Reading this post and the one below and observing the way Republicans are legislating in power to the way Democrats did and would, I conclude that the main criteria for the American people in selecting a majority party may be a sense of humor. Franklin Roosevelt was nothing if not cheerfully optomistic. It was this quality that meant so much to the American people in the dark days of depresion and war.

And all during this time, the Republicans were self-righteous, superior sourpusses, epitomized by the humorless, budget balancing nag Robert A. Taft. Sure, there was a Charlie and Ev show in the '50s, but it was an exception that proved the rule. The Democrats kept up being the cheerful optomists until 1968 when they turned on themselves and elected Richard Nixon over the happy warrior himself. It is hard to think of a politician who made people feel better no matter how stupid his policies than Hubert Humphrey.

But all that died in 1968 when the self-righteous, superior, sourpuss Eugene McCarthy remade the Democrat Party in his image. And things stayed pretty unpleasant on both sides until 1980 when Ronald Reagan found that magic in office and in the late '80s when Rush Limbaugh put it on the airwaves. The Republicans are now the party of cheerful optimists. They are likely to remain so until their next self-righteous, superior, sourpuss becomes their primary representative.

"Reading this post and the one below and observing the way Republicans are legislating in power to the way Democrats did and would, I conclude that the main criteria for the American people in selecting a majority party may be a sense of humor."

That is not an unimportant observation. Consider that almost everyone agrees that the reasons Bob Dole failed to defeat Clinton in 1996 is that he lacked any apparent sense of humor. After he made that humorous commercial for American Express, I don't know how many people I heard say, "If he had made this commercial before the election, I would have voted for him."

Americans do not like people who seem to view themselves and the world with an exaggerated degree of seriousness. If you have ever worked on a job site with ordinary folks - contruction workers, warehouse managers - consider how many serious hazards and activities of the job are dealt with through irony, teasing, and humor. A great many people out thier judge a person's character by his ability to handle humor. They like unselfconscious, unpretentious, and unflappable people.

In trying to consider how George W. Bush got elected POTUS, its very much worth asking the question - which of the men that was running seems like they could tell a joke, or could handle being the butt of a joke with better grace? Which man seems the more jovial, and the more prone to smile? Which man is funnier?

Actually, so much of the press treatment of their view of 'youth' has emphasized their disregard for the MSM and news in general that there is probably good basis for looking to entertainment as the background of choice for this generation. I'm not so sure it's laudable, and frankly don't have the time to follow all the links in this article.

I do look for the next swing of public sentiment, away from disdain for public service and toward a government that serves the public. The reaction for depriving honest people of their homes by the SC may be a sign of things to come. Seeing DeLay and Conyers on the same side is sure amusing.

Bozos come in blue and red, as noted.

Interesting article. Think you're really onto something with the "autism" remark. Moorcock once noted that a form of autism is the main hazard of any political class, and he's right.

This article about words, deeds, and images at Tech Central Station was interesting. Discussing Falwell's remarks post-9/11 (which got him an "idiotarian" tag):

"The answer lies neither in the quick apology offered by Falwell, nor the repudiation of Falwell by the Bush administration. The answer is that the Bush administration is able to point to specific policies that repudiate Falwell's ideas. No one is worried that Falwell sympathizers drive American foreign policy because the Bush administration's conduct of the war on terrorism is wholly inconsistent with the dour view of America expressed by Falwell. An administration that believed that America was a decadent nation would not be using American power to unabashedly promote American ideals in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Actual policies are more effective than demanded apologies in dismissing the influence of fringe groups."

Even groups incapable of much humour can apply this remedy, and it will work. Furthermore, the idea is the bridge between Armed Liberal's post today and Evariste's.

Joe, i think the author of this piece is neglecting a whole sorry episode of humorless insanity perpetrated by the red-staters--in his own words
evariste: Impeach him now. What are Florida's lawmakers waiting for? Does someone have to die for this callous bastard of a scofflaw judge to be impeached?
'member, the weekend passage of Terri's Law? The impassioned endorsement of three ten-thousandths of the video record as absolute proof of brain activity?

I wouldn't be so smug.

Joe, i think the author of this piece is neglecting a whole sorry episode of humorless insanity perpetrated by the red-staters--in his own words
evariste: Impeach him now. What are Florida's lawmakers waiting for? Does someone have to die for this callous bastard of a scofflaw judge to be impeached?
'member, the weekend passage of Terri's Law? The impassioned endorsement of three ten-thousandths of the video record as absolute proof of brain activity?

The right are not immune to idiocy either. I saw no terri-bots with the slightest sense of humor. And they clung furiously to unscientific emotional urban legends--sound familiar?

Right now my president and his odious "bioethics" council are promulgating a disinformation campaign equivalencing ESC results with ASC results. Lying.

I wouldn't be so smug.

oops, sorry...my post wasn't working for some reason...Joe, could you delete the extras, please?

It's not that I'm unhappy to read the above, but I'm not convinced. I thought the booing of Governor Pothole was hilarious; the youth of America taking it to an arrogant, childish movie star of the Hollywood and governmental elite. It was great, and if you think it didn't speak to contradictions in the fragile persona of Arnie, well, you're wrong. The protests over Social Security that Frist recieved when he went to buy 300 dollar shoes were also great. Operation Yellow Elephant certainly highlights and exploits contradictions at the heart of the Young Republicans, and not surprisingly the group behind it wasn't allowed to publish their ad in the YR convention's program. Maybe if Clear Channel had paid for it...

