« THE BUSH GENERALS' EMPTY-WAR SYNDROME | Deanie Mills's Blog | YOU MAY BE SURPRISED: A Marine Mom and Army Officer Discuss How War Can End »
CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS and ABUSIVE SPOUSES
Years ago, I spent many long hours volunteering for a local women's shelter. I served on its board, eventually chaired it, and donated 10 percent of the royalties from my first book to it. I gave I don't know how many speeches to civic and law enforcement organizations on the subject. Later, I would update the talk and give it to high school home economics and lifestyle classes to educate the students on date or boyfriend abuse. I also wrote about it in the newspaper column I did locally.
At the time, most people--at least those in small-town America--didn't think such things went on in THEIR town, much less in one out of every four homes, no matter the income, status, class, or color of its inhabitants.
One of the things I learned was that women--(and it is usually women, although there are many men, some gay, who also qualify; they're just not likely to seek help)--the women do not like to be called "battered women." They do not think of themselves that way, which is why I always refer to it as a "women's shelter" and not a "battered women's shelter."
In fact, referring to someone as a "battered woman" means she will be much less likely to seek help, because, as I said, she doesn't think of herself that way and doesn't want to be included with those whom others may think of as "battered." After all, HER husband doesn't BEAT her...he just has a little problem with his temper. He's been under a lot of stress. He's not always like that. He only does those things when he's drunk. Blah blah blah.
But I digress.
This past week, with the president's stimulus bill dangling over the precipice, and recalcitrant Republicans threatening and dramatizing, and frustrated Democrats fuming and frightened that they're going to lose their momentum, and all sorts of howling going on from left to right...well, it just DAWNED on me.
Anyone who's worked with abused spouses for very long know that they are at their very most dangerous right when their husbands feel the most threatened, and are the most anxious...that they are about to LOSE THEIR POWER.
If a woman threatens to leave her abusive husband, or she files for divorce, or breaks up with her boyfriend, or gets a restraining order, or otherwise signals to him that IT IS OVER...What does he do?
He gets more violent.
It is during this time that, tragically, the situation so often turns to murder, or murder-suicide.
The question people most frequently ask about an abused spouse is, Why does she stay?
What they don't realize is that he has been threatening to do such things as kill her family, or take the children and disappear, or kill her, or any number of things.
It is statistically true that an abused spouse is likely to go back to the abuser an average of five times before making the final break.
The reasons for this are varied, but one of them is that he has systematically convinced her, over many years of browbeating, that she CAN'T live without him, that she'll never be able to support herself or that she'll never find another man. By the time she's desperate enough to leave him, she believes it.
It's complicated. The only people who insist that they would never stay have not themselves ever encountered such a situation.
There is a reason that most sophisticated women's shelters always have a panic button that summons police within moments, and have a series of locked doors keeping the main office separate from the entryway.
Just as there is a reason that the most deadly court of law in the country is not criminal court, but divorce court.
And the reason that the most dangerous call police officers make is to domestic situations.
I've made no secret of the fact that I believe the only reason the American people voted Bush and Cronies back into power was that, three years following 9/11, they were still processing their own post traumatic stress. And rather than inspire and comfort the American people during this terrible time, the Bush administration chose to bludgeon them repeatedly with fake security-level color alerts, phony terrorist warnings, and desperate tales of disaster averted through torture.
They kept the American people on edge, and the rest of the world in despair as they battered and bullied their way across the globe in the faux names of "freedom," "democracy," and "security."
And they convinced many otherwise smart Americans that they simply could not survive without the Bush administration to "protect" them.
Even John McCain was forced to complain, "This is real life, folks. It's not an episode of 24."
This is tantamount to abuse.
It is not just abuse of power, it is PSYCHOLOGICAL abuse, and it has been perpetrated by people who knew full well what they were doing--hence all the secrecy, subterfuge, and downright lying.
It's like, the reason you don't see so many battered women, say, in church? It's not because they're not there. It's because their abusive husbands have learned to beat them in places where nobody can see. They use belts or coat hangers on their wive's backs, or kick them in the ribs or stomach. Never the face.
