Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Art of the Hissy Fit

By Digby , TomPaine.com. Posted October 25, 2007.


Unlike the Democrats, Republicans have mastered the art of throwing hissy fits as a political tool to control political dialogue.
Advertisement

I first noticed the right's successful use of phony sanctimony and faux outrage back in the 90's when well-known conservative players like Gingrich and Livingston pretended to be offended at the president's extramarital affair and were repeatedly and tiresomely "upset" about fund-raising practices they all practiced themselves. The idea of these powerful and corrupt adulterers being personally upset by White House coffees and naughty sexual behavior was laughable.

But they did it, oh how they did it, and it often succeeded in changing the dialogue and titillating the media into a frenzy of breathless tabloid coverage.

In fact, they became so good at the tactic that they now rely on it as their first choice to control the political dialogue when it becomes uncomfortable and put the Democrats on the defensive whenever they are winning the day. Perhaps the best example during the Bush years would be the completely cynical and over-the-top reaction to Senator Paul Wellstone's memorial rally in 2002 in the last couple of weeks leading up to the election.

With the exception of the bizarre Jesse Ventura, those in attendance, including the Republicans, were non-plussed by the nature of the event at the time. It was not, as the chatterers insisted, a funeral, but rather more like an Irish wake for Wellstone supporters -- a celebration of Wellstone's life, which included, naturally, politics. (He died campaigning, after all.) But Vin Weber, one of the Republican party's most sophisticated operatives, immediately saw the opportunity for a faux outrage fest that was more successful than even he could have ever dreamed.

By the time they were through, the Democrats were prostrating themselves at the feet of anyone who would listen, begging for forgiveness for something they didn't do, just to stop the shrieking. The Republicans could barely keep the smirks off their faces as they sternly lectured the Democrats on how to properly honor the dead -- the same Republicans who had relentlessly tortured poor Vince Foster's family for years.

It's an excellent technique and one they continue to employ with great success, most recently with the entirely fake Move-On and Pete Stark "controversies." (The Democrats try their own versions but rarely achieve the kind of full blown hissy fit the Republicans can conjure with a mere blast fax to Drudge and their talk radio minions.)

But it's about more than simple political distraction or savvy public relations. It's actually a very well developed form of social control called Ritual Defamation (or Ritual Humiliation) as this well trafficked internet article defines it:

Defamation is the destruction or attempted destruction of the reputation, status, character or standing in the community of a person or group of persons by unfair, wrongful, or malicious speech or publication. For the purposes of this essay, the central element is defamation in retaliation for the real or imagined attitudes, opinions or beliefs of the victim, with the intention of silencing or neutralizing his or her influence, and/or making an example of them so as to discourage similar independence and "insensitivity" or non-observance of taboos. It is different in nature and degree from simple criticism or disagreement in that it is aggressive, organized and skillfully applied, often by an organization or representative of a special interest group, and in that it consists of several characteristic elements.

The article goes on to lay out several defining characteristics of ritual defamation such as "the method of attack in a ritual defamation is to assail the character of the victim, and never to offer more than a perfunctory challenge to the particular attitudes, opinions or beliefs expressed or implied. Character assassination is its primary tool." Perhaps its most intriguing insight is this:


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: media, republicans, clinton, moveon, wellstone

Check out Digby's blog, Hullabaloo.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It works for conservatives . . .
Posted by: Rune on Oct 25, 2007 12:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . because they tend to have a rigid, narrow, almost cartoonish world view. If one colors outside the lines, from the hardcore conservative point of view it is a shameful error, not a potentially interesting and valid act of creativity and innovation.

Progressives have trouble playing the same game without either alienating their own base or getting tangled up in the ambiguities of a more complicated sense practical and ethical trade offs that are present in any human choice worthy of great emotional reactions. Progressives can counter this by appealing to mythical everyman (and/or everywoman, everychild, everyfamily, etc.) figure to represent the struggles and unjust consequences befalling the majority of common citizens by following the edicts of the conservative minority on major policy issues. They should use caution, however, when offering up real families as living examples, as was seen in the trashing of children who benefited from SCHIP by conservative media and political figures earlier this month.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Insider Role Playing Posted by: Red Clover
» I remember Imus Posted by: ReallyBearish
» The Red Queen Posted by: Artkansas
» what drives conservatives bonkers Posted by: Iconoclast421
Soccer parents
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 25, 2007 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Republicans are the little brats who throw hissy fits to get their way, then Americans must be the wimpy, irresponsible parents who can't say no to their kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Soccer parents Posted by: Moira61
» RE: Agreed! Posted by: boydranchitos
» RE: Soccer parents Posted by: hagwind
hmm. democrats are busy trying to keep everyone healthy and have a roof over their heads
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Oct 25, 2007 3:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and the fat bitch republicans of this era sit at home all day on the phone f*cking around, making trouble in the neighborhood and letting the kids ransack the house. seems right to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not so simple
Posted by: Chevaliere on Oct 25, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's more to the problem than just "ritual humiliation." None of the tactics described by Digby would fly without the complicity of the mass media.