And I'll take all those over the grandstanding false sanctimony and general creepyness of teens with tape over their mouths intruding on the privacy of a dying Florida woman, and of parents sending their kids to be arrested for the cameras. Is that so much more mature than throwing pies? No, and certainly worse in its false grandeur. And as for left wing internet humor, Roy Edroso, ThePoorMan, and Tom Tommorrow are all great, and how about Franken and Conason taking it to that lying charlatan Ed Klien on Air America? And let's not forget which age group gave Kerry his best margin.

Pretty interesting article. I agree with you that the progressive (I can't say 'liberal' because it's simply become a deragatory term) movement needs fresh voices and a better means of communication with the general public. However, I do have a major problem with what you've posted. You treat both 'progressives' and 'conservatives' as monolithic entities; as if there's some sort of annual conference of all like-minded people in which arts and culture are uniformly decided and from which no one deviates. The fact of the matter is that it is far more complex than that.
In fact, the tone of the discourse in this country would be much better were people to stop this generalizing. Just because Team America (Which you apparently think is conservative, Parker and Stone are actually nihilistic in their humor, attempting to offend anyone and everyone ["America - F**k Yeah!"]) is funnier than American Dad (which actually would be quite hilarious if the show focused solely on Stan and didn't try to be Family Guy II) doesn't mean that 'liberals' are boring as a whole and 'conservatives' are original and hilarious.
Also, you may want to consider other examples. You mention Protest Warrior, but fail to mention its smart, sarcastic counterpart General JC Christian . You also don't seem to be aware of The Daily Show (which I've never heard any criticism, even by those on the extreme right of being un-funny or boring), or the brilliant satirical weekly The Onion .
Finally, you seem to oppose Dick Durbin's comments and Amnesty International, but fail to mention Karl Rove's claims that 'liberals' were on the side of terrorists after 9/11 (which I guess is true, considering what a great bastion of Conservatism lower Manhattan is.
Your article raises some interesting questions, and I commend you for acknowledging that there are voices of hysteria on both sides. I agree with you that a major part of the problem is that Michael Moore and Ward Churchill get more attention than Seth MacFarlane (American Dad may suck but Family Guy is still the funniest show on television, especially when criticizing social issues ["What you're forgetting is that everyone who doesn't want to go to war is gay!"-"I was the FIRST one that wanted to go to war!"]). However, what you fail to analyze is the reason for this. Though I'm not at all certain, I believe that part of the reason for this is that the most serious progressive thought comes from the world of academia, whereas the most serious conservative thought generally is more influenced by business in power. Obviously, the business elite has much more experience and expertise when it comes to marketing than the intelligentsia.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Wow. Consider also Cox and Forkum, beloved bandilleros and picadores of the Redstaters--
look at what treatment they get when they dare to mock a "red state cause"!
Again from evariste--
Objectivists are Myopic Assholes

What was that again, the left has a humor problem?

tim marco, robot chicken is my abs favorite right now--they are equal opportunity mockers. I love GW, but there have been some hilarious sendups.
IMHO, good satirists are equal opportunity mockers-- like Team America, they mock any pompous blowhard available. If you think TA is only mocking the left, you are clueless.

I'll look for Jeff Percifields hilarious send up of Tom Delay--Beautiful Atrocities is an equal opportunity mocker. ;)

I've developed a belief over the last several years that the terms conservative and liberal are of importance only to spinners and the imbibers of spin.

Put Pat Buchanan, Paul Wolfowitz and Steve Forbes in a room together and there will likely be no unanimity on anything except they don't like something called liberal. Each is optimistic in his own right, that his values are the wave of the future, yet within the optimism of each lays the seed of discord with the others.

At a time when much of what was known as the left advocates real politik in the mold of Kissinger, of what value is it to refer to them as left or liberal ?

Is it more conservative to borrow and spend than tax and spend ?

Buchanan is extremely pessimistic. That is why he was drummed out of the Republican Party, and it made him only more pessimistic.

And let's not forget which age group gave Kerry his best margin.

SamAm is right--the ones that actually voted in that demographic were hugely for Kerry--i see no statistics to support youth turning conservative. I know a lot of 20-somethings that think Team America rocks, worship South Park, but would never dream of voting republican. I was at the Van's Warped Tour last summer and punkvote.org was showing Fahrenheit 911 to rave reviews.
This statement is unsupported by data-- that conservatism's tactics reflect an intellectually young and thriving movement
It's just whack.

"I believe that part of the reason for this is that the most serious progressive thought comes from the world of academia, whereas the most serious conservative thought generally is more influenced by business in power. Obviously, the business elite has much more experience and expertise when it comes to marketing than the intelligentsia."

Huh - conservative thought influenced by business and power - not sure I follow that train of thought. Perhaps you could expand a bit on that one. On the flip side of course possibly you could expand on what influences the world of academia thought as well.

Perhaps you meant to write the most serious progressive thought is influenced by academia as to serious conservative thought being influenced by business elite? In any case to dismiss all other thoughts as not being serious in nature unless they be of one camp or the other to me seems rather ludicrous.

The autism you describe on the left would more accurately be understood as a reflection of too many (not all) of the left's unbridled Narcissism. The Narcissist requires the admiration of other people (who are idealized in his own mind) to maintain his self esteem. This would explain why the left so often performs for their co-dependents, rather than trying to sway the greater, devalued ("stupid, religious, ignorant") masses of red staters. Conservatives actually seem to believe that people have intellects that can be appealed to, often through humor. Their political beliefs are much less tied to their own self esteem. When a leftist loses a political debate, the response is fury, rage, and humiliation ("how can the American people be so stupid as to reject the obviously more intelligent John Kerry for the ChimpieBushhitler?") while when the right loses a political argument, they proceed to refine thier arguments and try again.
And, BTW, the South Park duo have said they do not like conservatives, but they HATE liberals, so make of that what you will; they are still hilarious.