After all, they wouldn't want their boss to find out they beat their wives, would they? It's one of the main reasons wives have not been so good at having their husbands arrested, and why most police departments now arrest routinely after a domestic disturbance call.
The wife doesn't want him to get fired; they need his income. So she will lie and say she fell or whatever.
It's complicated. Nothing is black or white.
Now, the congressional Republicans were enablers of the most abusive administration since Nixon's.
And they weilded TREMENDOUS power.
Why, their own speaker of the house was known as "The Hammer" because of his nasty, bullying, take-no-prisoners style. Moderate voices in their party were labeled RINOs and kicked to the curb or run out of office by their own party.
Their heroes were voices like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly--bullies who cut off mikes and yelled into submission anyone disagreeing with them or, like Coulter, simply sliced them open with mockery and insult, and walked away with a smirk.
In the White House, the talking points were handed down by the likes of Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, who not only threatened to destroy anyone who got in their way, but who systematically set about doing so.
This congress had six full years where their party-leader and president NEVER ONCE USED THE VETO. They were given every single little thing they wanted, and if anyone from the opposing party DARED to defy them, they weren't just DEFEATED, they were DESTROYED.
Think Valerie Plame. Think Max Cleland.
Within the governmental bureacracy, career staffers were silenced and censored and bulllied into submission.
This is heady stuff. And they truly believed they were on their way to establishing one-party rule--so much so that they even politicized the justice department, just to ensure more Republican victories at the ballot box, by any means necessary.
Even after 2006, they refused to believe that their spouse--the American people--was leaving them.
When Barack Obama was elected president by a huge mandate, the Democrats gained more seats in congress, and the Inauguration set off worldwide celebrations--it was the equivalent--to congressional Republicans--of a spouse, filing for divorce.
A spouse, taking that step to leave. REALLY LEAVE THIS TIME, not just threaten to leave and then be bullied into returning, but actually, really, truly leave.
The American people have finally reached their breaking point. They're no longer listening to the Republican threats and bluster.
They've fallen out of love and they just don't care anymore.
The party is rapidly losing their power--even symbolically. Note Dick Cheney in a wheelchair at the Inauguration. George W. Bush stepping out on the Inaugural platform and hearing thousands of people sing, NAH NAH NAH NAH, NAH NAH NAH NAH, HEY HEY HEY, GOOD-BYE!!!
So.
How do you THINK they're going to act?
They are going to get more dangerous, more threatening, more belligerent, more shrill and hysterical, more frightening.
And you know what?
The American people are not some trembling woman, fearful for her life. Not only are they newly-empowered by what they have just accomplished in the elections of '08--but by God, they've got a new sheriff in town.
The last sheriff was like the good ole boy, the small-town sheriff who knows everybody and gives the batterer a wink and a nod when called out to the house, but does nothing. Maybe he takes the wife aside and tells her that it is, after all, her responsibility to keep the family together. Maybe he blames her for "provoking" her husband. Maybe he simply tells the husband to calm down, or runs him in to spend the night in jail but sends him home the next day. Maybe, at home, he beats and bullies his own family.
Either way, he is not protecting her.
But we've got a sheriff now who is.
Oh, I know there are those who think he's been too accomodating, that he's done too much to meet the abusive congressional Republicans halfway. They're afraid he won't be strong enough.
Don't be fooled.
He's not above trying to talk sense into them, but when they pull out the big guns and threaten filibuster or vote-down or provision-stripping or whatever their latest bluster and threat...when it gets right down to it, I guarandamntee you, this sheriff will stand in the doorway with a shotgun.
There's not going to be a murder here, folks. Nothing to see. Move right along.
I've worked with good small-town cops and I've worked with bad ones. In big cities, I've ridden patrol with good cops and bad cops too. I've learned how to tell when they're paying attention and when they're not. When they truly care and when they don't.
I know a good one when I see one.
We're still shaky, after all those years of abuse. We're still scared. Some of us are losing our jobs, our homes, our livelihoods and, sometimes, our marriages and families.
We desperately need someone to protect us, but we're seeing the same old crap we've seen so many times before, and we don't know what's going to happen.
