The late Fred Thompson, on Law & Order, had a scene that summed up a fundamental weakness of "conservatives."

[Miles Archer]

I thought Fred was a pretty boring and tedious guy. His "District Attorney Arthur Branch" was an arrogant, humorless prick, and while his character's JOB was to uphold the law, he...just like Tom Selleck's "Police Commissioner Frank Reagan" on Blue Bloods...frequently made his disdain for liberals and liberalism in general.

But Thompson had one scene that really put it into focus for me.

"D.A. Branch" smugly and dismissively spat out the phrase "nattering nabobs of negativity" in one episode. I had to look it up. I'd forgotten the source, which was scriptwriter William Safire, for Spiro Agnew. I cringed when Thompson said it, and realized that it's a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats.

I don't know about you, but I don't "repeat catch-phrases," and I don't see it happening on DU. We tend to express our thoughts in our own words, but the current Trump "buzz words and catch phrases" addiction is sickening. Democrats...at least in my somewhat limited experience...DO NOT ADOPT THE ROLE OF "PARROT."

Part of the reason why I parted with a long-time friend earlier this year is that he told me I had "Trump Derangement Syndrome" one time too many.

Whenever I encounter someone who SPEAKS in buzzwords and catch phrases, I don't feel that i am in the presence of an intellectual powerhouse.

But Thompson's character told an uncomfortable truth, seeing as we have the excruciatingly biased Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on the SCOTUS.

We simply have people in our country who ascend to positions of great power, who do so under the premise of upholding the law and / or interpreting the constitution, but are really there to advance their personal ideology and agendas.

It's a shame Thompson was on Law & Order for 7 years. I enjoy the show but enjoy episodes with him much less.

[canetoad]

1. Good post, thanks

On parroted catch phrases; many of them are carefully chosen "thought terminating cliches" designed to cut further discussion short yet appear like basic, old fashioned common sense.

"Trump derangement syndrome" is a prime example of this.

[AZJonnie]

4. This is SO right. They live in a world of black/white, winner/loser, and neat finishes to conversations

Wherein they just "drop the magic words" and they automatically win the debate. It's like they don't even understand why you continue to argue. They said "TDS". Therefore, you lose they win. Don't you understand, libtard? It's GAME OVER!

Honestly, unless you miraculously stumble upon an intellectual conservative (which USED TO exist somewhat), who understand the basic concept of intellectual integrity, there is no point in engaging in political debate. All they care about is "beating the liberal in the debate", and they will try over and over to just end the conversation and declare themselves the victor with some simple-minded, canned quip they heard from a conservative figurehead.

They will NEVER, EVER concede that a liberal opponent has made a valid point. You could tell them the sky is blue, and if they think that's contrary to something they said before, they'll find some reason to declare you're wrong. They will not EVER admit you're right, they're wrong, no matter HOW solid your evidence is, they'll find some bullshit reason why your "source" is not to be trusted. They never, ever, ever, give an inch.

Their one and only purpose is to Win (by their estimation) and to ANNOY THE FUCK OUT OF YOU. Some of them will pretend to be much stupider than they actually are, just so they can laugh at you because you seem to believe they're THIS STUPID, when they're actually not, therefore you are the dumb one, the sucker. They love to fuck will us, because for them, intellectual integrity always takes a back seat to their experiencing the sensation of "winning". Even when they know you've rhetorically won the debate, they'll construct an argument for how they've won, just to piss you off. They find it amusing.

In the most basic evolutionary terms, they are the "competitors", we are the "cooperators", and we do not understand each other.

Actually really talking with them is an exercise in futility. Either they're too fucking stupid to talk to in the first place, or they're smart, but such intellectually dishonest dickheads that it's not worth your time

[Talitha]

13. they are the "competitors", we are the "cooperators"

The same feeling was expressed by a character in the tv series 'Centennial'. It went something like "They are the Takers - we are the Caretakers." The series ran quite a few years (decades?) ago, yet I still remember those words.

[DFW]

8. It's an easy rut to fall into.

We on the other end of the political spectrum have our own tired clichés that we use incessantly as if being left-of-center required the daily use of one or more in order to be authorized to keep breathing oxygen:

Corporate/corporatist, oligarch, tax the rich, conservative (Republicanese definition, not the English one), the game is rigged, billionaires, etc.

I think dead horses get kicked less often. Lack of imagination is not the exclusive domain of the extreme right, even if they are light years ahead of us in the field. But some of us use “the billionaires” like they use “the liberals,” and the ambition to get more creative seems be lacking in both camps.

[diane in sf]

2. Nixon thought old Fred was one of the dumbest people he ever met.

[Qutzupalotl]

3. Repetition is how Trump controls the narrative

and shifts public opinion. Like presidential immunity — there was no such thing, but he spoke it into being, as though he had hypnotized his justices.

Good on you for thinking for yourself, but a little more repetition would help us with messaging.

[Grins]

5. Safire was smart despite being a conservative.

His use of and comments on the English language were great. A reason the NY Times hired him.

And then came a change.

He came to hate Nixon. And those around him.

And during Iran Contra HATED Bill Barr. Referred to him as “Coverup-General Barr” because of his burying evidence that implicated George H.W. Bush in “Iraqgate” and “Iron-Contra.”

Sound familiar?

[AZ8theist]

6. Surprised you didn't know the source of that comment.

It was Agnews most famous (and just about only ) noteworthy comment during his time in politics.

[Miles Archer]

9. I knew at one point, and then spent many, many years...decades...not thinking about Agnew at all. n/t

[JohnnyRingo]

7. Then you would have really disliked him as a US Senator from TN.

He played that part as an even more vehement republican.

[Miles Archer]

11. I remember some of the Thompson conversations on DU...

...the big one being that, at some point during his planned presidential run, he "did a Trump" and either fell asleep at an appearance, or seemed to.

I see him on Law & Order, and Selleck on Blue Bloods, and every once in a while both characters made me feel as if Clarence Thomas were in the room. They made short, bile-infused comments about "liberals" and you knew that no matter what pedestal both characters put themselves on (and they did), they were totally biased and tainted and unsuited for high-level jobs where bias was forbidden "on paper" but was virulent "in practice."

I see Fred in the same way I see Thomas...humorless, angry, empty men.

[mopinko]

10. i've been rewatching the west wing-

in the episode where he’s doing a debate in his re-elect, the speech writers r pounding on summing things up w ‘10 words’.
the issue of tax cuts come up, his opponent spouts ‘10 words’. dont recall exactly, but something something americans want that money in their pockets. bartlett goes off script- ‘what r the next 10 words?’ then launches into his priorities for spending that money, and y there r some things the govt has to b the 1 to do.
such brilliant writing.

[edhopper]

12. I can't wait for our long national nightmare

to be over. When the President will not be a crook.