#15 Richard Heddleson

Point taken. Substitute Falwell or Robertson for Buchanan

"This statement is unsupported by data-- that conservatism's tactics reflect an intellectually young and thriving movement. It's just whack."

Not sure I agree I with that Jinderella. If we start looking at the conservative youth movement on college campuses as well looking at my own 20 something's the results are pretty much split down the line. The question is how many of them actually pay attention and vote versus paying lip service.

I think you can take it as a sign of the left getting pissed off. They've lost power. They've lost arguments. They've lost issues.

Now every time they try to have a serious conversation, somebody twists their words to somehow imply they where insulting the troops.

The left feels American voters aren't paying attention. They try to talk about things that are important to them, but it's drown out by accusations and rants about either a) liberal bias in the media or b) supporting the troops.

It's often implied, or out-right said, that liberals are unpatriotic and weak.

Pissed? Oh, yeah. Be happy that pies are the only thing being thrown. When the Republicans where in a similiar situation we lost JFK, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King.

Mike Johnson:
"Pissed? Oh, yeah. Be happy that pies are the only thing being thrown. When the Republicans where in a similiar situation we lost JFK, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King."

Typically, the left has no appreciation of history. Lee Harvey Oswald was a quasi-communist who had spent time in Russia prior to returning home and shooting JFK. RFK was shot by an Arab angry at his support for Israel. MLK was indeed shot by a racist hater but he was never, to my knowledge, identified as a Republican. Some on the left are already using this kind of rhetoric to lay the groundwork for "justifiable" violence. You might want to rethink your last comment, MJ.

I'm not sure you can argue that youth voted "hugely" for Kerry. The exit polls showed 54% of 18-29 year olds voted for Kerry and 45% for Bush.

But mainly, I think Jinnderela and USMC are talking about two different groups. The oldest voters tend to be social conservatives that vote Republican and drive Jinn crazy. There is a group of younger, socially moderate voters, that Pew refers to as Upbeats that are well-educated and express positive views the state of the nation. While upbeats tend to classify themselves as independents, they voted 4 to 1 for Bush last year.

I would argue that the Republican base tends to be older and possibly more pesimistic; but they have been able to attract a more optimistic group of relatively young voters in the center.

ShrinkWrapped:
Gack. You're right about that, I overstepped mentioning Republicans in my post. That was sloppy on my part, and it wasn't the point I was trying to make. Sometimes people get pissed and shoot politicians.

Thankfully that is not the case now, but only for a couple idiots and their pies... I do think it's interesting, though. I take those acts as signs that the liberal side of the country is becoming more and more activist. The crazies are out in force. They're being pressure-cooked: it's not a policy or bill that they dislike, they really hate a few, select individuals.

But don't paint me as a member of a side, I've given up on parties and ideologies. I listen to arguments from the devotees and then formulate an opinion. :-)

Liberals generally cheered and called conservatives tone-deaf for �not getting it.�

Neither am I a liberal, nor did I cheer. The speech was tone-deaf, but the nativists calling this citizen a foreigner after 30 years in America are knee-jerk xenophobic imbeciles.

PD Shaw

"But mainly, I think Jinnderela and USMC are talking about two different groups."

I don't know that we are talking about different groups per say. The point is when presented with the option of Republican versus Democrat the entire youth movement is pretty much split down the middle. Given a third choice on the ballot I doubt very seriously they would vote in large numbers for the third choice. You can call them upbeats if you like but the research you point to suggests they are more than likely independent. So what does this mean? Well for one thing it means in most states they have no say over any electoral selection and rely on registered democrats or republicans to pick from the lot for them. In a sense they are already at a disadvantage but they sacrifice their voice in such matters because they are for the most part issue driven. There is not a single party that represents this group even when it comes to independents electing independents. The basic idea is there will be a consensus on issues as they arise and the vote will go with their consensus rather than of a party platform. I've been an independent all my life and yes I've voted for democrats and republicans. I have never voted for an independent.

In case you're wondering I fall well beyond the age range of this group. Given your link I'm more in line with the Enterprisers with a few exceptions. Those few exceptions allow me to pick and choose between all groups.

BTW - excellent link - I've added it to a list that is been growing for some time now.

I remember Ralph Nader got pied a year or two ago. But that was during the Presidential campaign year, so it's quite plausible that a Dem did it.

Nader was quite angry about it, apparently because he's quite a germ-a-phobe. (His strong feelings for hygeine may also have to do with why he's supported the use of DDT.)

well, this has been bugging me all day...just exactly what is the basis of comparison between Rachel Corrie's narrative and IDF Dave's?
Bogus analogy, fersure.

(((USMC)))
now don't be mad at me. ;)
Actually from 2000 to 2004 Bush lost share of the 18-29 vote, 46%-->45%.
stats

Doesn't that mean Kerry got 55% in 2004?

PD Shaw-- ten percent is huge in an election that close. ;)
BTW, i'm a registered republican, but i'll vote anything but stupid.

Jinderella
Now how could I get mad at you? Kind of hard to do that. Yes the percentages were in favor for Kerry and I'll not deny that. Given the error rate of precentages I'm more prone to call it a wash. The data I've seen says Kerry got 54% but why quibble the plus / minus range. I'm still curious as to the voter turn out for this age group versus the lip service. If anything the data does show that the get out the youth vote had little impact on those of older age groups. We can certainly agree that the boomers and elderly out number the young and certainly made up the difference plus of the Kerry advantage.

