GOP folks and Tea Partiers are increasingly peeved that their movement is being depicted in the media as filled with angry crazies on the verge of violence. As someone who's studied protest, and demonstrated a couple of times myself, I think part of the problem is quality control.

I date back to the Million Man March, when there was great concern that the hordes of black men descending on Washington might break out into a riot....I was a student at Howard at the time, and like all the other prospective Marchers, I read the papers and was well-versed in notion of not embarrassing your people in front of white folks. The last thing any of us wanted to do was to march down to the Mall and have the next day's headline read, "Niggers Can't Even March Without Fighting." ...We thought the media was looking for trouble, but we also thought it was within our power not to give it to them.

I think we got some of that sense from the Civil Rights movement's choreography. These guys were the masters of protest as propaganda. The Montgomery bus boycott was a strategy and Rosa Parks was not some witless old lady, but a civil rights worker who'd been trained to accord herself a certain way. When Martin Luther King would be arrested he dressed a certain way, he seemed to try to convey to the cameras a kind of solemn restraint. The marches themselves were choreographed, and the strategy of nonviolence was drilled into anyone who'd protest.

I hear GOP folks and Tea Partiers bemoaning the fact that media and Democrats are using the extremes of their movement for ratings and to score points. This is like Drew Brees complaining that Dwight Freeney keeps trying to sack him. If that were Martin Luther King's response to media coverage, the South might still be segregated. I exaggerate, but my point is that the whining reflects a basic misunderstanding of the rules of protest. When you lead a protest you lead it, you own it, and your opponents, and the media, will hold you responsible for whatever happens in the course of that protest. This isn't left-wing bias, it's the nature of the threat.

Oh we get the point. It's just moot.

Because they have no desire to be someone they aren't. They are honest and fed up and don't like the political machine. Phrases like "message control" just tend to make them not want to talk to you.

Trust me on this, ohhh boy.

Its funny in a way... they get attacked by the left for being heavily manipulated and as such, an "astro-turf" organization, and then criticized by the left for not being heavily regulated and under control of a single "vision".

That's fine, Elm, but the point is that if a group doesn't have good message control, it shouldn't blame its audience for getting the "wrong" message.

Also, your comment raises a broader critique of the conservative movement that I've been mulling over lately. It seems like conservative activists these days are more interested in ideological purity and emotional expression than they are in actually changing the political/legal landscape. It's like what I said about Justice Thomas in another thread - he'd rather write a purist dissenting opinion than compromise in order to assemble a majority opinion that would actually nudge the law in his direction.

In some ways, I see a lot of parallels between the Right of today and the Left of the 1960s. The "tear down the system" crowd on the Left got a lot of airtime, but the real liberal successes of that era were crafted by moderates within the system. Conservative activists seem to be in their own "tear down the system" phase right now, but unfortunately, I think it's proving to be very difficult for moderates on the Right to engage the real policy-making process in this era of 24/7 cable news and internet commentary. As a result, I think they're just undermining their own goals - righteous rage might feel good, but it's calm persuasion and political compromise that gets sh*t done.

Just to be clear, I'm not "attacking". I'm agreeing with the OP that the fault of their message not being heard correctly or misinterpreted is their own incompetence, not anyone elses.

That's fine, Elm, but the point is that if a group doesn't have good message control, it shouldn't blame its audience for getting the "wrong" message.

Also, your comment raises a broader critique of the conservative movement that I've been mulling over lately. It seems like conservative activists these days are more interested in ideological purity and emotional expression than they are in actually changing the political/legal landscape. It's like what I said about Justice Thomas in another thread - he'd rather write a purist dissenting opinion than compromise in order to assemble a majority opinion that would actually nudge the law in his direction.

In some ways, I see a lot of parallels between the Right of today and the Left of the 1960s. The "tear down the system" crowd on the Left got a lot of airtime, but the real liberal successes of that era were crafted by moderates within the system. Conservative activists seem to be in their own "tear down the system" phase right now, but unfortunately, I think it's proving to be very difficult for moderates on the Right to engage the real policy-making process in this era of 24/7 cable news and internet commentary. As a result, I think they're just undermining their own goals - righteous rage might feel good, but it's calm persuasion and political compromise that gets sh*t done.

When the ruling elite seems to have no regard for their concerns, the time for compromise is over. The people are tired of political sophistry and they want elected officials that will listen and speak frankly with them. They want elected officials that actually stick to their guns rather than toe the party line. You say its hurting their own cause, but its resonating with more and more people.

That's fine, Elm, but the point is that if a group doesn't have good message control, it shouldn't blame its audience for getting the "wrong" message.

Also, your comment raises a broader critique of the conservative movement that I've been mulling over lately. It seems like conservative activists these days are more interested in ideological purity and emotional expression than they are in actually changing the political/legal landscape. It's like what I said about Justice Thomas in another thread - he'd rather write a purist dissenting opinion than compromise in order to assemble a majority opinion that would actually nudge the law in his direction.

In some ways, I see a lot of parallels between the Right of today and the Left of the 1960s. The "tear down the system" crowd on the Left got a lot of airtime, but the real liberal successes of that era were crafted by moderates within the system. Conservative activists seem to be in their own "tear down the system" phase right now, but unfortunately, I think it's proving to be very difficult for moderates on the Right to engage the real policy-making process in this era of 24/7 cable news and internet commentary. As a result, I think they're just undermining their own goals - righteous rage might feel good, but it's calm persuasion and political compromise that gets sh*t done.

They aren't a political party, and aren't interested in the opinions of those who are treading on their rights, and spending their money. They are long past the point of amiable discussion, they tried it, and were laughed out of the room. Now all that is left is anger. Which is why you are starting to see violence. You can't wish or pretend or politic it away, either. And I guarantee laughing at, or taunting them won't achieve your desired results. Nor will any further attempts to continue to marginalize them. At this point all you are doing is poking the bear. I don't think leftist in this country realize exactly how close they are to seeing something that will horrify them.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and compromise in the pursuit of justice no virtue.

And how'd that work out for ol' Barry?

Like I said, they remind me of the far Left in the 1960s. The difference is that in the 60s, the far Left out in the streets was offset by a comparatively moderate Left that was electorally insulated from the protest wing and therefore had the freedom to change the system from within. My theory is that the moderate Right today is not similarly insulated from its more radical wing and therefore can't engage the system in a way that will actually shift the policy landscape. Rather, they're forced to pander to the radicals in order to protect their own jobs.

Health care reform is a perfect example of this. There were plenty of opportunities in the process for Republicans to force a compromise that would have moved the bill further to the right in exchange for some bipartisan cover, but instead, they never wavered from their strategy of 100% rejection. Why? Because any Republican who voted for it, no matter what compromises they got in exchange, would have been toast when the base got done with them. As a result, the Republicans had no bargaining power on the bill (why compromise with them if you're not going to get their support anyway?), and we ended up with health care reform that's less conservative than it could have been.

Maybe you're right that a purist message and uncompromising protest will resonate with more and more people in the long run, but it didn't work for the far Left (or for Goldwater conservatives, for that matter). Instead, the far Left's excesses in the 60s bought them 25 years in the political wilderness and a cultural retrenchment in the Reagan era.