BooMan responded to a story about GOP spinmeister Frank Luntz’s efforts to craft anti-Occupy Wall Street talking points with a post titled “Worst Person in the World.” Luntz is odious, and yet … well, in comments, BooMan and I had this exchange:
ME: He may be the worst person in the world, but I’m wondering if I’ll live long enough to see our side learn one-tenth of what he’s already forgotten about getting the public on your side.
We need a Frank Luntz. Now, obviously, it would be better to live in a system that wasn’t manipulated by Frank Luntzes. But we don’t. So we need one.
BOOMAN: … In most cases, the Republican position serves either a small elite or a sizable minority opinion. They cannot afford to make straightforward factual arguments because, in most cases, people either don’t agree with them or they lack objective third-parties who will back up their arguments.
Democrats frequently can bolster their arguments by appealing to the CBO or to scientific studies or experts in certain fields. It’s much rarer that Republicans can use this type of persuasion….
ME: Problem is, that’s a guaranteed strategy for losing low-information voters — and, really, anyone who has to work long hours and deal with kids and aging parents and everything else life throws at you, especially those who weren’t fortunate enough to go to elite schools, where you get used to processing the work of experts.
BOOMAN: …Let’s stipulate that what Luntz does is very effective at combatting and sometimes overwhelming factual information and expert testimony. But he’s the one starting at a disadvantage.
It takes a lot of work and money to raise and maintain doubt about climate change, for example. You have to found and maintain several think tanks, keep an army of “journalists” and “experts” on retainer, and hold constant conferences to dispense your talking points.
All we have to do is read and cite a bunch of reports and ask experts who are getting paid to do science to help us make the case.
Yes, we could adopt more persuasive language, and that would help us make our case.
But what I am trying to say is that the Mighty Wurlitzer is all the Republicans have….
See, to me, the Wurlitzer is the nuclear arsenal of the right. It’s the right’s most effective weapon. It’s “all the Republicans have”? I’d say it’s all the Republicans need. Sure, it takes a lot to maintain it, but it’s their single most effective tool.
Even in the Bush years, I felt that Rupert Murdoch was the most dangerous person in America — Bush, Cheney, and Rove were runners-up. When Murdoch finally departs from the scene, I’m going to feel the way Egyptians felt when Mubarak fell, or Libyans when Qaddafi died. It’s an inexact comparison, sure — Murdoch and his allies don’t literally repress or silence people. But they silence and repress ideas — progressive taxation, labor rights, the urgency of dealing with climate change, abhorrence of torture, the need to keep America a nation that tolerates all religious faiths as well as absence of faith. And on and on. I don’t want to fight fire with fire. But fire is being deployed every day with extreme efficiency. It’s the most important political story of our times.
Also: see Barbara O’Brien on why we don’t win, and DougJ on why they do.