It'd be a waste of time throwing a pie at Michael Moore. He'd probably snatch it out of the air and eat it.

From this it's hard to tell exactly what the boomer population is, but it has peaked, and there are plenty of younger folk coming along. But the elderly do have a higher percentage participation rate. But soon their effect on voting will be no more than that of the "Greatest Generation" today. Then the Democrats will have a real problem, because people do not become more liberal with age.

reguardless, USMC, i say this statement is false--
that conservatism's tactics reflect an intellectually young and thriving movement

18-29 is declining in conservatism, not growing...

R.H.

Then the Democrats will have a real problem, because people do not become more liberal with age."

At first blush I would have to agree with that statement. It doesn't take long after one gets their first paycheck to ask where's the beef. Upon explanation and scrutiny of the pay stub sooner or later one begins to ask how they benefit from all the deductions concerning the fruits of their labor.

Jinnderella
If you've made up your mind about it there's no way I'm going to convince you other wise.

Here's a link with food for thought (caution some of the links in the article are broken):
Watchblog

These however are not (two takes on the same story):
Young Hipublicans
The Right's New Wing

Both have a lot to say about:
The YAF Young America's Foundation

Unfortunately try as I might drudging up statistics for either young democrat or republican demographics at this point eludes me. At any rate future elections will tell what and if any effects these organizations may have on youth demographics and politics.

(((USMC)))
but i am a registered republican 18-29. ;)
i just see a lot of my peers being liberals.
youcan only draw conclusions from data. ;)

I don't think it's humor, so much as a confluence of these factors:

*Boomer-type 60's PC and Multiculturalism brought to ridiculous heights, so that South Park and other satirists are FORCED to mock them. PC makes a big fat target because it embodies hypocrisy.

*Republicans learned from Pat Buchanon's Kulture Kampf in 1992 that engaging in the culture wars is a loser electorally, they keep their crazies (and yes they have them) muzzled very well. Dems unleash them thinking it is a winning strategy.

*Dems have basically no one able to discuss and do so with a knowledge base either military or anti-terror strategies. After 1968 the Party simply abandoned the idea of a military or national defense as justified. This might work for a tiny country like Belgium free-riding on the US but isn't workable for the major party. The only time Dems get the nod is when a massive scandal breaks out (Watergate) or the Cold War ends and foreign threats end.

The future looks bleak for Dems. Too many unleashed crazies alienating voters, religious adherence to PC, and hostility to defense equal a losing hand.

Tone deafness is the reigning attitude. Pelosi defends Kelo and opposes any effort in Congress to limit it's effectiveness, showing complete failure to understand a natural populist moment (and also good policy).

Joe, good article. You are what you say, and the Democratic leadership refuses to say anything serious about the war on terror. If the Democrats had any sense, Zell Miller would have unleashed his Jacksonian fury at their convention, not at the Republicans'. Instead, Miller is considered a traitor and Lieberman a pariah with no credibility or popularity among the base. The base doesn't want leadership in the war on terror, and the leadership doesn't try to lead them elsewhere; it simply follows them over the cliff to irrelevance.

jinnderella-

The right are not immune to idiocy either. I saw no terri-bots with the slightest sense of humor. And they clung furiously to unscientific emotional urban legends--sound familiar?

I didn't claim the right was immune to idiocy; as I pointed out, the right has its clowns too. According to you, I'm one of them for energetically advocating sparing Terri's life. But the connection to the topic of this article is tenuous. I'm talking about direct action/velvet terror techniques that seek to theatrically highlight contradictions in order to make a point. It's a form of public theater. My Terri-blogging was written-form advocacy, with no cleverness, only earnestness. I was trying to save her life. My side lost that battle. But we weren't trying to be funny, we were dead serious. So your remark about the lack of a sense of humor misses the point, not only of the Terri movement but of this article as well.

Your performance on this thread is a form of failed direct-action, ironically, and so, indirectly, you were on-topic. You tried to highlight my contradictions, but missed the mark miserably. However, it made you feel good to do it, which was more important to you than converting others. SamAm had a much better Terri-related example, because it's on-topic and makes sense.

SamAm said:

And I'll take all those over the grandstanding false sanctimony and general creepyness of teens with tape over their mouths intruding on the privacy of a dying Florida woman, and of parents sending their kids to be arrested for the cameras. Is that so much more mature than throwing pies? No, and certainly worse in its false grandeur.

That was much better, SamAm, because it contained a substantial criticism other than "I hate evariste". One thing you can't deny, SamAm, is that the demonstrators in front of Terri's hospice used tactics that generated empathy in those willing to listen. A pieing generates empathy with the victim of the pieing, and hostility to the Al Pieda Martyrs Brigades. When children are arrested trying to bring glasses of water to a woman being dehydrated to death, is your empathy with Michael Schiavo or with Terri Schindler? Unless your heart is completely closed off, it's with Terri. The teens with their mouths taped shut, and the hunger strikers: same thing. While you do have a point that these particular theatrics were just as likely to turn undecided people off as they were to encourage them, they weren't antisocial acts of thuggery, they were of a form that resonated with similar passive resistance tactics used by the Ghandi-led Indians and the civil rights movement. Children were arrested for trying to give a disabled woman water. That's a far more sympathetic sight than some barely-literate idiot assaulting someone's face. You may not like the tactic, but you can't deny that it works to some extent. Pieing, by contrast, is counterproductive.

And as for left wing internet humor, Roy Edroso, ThePoorMan, and Tom Tommorrow are all great, and how about Franken and Conason taking it to that lying charlatan Ed Klien on Air America?