It'll be all right though. This president's got our backs.
He's no Dumbledore--he can't wave a magic wand and solve all the problems in one mighty sweep, but that's not what we need right now.
We just need someone to stand tall in the doorway, refuse to break eye contact with a bully, and say, calmly, "It's time for you to leave now."
Now, in real life, abusive spouses usually remain on the scene, one way or the other, because they share children with their exes. And that's all right. As long as he's not abusive to the kids, they need their daddy.
Just as we need opposing voices in democratic government.
But once abusive guys learn that they can no longer beat or bully their wives, they very often will back down. They'll still bluster from time to time, but it just no longer works like it once did.
They'll look for another cowering female they can dominate, or, more rarely, they'll learn from their mistakes and straighten up for the next wife.
Either way, the spouse who had the guts to leave will rebuild her life and, if she's smart, not hook up with another abuser.
The American people behaved, on Inauguration Day, like a woman who has left her no-good bully of a husband behind and has married a far better man who she knows will protect her and always be honest with her and kind to her.
It's a very liberating feeling, and once she's had a chance to see how a good man really behaves, she'll be much savvier, much quicker to recognize abusive behavior in others, and much less likely to put up with it.
So let the Republicans threaten and shout all they want. They just don't realize yet that they no longer possess the power.
We've got the power, now.
And a good man to stand in the doorway when we get scared.
At the time, most people--at least those in small-town America--didn't think such things went on in THEIR town, much less in one out of every four homes, no matter the income, status, class, or color of its inhabitants.
One of the things I learned was that women--(and it is usually women, although there are many men, some gay, who also qualify; they're just not likely to seek help)--the women do not like to be called "battered women." They do not think of themselves that way, which is why I always refer to it as a "women's shelter" and not a "battered women's shelter."
In fact, referring to someone as a "battered woman" means she will be much less likely to seek help, because, as I said, she doesn't think of herself that way and doesn't want to be included with those whom others may think of as "battered." After all, HER husband doesn't BEAT her...he just has a little problem with his temper. He's been under a lot of stress. He's not always like that. He only does those things when he's drunk. Blah blah blah.
But I digress.
This past week, with the president's stimulus bill dangling over the precipice, and recalcitrant Republicans threatening and dramatizing, and frustrated Democrats fuming and frightened that they're going to lose their momentum, and all sorts of howling going on from left to right...well, it just DAWNED on me.
Anyone who's worked with abused spouses for very long know that they are at their very most dangerous right when their husbands feel the most threatened, and are the most anxious...that they are about to LOSE THEIR POWER.
If a woman threatens to leave her abusive husband, or she files for divorce, or breaks up with her boyfriend, or gets a restraining order, or otherwise signals to him that IT IS OVER...What does he do?
He gets more violent.
It is during this time that, tragically, the situation so often turns to murder, or murder-suicide.
The question people most frequently ask about an abused spouse is, Why does she stay?
What they don't realize is that he has been threatening to do such things as kill her family, or take the children and disappear, or kill her, or any number of things.
It is statistically true that an abused spouse is likely to go back to the abuser an average of five times before making the final break.
The reasons for this are varied, but one of them is that he has systematically convinced her, over many years of browbeating, that she CAN'T live without him, that she'll never be able to support herself or that she'll never find another man. By the time she's desperate enough to leave him, she believes it.
It's complicated. The only people who insist that they would never stay have not themselves ever encountered such a situation.
There is a reason that most sophisticated women's shelters always have a panic button that summons police within moments, and have a series of locked doors keeping the main office separate from the entryway.
Just as there is a reason that the most deadly court of law in the country is not criminal court, but divorce court.
And the reason that the most dangerous call police officers make is to domestic situations.
I've made no secret of the fact that I believe the only reason the American people voted Bush and Cronies back into power was that, three years following 9/11, they were still processing their own post traumatic stress. And rather than inspire and comfort the American people during this terrible time, the Bush administration chose to bludgeon them repeatedly with fake security-level color alerts, phony terrorist warnings, and desperate tales of disaster averted through torture.
