August 09, 2003
Use The Trolls
Extremism is one of the great tricks of the Republican Party.
Not just extreme positions, but extreme rhetoric. Republican movements gain adherents through extreme rhetoric, tailored to specific groups. They have done this for a generation.
It started in the 1970s, with the direct-mail solicitations of Richard Viguerie. He used direct mail to stoke the resentments of specific target groups and extract money from them. It is a trick that was later picked-up by a host of entrepreneurial preachers. It didn’t matter if Pat Robertson looked crazy to New York liberals – what mattered was that he was beloved by his own audience.
This is still the m.o. of the right wing. Say what you want to stoke the hatred of your deepest supporters, but have your candidates back off that a little. Whether the hatred is toward women, blacks, gays, hispanics, journalists, liberals – it doesn’t matter. What matters is targeting the audience, giving them what they want, bringing them in, and issuing non-denial denials when you get caught.
There’s an extreme for every taste, in every medium. You can have it religious or secular, in any race, color, creed or sex. You want it blond and leggy – we’ll give it to you blond and leggy. Want it black – we’ll give it to you black. And (this is important) an attack on one becomes an attack on all. Trolls stick together.
This brings us to the present day. It brings us to the Internet, which can both narrowcast and broadcast. And it brings us to Howard Dean.
Just in the last month The Trolls have discovered Dean. They have figured out he’s for real, and that he’s not going away. They are searching for a meme to control him.
Use Google News to track Dean stories, and you’ll catch the Trolls under their bridges.
He’s a “Saddamite” – he opposed the attack on Iraq so he must be for Saddam Hussein.
He’s an “ultra-liberal,” a loser who will be easy meat for Bush. The trolls have been in power so long they think they’re the center. (Maybe they are.)
He’s a phony moderate, a “tax-and-spender,”, even though his only big “tax increase” was a property-tax equalization aimed at reproducing the conditions that made Bush the “education governor.”
He’s not just a phony moderate, then, he’s a Communist, like Nikita Khruschev.
This last is from Rush Limbaugh, who has quickly gone from amusement, to concern, to paranoid fear of Howard Dean, looking for any meme that might stick. Limbaugh thinks the “Nikita Dean” line is so funny he figures on using it for months, forgetting that much of his audience was born after Khruschev was removed by Brezhnev and Kosygin in 1964. Rush loves the "big lie" technique, much like...Nikita Khruschev. (Nikita Limbaugh, let's repeat that....nyaah, I keep seeing a leggy model, don't you?)
Or, let’s go after his kid. This last attack, by Troll Doug Schmitz, was so vile that the Trollite American Daily actually removed this from their own site. (Fortunately, Google cache doesn’t forget.)
This last story, which may or may not still be in cache when you read this, is my point. We need some volunteers to look for this garbage, the kind of stuff intended only for Troll-ears, the kind of stuff that’s quickly spread via Limbaugh and Drudge but which (sometimes) is too rough even for them. We need you to save it.
We need to build a file of this swill, we need to collect these writers, and we need to use this to persuade moderates and Republicans that it is they who are supporting extremism, not us. We need some volunteers who will regularly search such sites as American Daily, Chronwatch, CNS and WorldNetDaily. We need to find the people who give Drudge and Limbaugh their talking points, and expose them to the light of day.
Despite their protests to the contrary, nothing remotely like this organized hate exists on the left. Molly Ivins is not the same thing as Limbaugh. She is a journalist who checks her facts, not a polemicist.
We need to put some kinds of commentary out-of-bounds for the sake of democracy, and the only way I know to do that is to make those who exercise “free speech” pay the price, in responsibility. When the time comes I want the Republican National Committee hammered with questions about its Trolls. The Bush people must be forced either to endorse or reject them.
Unlike every other medium that has come before it, the Internet lets you narrowcast and broadcast at the same time. Let’s use that to smoke out the Trolls, discredit them, destroy them, and in the process destroy their favorite President, George W. Bush.
Molly Ivins is not the same thing as Limbaugh. She is a journalist who checks her facts, not a polemicist.
The Democrats have their trolls as well, and this post identifies two of them.
I don’t share your fear of free speech, Dana - it seems to me that the remedy for speech you don’t like isn’t censorship, it’s more of the speech you do like, which is apparently leftist trolling.
So carry on.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at August 9, 2003 09:53 PMIt’s OK to have opinions. It’s OK to be able to voice them. What’s not acceptable is when one group tries to silence another.
The mudslinging and name calling gets real old - real fast and it is not wanted on this site.
