No, I simply know it to be "a fact" that there are always two kinds of people in groups like that, the truly evil and their enablers, the latter of which you wish to spare the feelings of because they aren't truly evil but rather misguided or ignorant, and also because you think the unavoidable personalization of it guilt by association results in will stand in the way of their desired and much needed "CONversion". The same dynamics apply here whether we're talking about the decision to compromise or cooperate on the leadership level or the election voting decision by the minion. They both involve answering the question as to whether or not the generalization/label use deters them from "coming around" because of the affront represented by the "name-calling". I say generally speaking, it won't deter them, because it is their realization and acknowledgement of the problem the name-calling/labeling brings to the fore that started them on their path, and indeed, a path that might never have been cut through their jungle of ideas without it.
So I ask, if you wanna make them aware of the fact that they are being manipulated, misled, and kept ignorant by the leadership in the repub party of both the pol and pundit kind working in concert towards that end, how do you do so without labeling them and the party they control liars, as opposed to "angry white men"? It's like BHO said (as some of us did long before...) they cling to their ignorance, and I've long added, with the mythical tenacity of the Gila Monster -- even after their head is cut off. This can be seen in the 63% still believing that wmds were found in Iraq, to the most dangerous rightwingnut of all -- the flat earther. You simply can't overcome all this on a personal level and achieve the conversions desired without establishing their guilt with the use of descriptive terms like gullible, ignorant, etc, either explicitly or by implication, in the process of convincing them they've been played by "the angry white men" in their leadership or who are their peers. That personalizes it far more than the use of a generalization like "angry white men", but remains the unavoidable inner personal battle they must go through in the process of rejection sought. The sinner can't be forgiven unless they first recognize that they sinned, and rejecting the sinner label kinda short circuits that process, no?
What you call "alienating", I call testing their metal/convictions and raising their awareness. It's the flag their party collectively flies. The "angry white men" label is nothing more than a condemnation of what they support, whether it be because they are racists, etc, or because they've chosen to overlook it under some "lesser of two evils" rationale that their being misled, etc, that you want to rectify, is the proximate cause of.
This subject has been a pet peeve of mine for decades now, and one I've focused on a lot in my time on the "internets". It's also the reason behind my "signature" choice -- which hardly makes the case that they are ALL stupid, or evil for that matter. I just see them being unduly offended by the proper characterization of the repub party in toto and using that as a reason to stay on the path/supporting of gullibility and ignorance as an indication of them giving the percieved personal affront more weight than the harm the victims of it are burdened with, which makes them either rotten fruit, or unripe and not ready for the picking yet. They are like the cult member not quite ready to make the leap back into reality because they are rightly labeled as, a cult member. When they make that leap is when our job of lifting them up and positively supporting them begins, not while they are still mired in the muck of their choosing.
Call it "tough love" or an earning on their part. To earn it and to make the "CONversion" as many have with the dropping of the republican label,
http://www.google.com/search?q=why+i+am+no+longer+republican&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en is due to what but their understanding and acknowledging that such things as "the angry white men" label for the republican party is both earned and deserved?