Never heard of Roy Edroso or ThePoorMan, but do you really think Tom Tomorrow wins any converts? Sometimes he makes me chuckle but that's about it. And I hate to break it to you, but no one listens to Air America, least of all me, and I have no idea what you're referring to. Their Arbitron numbers are consistently atrocious. So maybe Al and Joe got a good one off at Ed's expense, but well...what good is that if no one was listening? Maybe you can tell us what happened, and what, exactly, it has to do with direct action/velvet terror tactics.

Tim Marco-

However, I do have a major problem with what you've posted. You treat both 'progressives' and 'conservatives' as monolithic entities; as if there's some sort of annual conference of all like-minded people in which arts and culture are uniformly decided and from which no one deviates. The fact of the matter is that it is far more complex than that.

In the culture wars, most people would acknowledge that there are roughly two sides. Both parties are pretty big tents (though the Democratic tent is getting smaller), but I think it's valid to make generalizations, keeping in mind that there are exceptions on both sides. There is a truth here that can be grasped.

In fact, the tone of the discourse in this country would be much better were people to stop this generalizing.

I find that questionable. People generalize. It's not going to stop. The Left's best move is to drown out its lunatic voices and amplify its sane ones, because right now, that's all we have to generalize based on.

You also don't seem to be aware of The Daily Show (which I've never heard any criticism, even by those on the extreme right of being un-funny or boring), or the brilliant satirical weekly The Onion .

The Daily Show is really formulaic. They have a good formula, but they aren't trying very hard. I used to watch religiously, but sometime around 2002, I lost the faith. Jon Stewart is funny, but his sarcastic, superior tone turns me off sometimes. Everything isn't ironic, but when the Daily Show gets through with it, it is. Mr. Show is much better liberal humor. So is Dave Chappelle. At one point during election season, I was trying to watch the Daily Show and just couldn't. It was embarrasingly bad in its partisanship and abandoned any pretense of trying to be funny to anyone other than Blue Staters. Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn was far better. As for the Onion, they take formulaic to a new level. I've been reading them since 1996. And I've been bored of them since 1999. Yes, they can still make me laugh out loud on occasion, but they really lost something when they moved to NY.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you about Family Guy being funny. It's funny if I'm stoned, which I don't do any more. Unfortunately, everything is hysterically funny when I'm stoned, so that's no endorsement. Your quote illustrates my point perfectly, in fact.

American Dad may suck but Family Guy is still the funniest show on television, especially when criticizing social issues ["What you're forgetting is that everyone who doesn't want to go to war is gay!"-"I was the FIRST one that wanted to go to war!"]

Why don't they club us over the head with the joke? The biggest problem with Family Guy is that it doesn't respect the viewer's intelligence. I'm with Brian on this one. See also and also. Of course, a liberal viewer watching a hip lineup like [adult swim] is very likely to be stoned, so I doubt the insult to their intelligence is noted.

Though I'm not at all certain, I believe that part of the reason for this is that the most serious progressive thought comes from the world of academia, whereas the most serious conservative thought generally is more influenced by business in power. Obviously, the business elite has much more experience and expertise when it comes to marketing than the intelligentsia.

I'm not sure you have something there. The best conservative thought historically came from outsiders, not business titans. The richest men in America are generally very liberal politically. Carly Fiorina, Steve Jobs (Al Gore on Apple's board? Come on!), Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, George Soros. Conservative thought and agitation tend to arise organically from grassroots groups and think tanks. What does Steven Den Beste have to do with the business elites of this nation? How about Bill Whittle? Indirectly, you did touch on one salient aspect of all this: academe and other elitist environments like Hollywood, Wall Street and other ports where the limousine liberals' fleet tends to congregate are becoming very isolated, and very ineffectual as a movement. Soros' throwing his money around is a valiant effort to try to grow a grassroots from the top down, but it's a Quixotic quest that is doomed to failure by its very nature.

jinnderella-

Wow. Consider also Cox and Forkum, beloved bandilleros and picadores of the Redstaters--
look at what treatment they get when they dare to mock a "red state cause"!

Again, completely besides the point. They're Objectivists who make the most of a popular art medium, cartoons, to spread their message. As a former Objectivist, I knew the exact place whence their thoughts robotically sprang, and I savaged it. But neither their odious cartoon nor my response have anything to do with direct action tactics. A weak and incoherent attempt to expand on your nonexistent point.

IMHO, good satirists are equal opportunity mockers-- like Team America, they mock any pompous blowhard available. If you think TA is only mocking the left, you are clueless.

They're very sly in appearing to attack both sides, but you can't deny that their skewering of liberal hypocrisy is far more savage than their mockery of pompous and earnest right-wingers. Maybe it's my bias, but I think they definitely leant on one side harder than the other. It's not clueless to note that while they tried to soften the blow and maintain mainstream appeal by with formulaic evenhandedness, the horseshoe was in the boxing glove on the left.

Bigsmoke-88:

At a time when much of what was known as the left advocates real politik in the mold of Kissinger, of what value is it to refer to them as left or liberal ?

Is it more conservative to borrow and spend than tax and spend ?

You make a pretty good point, though I disagree with you that the distinction between conservative and liberal matters only to spinners. It reflects something real. The meaning of the labels may change over the years to such an extent that roles switch entirely, but that doesn't nullify the distinction. There are two sides.

jinnderella-

I was at the Van's Warped Tour last summer and punkvote.org was showing Fahrenheit 911 to rave reviews.

