Doesn't the left use fear too?

[Pangloss]

I know it's anecdotal but still indicative of the problem and how it's aligned with the conservatives ...

 

Two words: Daisy Ad.

One more: Truthers.

 

I'm still getting a sense that many here see a difference in degree. I think you're being selective with your vision.

 

Here's an interesting example that Bill O'Reilly was harping on (excessively, IMO) last night, based on this editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704696304575538402294440806.html

 

The White House is escalating its assault on corporate political donors, claiming that Democrats merely favor "disclosure." To understand their real goal, consider what happened to Target Corp. when it exercised its First Amendment rights in Minnesota.

 

To summarize, Target donated money to a pro-business group that represented their interests with regard to future taxation and business legislation. That organization then donated money to the election campaign of a Republican running for governor of the state that Target has its home office in. It's worth noting that prior to this donation, the company had highly favorable ratings from various gay interest groups. But because the candidate in question is opposed to gay marriage, MoveOn.org declared a boycott of Target that garnered considerable attention and (some say) loss of sales for the company.

 

Now, regardless of whether you think it's a good idea to boycott companies who make political donations to lobbying and pro-business organizations -- the question here is whether left-leaning organizations play hard-ball when it comes to political influence. I think this example shows that they do. MoveOn misrepresented Target, and many of MoveOn's supporters, on the national scene, accused the company of everything from anti-gay activism to outright bigotry.

 

Two sides can play this game, and two sides do.

[swansont]

 

Here's an interesting example that Bill O'Reilly was harping on (excessively, IMO) last night, based on this editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704696304575538402294440806.html

 

 

 

To summarize, Target donated money to a pro-business group that represented their interests with regard to future taxation and business legislation. That organization then donated money to the election campaign of a Republican running for governor of the state that Target has its home office in. It's worth noting that prior to this donation, the company had highly favorable ratings from various gay interest groups. But because the candidate in question is opposed to gay marriage, MoveOn.org declared a boycott of Target that garnered considerable attention and (some say) loss of sales for the company.

 

Now, regardless of whether you think it's a good idea to boycott companies who make political donations to lobbying and pro-business organizations -- the question here is whether left-leaning organizations play hard-ball when it comes to political influence. I think this example shows that they do. MoveOn misrepresented Target, and many of MoveOn's supporters, on the national scene, accused the company of everything from anti-gay activism to outright bigotry.

 

Two sides can play this game, and two sides do.

 

How is this related to the OP?

 

Voters by themselves can't compete with corporations in terms of contributions. The one lever they have is to boycott. And conservatives boycott, too; the American Family Association is currently boycotting Home Depot. The Southern Baptists boycotted Disney for years.

[Pangloss]

How is this related to the OP?

 

Voters by themselves can't compete with corporations in terms of contributions. The one lever they have is to boycott. And conservatives boycott, too; the American Family Association is currently boycotting Home Depot. The Southern Baptists boycotted Disney for years.

 

Well, as I indicated above, people brought up these additional points:

 

I know it's anecdotal but still indicative of the problem and how it's aligned with the conservatives ...

 

Two words: Daisy Ad.

One more: Truthers.

 

The implication of these and other posts is that left-leaning organizations are somehow less detrimental compared with right-leaning hardball players. I've responded to this suggestion by bringing up the issue of MoveOn.org going after Target. If Target acted in business interests rather than social ones, then MoveOn.org has unfairly and dishonestly attacked them. Regardless of whether you think it's a good idea to boycott companies who participate in the electoral process, this example shows that the left can play hardball too.

 

Whether this is the "one lever they have" or not is not germain to the point I'm making. I happen to think it's perfectly valid for voters to complain about corporations participating in the election process. I also think it perfectly valid for business interests to participate in the electoral process, up to a point where their influence outweighs that of the voter. Finding that balance is important, and not a simple matter dealt with by demonization and/or opposing influence.

 

My two bits, of course. Your mileage may vary. Check your local listings.

[D H]

Two words: Daisy Ad.

One more: Truthers.

 

The implication of these and other posts is that left-leaning organizations are somehow less detrimental compared with right-leaning hardball players.

I thought the first two words spoke by themselves. Obviously not. The 1964 Daisy Ad was about as bad as fear-mongering can get. Essentially, "A vote for Goldwater is a vote for World War III." The Democrats have reused this ploy many times. The left is very good at scaring itself. Proclamations from this, that, or the other wacked celeb proclaiming that they will have to leave the country if Reagan/Buchanan/Bush/McCain wins the election have become very old hat. Prediction: That hat will be passed around again in 2012.

 

Regarding the final word, the Truthers are in my mind the left-wing equivalent of the Obama is a Muslim / Obama is a Communist crowd. Both the Truthers and Obama is a ... crowd are preying on unfounded and irrational fear.

 

[Pangloss]

I'm sorry, I completely missed that reference, and I thought you meant the Swiftboat Vets for Truth. My mistake.

 

And I'm not trying to take issue with Moontanman's opinion, either, I'm just saying I think there's a little bit of a skew here, so I wanted to toss out another example. Oh well.

[Moontanman]

Yes and then there is all that misdirection and.... that river in Egypt... Seriously, can anyone equate an add from 45 years ago with the constant bombardment of nearly every communication medium with about as many different FUDs as you can imagine now days? But I have to say, it';s as disgusting from one side as the other. When ever i hear a FUD about a subject I generally tend to be sympathetic to the group who is a victim of the FUD.