That leads, of course, to the all-important question: who really controls the media and what is their ultimate agenda?

See: The Truth is Public Property

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pretty simple Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Not so simple Posted by: wheatfromthechaff
» RE: Not so simple Posted by: talkville
the wickedness of sanctimoniousness
Posted by: january37 on Oct 25, 2007 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I once noticed this phenomenon when Senator Hatch of Utah had a hissy fit. I was impressed by how this conservative Mormon worked to make others feel his power and feel guilty. Becasue I have been subject to such tactics from my childhood, I recognized the wickedness of his stance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: perhaps not only wicked Posted by: boydranchitos
Anyone have directions to the "High Road"
Posted by: rocketman on Oct 25, 2007 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I laughed when I read this article - No doubt BOTH side of the party line engage in mud throwing etc but I'm sad to say the democrats lately have been resorting to this tactic a bit too much.

"Character assassination is its primary tool." - With the far too numerous personal attacks on republican politicians and the President by democrats it appears they have learned this tactic all too well. Consider Pelosi, Webb's speech, Moveon.org (which was a disaster) Reid’s smear letter of dumbo Rush (can you believe the US Senate actually took time to write and sign that letter to smear him – only to look like a bunch or idiots themselves as Rush auctions off the letter donating the proceeds to children of Marines killed in Iraq!!!)

Lets face it – the democrats recent attempts at playing the republican smear game turns against them at every turn.

What ever happened to maintaining high moral standards and conducting oneself in a self respecting manner. Why do the democrats feel the need to get in the gutter with the republicans and fight their game.

Lets seek the high road - we'd be the only ones there!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Let's seek the high road.... Posted by: Tom Degan
» Ritual(istic) defamation Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: itual(istic) defamation Posted by: leemiller38
» Yogi does! Posted by: talkville
Orwell Made Easy
Posted by: Tom Degan on Oct 25, 2007 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is one thing and one thing only that will assure the GOP's continued success with this sort of tactic in the future:

THE JAW DROPPING STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The right wing uses this kind of distortion propaganda because they know damned good and well that the public (at least the ones who vote) are dumb enough to fall for it. Why do you think they were able to install a half-witted frot boy in the Executive mansion? Sure Al Gore was the real victor in 2000, but an election is easy to steal only when the margin is as razor thin as it was then.

And then there's FOX News. The other night, I spoke on the telephone with the mother of a friend of mine from childhood. They have been living in St. Petersburg, Florida for the past 25 years. For over twenty minutes, she gently but firmly chastised be on my political blog (shameless plug). "You were such a nice boy when you were growing up", she said. "When I read all of those lies you write, I don't even recognize you."

"Gerry?", I asked her, "Where do you get your information?"

"Fox News", said she.

'Nuff said.

Tom Degan,
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Orwell Made Easy Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Orwell Made Easy Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Orwell Made Easy Posted by: willymack
» RE: Orwell Made Easy Posted by: christastropher
» 'Nuff said and... Posted by: talkville
IS EVERYONE REALLY SO EASILY SHOCKED ?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 25, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Probably not. The very people who wring their hands over who's in the sack with whom are not at all shocked by stories out of Iraq, California, New Orleans, etc. They prefer to be outraged by tabloid crap. As long as they're fed a daily diet of stuff that doesn't matter, they won't care about the things that do. Much like a junk food diet, it's food, but not nourishment. And it makes people stupid. No wonder it's so easy to take this country to war. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are we alone in the universe?
Posted by: shangrilalad on Oct 25, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we alone in the universe?


Ideocentric: Definition:
Belief that one's one ideas are superior to others.
*According to most dictionaries, there’s no such word as ideocentric. How come? Has the very concept been censored from our dictionaries to avoid raising our consciousness?

Egocentric: Definition:
1. selfish: interested only in personal needs and wants, and not caring about other people

Those two words describe much of mankind to a T, but most especially people in America who describe themselves as conservatives and republicans.

How could such an insane way of thinking have enthralled so many people? Even with admitting all our frailties, it’s way beyond irrational and perverse. Another two words that describe mankind to a T.

How can millions of people believe Earth is the only planet that supports life? According to religiously inclined people, the Bible tells us so. Not in so many words understand, but by omission. Religious dogma has it that God created the universe and since the Bible makes no mention of God creating life on other planets, millions assume we are alone in the universe.