If we cannot be civil towards each other and try for some mutual respect then we might as well just shut the site down now and label it as the failure it will become otherwise.
Posted by: Cam at August 9, 2003 10:28 PMYou know Bush has some rather scandalous kids of his own. Not to mention Jeb Bush just got a daughter out of Crack rehab.
Hey I can’t believe you wrote about GOP trolls and did not mention Ann Coulter or Savage.
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at August 10, 2003 04:50 AMYou are only half there. Dems do need someone to discredit the conservative pundits who do mislead through un- and half-truths. However, “Rush is wrong, Dean is a moderate!” is not any sort off message that will suffice to elect a president without something else to buttress your point.
One of the things I thought missing from this article was the suggestion that the Democrats should also engage in targeting their messages to local groups as the Republicans have so successfully done. Where are the Dems sending messages to the *insert group of choice* group highlighting where the Bush platform and policies are incompatible with the group’s ideals, policies, or stances? I haven’t seen this yet. The Left seems confident that all the people will accept all their platform, which is simply not going to happen. People are more likely to accept the entire Republican package before they accept the entire Democratic package.
Finally, I find this article ironically guilty of what I’ve heard so many Bush-bashers bash Bush for. By labeling the conservative pundits as “hate trolls”, you’ve (stupidly) cast this whole situation a “good v. evil” / “black and white” scenario. The truth is that the Democrats can be (and often are) fuck-ups as much as Bush, so what many of these conservative pundits will be talking about will be right on the money. If you simply cast them as “evil conservatives”, you’re only playing into their hands as it becomes much easier to portray you as an unlistening, unreasoning hack than an honest commentator.
So in summary, the Dems should deploy targeted messages of their own, quit casting everyone who has said something negative about Dean as an hate-flinging conservative, and fight the ideas not the pundits. Fighting the pundits only raises their ratings.
Posted by: Chris at August 10, 2003 09:13 AMThe fact that Richard Bennett doesn’t know the difference between trolls and journalists says a lot.
My solution isn’t trolling, Richard — as usual you didn’t read what I wrote.
It’s exposing your trolls to those who will be repulsed by it, and thus, repulsed by you in the process.
Moderate Republicans need to know who is really driving this train, and what they really think. The era of “hidden” bigotry is over. It needs to be exposed.
Chris: I am not talking about “fighting the pundits.” I am talking about exposing the trolls. I’m talking about pushing the extremists’ words toward the moderates, so they will see who is driving their train.
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at August 10, 2003 10:40 AMQuote:
“the Dems should deploy targeted messages of their own”
I agree. But how? Direct snail-mail? Email? Web site banner ads? Radio ads? Something else?
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at August 10, 2003 11:27 AMI hardly know where to begin.
Are you honestly suggesting that extreme rhetoric only exists on the right wing? I sure hope not, because it certainly cuts the legs out from under any argument you were trying to make.
Any conservative, at one time or another, is labled racist, homophobic, hateful of women, children, cats, etc. Minority conservatives are more often that not labeled Uncle Toms.
And since when has calling someone a “tax-and-spender” become extreme rhetoric?
So one blogger jumped on Dean because his kid broke the law. Are you suggesting the same thing didn’t happen when Bush’s daughters popped the cap on a 40oz.? Hell, one of the commentors couldn’t wait to bring up Jeb’s daughter.
Even you suggest conservatives are bigots in you comment (“hidden bigotry”), suggesting that many moderate Republicans don’t know that hidden bigotry is behind the current conserative agenda.
I’m a conservative and proud of it. Does that make me a bigot or a troll?
And why can’t journalists be trolls? By your post, you seem to define a troll as someone who uses “extreme rhetoric.”
The idea that no liberals and no journalists take part in extremem rhetoric is laughable.
Posted by: CJ at August 10, 2003 12:24 PM(Continuing)
And if you’re suggesting the problem is that the party is using trolling to gain support, I’d suggest you give us a lot more evidence than a 1970’s mailing campaign, Rush Limbaugh, and a post on American Daily. You suggest the RNC should be exposed for its trolls… I want evidence, not inuendo. Inuendo is non-productive and trollish.
And finally… those who exercise free speech should “pay the price”!?!? Wow, that’s about as exreme as rhetoric can get. I’d like to know if you supported the Dixie Chicks “paying the price” for their free speech.
Posted by: CJ at August 10, 2003 12:29 PMWell said CJ, I think BOTH sides should take a look at their own faults before getting into the finger-pointing match that they seem so obsessed with.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at August 10, 2003 05:22 PMQuote:
“I’m a conservative and proud of it. Does that make me a bigot or a troll?”