[JohnB]

Voters by themselves can't compete with corporations in terms of contributions.

 

Sorry for a bit of a derail, but a serious question. Who do the Unions support and give money to? Down here it is the Left exclusively. Unions can generally equal most "Corporate" gifts.

[swansont]

Sorry for a bit of a derail, but a serious question. Who do the Unions support and give money to? Down here it is the Left exclusively. Unions can generally equal most "Corporate" gifts.

 

Generally the left. While it's not universally true, the conventional thought is that the right is pro-management, while the left is pro-worker.

[D H]

Seriously, can anyone equate an add from 45 years ago with the constant bombardment of nearly every communication medium with about as many different FUDs as you can imagine now days?

I can. What can possibly be more FUDdish than "He's going to start World War III and kill everyone?" That ploy worked so well against Goldwater that it has been the recurring campaign meme amongst Democrats since then. It was used against Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush (indirectly; Quayle was the target), GW Bush, and McCain (indirectly again, "What if he dies in office? Palin will start the Armageddon").

 

Both parties use fear, and particularly so when the other party's approval ratings are low. Heck, it's a lot easier to cast illogical aspersions on the other side than to do something bold like coming up with a plan. Even in the rare cases where some party does have a plan, it often still does use fear as a backup plan.

Edited October 19, 2010 by D H

[Moontanman]

I can. What can possibly be more FUDdish than "He's going to start World War III and kill everyone?" That ploy worked so well against Goldwater that it has been the recurring campaign meme amongst Democrats since then. It was used against Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush (indirectly; Quayle was the target), GW Bush, and McCain (indirectly again, "What if he dies in office? Palin will start the Armageddon").

 

Both parties use fear, and particularly so when the other party's approval ratings are low. Heck, it's a lot easier to cast illogical aspersions on the other side than to do something bold like coming up with a plan. Even in the rare cases where some party does have a plan, it often still does use fear as a backup plan.

 

 

No one is disputing that the add 45 years ago was Fudish, what I am saying is that i get a constant bombardment of FUDs on-line and all of them are from the conservatives. I am quite sure the left will use that tactic when they can but liberals do not respond as well to FUD as conservatives do. Conservatives use FUDs to confirm their world view.

 

If we were to use the next year posting the FUDs we get on-line i am confident conservative FUD messages would be overwhelming compared to any liberal FUD messages.

 

FUD is not the way intelligent moral people present their views or receive information.

[lemur]

Generally the left. While it's not universally true, the conventional thought is that the right is pro-management, while the left is pro-worker.

 

Technically, republicanism (not all right-wing politics though) resists the Marxist logic that capitalism necessarily results in class divisions between bourgeoisie and proletariat. A truly free republic should exist of freely interacting workers who manage their own labor individually and engage in free, unstructured, trade without collective unionization, etc. The left has traditionally scoffed at republicanism as being idealistic and considers class-formation and collective interests a given. On the basis of that assumption, the left supports collective efficacy for workers on the premise that they will otherwise be exploited by management. In practice imo, however, this reinforces the acceptance of collectivism and class-formation, which in itself makes labor more manageable. For example, a union is supposed to result in better wages, conditions, and benefits for workers, but in exchange for union representation, workers must submit to union authority over how and when they work. If the union says they must strike, individuals who cross the picket line are discriminated. If the union organizes hierarchies and waiting lists for jobs, workers must wait in line because engaging in price competition is seen to bring everyone's wages down. In the logic of a truly free market, this is a form of market control, albeit with the legitimation that without such control the workers would be unfairly exploited.

 

This actually relates to the OP because labor-unionism reflects a certain amount of fear that the free market cannot or will not ever result in non-exploitative labor relations. Adam Smith, of course, believed that a legitimately free market resulted in the most favorable economic conditions for everyone who participated in it, by balancing interests of producers, workers, and consumers. In theory, I think Adam Smith was correct but in practice almost everyone attempts to control the market to whatever degree they can to manipulate trade in their favor. So as long as the will to exploitation is significant, which it is, the left has some legitimacy in seeking to protect individuals against it.

 

The problem with the emphasis on workers, imo, is that everyone has to identify with the working class to benefit from leftist politics. As long as a person identifies with management or ownership, they are always viewed as getting a better shake than "the poor exploited workers." A person who owns their own business could be making less income than a unionized worker, but they will still be viewed as having an interest in exploiting the working class because of their class-position. Likewise, consumers/consumption becomes subordinated to the interest of providing revenues to fund higher wages and benefits for the workers. Given enough power, I think the left would subordinate both consumption and ownership to the task of elevating workers wages, conditions, and benefits to the absolute maximum; which in turn requires everyone to aspire to the privileged working class or subservient to its interests. This is not to say that the workers themselves do not get subordinated to the collective interests of "their class."

 

The left has a lot of room to reconsider its premises and ramifications, but I think it resists doing so because of the sense that it is under attack by the right and therefore must stand its ground because any critique it caters to will only co-opt it to greater exploitation. This is due, in large part I think, to Marx's idea that all ideology always serves the interest of the bourgeoisie. So true Marxists will never negotiate their ideology without the sense that the bourgeoisie is pushing its own ideology designed to subjugate and exploit the workers.