Something I've noticed

[pocket1_pita]

Something I’ve noticed – it’s not a new something, but it’s starting to be repetitive.

Roveian Reduction.

One selects the most extreme statement in a series of opinions held by a group and attributes it to the entire group, thus discrediting the entire group. Again and again and again we fall for it. Some other benefits of Roveian Reduction are that it acts against the building of alliances between moderates and liberals, it reinforces the conservative frame, and controls both the rhetoric and the conversation. See? Because Michael Moore is gleeful, all critiques are gleeful. It also identifies the strongest opinions and disparages them. Another version of this is to change one or two words in an opinion and attribute it to the same source. If I say to you that I think that Bush holds the ultimate responsibility for the failure of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina due to his irresponsible appointment of Brown, lack of urgent response, demotion of FEMA’s status and depletion of relevant funding, the Roveian Reduction would be - Pocket says that Bush holds full responsibility for Hurricane Katrina.

Katrina rips away the veneer of competence: The policies supported by Republicans are cruel and dangerous for the entire country. Witness the bankruptcy bill. What are those poor Katrina victims supposed to do about their bills?! We should be able to declare bankruptcy in the case of a natural disaster. Neo-conservatism and trickle-down economics have been debunked as far as I can see, and still like a bunch of lemmings we dive off the cliff never-ever willing to really address the divide between reality and spin. But the Democrats fielded a mediocre candidate and the Republicans played the gay card and here we are. Every year we get poorer and all the things we really need cost more money. All of our civic institutions fail us one by one – business, government, schools, emergency management. The Katrina Disaster is the bastard child of the misplaced priorities of the Bush Administration.

Comments

[lawyerlee.livejournal.com]

I'm so with you 100% on this, as if you didn't know. It bothers me on a day to day basis, but I just can't stomach it in the context of the mess the federal government made of the hurricane response. It makes my blood boil in my veins. They are sick, selfish bastards who don't know the first thing about commonly held values or basic compassion.

[go-dawgs.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad you brought this up, because I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Which is also why I've changed parties in the last few years. It hurts me to know that my parents vote based solely on religion, because that just feeds the division. But I'm thankful that I am dating a wonderful man and have so many intelligent friends who have opened my eyes to the fallacies and utter despair brought on by the Republican party. All of that to say - great post and I agree 100%.

[wendalah.livejournal.com]

\Pocket, you know I dig you. But this does not make sense to me. I'm sitting here with a drink in front of me, admittedly, and trying to make sense of this Roveian theory.

"Because Michael Moore is gleeful, all critiques are gleeful. It also identifies the strongest opinions and disparages them."

OK, so yeah, what about Ann Coulter? Same shit.

And the bankruptcy bill? I don't get this either. "We should be able to declare bankruptcy in the case of a natural disaster." Okay, fair enough. But that's what. How many people are affected by this? A quarter million of the national population? So we throw out a bill that reforms debt control in the face of 1/200th of the nation's population? I'm not trying to be a jerk but I honestly don't get it. Maybe some sort of selectively lenient codicil to this particular bill in the face of a terrible national disaster, but I don't get throwing it out totally.

[wendalah.livejournal.com]

You know, and I come across sounding like a non-compassionate asshole all the time, but I really didn't get that theory. That's all. Neither am I discounting those in exceeding circumstances either. I'm just saying--OK, there's this bill that is designed to crack down on bankruptcy declaration, which I generally think is a good thing. In the exceedingly extreme circumstances of having your life wiped out, basically, yes of course I am supportive of a merciful tactic. But to throw the whole thing out and call the executors cruel and dangerous? When it had bipartisan supporters, even? I'm not willing to go that far.

[wendalah.livejournal.com]

Jesus. While I was posting those two posts, my dog got a hold of my favorite brown suede pump and fucking CHEWED IT beyond repair. Fucking dammit! I posted this because I figured you'd enjoy it. Fuck!

[pocket1.livejournal.com]

too funny - i'm not sure i should even respond as runner seems to have made himself pretty clear on the matter. who knew your dog was such a bush-hater?