Depends. What do you mean by “conservative”?
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at August 10, 2003 05:38 PMPeople in America have moved considerably to the right in the last couple of decades. There is a sort of right wing religion out there now that people follow because of the constant attacks from the right’s mouth pieces. So much so, people never question things or debate anymore (such as the Iraq war which there were legitimate questions to be debated). This “religion” as I call it is quite mean spirited. If you question the war because of the lack of debate you’re “unAmerican or “liberal” or “soft on defense”. If you question the wisdom of only having tax cuts as an economic plan, then you are a “tax and spend liberal” or “socialist”. If you question increased police powers which may run into constitutional problems, then you’re soft on the fight against terrorism. I’m so sick and tired of this type of rhetoric over legitimate questions. I’m also sick and tired of Democratic Party candidates scared of debating such things or attack other Democrats that do ask questions of these policies. I myself am a moderate. Some of today’s conservatism I can tell you is not moderate, but paints itself to be. I wish there was a better way to deal with the name calling and misinformation (or disinformation). Its dumbing down the public to some extent.
Posted by: Mike Monk at August 11, 2003 12:05 AMDan… if you want to know, feel free to read anything I’ve written, then you’ll know what kind of conservative I am.
And Mike… you pretend as though the rhetoric from the left isn’t mean-spirited. The knife cuts both ways. And it’s not conservatives fault that “liberal” is now a dirty word. Blame the wacky liberals who caused that! ;-)
Posted by: CJ at August 11, 2003 01:24 AMIndeed, those of us who supported the liberation of Iraq were reviled as racist, jingoistic, imperialist, widow- and orphan-killers out to steal oil for our SUVs by many, many, many members of the compassionate left.
But standing up to this kind of authoritarianism is a hallmark of conservative principle, so we carry on, shouldering our share of the load, never complaining, always cheerful, whistling happy tunes, and knowing that God’s on our side.
Posted by: Richard Bennett at August 11, 2003 07:30 AMCJ, I’m not from the left, but from the center. If I could hear explanations or discussion points from the administrations promoters without hearing the word liberal or the new compound word “liberaldemocrat” or without an attack on someone’s character, or some sort of blame placed on the Clinton administration, then some of your arguments might hold water. America has never been on a campaign of conquest to establish a foot print in another region of the world. Some of us might want to know the overall foreign policy of the administration other than checking writings from Bill Kristol or the American Enterprise Institute while being told this is part of the war on terrorism. We would like more discussion about this and how the administration plans on handling the deficits without being called unpatriotic or for “big government”. The problem is the average Joe out there in America repeats the same garbage whenever you question these policies. You really can’t blame that on wacky liberals.
Posted by: Mike Monk at August 11, 2003 08:11 AMDana: “Chris: I am not talking about ‘fighting the pundits.’ I am talking about exposing the trolls. I’m talking about pushing the extremists’ words toward the moderates, so they will see who is driving their train.”
This is a wonderful statement full of rhetoric and without a shred of meaning. In your mind, what separates a pundit with legitimate criticisms of the Left (or whoever), and the trolls? Would O’Reilly be a troll or a pundit? How about Tim Russert? And so forth. The article makes it sound like anyone in the media who espouses conservative views that are contrary to the liberal dogma should be considered trolls.
Dan, re: targeted messages: I can only speak from personal experience here, but there is a lot that the current administration and Congress has done that I’ve been less than happy with — PATRIOT Act, TIA, media consolidation, non-enforcement of securities laws, etc. I also know that I’m not alone in these sentiments. However, I have yet to see any Democrats attempt to engage myself and these communities with the intent of addressing these issues. Where can I find a list of candidates to support who are opposed to the current iteration of the DMCA? Where can I find a list of Democratic candidates who voted against the Patriot act? Where can I find lists of Democrats who opposes the FCC’s current push towards media consolidation? This information is available online for me to find, but I cannot understand why these people are not being highlighted by their boosters in the communities where these issues matter. The issue is not what medium the information should be presented in (e-mail, web, mailings, etc.) — rather the issue is why is this type of information not being aggregated and advertised? Why are the Democrats not lowering the cost to access this aggregated information?
Posted by: Chris at August 11, 2003 09:20 AMI think Chris knows the difference between reputable columnists and trolls. His is a straw man argument.
Reputable columnists are journalists. They investigate, they ask questions, they make their own decisions.
Trolls just take the latest talking points and throw their names atop them.