They kept the American people on edge, and the rest of the world in despair as they battered and bullied their way across the globe in the faux names of "freedom," "democracy," and "security."
And they convinced many otherwise smart Americans that they simply could not survive without the Bush administration to "protect" them.
Even John McCain was forced to complain, "This is real life, folks. It's not an episode of 24."
This is tantamount to abuse.
It is not just abuse of power, it is PSYCHOLOGICAL abuse, and it has been perpetrated by people who knew full well what they were doing--hence all the secrecy, subterfuge, and downright lying.
It's like, the reason you don't see so many battered women, say, in church? It's not because they're not there. It's because their abusive husbands have learned to beat them in places where nobody can see. They use belts or coat hangers on their wive's backs, or kick them in the ribs or stomach. Never the face.
After all, they wouldn't want their boss to find out they beat their wives, would they? It's one of the main reasons wives have not been so good at having their husbands arrested, and why most police departments now arrest routinely after a domestic disturbance call.
The wife doesn't want him to get fired; they need his income. So she will lie and say she fell or whatever.
It's complicated. Nothing is black or white.
Now, the congressional Republicans were enablers of the most abusive administration since Nixon's.
And they weilded TREMENDOUS power.
Why, their own speaker of the house was known as "The Hammer" because of his nasty, bullying, take-no-prisoners style. Moderate voices in their party were labeled RINOs and kicked to the curb or run out of office by their own party.
Their heroes were voices like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly--bullies who cut off mikes and yelled into submission anyone disagreeing with them or, like Coulter, simply sliced them open with mockery and insult, and walked away with a smirk.
In the White House, the talking points were handed down by the likes of Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, who not only threatened to destroy anyone who got in their way, but who systematically set about doing so.
This congress had six full years where their party-leader and president NEVER ONCE USED THE VETO. They were given every single little thing they wanted, and if anyone from the opposing party DARED to defy them, they weren't just DEFEATED, they were DESTROYED.
Think Valerie Plame. Think Max Cleland.
Within the governmental bureacracy, career staffers were silenced and censored and bulllied into submission.
This is heady stuff. And they truly believed they were on their way to establishing one-party rule--so much so that they even politicized the justice department, just to ensure more Republican victories at the ballot box, by any means necessary.
Even after 2006, they refused to believe that their spouse--the American people--was leaving them.
When Barack Obama was elected president by a huge mandate, the Democrats gained more seats in congress, and the Inauguration set off worldwide celebrations--it was the equivalent--to congressional Republicans--of a spouse, filing for divorce.
A spouse, taking that step to leave. REALLY LEAVE THIS TIME, not just threaten to leave and then be bullied into returning, but actually, really, truly leave.
The American people have finally reached their breaking point. They're no longer listening to the Republican threats and bluster.
They've fallen out of love and they just don't care anymore.
The party is rapidly losing their power--even symbolically. Note Dick Cheney in a wheelchair at the Inauguration. George W. Bush stepping out on the Inaugural platform and hearing thousands of people sing, NAH NAH NAH NAH, NAH NAH NAH NAH, HEY HEY HEY, GOOD-BYE!!!
So.
How do you THINK they're going to act?
They are going to get more dangerous, more threatening, more belligerent, more shrill and hysterical, more frightening.
And you know what?
The American people are not some trembling woman, fearful for her life. Not only are they newly-empowered by what they have just accomplished in the elections of '08--but by God, they've got a new sheriff in town.
The last sheriff was like the good ole boy, the small-town sheriff who knows everybody and gives the batterer a wink and a nod when called out to the house, but does nothing. Maybe he takes the wife aside and tells her that it is, after all, her responsibility to keep the family together. Maybe he blames her for "provoking" her husband. Maybe he simply tells the husband to calm down, or runs him in to spend the night in jail but sends him home the next day. Maybe, at home, he beats and bullies his own family.
Either way, he is not protecting her.
But we've got a sheriff now who is.
Oh, I know there are those who think he's been too accomodating, that he's done too much to meet the abusive congressional Republicans halfway. They're afraid he won't be strong enough.
Don't be fooled.
