Year: 2010

See if you can’t pick up a hint — a dog whistle, you might say — of what kind of message Democrat strategists Ed Kilgore, James Vega and J.P. Green want their clients to employ:

Beyond “sabotage” — the central issue about the growing political extremism of the Republican Party is that it’s undermining fundamental American standards of ethical political conduct and behavior. . . .
But, among Democrats themselves, this particular question is actually just one particular component of a much broader and deeper concern — a very real and authentic sense of alarm that there is something both genuinely unprecedented and also profoundly dangerous in the intense “take no prisoners” political extremism of the current Republican Party. . . .
The key feature that distinguishes the increasingly extremist perspective of today’s Republican Party from the standards of political behavior we have traditionally considered proper in America is the view that politics is — quite literally, and not metaphorically — a kind of warfare and political opponents are literally “enemies” This “politics as warfare” perspective has historically been the hallmark of many extremist political parties of both the ideological left and ideological right — parties ranging from the American Communist Party to the French National Front. . . .
It is easy to see examples of the various politics as warfare- based views and tactics listed above directly reflected in the statements and actions of the extreme wing of Republican coalition . . .
Since the recent elections it has been increasingly argued that the top Republican leadership is not actually extreme. . . .
But this misunderstands the role that the politics as warfare perspective plays within many extremist political parties. . . . The leadership of these parties very often asserts complete and absolute fealty to democratic norms of behavior but simultaneously gives “wink and a nod” encouragement to the extreme elements within its base. . . . This strategy of using “dog-whistles” — inaudible to others — to signal the base allows political parties to deny embracing extremism at the same time that they reassure and retain the loyalty of their extremist supporters. . . .
Conservatives need not agree with Democrats and can continue to oppose progressive reform but at the same time they can also recognize that the growing extremist trend within the Republican Party is simply unacceptable. . . .
The threat to basic American values and standards of ethical political conduct and behavior posed by the growth of an extremist perspective within the Republican coalition is now as great as the threat that was posed in the 1950’s by McCarthyism.
At this time, far too many of the “sensible moderates” one would expect to stand up and challenge the rise of the extremist politics as warfare perspective within the Republican Party have hidden behind the notion that “both sides are equally at fault” and that no special or particular criticism needs to be leveled at the Republicans. . . .

John Hinderaker undertook the effort to refute the specific accusations made by Kilgore, et al., but I was mainly struck by the mind-numbing repetition: 13 separate uses of “extreme,” “extremist” or “extremism,” including four times in a single paragraph.

Of course, contrary to all this dog-whistling about the GOP’s extreme agenda of extremist extremism, actual Republicans — as opposed to all this scary “threat to basic American values” in the  —  are still pushing the same basic agenda they’ve been pushing for decades. It’s nothing new and no more “extreme” than Goldwater, Reagan or Gingrich.

What Kilgore & Co. are advising Democrats to do is to use the accusation of extremism to drive a wedge between between congressional Republicans and corporate donors.

Kinda related: Helzberg Diamonds caves to left-wing boycott campaign against Glenn Beck advertisers.