The worst trolls take their talking points, not from the Republican National Committee, but from groups that are (god forbid) further right. And I mentioned several examples.
As to Bennett’s points, they are pure troll. You will note the tone of grievance. You will note that, because of his imagined grievance (and the Bush Administration actions have been wildly popular until very recently) the ends justify the means. That is the slippery slope leading to totalitarianism.
And if I hear one more time that those who opposed this war in Iraq were “pro-Saddam” I’m going to puke. It is the lie of the troll. It is a falsehood. It is nonsense. It is simply untrue.
We now know that Saddam’s regime was hollow, his military was hollow, his secret police was hollow. He was not a clear and present danger to the United States of America, which is what we were told. Had we but continued to blow on Iraq, it would collapse in time. It would certainly remain contained. And, let me remind everyone here, there would be 261 brave Americans alive. (http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx)
(Plus how many more, I wonder?)
>People in America have moved considerably to the right in the last couple of decades.
I don’t think so. I think the word “liberal” has been irrevocably tarred among people who don’t pay much attention to politics, and I think the old Democratic coalition has fallen apart, giving the left substantially less influence. But the old Democratic coalition included people who were still basically on board the platform of Strom Thurmond ‘48.
The press has also moved right, as a result of the better organization and media savvy of the right.
The politics has moved right, as a result of shifting coalitions and media victory by the right. But the people haven’t moved much.
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at August 11, 2003 11:20 PMDana, I’m going to continue to press you on this, but you have yet to define the difference between a troll and a reputable pundit. Since you seem to be unable to answer the question directly, let me give you a few examples and you tell me whether the following people are reputable and why or why not. I woud like to think that there is some rational basis for someone being labeled a troll and if this basis is something more than simple ideological agreement.
Anyways, here’s the list:
Bill O’Reilly, Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Dennis Miller, Jim Lileks (www.lileks.com), Glenn Reynolds (www.instapundit.com), Lawrence Lessig (www.lessig.org)
Posted by: Chris at August 12, 2003 10:55 AM“The trolls have been in power so long they think they’re the center. (Maybe they are.)”
This is telling…
Perhaps someone has forgotten who controls the House, the Senate and the Presidency. Until Democrats realize that there is a truly “populist”
movement within mainstream Republicans they will continue to lose at the polls. As Dick Cheney would say, “big time”.
The Republicans are using memes so that average I-don’t-pay-attention voters will remember the bad characteristics of Democrats. This is simply a form of negative PR, and the meme could be the truth or a lie.
I think the Democrats should try out more truthful memes about Bush and his administration. Can you say “reckless former drunk?” I think its relevant and accurate.
Posted by: Mike at August 13, 2003 11:39 AMChris: Reputable pundits do their own research. Trolls repeat what they’re told.
O’Reilly, Limbaugh, et. al. do not research their “stories.” They repeat talking points from others.
They are trolls.
Paul Krugman researches his stories fully. So does Molly Ivins.
They are journalists.
The difference is that between working and mailing it in.
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at August 14, 2003 08:11 PMSo, let me fill out that list you have given me based on your answer
Bill O’Reilly - Troll
Paul Krugman - Troll on everything ther than Economics
Maureen Dowd - Troll
Michael Moore - Pundit
Bill Maher - Troll
Dennis Miller - Troll
Jim Lileks (www.lileks.com) - Troll
Glenn Reynolds (www.instapundit.com) - Troll
Lawrence Lessig (www.lessig.org) - Troll on everything except copyright and law.
Is that about right?
Posted by: Chris at August 15, 2003 07:50 AMMaybe alot of the differences between conservatism and progressivism lie in the fact that conservatism is based in fear. When men act out in fear it is often their darkest, meanest day. What I have noticed about alot of the right wing pundits, trolls, whatever you might call them, is that they have sold their soul on national television for the “conservatism” of the bushes. bush will hide behind his smirks,cliches, and our tax dollars for the rest of his life, while o’reilly limbaugh and the rest will be left to twist in the wind.maybe that is why they can’t seem to pull their heads out. one thought -when conservatives tout the liberation of the iraqi people, it is ironic because they obviously, as people, could not care less about their fellow american who disagree with them politically,much less some one in iraq. this seems to be a great site with insightful debate on both sides; i will very much enjoy taking part, please forgive the haste and lack of continuity of this, my first post
Posted by: coldrock at August 18, 2003 11:10 PMcowardice is the mother of all cruelty-montaigne
Posted by: coldrock at August 18, 2003 11:13 PM