He's not above trying to talk sense into them, but when they pull out the big guns and threaten filibuster or vote-down or provision-stripping or whatever their latest bluster and threat...when it gets right down to it, I guarandamntee you, this sheriff will stand in the doorway with a shotgun.
There's not going to be a murder here, folks. Nothing to see. Move right along.
I've worked with good small-town cops and I've worked with bad ones. In big cities, I've ridden patrol with good cops and bad cops too. I've learned how to tell when they're paying attention and when they're not. When they truly care and when they don't.
I know a good one when I see one.
We're still shaky, after all those years of abuse. We're still scared. Some of us are losing our jobs, our homes, our livelihoods and, sometimes, our marriages and families.
We desperately need someone to protect us, but we're seeing the same old crap we've seen so many times before, and we don't know what's going to happen.
It'll be all right though. This president's got our backs.
He's no Dumbledore--he can't wave a magic wand and solve all the problems in one mighty sweep, but that's not what we need right now.
We just need someone to stand tall in the doorway, refuse to break eye contact with a bully, and say, calmly, "It's time for you to leave now."
Now, in real life, abusive spouses usually remain on the scene, one way or the other, because they share children with their exes. And that's all right. As long as he's not abusive to the kids, they need their daddy.
Just as we need opposing voices in democratic government.
But once abusive guys learn that they can no longer beat or bully their wives, they very often will back down. They'll still bluster from time to time, but it just no longer works like it once did.
They'll look for another cowering female they can dominate, or, more rarely, they'll learn from their mistakes and straighten up for the next wife.
Either way, the spouse who had the guts to leave will rebuild her life and, if she's smart, not hook up with another abuser.
The American people behaved, on Inauguration Day, like a woman who has left her no-good bully of a husband behind and has married a far better man who she knows will protect her and always be honest with her and kind to her.
It's a very liberating feeling, and once she's had a chance to see how a good man really behaves, she'll be much savvier, much quicker to recognize abusive behavior in others, and much less likely to put up with it.
So let the Republicans threaten and shout all they want. They just don't realize yet that they no longer possess the power.
We've got the power, now.
And a good man to stand in the doorway when we get scared.
Advertisement
WOW! Deanie, what a great analogy!
February 6, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
A very good analogy except now that the people have broken free and stood up to the Republicans, one wonders if the DC democrats will get the hint and start governing in the best interest of the people and to hell with the Republican's threats and criticism's.
I hope your faith in the new sheriff is warranted. We have yet to see for sure, but the time when we will find out approaches rapidly.
February 6, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great. It is just that under the old judge, the SEC was served with an injunction to stay at least 100 feet away from any large corporation.
Good post
February 6, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent, Deanie! One of your best! Yes, not only are they bullying in DC and around the world, but they have radio bullies and tv bullies and newspaper bullies and blog bullies. They use the same tactics whether it's toward another country or a fellow citizen. They want to cow people into submission. And yes, it's psychological. It gives them a sense of power - but the power is illusory.
People who bully are actually very dependent. They are dependent on others to kow-tow. If you stand up, instead of rolling over, it breaks their power. And standing up does not mean having to fight or argue. Walk away. Ignore. Or leave a short, clear message that you're done and you're not done in. Just peacefully walk away.
And yes, like a 2 year-old's tantrums, if you ignore the situation, first the tantrums grow worse. You're describing the "growing worse" stage. Because a tantrum is another form of bullying. And bullying is just a form of abuse.
Here's another tactic of abusers. They try to split people away from any support system. They try to divide and conquer. They keep spouses from having close relationships with others. They want them to believe they couldn't survive without them. The other way around actually. The bully is very needy - but cannot acknowledge that - and instead gets attention by behaving badly.
Right here at the Cafe we've witnessed some of these tactics. Trying to get people to turn on each other, pitting one group against another (for example, branding "Midwest women of a certain age" or Boomers or believers or gay folks negatively) The behavior of trolls fits your thesis. And isn't it interesting that the recent upswing of negative attacks here at the Cafe mirrors exactly what you describe in the Congress or at the height of the war and so on.
