The "Nah Nah Nah Can't Hear You!" Argument

by: David Sirota

Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 10:22


The conservative movement meltdown is going into overdrive, if Peter Wehner's op-ed in the Washington Post today is any indication. With most Republican candidates explicitly running on a platform promising a revival of Reagan conservatism and berating the supposed  "socialism" of Democrats, this former Bush hack writes that "it is a mistake to assume that significant GOP losses, should they occur, are a referendum on conservatism."

It's hard to overstate how absurd this is. Let me repeat: In the stretch run of this campaign, the Republican Party has decided to make this an ideological contest between Reagan conservatism and supposed wild-eyed liberalism/socialism - and now, sensing a potentially huge loss, conservatives are arguing that despite their decision to make this an ideological contest, "an Obama victory would be a partisan, rather than an ideological, win."

Obviously, the Right understands what's really going on in America - and is working to reinterpret that reality.
David Sirota :: The "Nah Nah Nah Can't Hear You!" Argument
Having doubled-down on Reaganism, they know that a loss under these circumstances would be not just a momentary electoral set back, but a huge repudiation of conservative ideology, and a huge mandate for progressivism. And so conservatives are already trying to revise history to pretend these last few months of the campaign never happened.

Of course, the very weakness of the "facts" they cite exposes their desperation. For example, Wehner cites public opinion data showing that the word "conservative" remains more popular than the word "liberal." Yet, he omits the fact that when you go beyond the semantics, the same public opinion data he cites shows that Americans are very progressive on most major economic issues.

But substance is secondary to spin on the Right - and likely in the media. As Digby notes, we're already seeing the media Villagers insisting the same thing Wehner is insisting: Namely, that no matter how well conservatives have framed this election as a choice between conservatism and progressivism, and no matter how big a progressive victory that election may bring, America nonetheless remains to the right of Ronald Reagan. In effect, the Right is making the "nah nah nah can't hear you!" argument, claiming that that no matter what America says about its own politics and ideology, the country is an ultra-conservative bastion.

It's a willfully dishonest argument - but one with a motive: To preserve the status quo.  

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The "Nah Nah Nah Can't Hear You!" Argument | 15 comments
You're half right (4.00 / 2)
a huge repudiation of conservative ideology, and a huge mandate for progressivism.

To his credit, Obama on black Monday, September 15th, blamed conservative economic ideology for the crisis and he's been running against it ever since, so yes his victory will be a repudiation of conservative ideology, yes, but a mandate for progressivism? No, because he's run a moderate, largely neoliberal campaign.

I'm not saying that progressivism doesn't have super-majority support--it does--but given that Obama hasn't run on progressivism, it's illogical to say that his victory reflects a mandate for it. Voters are rejecting conservatism.

I don't agree (4.00 / 3)
I agree with you that Obama has been running as a moderate, but he's been depicted as a socialist. That's the whole point - Republicans are crafting a mandate for Obama that Obama himself never aspired to.
[ Parent ]
And you're seriously (4.00 / 2)
arguing that the public is voting for socialism?

Surely, most voters are seeing the attack for what it is--absurd--(if they even know what socialism is) and casting a vote against Bushism or perhaps for Obama's moderately liberal platform.

Don't get me wrong, even if Obama wins by half a vote, I think he should push forward with a sweeping progressive platform, because the country supports it and needs it.

But if you want to make sure you have a mandate for progressivism, you have to run on it. What would this look like? First off, it would require Obama to come out and say he's not going to worry about balanced budgets in the short term--that budget hawkishness is stupid in a recession.

Instead, he's said the opposite, that he might not roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich if we're in recession.

[ Parent ]
Tax cuts = more revenue? (0.00 / 0)
You contradicted yourself. Stalling on rolling back the Bush tax cuts will lead to increased deficits. I wish he would immediately roll back the tax cuts and increase spending on infrastructure, green energy, education, etc., but neither approach can be considered "budget hawkishness."

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
No, you misunderstood me (0.00 / 0)
I'm talking about the need to create space, political and budgetary, for a progressive agenda: saying you're not going to roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich limits you. Saying you there's no need to fixate on balanced budges frees you.  
[ Parent ]
The Point (4.00 / 1)
I'm arguing that what most matters in crafting a mandate is not the candidates' platforms, but what the public BELIEVES it is voting on - and the Republicans have done a damn good job of making the public believe we are voting to choose between Reaganism/Bushism and socialism. And if Obama wins, there is a real mandate if not for full-fledged socialism, then at minimum aggressive progressivism. It is a mandate that goes far beyond what Obama says he wants - and so it will be up to us to pressure him to fulfill it.  
[ Parent ]
David, you have to be the only (0.00 / 0)
person in America who believes that McCain is convincing voters that Obama is a socialist.  
[ Parent ]
Missing the point (4.00 / 1)
David, you are missing David Minzer's point. You write:

I'm arguing that what most matters in crafting a mandate is not the candidates' platforms, but what the public BELIEVES it is voting on - and the Republicans have done a damn good job of making the public believe we are voting to choose between Reaganism/Bushism and socialism.