OK, first of all, "Van's Warped Tour"? Talk about a sellout, that is seriously uncool and marks you as a poseur. Not that I doubted you were one in the first place. Anyway, I'll send you a postcard from the Cingular Olympics, or whatever. You're so punk rock.

It's also a loaded example. You're trying to extrapolate an anecdotal experience into a definitive statement, and you're going to have to do better than that. Warped Tour and PunkVoter were overwhelmingly dominated by liberals? Color me shocked! Why, next you'll tell me MoveOn.Org members tilt ever-so-slightly to the left. That tour and the PunkVoter movement were both explicitly political and aimed at mobilizing the youth vote to contribute to defeating Bush. It's undeniable (and validated by plenty of studies, do some Googling) that Generation Y is socially far more conservative than Generation X or the Baby Boomers were. They oppose abortion to a far greater degree, to pick one example. The data are decidedly mixed, but Y'ers are more socially and fiscally conservative than their elders. The fact is that the states with the fastest-growing populations went overwhelmingly for Bush in '04. And you also seem to be ignorant of, or ignoring, the Roe Effect. The silence of a vanished liberal generation will continue to echo in this country's politics.

You didn't only choose a loaded and pointless example to prove that young people are getting less conservative. You also, once again, missed the point entirely, because I was talking about the intellectual youth of the movement, not the literal youth of its cadres. You can't deny that all the ideas are on the right these days. Liberalism has become a vast intellectual wasteland.

Shrinkwrapped-

The autism you describe on the left would more accurately be understood as a reflection of too many (not all) of the left's unbridled Narcissism.

Thanks, I meant to mention narcissism and forgot to. The left is preening in the mirror while the right tries to persuade in the public fora.

And, BTW, the South Park duo have said they do not like conservatives, but they HATE liberals, so make of that what you will; they are still hilarious.

Essactamundo.

Manish Vij-

Neither am I a liberal, nor did I cheer. The speech was tone-deaf, but the nativists calling this citizen a foreigner after 30 years in America are knee-jerk xenophobic imbeciles.

Oops. Sorry I mischaracterized you, but it was nothing personal. I was doing a Google search for responses to the PepsiCo exec's speech, and you came up high in the results. I'll add a note to the post that you're not as I described you, and that I missed the mark on that one.

jinnderella-

well, this has been bugging me all day...just exactly what is the basis of comparison between Rachel Corrie's narrative and IDF Dave's?
Bogus analogy, fersure.

For those among us who are a bit slow at grasping things: IDF Dave is running a one-man publicity effort to show the truth about the IDF and how they treat Palestinians at checkpoints. He mans those checkpoints himself, and he comes all the way from Canada to do it every year, because he's also an Israeli citizen. Rachel Corrie's group are overwhelmingly focused on making the IDF look bad by provoking them at the checkpoints and employing other forms of direct action (such as trying to stop bulldozers from demolishing tunnels, at which Rachel was fatally unsuccessful). They do it themselves, taking advantage of their Western passports to get into Israel then trying to make the IDF look bad and the Palestinians look good. Dave comes from Canada, ISM'ers come from all over the West. It's all theater, but Dave's is authentic and theirs is manufactured. Dave's effrorts help discredit theirs. The parallels are glaringly obvious.

Actually from 2000 to 2004 Bush lost share of the 18-29 vote, 46%-->45%.

That can be easily explained by the unprecedented get-out-the-youth-vote effort. Warped Tour, PunkVoter, MTV's efforts, Michael Moore barnstorming campuses-all that and the Iraq war too, and they managed to improve their previous showing by a single percentage point. Color me unimpressed by this obvious youth stampede to the left. USMC's links are germane as well. Your eagerness to score points against me is clouding your ability to reason and extrapolate trends from the data. Not very scientific of you.

This is a short comment to trigger a rebuild and make my comment appear. MT is having problems lately; we realize this and we're working on it.

In reverse order:
That can be easily explained by the unprecedented get-out-the-youth-vote effort. Warped Tour, PunkVoter, MTV's efforts, Michael Moore barnstorming campuses-all that and the Iraq war too, and they managed to improve their previous showing by a single percentage point.
one point is one point--*your statement was false based on the data record.* link your stats next time.

OK, first of all, "Van's Warped Tour"? Talk about a sellout, that is seriously uncool and marks you as a poseur.
I am offering empirical data and i am attacked with adhoms?
Can i get a Marshall in here please?

hmmm...guess i'm on my own. ;)
That can be easily explained by the unprecedented get-out-the-youth-vote effort. Warped Tour, PunkVoter, MTV's efforts, Michael Moore barnstorming campuses-all that and the Iraq war too, and they managed to improve their previous showing by a single percentage point.

But a single point is a single point--i think their agitprop surpasses the conservative agitprop in this case, so your premise is wrong.
I hope by the end of this you'll agree that the conservatives have the edge.
Strongly disagree for the 18-29 demographic.

The point i made in linking evariste's posts is that there are humorless hardline idealogues on both sides of the aisle.

Conservatives use their velvet terror tactics to simultaneously gain attention and win mainstream hearts and minds. Lately, liberals use theirs as social status enhancers.

Hmmm...here is a satire i wrote to mock the terribloggers for their sudden embrace of Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton. Did this enhance my social status?

Greetings, satanic infidel pig-dogs.

It is I, Osama Bin Laden, posting from my wheelchair in the ruined bunker under the mountains of Tora Bora.

How apparent is the bankruptcy of western morality, where a helpless
woman can be murdered by the state.

I am pleased to see you embrace the wise teachings of the mullah Jesse Jackson (pbuh), and the moral leadership of the great William Jefferson Clinton (pbuh).
May I remind you that when President Clinton ruled your immoral materialistic country, there were no attacks on your soil? If there is room for Randall Terry (pbuh) and Ralph Nadar (pbuh) in your coalition surely there is room for Osama?

