to Hannity or Levin or Wilkow or any of the other conservative opinion-makers would be that it is not perfect, and that setting a society free in an economic sense does not necessarily mean it will result in a just and fair society. I listen somewhat frequently to the aforementioned programs and a very regular sentiment I hear is that free markets are a near panacea for problems, only generating problems, itself, when there's a government which favors particular companies or industries. I don't dispute government can and does screw that up, but it is not the root of all problems.

     Accusing the NYPD of being the reason there were assaults or rapes at their camp in Zuccotti or any other location is distraction just as much as attempting to point out the existence of such things demonstrates the more depravity of those who agree with some things OWS purports to stand for. Take the criticism that it exists, the tents were set up as corrective action for a relatively small number of people taking advantage of an environment not conducive to good keeping of the peace. I would argue that OWS as a whole does not want an all-you-can-rape lawless society and the existence of such problems is a terrible example of how a loosely organized(both ideologically and physically) group encamped for long periods of time whose prime interaction with law enforcement is one of aggression will involve more illegal behavior than one more tightly controlled and with a friendly interaction with legal authorities. Oh, and screaming 'shame! shame!' could certainly use a reworking 'cause that's not gonna engender any goodwill from police-men and women who really do share roots and and ideals with many of us all, regardless our affiliation or ideology.

     On that note, the last thing I'll say is something which many in this subreddit can probably identify with if you've attempted to posit your ideas or positions on /r/politics, and that is demonizing and sneering at those we disagree with is not the path to informed discourse, coherent policy, or good government. Thanks for reading all of that for those who did and if I said anything jacked up or ill-informed, please let me know and be specific so I can learn. The last thing I want to do is be spouting off inaccuracies.