Did I mention that the name of this blog is sociological?

Because I'm an insecure egomaniac who constantly searches for reminders of my own existence on Google and Technorati.com (kidding!!) I came across this fine post that describes how right-demagoguery works like a con, not just figuratively but literally, and notes why that makes them so difficult to defeat:

Good con artists are difficult to prosecute. This is true, in part, because getting conned is viewed differently than being the victim of other forms of crime. There's a sense of shame, or at least of embarrassment, on the part of the victims, so they're less likely than other crime victims to report the crimes. Con artists know this, and they exploit it -- sometimes compounding that embarrassment by working a con that relies on the mark's greed or chauvinism or some other trait they are unlikely to be proud of and thus making the victim feel complicit in their own victimhood.

That reminds me of how lazy I am, because for at least six months now I've had a classic sociological paper on my bedstand by Irving Goffman on this very phenomenon—con men who set up cons that rely on the victim feeling ashamed of having been conned—called "On Cooling the Mark Out: Some Aspects of Adaptation to Failure." Scott McLemee first called my attention to it, and I've always suspected it would yield important insights into how the professional conservatives do business; and how, some day, to put them out of business. But never tested my suspicion by, you know, reading the thing.

Now this post comes along. God's way of telling me to get cracking on my homework, I suppose. I'll do so and report back soon.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future