It seems to be a coordinated tactic across a spectrum of the political landscape. Thanks for pointing it out so effectively, Deanie.
I'm not sure the sheriff analogy works as a solution though. I think Obama has to stand tall in his sphere. Congress has to step up to the plate as well. And we are doing that right here. There are many ways to stand up. But the most important is to "stand together."
February 6, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There isn't some conspiracy of dunces trying to pollute TPM. These are regular people, the abused wife in this analogy, going on and on about what a great guy their ex-husband could be, on his good days. Empathy is called for right now, not paranoia.
February 6, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
True empathy is hard to pull off when what you're feeling is pity. When the "nah nah nah nah hey hey hey" chorus started at the inauguration, I had a few moments when I felt empathy for Bush. For once, the Secret Service wasn't keeping the protesters away from him. There was a moment where he had a look in his eyes like he finally got it. In that moment, I felt empathy.
The next moment I felt like he got what he deserved. Pity the fool.
February 6, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
True enough. As a longtime progressive independent, I felt pity for both parties at the grassroots and rarely had anything approaching empathy.
When I found something approaching that place, I begun to see a way forward that started with realizing they were victims every bit as much as the rest of us. Willing victims. But victims nonetheless.
Having spent time hiding behind the legs of my mom at a shelter, it became clear to me that the only way we could succeed as a people was to give republicans room to change. The only way to do that was to provide a good example and get the hell out of the way.
Continued partisan warfare at the grassroots, no matter what the clowns in the media are doing, makes reconciliation impossible.
We are the grassroots.
February 6, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The weak prey on the weaker, the sick prey on the sicker. the sick will go to extreme lenghts to make sure the sicker person stays sick.
Is that what the Republicans are doing to us? Or should I say all of congress. How many times has Obama said 'we work for the people'. Maybe he has something going on with that fragment. I have said before we get so caught up in the fight we forget what the government is supposed to be doing. Like a high school getting too wrapped up in the football team and everyone forgetting to do the homework.
February 6, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words what you're saying essentially is that republicans are possibly psychotic and maybe even dangerously so. That one should be very careful around them until someone does an intervention and has them committed for being a danger to themselves and/or others.
C
February 6, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
cmaukonen, uhhhh, no--one can be abusive without being psychotic and requiring hospitalization.
Abusers can even be re-educated, if they want to, which, occasionally, they actually do.
Read TheraP's comment. It's much more on the mark.
But my analogy is that the Republicans have grown used to weilding considerable power not just in congress, but in the public sphere, through bullying spokespeople, and they fail to realize that their time is past, that the American people no longer have patience for that crap.
So until they get the message, they will be meaner and more obstructionist.
It just reminded me of abusive behavior.
Psychotic behavior is a whole other thing.
February 6, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Psychotic behavior is a whole other thing.
Yup!
February 6, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The past initially kicks and screams upon realizing it's not the future. "
February 6, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, although I expect you could run just as compelling a metaphor for the Democrats. (And I'm a Democrat!).
Kudos to the O.P. for her work in the field, of course, I can't abide men who hit women. Not civilized.
February 6, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded for sure.
February 6, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deanie, this is brillaint!!!
TheraP! I am so glad you tuned into this one, with your expertise to evaluate such an assessment.
TheraP wrote: "People who bully are actually very dependent. They are dependent on others to kow-tow. If you stand up, instead of rolling over, it breaks their power. And standing up does not mean having to fight or argue. Walk away. Ignore. Or leave a short, clear message that you're done and you're not done in. Just peacefully walk away."
The moment I read this I saw Cheney in his wheelchair, his power broken. His "threats" of late were a tantrum. He has to torture us because he knows of no other way to control. This is a clear sign that his power is broken.
We should walk away, ignore, hey hey hey, good-bye!
February 6, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
He may be "broken," but did you get a load of him trying to signal to Al Qaida that now is the time to attack? This guy surely has a mental problem. I wish his heart would just give out. I don't even care if he goes to prison if this world, which he has tried to desperately to destroy, would just be rid of his hateful, despicable ass.