Which is exactly why David M wonders if you seriously believe that the public believes this is the choice, and even more unlikely, is then choosing Socialism? Contrary to your feeling that the Republican have "done a damn good job of ... choose ... socialism", the reason for the current state of affairs is the opposite: the public just hasn't bought into the GOP line that the choice is such at all.

As Dave M points out, Obama is a [neo-]liberal and has often gone to great pains to make that clear (such as his comments on Reganism and the "excesses" of the 60s and 70s). His entire campaign, setting aside the soaring rhetoric, has been one of providing just this reassurance. And McCain has helped him superbly by playing the alternative: a cranky, out of touch and bizarre old man. That's what the public is choosing between.


[ Parent ]
A quarter right... (0.00 / 0)
I would argue that the public is only rejecting half of conservatism... and even that rejection, I am afraid, is a temporary response to the financial meltdown. 5 years from now when deregulation fever returns, no doubt aided by Larry Summer and the other parasites that are predicted to populate the Obama cabinet, will the public show as much concern? I am not sure. I am not sure because I do not think the cause-effect analysis has occurred beyond a shallow
first level, such as to the point of questioning underlying ideologies.
[ Parent ]
Socialism (0.00 / 0)
It's obvious the "Obama is a socialist" attack isn't working.  However, I would sure like to know why it isn't working.  Is it because most voters don't think Obama is a socialist, or because they think he is but don't mind?  This is something that I think we should try to find out.
PS (0.00 / 0)
Just to clarify what I just said, obviously Obama is, objectively, not a socialist, but it's possible that voters who don't know what real socialism looks like could think that he is.
[ Parent ]
socialism is not all or nothing (0.00 / 0)
I would hope that most voters are smart enough to realize that the smear is meaningless. We have a mixed system that is primarily capitalist but with substantial socialist elements. McCain is not openly calling to end the socialist programs we already have, so I would think that most voters instinctively read the accusation as the nonsense that it is. We have had a progressive income tax for a century.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
well (4.00 / 1)
as I diared here back in June, a majority of voters saw Obama as "liberal" and were quite fine with him anyway.  

I think this may be why they've gone with "socialist" instead of "liberal" - the latter attack worked fairly well on Kerry and Gore, but wasn't sticking to Obama.  So they had only to up the ante.  If socialist doesn't work they might go full bore into Stalinist or just have McCain read passages from 1984 in his stump speech.

[ Parent ]
The reason this is not working (4.00 / 1)
is because people have seen the results of eight years of conservative control. They are ready to try the alternative and don't seem to care too much about name calling.

That is not to say that this won't be the best strategy Repubs have going forward. When they are in the minority, all they have to do is obstruct and jeer and blame everything on Democrats. If they regain power again in 20 years, it will be because people have forgotten what happens when conservatives rule. In the meantime, I predict they will stick to their guns and keep crying "Socialist!' and "Baby killer!" and "Homo!" and "Scary brown people!" It's their thing. It's what they do.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Rejection of Bush conservatism (4.00 / 1)
I think that Obama did a good job, as mentioned above, of running against the conservative economic ideology. The way in which he framed it was crucial. He really is a master at this. Before the financial collapse, he was running on what I saw called elsewhere, really a quiet populism, a communitarianism that emphasizes our responsibility to each other, the whole post partisan thing. yes, shit was going badly, but there were still guys like Hannity toeing the line and ignoring reality. I remember video of Hannity almost losing it when he had Kuttner on his show, citing GDP growth and whatnot.

When the shit hit the fan, he blamed it on their ideology, but he didn't overdo it, it fit right into the themes he was already running on, so it made sense This really drove the free market fundamentalists crazy, and they responded with their typical over the top rhetoric, calling him a socialist, communist. He pushed the conservative economic gurus out of their comfort zone, the same thing he did to Hillary and to McCain more generally via campaign tactics. Effectively he forced the right to double down on its ideology or admit that they were wrong. Either way, he wins, just like when Bush agreed to a time "horizon" making McCain look out of touch. He has continually pushed the opposition subtly into the position he wants them in, then makes them pay for it.

Watching him operate his lethal form of political jujitsu, I really think people are underestimating his progressiveness. As a black politician, he would be open to exponentially more smears and attacks were he to push for some of the progressive policies most of us I think would like to see. I think his race in this instance has helped him hone that sort of awareness of where the line is, and how to approach that line without crossing it. True, McCain and the right have explicitly made this ideological, but Obama set them up. He is truly a master at his craft in my opinion. Now we'll have to see if he is that good at passing bills. With the kind of numbers we're looking at in Congress, I'm hopeful. And I think one of the main lessons of his campaign is, "Don't underestimate him".  

[ Parent ]
The "Nah Nah Nah Can't Hear You!" Argument | 15 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox