The Gorilla gambit

I've been disappointed with Bob Somerby of late, but his latest columns deserve your attention.

He slams Blogostan Left's coverage of the first presidential debate, which Somerby considers a win for McCain. The progressive commentariat disagrees, of course. The disagreement is not the problem. The nature of the disagreement is the problem.

In his reply to Josh Marshall, Somerby notes that, as time passed, Marshall began chanting nonsense about McCain's alleged displays of "contempt" and "condescension."

But how weird! In real time, Josh live-blogged the entire debate–and he completely forgot to mention these outrages as they were actually happening!

Strangely, Atrios also (belatedly) repeated the same "contempt and condescension" tropes. So did other progs.

(McCain did not strike me as the slightest bit condescending. Obama's penchant for constant interruption made him seem contemptuous, or at least rude.)

Odd pattern, that. The same words -- contempt, condescending -- kept peppering the lefty reportage a day or two later. On the night of the debate proper, nobody used those terms.

It's almost as though all the leading progs were handed a script.

Gee -- ya think?

This situation precisely mirrors the psi-war tactics previously employed solely by the conservative media. Remember? After Clinton or Gore would give an important speech, the right-wing commentators would, at first, be mildly flummoxed. How to respond? And then, almost as if they got the same fax at the same time, the conservative propagandists -- "the Con-intern," as a wag once called them -- would repeat, in unison, the Republican party's agreed-upon Line of Attack.

The attackers would repeat and repeat the same phrases -- on TV, on the radio, in unabashed coordination. As memory of the actual event faded, the "Con-intern" version would take hold.

For a classic example of this gambit in action, consider the broadcast of Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony. His approval ratings bounced upward that day, as opinion solidified that Ken Starr was conducting a partisan witch hunt. But as time passed, the Con-intern seized upon one out-of-context phrase -- that "meaning of is" business, which bothered no-one at first. (Those somewhat infelicitous words make sense when the passage is read in full, even though they seem silly or shady in isolation.) Anti-Clinton attack-hacks still use that phrase to convince youngsters that those words drove the citizenry into a frenzy of outrage against "Slick Willie." In fact, the citizenry became pissed off at Starr. Just ask anyone who was then of adult age and paying attention -- anyone, that is, who won't allow propaganda to trump memory.

Obviously, the left can play -- is playing -- the same game. The basic strategy works against a candidate of either party. Here's the template:

1. Candidate Sam Simple gives a major speech. Everyone applauds. Even commentators biased toward the opposition party have little to say except "Nice job."

2. A few hours later, the Head Rovian of the opposing team fixes on a Line of Attack. He may choose the Line of Attack purely at random -- perhaps by throwing darts at a wall. The attack does not have to make a whole lot of sense, and it need not have any relationship to anything Sam actually did. THWAP! The dart hits the wall, skewering a slip of paper. On the note, these words are scrawled:

"In his speech, Sam Simple sounded like a insane gorilla."

Thinks the Head Rovian: Hm. "Insane Gorilla." Has a nice ring. Yeah, that'll do.

There really wasn't anything particularly gorilla-like about anything Sam did -- but who cares? The Line has been chosen.

3. The Line of Attack is faxed to the army of propagandists. Where necessary, coin changes hands.

4. The propagandists do their work. "Wow! Did you catch that Sam Simple last night? It didn't occur to me at first, but now that I think about it -- he really sounded like an INSANE GORILLA!"

The radio propagandists start playing ape howl sound effects, while their sidekicks make King Kong jokes. On the web, the anti-Sam stalwarts repeat the same attack line, word for word, decorating their web-pieces with cute illustrations of Magilla Gorilla. Same thing in print: "Perhaps Sam Simple should change his name to Sam Simian."

5. Very soon, people forget what Sam actually said or did. They reformat memory to conform with the constantly repeated Line of Attack. Soon, even people who like Sam start muttering: "I kinda wish he'd tone down on all the monkey stuff, you know?" Even Sam's advisers fret about how to make their guy seem less ape-like.

Sam is, in short, thrown off his game.

This is how they did it to Gore all throughout 2000.

They did the same thing to Kerry. (The progs are still doing it to Kerry: Same shit; different propagandists.)

The Obots did it to Hillary throughout 2008.

And now they are doing it to McCain. He's a decent man who holds to a political philosophy I do not share. But the progs can't fight on that level. They feel compelled to transform him into an insane gorilla.

Somerby:

...we’ll suggest to readers that the growing inanity of the liberal web makes that entity no ally either. Increasingly, the liberal web is written by and for fly-weights. You’re handed silly, childish tales—silly tales that will make you feel good.

You’re told that you play on a team called The Shirts—and that The Shirts are very good people. You’re told about the vile team called The Skins—and you’re handed endless proof of their troubling ways... But increasingly, the liberal web is written for rubes. People like Atrios serve you crap sandwiches, assuming you’ll wolf them straight down.