Republican Victim Mentality

Republicans control 51% of elected offices, from state legislatures, to governorships, to the U.S. Congress. Yet, to hear them talk, you'd think they were oppressed underdogs.

What's up with that? Even if we look at the media, Republicans control about 91% of talk radio and there's no telling how many internet media sites they control.

So why the victim mentality? I thought only liberals played the victim card?

 

Perhaps you could go more in depth. Maybe cite the specific example which prompted this thread.

 

This thread prompted it, but it's a subject I've contemplated for awhile. I live in a very staunchly Republican family (though my dad has slowly been turning more libertarian) in a very strongly Republican state, and I'm always hearing Republicans saying "woe are we" because Democrats this and Democrats that. Even ol' Richard Mourdock, former Indiana state treasurer and 2012 Republican Senate candidate, blamed the "evil liberal media" for his losing the election, even though it was something he said that made him lose.

It just seems like a lit of whining about being victims from the same party that constantly (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es about "liberal victim mentality."

 

Well... Do you deny that having co-copted the conventional visual medias gives Democrats an advantage? Not just the news networks, but Hollywood as well?

And really, while I do concur Richard Mourdock lost because he blundered, having all of that media at their disposal, not simply supporting them in elections but selling the liberal standpoint on things from businesses to faith on every other day of the year, is something Republicans have nothing to counter with beyond direct life experience.

Not nearly as many people listen to radio, and while Internet media is becoming more popular and may displace it all, for now it's the Networks and Hollywood who command the most attention, and their portrayals aren't exactly balanced. Need I cite that JFK film a while back? Or the Manchuria Candidate that replaced China with a corporation? Or how "good" politicians, if their party is name, nigh-all tend to be Democrats?

 

No, I agree with that. Matter of fact, I have a whole thing about the nature of power that I am writing, and it uses the Democrats and Republicans as an example. Democrats are so much better at maintaining power than Republicans simply because they've been doing it much longer and are smarter about it.

It's not a compliment to Democrats and a criticism of Republicans, just an honest, non-partisan philosophical examination of the nature of power and how each side approaches it.

But my point with this thread was more pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about a victim mentality when you have one yourself, and that 51% is not in anyway the societal underdog they try to make themselves.

 

Well, yes, but I'd say there's a difference due to context; one is applying the argument to political outcomes, the other is applying it to everyday life. Politics is an atmosphere of high emotions, high rhetoric, and high partisanship, it doesn't tend to be reasonable anyway. In your everyday life, you should have the sense to recognize "No, in fact, most people couldn't give less of sh*t about you, much less expend the energy to hate or to consciously subvert you." At least Republicans are correct in assuming that there's a latent-organized bias against them, liberals just start shooting blanks mostly when they start talking about economic outcomes or charging racism based on rather benign occurrences.

 

"Show me a Liberal, I'll show you a closet autocrat." Frank Herbert

 

Stupid quote, but what's that got to do with the topic?

 

You cannot look at an incident such as the nefarious Krugman blood slander against Republicans when Loughner went on his rampage and minor conspiracy theories and lies that add up to a paranoid mind set against GOP social and financial interests peddled by the big networks and say Republicans are not the victims of the worst smear campaign ever in politics.

 

51% of the states a 1/3 of the federal government.

 

When democrats win, they are still not happy because their whole platform is based on victim mentality.

 

No, 51% of the country. All of it, from state legislatures to governorships to the federal government. It's even more than 51% if you're just looking at the states.

 

Not really. The smear campaigns of 2012 don't even remotely compare to the smear campaigns of the 1800s. And even today, Republicans aren't exactly spotless when it comes to nasty smear campaigns.

 

"Hey, look, people are poor, maybe we should help them" is a victim mentality?

I would have hated to be you in 1776, telling the founders to stop being victims and just roll over and take it.

 

I think you are comparing apples & oranges. Rep's have a valid claim when pointing out the bias nature of MSM news because they are unquestionably liberal leaning. But that's on a broad political messaging plane. For liberals, victim hood is used on a more personal, life issue plane, identifying victims by groups and applying not so nice labels to the targeted victimizer(s). Blacks are victims of racist white oppression. Gays are victims of the intolerant values crowd. Workers are the victims of oppressive, greedy business leaders. Poor people are victims of a selfish society. People who borrowed money to purchase a home they couldn't afford weren't irresponsible, they were victims of greedy, unscrupulous bankers. When liberals want to spend more on education, they identify children as victims. Obama's uses the victim card frequently to gain support. Right now, he's pushing higher taxes for one group, the 2%, based largely on class warfare rhetoric pitting the 2% against the 98%. His argument to the 98% group is the 2% aren't paying their "fair share". In other words, the 98% are victims of the selfish 2%.