Why would God create a universe with life on only one of it’s trillions of planets?

If there is sentient life in the universe, would they please stop us from destroying our only home and ourselves.

Wait a minute! “What if they’re just like us, irrational and perverse?”

Scientists tell us that whole galaxies explode from time to time, no doubt destroying all life forms in the process-- if there is life, so you might wonder what did those life forms do to provoke God into destroying everything for trillions of miles in every direction. People who believe we are alone in the universe, are not troubled by such thoughts. Maybe that’s why they shout their core beliefs so religiously. Any other thoughts are just to haphazard and frightening for them to contemplate, because it calls into question their core belief that God rules, and not Mother Nature.

Give reason and peace a chance. Vote for Dennis Kucinich, but only if he changes his name to something we can spell. Like, Cook.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NOT "Cook"! Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» RE: NOT "Cook"! Posted by: shangrilalad
» More to the point: Posted by: talkville
Civil Discourse and Ethics in Politics
Posted by: Greensleaves on Oct 25, 2007 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe civil discourse and ethics go hand in hand.

Where discussions consist only of personal or group attacks, or angry rhetoric that has nothing to do with politicians representing the best interests of their constituents, but only in furthering their own interests, either for re-election or continued campaign donations from particular types of corporations, or payback from those corporations after a career is over, or for public fame, media attention, and so on, this is far from representing ethical behaviour.

Where the empty, angry rhetoric bolsters a polluting corporation, for example, rather than the people who have to live with the pollution, then this appears to go well beyond a lack of ethics into a new realm of reprehensibility and moral corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They do it cause they can!
Posted by: StPeteRican on Oct 25, 2007 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republicans get away with their hissy fits for the same reason a teacher's pet does, because the only ones to call them on it are sympathetic to their empty, hypocritical screams. And that is the media.

But with all main stream media owned by people profiting from this administration's corrupt schemes, of course the only message we are going to get is one tainted by their twisted ploys, of course all we'll get to hear is the hollier than thou attitude of the neo-fascist agenda.
Liberal media, my ass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How does this article square with this one
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 25, 2007 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Emotion Trumps Logic in the Voting Booth seemed to make better points on this that this article did.

Westen made some really solid points, that resonated with my own redneck upbringing:

McNally: We've been talking about words, but you actually say that deeds matter more than words. From watching the way a Democrat responds in a debate, people are deciding how they'd respond in a crisis or in a confrontation with another country. Is that pretty fair to say?

Westen: In much of America, I think the way you answer a question about abortion has more of an influence on what people think about you on national security than how you answer one on national security. If you project cowardice to people, if you back down when the president says boo, it doesn't matter what words you use. People get the message that this is a person who's afraid of aggression and doesn't know how to stand up to a bully. Do you want somebody who doesn't know how to stand up to a bully running your foreign policy? I don't think so.

McNally: In the book, you offer some speeches you wish Democrats had given. Can you give an example?

Westen: When George W. Bush presented his Protection of Marriage Constitution Amendment in 2004, John Kerry issued a quiet little press release that he hoped would be buried in the news. It essentially said, "This isn't very nice." That was the extent of his response. To use Republican language -- all it did was embolden the enemy. It led the Republicans to put anti-gay ballot initiatives on the ballot in 10 or 15 states, and those initiatives actually carried the election for them.

McNally: What would you have said?

Westen: I would have had John Kerry come out swinging. I don't mean to ignore the electoral reality that people have prejudices against gay people, and that a lot of people have religious beliefs about what constitutes marriage. But I think Kerry could have very effectively answered George W. Bush in the very same idiom he was using, which was a religious one. He could've begun by saying, "Mr. Bush, that was one of the most un-American, hateful, blasphemous things I have ever seen a president of the United States do in my lifetime. I don't know what God you think you're worshiping, but the God that most decent Americans worship, and the God that I worship is a God of love, not of hate. He would never countenance building hatred into the sacred Constitution of the United States. And you owe every American -- and not just gay Americans -- an apology for trying to wrap hatred in the language of sanctity."


Simply throwing more hissy fits or trying to ignore them are fools' errands. All too often the "high road" is an excuse for ducking and covering when the principled person should have been grabbing the throat of the thug and throwing them off the stage. It's not polite but it does end the hissy fit damned quick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hold up a mirror! Posted by: Crazy H
No, no, you fools. The Democrats throw a hissy fit when one of their own speaks against the GOP.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 25, 2007 11:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And the latest rebuke against Pete Stark and moveon.org by the fake "Democrats" proves it all !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More like a Sissy Fit
Posted by: snideelf on Oct 25, 2007 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
repugs are grabbing at loose ends now.