I too wish to join in this "monumental occurrance" that aridog speaks of. I am pleased to issue a fatwa against anyone who is not for reinserting the tube immediately, especially against Jebbush, the snub-nosed dissembler that has drawn your ire for failing to perform so many times.

Perhaps a shaheed in the chambers of the Supreme Court of Evil will convince them of the error of their ways. I read that you attempted to bomb the courthouse of the demi-shaitan, Judge Greer. Inshallah, a shaheed is far more accurate.

yours in Allah,
Osama

Gotta love some one using heavy handed humorless verbal aggression to make the point that humor is winning the culture wars. LOL.

jinnderella: your efforts are noble, thanks.

jinn,

The 55/45 split is a huge shift to the right even if the Dems still get the majority.

Trends matter.

The "progressive movement" is discredited. For 100 years or more they have given the wrong solution to real problems. History is leaving them behind.

It is like rocket staging. When stages separate the differences in velocity are small. Then the differences increase until the discarded stage begins to fall. Then comes the spin, crash, and burn.

You cannot help the poor by crippling the rich.

Remember about 15 years ago the great cry was the "digital divide". What fixed it? Where did that "problem" go? It is hardly ever mentioned. Capitalism fixed it. Through profit and competition. Now even the poor have computers. Three to five year old models can be found on the street. Free. Or go to a used computer shop and get them at a deep discount.

And why did it work out that way? Because "progressives" got no chance to interfere. Sure it looks messy. There is no plan. No one controlling what "should" happen.

Look at France. They "fixed" the problem of the digital divide with the "Minitel". America did no such thing. America let the problem evolve. Where are the French these days? On the internet. Minitel is dead. Why? Beacause top down solutions hold technology back. For a few years the French had an advantage. All gone and then some.

Evolution works better than planning.

Reminder to self: Don't mention my taste in music.

And, what about the JibJabBros. I thought they were equal opportunity satirists, but maybe they are really slyly pretending to mock conservatives while savagely destroying liberals. Just like these guys?

They're very sly in appearing to attack both sides, but you can't deny that their skewering of liberal hypocrisy is far more savage than their mockery of pompous and earnest right-wingers. Maybe it's my bias, but I think they definitely leant on one side harder than the other. It's not clueless to note that while they tried to soften the blow and maintain mainstream appeal by with formulaic evenhandedness, the horseshoe was in the boxing glove on the left.
No, duh.

Ruth you nailed it.

M. Simon, my argument was that evariste does not back his conclusions with facts. I offered both empirical data and statistical data to disprove his statement.

And I really think a Marshall should address his ad hom attacks on me.

Reminder to self: Don't mention my taste in music.

PD Shaw, you are quite safe from me, so long as you are not an emo-fan. ;-)

jinn: Sadly. but not without humor :-}

Ruth,
well, it is good that we have evariste to explain to us how all the pop culture refs really support his position, since we are all too stupid to actually understand Team America, American Dad, South Park, Family Guy, Cox & Forkum, the Daily Show, and the Onion.

the strong reading i am getting here is-- it is funnie if my adversaries are mocked, otherwise boring and humorless.

Actually, maybe this is simply an attempt to illustrate Sufi wisdom, see post on same - given twice to make sure we don't miss the point. subtlety abounds.

Great post. There has, however, been a recent exception to your point that lefty direct action is (generally) humorless. A couple of months ago a group of Princeton students staged a filibuster in front of the Frist Campus Center there. It was in good humor and hilarious, and it garnered a ton of favorable coverage to boot. At the time, I noted that this protest was exceptional for its sense of humor.

Tigerhawk-- yours was the great post. ;)
Let us hope the mock filibuster embodies a trend.
Congrats on the instalink. ;)

Humor, eh? Is this why George Bush does that smirk thing all the time? I don't care what side of idelogogy you're on, that innappropriate grin is weird.

The thrust of the post is right-on though. Where has the libs self-deprecating humor gone? I still have mine.

No mention of conservative street theater is complete without mention of the wonderful Affirmative Action Bake Sales. The events themselves nicely "highlight the contradictions", but even better is the typical campus administration response.

Jinn,

Pew does in depth and detailed studies of party affiliation. They claim to be non-partisan but many do not accept that claim. The report cited has huge samples and a low MOE. It does not support your contention concerning 18-29 year olds whatsoever. The vote split that you cite may be indicative of the fact that the moveon morons prime target group was precisely the age group you point to. They did an excellent job with those lacking the maturity to see beyond the nonsense. Fortunately, it is not the dispositive age group nor is their previous success an indicator of future voter preferences. Age brings responsibilities and responsibilities bring maturity, etc.

Rick, puhleeze
The vote split that you cite may be indicative of the fact that the moveon morons prime target group was precisely the age group you point to.

But doesn't that argue that their agitprop was more successful? If the conservative agitprop was more successful, then the percentage of Bush voters would have risen, no? That is all i'm saying-- evariste's argument seems to be that South Park is popular so 18-29's will vote repub. The data i've seen do not support that.
Data points:
decline in vote share for Bush.
majority of voters in 18-29 for Kerry.

Jinn,

Originally, USMC was referring to "an even split". The data - aside from the voting data that you cite - do not support a position differnt than that of USMC. I don't agree with Evariste's contention any more than I do yours. 18-29's are a wide open demographic that moves with the wind. Not a particularly serious demo and, thankfully, they do not vote in numbers corresponding to their demographic weight.