Fundamentally, you could say, all politics at this point in the US can be classified as populist, but liberals are far better at popularizing their message by identifying the victim(s), labeling the victimizers, and making themselves appear the compassionate equalizers. And, it seems to be working. Unfortunately, history shows this type of populist politics works only when citizens approach issues from a very selfish, very shallow perspective. This cliff debate is the prime example. It started with discussions surrounding the debt with both revenues and spending being part of the responsible approach. Now, spending, which is arguably the greatest contributor to the debt, has been tabled and taxing the 2% consumes the conversation although the revenue collected would do little to solve our debt problems. So, really solving the debt problem, which is a complex issue, isn't the issue anymore, making the 2% pay their "fair share" is. Why, because liberals have made the their case by personalizing the debt issue at the most shallow level by pitting the 98% against the 2%.
Spending problem? Oh, we'll talk about that later.....much later.

 

Because Mr.Deep Thinker the Republicans DO NOT CONTROL the culture.
Which is how Orwellian doublespeak operates.It is how an - Animal Farm - Trotskyite
mindset or subset pervades a Society.By Saying one thing and then doing another.
By constant tweeking of new norms and infernal regulations in order to displace
and offset the normal rationality of average americans who crave tradition and composure.
Thru the overthrowing of the once proud and valued Bourgeoisie by Big Labor
beholdin' to Unions and a Government who rewards Unionization.

" Anatole was not quick-witted,nor ready or eloquent in conversation,
but he had the faculty,so invaluable in society,of composure and imperturbable
self-possession. "
-- { War and Peace }

 

It's like the "War On Christmas" or "Christians losing their freedom of religion".....

yet EVERYBODY celebrates Christmas and 95% of the country is Christian.

To fall for that kind of idiocy is to admit to being a Fox News viewer....or vice-versa.

 

You truly speak with forked tongue.Because I challenge you or any of these nouveau
Bolsheviks to find another american with such high character and literally scandal-free
past { yes " spotless " } who ran for President and was treated as if some crazed
and unconnected Robber Baron out for a stroll with some whip as J.P.Morgan
was known to use.Yes,Mitt Romney had a sterling character.So the Boslheviks decided
to attack the only achilles' heel they could weaken.His Wealth.Making Romney or anyone
of Wealth out to be some monster.It's what Marxist do.it's what Trotskyites crave.
It's how Lenin operated.
Are you glad we have a Party { Dimocrats } who on record have demonstrated how
tickled pink they were to destory Americanism and by the most Unamerican of all ways.
Thru sheer PROPAGANDA.

 

Why?? I hear that often from the RW. The major networks are against them.
Why?? They make money by selling ads, they sell ads by getting viewership. The more viewership the more ad $$$$ they get. Why is their incentive to sabotage the RW for the sake of sabotage?

 

1) I'm not a Bolshevik.
2) Romney is one of the most (if not THE most) dishonest politicians in American history. He has no "sterling character." He has no character. He is whatever will get him elected.

 

He donated the entirety of his Father's estate, when the latter died, to charity. He took on the Olympic project, when it was sinking, at no benefit to his own. When confronted with the reality of supporting an Abortion bill as Governor, he realized who could not in good conscious support it, and veteod it.

Is the man perfect? F*ck no, and he's much too statist for my tastes, but he did have character, and I trust him more than a man who let 4 Americans die, and then lied to the father of one of those men to his face as to why it happened.

As a successful Businessman, he was also half-way economically literate, can't say as much for Obama.

 

Was it tax deductible? Most charitable giving is.

Except, of course, the fame that would accompany his success.

I'm sure all you have to verify that is his word. Too bad his conscience didn't step in when he profited off dead baby parts via Stericycle.

I'd hardly call demanding more spending with our economy the way it is "economically literate." There's a major difference between running a business and running a national economy.

 

There is one of the problems. When did people start believing that the government runs the economy?

 

There is no "started." They always have.

 

LOL, sure. Shows how poor the education in this country has become.