We were pleased and surprised a few weeks ago when Digby took a slightly novel approach to this country’s pathetic political wars (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/8/11). For once in her life, she drew a distinction between two distinct groups—between average supporters of the Tea Party and the “hustlers” who fleece and mislead them:
We assume Digby’s highlighted statement is accurate. We assume that many supporters of the Tea Party are “sincere” in their outlooks and their beliefs; we assume that many of these people have gotten “fleeced” and “conned” by a wide assortment of pseudo-conservative “types.” Many liberals find it hard to swallow such an outrageous notion, preferring to hold to the tribal view in which our tribe includes all The Very Good People and their tribe is composed of The Vile and The Bad. In such childish ways, we blind ourselves to the way the world works—and we make it extremely hard to spread progressive ideas.
Are sincere people getting “fleeced” and “conned” by pseudo-conservative leadership types? That’s true of people in the Tea Party—and of many others besides. Tomorrow, we will take a look at this report at TPM, a report which discusses the general public’s political knowledge—conservatives, moderates, liberals alike. (We’ll also review this front-page link to that report by a liberal intellectual leader.) But for today, we thought we might note an interesting fact: Several people have echoed the moral view expressed in Digby’s surprising post. They have expressed disgust with the way average people get conned by pseudo-conservative hustlers.
Yesterday, we reviewed a post by conservative writer Richmond Ramsey, complaining about the way his parents have had their brains eaten by Glenn Beck. Today, let’s consider a similar post by another conservative writer, Conor Friedersdorf.
Friedersdorf’s post appeared at Andrew Sullivan’s Atlantic site. Before posting a chunk of what Friedersdorf said, let’s review a synopsis of his remarks—a synopsis offered by a writer at a liberal site. Over at the American Prospect, Mort Dinauer noticed what Friedersdorf wrote—and Dinauer said he agreed with Friedersdorf’s moral judgment:
This is a massive political problem—a problem we’ve been noting for years. But the liberal world has been ineffective in addressing this massive problem—in large part, because pseudo-liberals find it hard to see the injustice in this conduct. We simply love to hate The Other; Digby teaches this moral lesson in almost every post. It was a rare day when Digby expressed some sympathy for the average people who get deceived by people like Limbaugh. We thought Friederdorf described this moral problem more pointedly in his fuller post. He posted tape of a ludicrous rant by Beck, then offered this moral assessment:
We agree with what Digby said in that post; we agree with the moral perspective she stated. A few days later, Friedersdorf expressed a similar view, from the other side of the aisle—and Dinauer also signed on, complaining about the way average people get conned and misled by people like Beck. From a more accustomed perch, Digby said “it's tempting to say they deserve it.” But for once, she managed to say that “it still isn't right.”
That’s an important moral perspective. Tomorrow, more on this massive problem—this massive moral problem.
DIGBY (1/26/11): If they weren't so nasty most of the time I'd start to feel sorry for the Tea Party. They are getting taken for such a ride by hucksters, snake oil salesmen and billionaire puppeteers that it's getting sort of pathetic.
[…]
I'm sure there are plenty of sincere Tea Partiers out there who are getting fleeced all the time by these types. And while it's tempting to say they deserve it, it still isn't right. They are just trying to exercise their democratic right to organize and they are being manipulated and conned by a bunch of billionaire media moguls and small time hustlers. I guess that's part of the bargain too, but it's distasteful to see it happening anyway.We liberals get conned a fair amount too, but let’s put that to the side.
We assume Digby’s highlighted statement is accurate. We assume that many supporters of the Tea Party are “sincere” in their outlooks and their beliefs; we assume that many of these people have gotten “fleeced” and “conned” by a wide assortment of pseudo-conservative “types.” Many liberals find it hard to swallow such an outrageous notion, preferring to hold to the tribal view in which our tribe includes all The Very Good People and their tribe is composed of The Vile and The Bad. In such childish ways, we blind ourselves to the way the world works—and we make it extremely hard to spread progressive ideas.
Yesterday, we reviewed a post by conservative writer Richmond Ramsey, complaining about the way his parents have had their brains eaten by Glenn Beck. Today, let’s consider a similar post by another conservative writer, Conor Friedersdorf.