February 6, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
...the lesson learned from time spent on the playground as children to hanging out on street corners as adolescents is that one should never turn their back on a beaten bully just because he is momentarily down. They have a tendency to get back up. Finish the job so you don't have to do it again at a time and place of the bullies choosing.
Sometimes ignoring them will work; sometimes it doesn't. Ignore first, if that doesn't work, address them head on.
February 6, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and finish it!
February 6, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
Never turn your back on a bully and never let him get back up. He will tab you in the back, more often then not.
February 6, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a perfect example of bullying, Deanie:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/29051511#29051511
Paul Krugman towered over 3 interviewers, trying to work him over on a tag-team. Tag-teams on tv. Tag-teams on blogs. Tag-teams in the Congress. And the American people are suffering while tag-teams run over and over and over them. We just need to keep pointing it out!
It's evident when a blog matters, cuz the tag-teams try and disrupt. That's the proof a blog is important. That's the proof a topic is important.
Kudos on this most important blog, Deanie!
February 6, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wasn't "bullying" Thera. That was just 3 gasbags on Morning Joke who wouldn't know Economics if it hit them in the ass proving that very point.
February 6, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
But since the viewing public may not be as discerning as you are, tactics like that are a type of bullying in my book. Though I surely agree, they took on the wrong person with a topic they knew little of. It was so obvious at times they were reading from note-cards. To me that was funny! And there was Krugman, leaping from one historical situation to another, leaving the trio in his wake!
I'm glad I watch very little tv.
February 6, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 6, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get in her way, she's rollin'!
February 6, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This link is to a very strong effort in Omaha to address Bullying by bringing programs into the schools K-12. The evidence is strong that it is having an impact in a noticeably positive way.
TheraP, LisB - I think you will connect to what the woman in Omaha who founded it, has and is accomplishing.
http://respect2all.org/
February 6, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fabulous blog! I enjoyed the read.
February 6, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very insightful post. You are really onto something here and the logic flows well.
I do agree that Obama is by nature a "good cop." A person just can't hide that much intelligence and inherent goodness--though not all make good use of their potential.
I'm not sure about the easy divide between good and evil or Republicans and Democrats. (But I fully expect that a greater number of honest brokers could be found in the latter group)
Also, citizens in our government of the people must take more initiative to protect themselves. It's high time we lose the passive approach because nobody is going to save us and I think President Obama has tried to suggest that in a million ways.
For far too long we have been sitting around expecting our government to run itself and serve our interests. That hasn't worked so well. So I'm confident that the best in President Obama wants us to actively take more initiative and hold him accountable so he is able--if not forced-- to actualize all that potential he's got.
February 6, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment. This needs to be a blog entry.
February 6, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very glad you appreciated it. Thanks for the compliment, Jason.
February 6, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with Jason.
February 6, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analogy, Deanie. But I would say that the battered Congressional Dems still feel threatened and the bullies will continue to do what they do best until the Congressional Dems gain control of themselves and the situation.
Obama can help with that, but so far he hasn't. How many bullies do you know who will cooperate when they have control of you? That's why he and his surrogates should have been on a bully (oops) pulpit providing backup for Congress during the stimulus fight rather than trying to make deals with the bullies.
February 6, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see the tape of Obama speaking to the Congressional Caucus? Link is on TPM's front page. If you watch what he's doing, he's not only laying out the case, over and over, for the stimulus. He's also giving strength and encouragement to the troops. Kind of like the perfect pep-rally speech. The man is a master tactician!
February 6, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A master tactician? Sorry, but I think he's made a huge miscalculation with this bill. He should have been selling Dems and the public on it instead of trying to get republican approval. If he can keep the people behind it, the republicans would fall into line. But it's the republicans who have been doing a number on the American people. If you can believe reports from CNN, the bill has lost support among the electorate.
Personally, I think he should have realized that his preferred method of operating wasn't going to work from the beginning, but at the very least from the minute the house republicans gained control. The more I read, the more it sounds like the bill is a mere shadow of its former self. I rather doubt that anybody knows what's in it at this point.
February 6, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to the speech.
Peace be with you.
February 6, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I was referring to the master tactician part. He can make rousing speeches, no question about it, but timing is important. I believe he's late on his delivery this time.