Anyway, you did a better job of illustrating the roveian reduction than i could have. first of all, no moderates or liberals cite Ann Coulter as a spokesperson for the conservative movement, which is what would be required in a Roveian Reduction. while i'd like to think it's because we don't play like that, truthfully it probably has more to do with the extreme pain and nausea involved in tuning in to Coulter. the second part of your roveian reduction is that you pretended that what i was saying was - we should throw out the whole bankruptcy bill as I am opposed to cracking down on bankruptcy declaration. what i actually said was - we should be able to declare bankruptcy in the face of a natural disaster. the natural disaster clause was thrown out of the bill. that is cruel and dangerous.

[wendalah.livejournal.com]

Pocket, you didn't say the throw-out of the clause was cruel and dangerous. You said "The policies supported by Republicans are cruel and dangerous for the entire country." So you just Rove'd yourself!

[wendalah.livejournal.com]

Also,

"no moderates or liberals cite Ann Coulter as a spokesperson for the conservative movement, which is what would be required in a Roveian Reduction."

They don't?

[pocket1.livejournal.com]

i do think that those policies are cruel and dangerous for the entire country. in particular, what i think is cruel and dangerous is paying more attention to what the credit card industry thinks than the responsibility upon you as an elected official to promote goals that serve the people who elected you.

[wendalah.livejournal.com]

Individual policies, maybe, but that's where I scratched my head...you basically took an example of one policy and generalized the whole thing to everything Republicans support is cruel and dangerous, which sort of sounds like Roveian Reduction to me.

Also, you're being Roveian by saying that the bankruptcy issue is all about caring about credit card companies.

[wendalah.livejournal.com]

Shit. "Roveian" is now going to be a regular adjective for me. Thanks!

[wendalah.livejournal.com]

btw, although I may not agree with your opinions, it's not the opinions I'm scratching my head at. It's the Roveian thing. As we both seem to be accusing each other of Rove-ing, I'd say it is difficult to escape doing it.

[pocket1.livejournal.com]

i see it the opposite way. i generalized that many republican policies are cruel and dangerous, and then i cited one that i particularly think is cruel and dangerous and what specifically i think is cruel and dangerous about it. A roveian reduction goes in the other direction - from specific to general rather than general to specific.

it's just a pretty counterspin technique that Rove is particularly good at.

[wendalah.livejournal.com]

"i generalized that many republican policies are cruel and dangerous"

I didn't see the softening qualifier of "many" in your original sentence ;).

BTW, yes, Runner is an extreme liberal. Ki and I joke about this often.

[pocket1.livejournal.com]

oh for fucks sake, wendy. yeah, i didn't use a qualifier. let's not have a conversation about this ever again.

[wendalah.livejournal.com]

Sheesh! I was being funny.

[prudies.livejournal.com]

I know I'm late getting here, but I wanted to tell you that Dave says it seems likely that Congress will pass something that exempts those who want to file bankruptcy because of loss related to a natural disaster.

[prudies.livejournal.com]

I feel compelled (and I'm not sure why) to tell you that the bankruptcy bill is really, really bad. Seriously, it's awful! Why? Well, because, umm, my husband says so. Ok, maybe that sounds lame, but Dave is a big bankruptcy lawyer nerd, and he's also fairly moderate politically. I hate to say "moderate" because it makes him sound boring, but my point is that if Dave says this bill is awful, than it really is. Seriously, trust my husband!

[minervax.livejournal.com]

Pocket...you really make me sorry for my internet diet! I missed this also.

You need to post that 'Roveian Reduction' somewhere because it's right on.

It is interesting...I can't remember whether you were the rhetoric major or Yaya was the rhetoric major but the things they do are slick rhetorical moves, informal fallacies and the like (philosophy/poli-sci double major). Ad hominem attacks are their speciality...but there is this schoolyard bully thing that really fascinates me. They create two camps--"We are the strong winners. They are the weak losers." A certain class of people is very afraid to be lumped with the weak. They don't care about what happens to the poor or survivors of the hurricane or anyone--caring is a weak thing.

Someone needs to take apart this rhetoric piece by piece very carefully. Why does it work so well?

[pocket1.livejournal.com]

Yaya was the rhetoric major - I took two intro classes, but mostly studied ME History. It's a whole other level of ad hominem attack. it's the actualization of ad hominem attack. it's an entire counter spin strategy based on creating or boosting an NGO to perform the personal attack in your place.

[minervax.livejournal.com]

It sucks that so many can expose these groups and their methods and yet somehow they succeed anyway. I wonder when people will catch on to to these techniques...will they ever get tired of it? However, I think it reaches to some very deep places of resentment (and ressentiment) so perhaps we'll never be rid of it.