Maybe all future politicians should have some kind of degree in civil discourse and politics from a university so they don't come across sounding totally ignorant.
It should be a requirement before being allowed to run for office.
Political Science maybe?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More like a Sissy Fit Posted by: Crazy H
It works
Posted by: l_m_n on Oct 25, 2007 12:26 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because the media is willing to support and continue the quests of the right wing.

There's really no more to say.. every time Republican whines are relayed by our talking-head TV anchors, then their message is drummed into our heads, even if we don't agree.

Blatant offenses to our logic (Republicans being "offended" by blowjobs) must be overcome by constant exposure. Democrats who attempt the same thing do not have the media time to make it work, so they come off whiny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is why the Crybaby Conservatives are kicking our Progressive asses.
Posted by: Morgaine Swann on Oct 25, 2007 9:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They whine and the Democratic leadership wilts. No matter the outrage, the illegality the unconstitutionality, the downright criminal nature of the acts committed by Republicans, the Democrats are afraid to offend them.

If someone tells you a lie and you don't call them a liar, you are a coward. It doesn't matter how right you are, or how altruistic your intentions are, you are a coward and your cause will fail. The American people have demonstrated time and again that they want decisive leaders. They'd rather have someone who is decisive and wrong than timid and right. They want someone capable of kicking ass, even if they pick the wrong ones for the kicking.

That b.s. this week with a congressman being forced to apologize for stating the simple truth was a perfect example of what's wrong with the Democratic Party. If they don't find their stones soon, we'll be watching yet a third stolen election. Civility be damned, there are war crimes being committed and our treasury is being drained to do it. Somebody has got to stand up and say ENOUGH!

I'm so disappointed in Nancy Pelosi I can't breathe. Hillary won't stand up to her. Obama is busy sniping at Hillary. Edwards is willing to say that they're wrong, but he comes off as too nice to really kick ass, although there are plenty of corporate attorneys who know him to be deadly in the court room so I think that's obviously not true.

Who does that leave? Dodd? Biden? Richardson? None of them is likely to make a stand - they didn't this week, did they?

Only two people have stood up and spoken the real truth in this campaign - Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. I don't care how flakey the media wants to paint them, they're the only ones with a clue. The question is, do we have the stones to elect someone like them? Whoever we elect better be ready for a fight, because the Republicans still own the voting machines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The media went into a frenzy...
Posted by: bvdon on Oct 26, 2007 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NOT because of Gingrich or anybody from the right, but because Slick Willy couldn't keep his tool in his pants and the ladies came out in droves accusing him of sexual harrassment. The cherry on the top was the Monicagate. You can't make that stuff up...Billy brought it upon himself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BILL CLINTON
Posted by: fg on Oct 27, 2007 10:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill threw a hissy recently when someone suggested 9-11 was "an inside job." Did he protest too much?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A long history of the self-righteous.
Posted by: talkville on Oct 28, 2007 5:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From 1607 to the present instruments such as these have been with us. Its roots are theologic and make use of shaming, shunning, and humiliating to 'bring the sheep back into the fold'. To this second, the USA has yet to shake the reliance on the Patriarchal Mode of 'governance'. It's instilled from the moment of birth and sustained and re-inforced throughout the life-cycle. Sad to say, it's still working strong in various disguised forms that might come as a surprise -- namely our various institutions like family households, schools, churches, hospitals, counseling centers, police stations, corporations, etc.

These days, at least since Reagan, these tactics have been more nakedly employed coupled with economic policies to dismantle anything having remotely to do with "maintaining the public welfare" (if I recall the constitutional wording). As Reagan's friend Mrs Thatcher quipped: there's no society, there's only individuals-- an expression of Anarchist Theory.

There's nothing more corrosive to civil society and to democratic living than those who take a position above and outside the polis and entitle themselves to pronounce and prescribe to others the dictates of ethics and morality. In our real lives, these people are usually referred to as hypocrites.

Truth -- and reality -- to Power!! These people must be confronted without shame, without apology.

There's a strong and steady push in just about all aspects of our lives and our daily living towards Conformity. It's been extended to our thinking. Time to take a stand towards their tantrums-- these folks are on the wrong side of history, and I for one refuse to play the Object to their twisted, retrogressive, and pretty degenerate Subjectivities.

Despite their delusions, they don't own Morality, they don't own the right to dictate 'appropriateness' or other moral pedagogies. Mice or Men (and Women)?? The Monastic bells are tolling and the Shepherds are wanting claim to more Sheep. We have a Constitution that expressly prevents them from governance and from legislating moral theories binding on all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]