February 6, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDRdog, I completely understand your point, and in fact, it occurred to me during the writing but it was past midnight and soon flitted out of my brain.
As for the second part of your observation, well, all I can say is that Obama has a tendency to play chess when all the rest of us are playing checkers. Give it some time to play out. He might surprise you yet!
Also, that speech TheraP mentions is GREAT. He said all the things I've been yelling at the TV all week ha ha.
February 6, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
See my reply to TheraP above for a longer version, Deanie. I think he's waited too long and that his chess game is a stalemate at the very best and he could be headed for a mate this round.
February 6, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. You're right, abusers and bullies are just scared little children inside. They (the reslugs) are so afraid because they are losing their power. But once you stand up to them it gets easier and easier to keep standing up to them.
I do pity them somewhat because this is the only tactic they know. They've never learned to play well with others and soon they'll be left on the playground all by themselves. No one will want to play with them.
February 6, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The infuriating thing about is that even though the Democrats now have the ball, they still won't play. It's like they are trying to get permission from the Republicans.
Just start the game already!
February 6, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great analogy and great post Deanie as usual. I just have one small bone to pick:
I could not disagree more with this statement. While it is true that fatherless children fare worse than children of two parent households, children who grow up with spouse abusers as role models are much worse off than the fatherless.
I don't care if the father isn't abusive to the children. If he abuses the mother, he has no right to be around children to perpetuate the mindset.
February 6, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, mage. It can be very frightening for children to witness this or to fear one parent might kill another. Not to speak of the "modeling" of how to solve problems (through violence).
Now, giving Deanie the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps she meant to put this another way or meant something that she didn't adequately explain.
February 6, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I was referring to mageduly, was AFTER THE DIVORCE, when the parents are no longer providing toxic role models, as long as the father is not abusive, the kids still need him.
There are gradations of everything, of course. You toss in drug or alcohol abuse, things change significantly, for instance. Or someone who is verbally abusive to the kids. Or sexually, of course.
But I have seen MANY instances in which the children adore their daddy, in spite of the problems between their parents--no, it does not make sense, but I have observed that many times. They will even resent the mother for leaving, sometimes.
I do not think that growing up in an environment where the parents live together and the father is violent is good, no doubt about it, unless the parents get counseling and the father stops the violence.
And yes, that is possible. I have observed that as well. Sometimes both have to learn new ways to cope with their stress; for instance, the woman needs to let the man walk away when he feels his anger building, and not follow along behind, screaming at him, for example.
But if, say, the mom has left him and things have cooled off between them and they've both moved on to new lives, then yes, there can be room for him in his children's lives, dependent upon various other factors mentioned above.
Anyway, this was not meant to be a definitive post on family violence. Lord knows I could write one if necessary, but it was merely meant to be a loose backdrop to an analogy. It just struck me, watching all the posturing going on, and all the commentators who were flummoxed that the Reps were so obstinate and obstructionist when it was going to backfire on them; it dawned on me that they were doing so against all logic because they didn't want to accept that they have lost their power.
February 6, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"because they didn't want to accept that they have lost their power."
...and, perhaps the Democrats haven't yet accepted they have gained it.
February 6, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I know Deanie. This post used the analogy to great effect in relation to Dems and Repubs.
And I am sorry that my comment came off as a knee jeck reaction. I, like you, have volunteered to help women in this situation, and have come away with a slightly different view.
February 7, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just as I thought, Deanie. Yes, I caution us all that all too often we write in haste (in comments) or there is a more extensive explanation not given (in a post usually). It's a good thing to give each other chances to explain things. I'm glad mage pointed out what she did. And glad Deanie explained more fully.
But I agree with bludmeanie below - this analogy wears better and better with time and reflection.
Once again, Deanie, thanks for a great post. And for an image which we can use over and over, if the repubs keep up their antisocial ways.
February 7, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry bluemeanie... for misspelling your moniker.
February 7, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Initially I found the analogy a bit over the top. But on reflection it suits, and suits well. That's the nature of good writing.
Thanks.
February 6, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink