Moonbat Watch (Updated)
Speaking of the level of civil discourse, I’ve started to notice some of the blogs that regularly use the word “moonbat” are now starting to use the word “nutroots.” It’s hard to argue which expression is more, umh, endearing. Both sound to my ears like something a twelve-year-old would say, and for all I know, some of the bloggers that use either term are 12.
Here’s the technorati chart for “moonbat”:
Posts that contain Moonbat per day for the last 30 days.
Get your own chart!
Here’s the technorati chart for “nutroots”:
Posts that contain Nutroots per day for the last 30 days.
Get your own chart!
It’s too early to say that there’s a transition from one epithet to the other, but there’s a suggestion that could be happening.
Update: (in response to eRobin’s comment)
I wasn’t sure what the origin of the expression “moonbat” was so I looked it up on wikipedia:
The phrase was popularized in 2002 by Perry de Havilland of Samizdata, a libertarian weblog. The term was originally rendered as ‘Barking Moonbat’, suggesting that certain issues seem to trigger a reflexive response from some people much like wolves howl at the moon (i.e. the term evokes the traditional association between the moon and insanity). According to de Havilland, a moonbat is “someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be”. Adriana Cronin-Lukas defines the term as “someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency”. This term has long been used to describe protesters on the political Left, but was originally coined to also describe commentators on the political Right as well as certain libertarians.
Contrary to some speculation, de Havilland has stated it was not originally a play on the last name of George Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian, regardless of the fact he and Mr. Monbiot have appeared on the BBC together expressing politically opposed views.
The fact that this came from someone who was not your average Coulterfuhrer, who had cache on the BBC, made me wonder if use of the term was more than a playground epithet. There is an idea in propaganda, first popularized in the third reich, where you pick a single entity as a target, and focus your resources on that “enemy.” Unfortunately, I can’t find the exact reference, but recall it was on the Calvin Propaganda Archives (if you’re interested in the subject, there’s lots of material here I haven’t seen elsewhere).
Marshall Wittman understands something about propaganda. His use of the “nutroots” epithet sounded to me like more than casual usage:
Even if Democrats gain control over one or both chambers this fall, the White House will be unattainable in ‘08 if the left alienates the vital center. Only hawks win Presidential elections. Unfortunately, even some of the best in the party either haven’t figured this out, are nutroots collaborationists or have declared neutrality.
Are you, or have you ever been a “nutroots collaborationist”?
More: interesting read at Anonymous Liberal’s place on the netroots.
August 5th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Ah, you trendspotter!
Coincidently, I was thinking about just this topic today when I saw a wing nut in a book I was reading with my younger son. I said, “You’re a wing nut!” and then wanted to take it back immediately b/c of the horrible political implications. (plus, he didn’t get that I was calling him a sillybilly and wondered why I was saying he was a small metal thing) Anyway, that made me think that “wingnut” the way the bloggers use it makes sense whereas the other side’s “moonbat” does not. Unless we’re supposed to be barking at the moon? I feel like my four-year old. I don’t get it. This is all a long way of saying that at least “nutroots” makes sense. Netroots, nutroots. I get it!
August 5th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
I wasn’t sure what the origin of the expression moonbat was so I looked it up on wikipedia:
The fact that this came from someone who had cache on the BBC made me wonder if use of the term was more than a playground epithet. There is an idea in propaganda, first popularized in the third reich, where you pick a single entity as a target, and focus your resources on that “enemy.”
Now, that I’ve written this much, I think I’ll just update the original post.
August 6th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Yeah, you’re right - it’s a very pernicious and probably well-considered epithet. It doesn’t only take on the extreme elements of the left (like Moonbat did), it takes on anyone who gets involved in grassroots organizing on behalf of the Dems. Of course, being vocal about the importance of grassroots organizing is a core part of the DNC 50-state strategy. So this term covers the netroots (they’re small but they’ll clearly be a bogeyman for the Right in the coming months and years - and how much will the corporate media love that?) as well as the grassroots, which are largely ordinary people trying to get involved in politics.
Either these people are very good at this kind of propaganda or they just got lucky with a cute phrase and I’m overestimating their acumen.
August 6th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
“Either these people are very good at this kind of propaganda or they just got lucky with a cute phrase and I’m overestimating their acumen.”
This is just what I’m trying to figure out. As you know, kids pick this kind of thing up naturally, so this must be part of the story.
On the other hand, Fox News isn’t a figment of the imagination. There’s some intent behind their use of rhetoric.