On the contrary: the GOP knows that the middle DOES matter. They know that by playing to their base in very well-crafted ways, they can shift the very definition of what the middle is. By introducing radicalism into the public discourse (and taking initial heat for it), whatever used to be radical within this context becomes moderate by comparison.
Please study the lyrics to Rush’s 1981 chart-topper, “Tom Sawyer”, and then answer the questions below.
1. If his mind were for rent, would you be more or less likely to put him down as arrogant? Defend your answer. What if you could lease with the option to buy?
I liked him because he was messy and self-absorbed, and didn't shame me for the crazy shit I was doing that summer, a lot of which involved riding the subways at 4 a.m., eating takeout Chinese for breakfast, sleeping with him, and never opening my mail so that it would pile up in stacks on bookshelves, my coffee table, my dresser, my windowsills - collection agencies shrieking at me like a bad dream.
Ignorant man: Read your modern history. Half of all Israelis are now Sephardic Jews, refugees from Arab lands that expelled their Jews or drove them out through pogroms. Israel took them in, gave them homes and lives, and their children are now running the country.
Patsy throws whole corn out on the grounds for the larger birds that don’t go to the feeder. This one hasn’t learned to fly yet. When he does, I think we're moving.
The aggro-rant isn’t for everyone (though I freely and wholly love one), but honestly, it doesn’t mean they aren’t participating in examination and critique. If something makes a person angry and they pontificate about it, who’s to say they aren’t hungry for someone to come back at them equally vociferously? Often, people who make passionate, assertive arguments love nothing more than when someone makes another one right back at them.
(I add: That last sentence is definitely true for me, as is its opposite. This is probably not strictly healthy, but fact is, I interpret failure to engage me in an argument as failure to engage me, period.)
I've had a couple of guys try to get too detailed, and not in a good way. I really don't need clumsy back story like, "And then, I pull off your skirt and feel you up and your clitoris comes out to say 'Hello.'" A dude said this to me once, and my clitoris ran back inside and refused to come out to play for the rest of the night.
Imagine a life in which a sixty-mile hike in triple-digit temperatures, a one in ten chance of dying at least, is something you would think reasonable to face more than once in order to pick lettuce for five bucks an hour or less.
So, what do we have? Greenwald is “illiterature”, a moron, a liar; he is a douche, the uberdouche, the biggest douche in the blogosphere, the Babe Ruth/Bill Gates of douches; he is McCarthy, befuddled and/or manipulative, more than a bit of a fascist, intellectually and morally bankrupt, an absolute disgrace, gay (tee-hee!) and therefore insane; and, of course, a terrorist lover. The transgression which occasions these remarks is patiently cataloging, recording, and referencing what these people say, every single day. And it makes them insane.
(I add: I know that's two links from the same site. Is there a rule that I can't do that? Because fuck your rules, then.)
Leaving aside gendered and sexualized insults, what power do the words "honky" and "cracker" and "redneck" have to hurt compared to, say, the word "nigger"? If you call me a "cracker" (a term more accurately used to refer to poor rural whites), I'm going to laugh -- there is no history of violence and hatred behind the word. If I call a player of African descent the "n" word, I'm going to expect a different reaction -- not because he has less self-control than I do but because of the extraordinary legacy attached to that term.