The total screw up of the exit polling in '04 makes certain assertions unverifiable but the GOTV by moveon was much more age focused than that of the Reps. I do agree with you that the 18-29 are the most gullible age bracket but I don't find much solace in that thought.

The parallels are glaringly obvious.

wrong, you pompous humorless twit. ;)
(hey, i can ad hom too!)
Corrie is a dead protestor--IDF Dave is a photojournalist with a mission. No equivalence. You could, say, compare the ISM narrative with Dave's.
But hardly with poor Rachels.

bq Let's talk about commencement speeches. PepsiCo's CEO famously gave Columbia's graduating MBA class a speech in which she gave America the middle finger. Liberals generally cheered and called conservatives tone-deaf for �not getting it.�

Wait. I don't get it. I read her speech and it seemed like a kind of love letter to America. As the grandchild of immigrants and an American who has lived in Europe and the Middle East, I ask you: is it wrong to be critical of Americans?

bq Graduates, it pains me greatly that this view of America persists. Although I�m a daughter of India, I�m an American businesswoman. My family and I are citizens of this great country. This land we call home is a most-loving, and ever-giving nation � a �promised land� that we love dearly in return. And it represents a true force that � if used for good -- can steady the hand � along with global economies and cultures. Yet, to see us frequently stub our fingers on the international business and political stage is deeply troubling. Truth be told, the behaviors of a few sully the perception for all of us. And we know how often perception is mistaken for reality. We can do better. We should do better. With your help, with your empathy, with your positive intent as representatives of the U.S. in global business, we will do better. Now, as never before, it�s important that we give the world a hand � not the finger.

(Emphasis mine)

Everywhere I go, foreigners tell me, "You are not like other Americans." They treat me like an exception. I always answer that I am like other Americans. Criticism is part and parcel of being an American. The reason that America is so successful at absorbing immigrants is that we believe that you are an American when you accept the idea of being American. That idea is accepting of criticism. Maybe Nooyi is closer to the American ideal than those who would tell her that she should accept America just the way it is, without criticism.

I am proud to be American. I am proud to be the grandchild of immigrants. And I am proud of my nation's acceptance of difference and criticism.

oops. I was supposed to write "bq." not "bq"

Wow.
i've had emails accusing me of picking a fight with evariste, or of being "biased" against him--nothing could be farther from the truth--while it is true that i reguard evariste with the horrified, incredulous loathing that i hitherto reserved for Randall Terry and pseudo-scientist Steven J. Gould, that has nothing to do with my deconstruction of his post.

His premise-- The conclusion that I've come to, based on comparing the creative efforts of the two sides, is that conservatism's tactics reflect an intellectually young and thriving movement, and the future in US politics does not belong to liberalism. I'll take you through the contrasts I've spotted in the imagination and creativity of each side's direct-action/velvet terror agitprop tactics, and I hope by the end of this you'll agree that the conservatives have the edge.

Nope. I think i proved that the 18-29 demographic has actually moved left--showing that leftist agitprop beats conservative agitprop for that demographic (mine). USMC and and i both offered empirical data, but statistics win every time.

Do the conservatives have the edge? No way. Here is my short list list of conservative platforms that have zero self-deprecating humor.
abortion
gay marriage
culture of life/schiavo
gay marriage
judicial activism
stem cell research
school prayer
intelligent design/creationism

Evariste is like the poster boy for intolerant humorless ideology on schiavo. His Cox & Forkum post is especially telling, where his argument seems to be, i am right!--so they are wrong.

I'm actually a registered republican in the 18-29 demographic, but i've written mocks on ID, ESC vs. ASC, schiavo, culture of life, the "bioethics" council etc. because the conservative position on these issues is stupid and humorless!!!!
evariste to jinn on schiavo: dancing on her grave
raymond to jinn on ESC: baby chopper

The tone of this post is incredibly smug and completely unverified by fact.

What we say in the Holy Discipline of Science-- Real Scientists have a sense of humor. Do Real Conservatives have a sense of humor?

another thing....Team America is based on a mock of the old SOP/G-force movies-- a mock of the military.
ummm--horseshoe?

RE: #61.... QED.

But the core argument still stands or falls on its own merits.

i say it falls. Show me proof that there are more humorless idealogues on the left than on the right.
I think it is a draw. ;

In general, the older people get the more conservative they become. I still haven't decided if they get funnier or not.

lurker, i just want them to be able to laff at themselves.
;)

Oh, SNAPS!
Can you believe I'm still taking chong for picking on evariste?
Trust me, i would have done this for anyone!

Is Ruth the only one that got the hilarious incongruity of a humorless rightwing idealogue blogging on how humor is winning the culture wars? I think i have adequately proven that evariste is a humorless rightwing idealogue on the schiavo issue. Wasn't evariste explaining American Dad, Family Guy, and Team America just too funnie? Side splitting. ;-)

D'ya know, i make satires for dKos and DL--guess what?
Altho they are on different topics, they get exactly the same reception--frenzied, frothing-at-the-mouth name-calling.
lol, this ironing is delicious.

Get a clue, Winds.
Humor is no gentle persuader, it is a weapon, a sword. Have you ever seen anyone persuaded by humor? Hellin' no!
Humor might be a cluestick, to bash in your opponents head--or a burning humiliation, salt in the wound--but not persuasion.

That is why i wuv Cox and Forkum--they are bringing it to the Islamists. Yes, more panties!!! The way to win is to mock them. Like i said on my blog, about the na'qaat and jizziya combat, we want to make make them fall from their saddles laughing over OBL's pretentions, and then turn and ride away.