Friedersdorf’s post appeared at Andrew Sullivan’s Atlantic site. Before posting a chunk of what Friedersdorf said, let’s review a synopsis of his remarks—a synopsis offered by a writer at a liberal site. Over at the American Prospect, Mort Dinauer noticed what Friedersdorf wrote—and Dinauer said he agreed with Friedersdorf’s moral judgment:
DINAUER (2/7/11): Last week, Conor Friedersdorf observed of the conservative noise machine, "It is hard to think of anyone who disrespects and takes advantage of conservatives more than they do." Now, I'm not a conservative, but I happen to think this is a very big problem. When Rush Limbaugh dismisses as crazy the idea that Ronald Reagan raised taxes, this isn't just deception or propaganda. Limbaugh's listeners trust him. They believe him. And how does he reward this loyalty? By treating them like fools. I don't know how to solve this problem, and a mea culpa ("Sorry we had to exploit you for your money and your votes for the past couple of decades") is probably off the table.Like Digby, Dinauer described the way hustlers like Limbaugh treat their listeners. “They believe him,” Dinauer said—and he “treats them like fools.”
This is a massive political problem—a problem we’ve been noting for years. But the liberal world has been ineffective in addressing this massive problem—in large part, because pseudo-liberals find it hard to see the injustice in this conduct. We simply love to hate The Other; Digby teaches this moral lesson in almost every post. It was a rare day when Digby expressed some sympathy for the average people who get deceived by people like Limbaugh. We thought Friederdorf described this moral problem more pointedly in his fuller post. He posted tape of a ludicrous rant by Beck, then offered this moral assessment:
FRIEDERSDORF (2/1/11): As I've said before, lots of Glenn Beck listeners aren't in on the joke. Unlike Roger Ailes, Jonah Goldberg, and every staffer at the Heritage Foundation happy hour, they don't realize that the Fox News Channel puts this man on the air fully understanding that large parts of his program are uninformed nonsense mixed with brazen bullshit. When a Fox News host tells these viewers, "I'm not going to treat you like you're a moron," playing on their insecurity about other media outlets talking down to or lying to them, they take it at face value. What sort of callous, immoral person allows these viewers to be played for fools?
Conjure in your mind a retired grandfather. He served in World War II, voted twice for Ronald Reagan, and supports the Tea Party. Awhile back, he started watching Glenn Beck—was it because that young man from National Review mentioned he would be on the program, or did he want to see Sarah Palin be interviewed? In any case, a lot of conservatives he trusted seemed happy to go on the show and never gave any indication that it wasn't a perfectly legitimate news program. Besides, Fox News generally seemed to share his ideological convictions. He even watched an interview with Roger Ailes once. The guy seemed reasonable enough. Certainly not the sort of person who would knowingly air the ravings of a known charlatan night after night.
[…]
"I'm going to treat you like you really do want to understand what's going on in the world," Beck tells this man. "We'll piece it together."
I appreciate that this is my hobbyhorse, and that others think that the faults of cable news networks are an unimportant matter. But the fact that Roger Ailes and his associates air this kind of nonsense—couched in these kinds of assurances!—is indefensible. It is hard to think of anyone who disrespects and takes advantage of conservatives more than they do. And although they make mounds of money, they ought to be objects of disgrace, akin to any other manipulative huckster who preys on the elderly.
Did these people never have grandparents?Like Digby, Friedersdorf identifies Beck—and Ailes, and various others—as a gang of “manipulative hucksters.” Like Digby, he expresses moral outrage at the way they mislead and deceive average people. We’ll offer one criticism: Friedsersdorf focuses on older viewers, but younger people get fooled too. Indeed, tens of millions of Americans, of all ages and stripes, have been routinely deceived in the past, by a wide range of hucksters.
Digby will often take it upon herself to tell us which of these folk are “sincere.” In this way, the pseudo-liberal world has practiced to deceive itself—has practiced to flounder and fail.
That’s an important moral perspective. Tomorrow, more on this massive problem—this massive moral problem.
