Democrats & Liberals: Archives

To be sure, we as a voting constituency need to know the truth so as to make informed decisions. It saddens me to think that our government would spend tax dollars to sell an idea that is not the truth to the public. Propaganda that serves the self interests of those in power at the expense of the middle class is certainly condemnable. However, it is channeled through the Public Relations realm of the media, and, after all, “Madison Avenue” is in the business to “sell” ideas and products to its consumers.

What is blatantly evil, however, is when the same propaganda is channeled through other information media which is responsible for printing and reporting the truth and who is supposed to act as a watch dog of government on behalf of the people.

The erosion of the news media in our country (and the Western world) from an honest, objective source of information to a purveyor-of-propaganda for the right wing is, not only dishonest and irresponsible, it is self-destructive as well. With the support of corporate news, this current government is stealing our democratic republic, multi-party system, and selling the people of the middle class down the river. After all, the next generation of the middle class in America will be made up of all of our children, not just those of the middle class. (Incidentally, most reporters of news remain within the parameters of the middle class, despite what they might tell themselves.) Or is it that they are afraid to report accurately and objectively out of a fear of reprisal from the corporation’s CEO? Could it be so that the reporters don’t care that the next generation may only be able to vote “yes, or no”, if at all?

If one dares to confront any of this administration’s decisions, he/she is labeled “unpatriotic”. It sells its destructive ideas as pro-American. For example, “Healthy Forests” rapes the natural forests, “The Patriot Act” deprives us of our constitutional rights, and there are more. My point is, the news media seems to be in collusion with this band of thieves, reporting their ideas with a subtle positive bias. I have read all too many articles in which the bias of the writer is evident through subtle, and not so subtle, “parenthetical phrases” that have little or nothing to do with the theme of the article, but put a positive bent on a person or idea that supports the right wing. I am also aware that the use of particular verbs can sway the reader’s unconscious in the direction intended by the writer. For example, a recent headline read, “The Democrats Haggle”. Could the writer have chosen, perhaps, “The Democrats Debate”? It seems to me that were this an article on a discussion among Republicans, it would have most likely been a “debate”. The use of language, or verbage can appear “objective”, but in reality can be misleading.

I have addressed my perspective on the subtle form of propaganda within the writings and reporting of the news media. A more obvious form of propaganda also exists. That I leave to another time. Regardless, if the propaganda is paid for, or if it is given freely, it is going to destroy our current multi-party, democratic-republic system of government. Wake up America!

Whoa, hit the brakes on that! Of course our government is constantly trying to convince us of things. That’s what they are supposed to do. This is a democracy, and their policy decisions must be run before the public for approval. They will claim that they enlist the help of PR firms and the like because they’re just trying to present the cleanest, most aesthetically pleasing presentations, to express their ideas to the fullest. Whether or not we take them at their word is another thing. Too many obvious policy failures, and people’s intuition will undermine the strength of the PR.

Before we despair at their power, we should note that people are starting to develop a real distrust of the Administration, across political lines.

What we need at this point is a thirst for the facts, and the skills to find them. What we need is diligence in running to ground all the details of this administration’s public policy, and the eloquence to convince the public of our picture of how things are going on.

We need the facts on this most especially because we need to move people away from the disquiet they get when they hear suspicious rumors, towards the commitment that only proven incompetence, and substantial evidence of deception will bring. We don’t need people merely alienated from the administration. We need them actively opposed to them.

Get the facts. Make your case. Don’t assume for a moment that anybody will just take your word for it. Don’t neglect context, and sure as hell don’t neglect your fact-checking.

This battle will be won or lost based on what we can convince people of, not on whether we can constitutionally restrain the manner of their presentation.

Stephen,
This part of your comment is what I have the most trouble with.

“Of course our government is constantly trying to convince us of things. That’s what they are supposed to do.”

They are supposed to inform us, not convince us!The idea that they have any right to convince us of things that have no basis in fact is unbelievably wrong. Where in our Constitution is the government given the right to use experts to convince us of anything?

Any use of government funds to propagandize the public or convince them of things that are not true like “Saddam was in league with the perpetrators of 9/11” (which is still accepted by the majority of citizens of this nation in spite of its falseness) should qualify as a high crime against the people of this nation.

“Before we despair at their power, we should note that people are starting to develop a real distrust of the Administration, across political lines.”

Stephen this is clearly not true if you read the latest NY Times poll.

I recommend a book to you,”Weapons of Mass Deception” which lays out why the PR campaigns worked. Those PR campaigns led the American people down the primrose path toward believing in the WMD’s and other concocted perceptions that led the people and the Congress to approve of the war. Long after the facts are out the impression created by the lies still exist. It can hardly be construed to be in the public’s interest to be lied to in this way.

“What we need at this point is a thirst for the facts, and the skills to find them.”

Stephen while I agree with you that facts make the case, the truth is we have lost this case in the court of public opinion. We lost it because the truth has been grossly manipulated by our own government using hundreds of millions of dollars provided by taxpayers to lie to them more effectively.

The “facts” have been published since before the war began and they have changed little. A well told lie will beat the facts any time which is why propaganda paid for by our government must be outlawed.

“This battle will be won or lost based on what we can convince people of, not on whether we can constitutionally restrain the manner of their presentation.”

Stephen, If they continue to go into the battle of truth versus lies armed with money provided by the taxpayers and ready to convince people of a lie we will lose. If we allow that to continue I assure you that we will continue to lose elections and fail to convince people of the truth.

The value of the truth presented well will win out in the long run, but in the long run we are all dead and the events in question today are all history. It is not possible for individuals to make such changes as are needed in our government today over a short period of time. It will take a grass roots movement of tens of millions of people to make those changes and many years.
Henri

Henri, timely article. I wonder if there is any connection between the concept of authority as an apparent majority of citizens in this country define the word and the concept of authoritarian rule?

For despite the facts, the majority of Americans appear to have seized upon the office as authority and that is where the truth lies, regardless of what the facts or other witnesses have to say about them.

I think you’re too deterministic about this. Just because they have P.R. people working with them on this, doesn’t mean they have perfect control. This can go out of their hands if the right pressure and facts are applied. They are at the mercy of facts and history.

Propaganda is not perfect. It can, in fact, undermine itself, if it’s too rigidly dogmatic, and if it runs counterfactual for too long. It can become an albatross around the neck of the people who use it. How much trouble did the “sixteen words” get Bush into?

We can despair as to whether the truth will get out, or we can make sure it does.

Besides trying to outlaw it will make us look like we’re trying to muzzle their political speech. And that’s first amendment territory.

“I think you’re too deterministic about this. Just because they have P.R. people working with them on this, doesn’t mean they have perfect control. This can go out of their hands if the right pressure and facts are applied. They are at the mercy of facts and history.”

Stephen
The things you say beyond the first sentence are true enough, but propaganda sponsored by the government before we have an event to react to is really powerful. If the issue of Iraq’s connection to 9/11 is taken as a demonstration look what happened. Months after the campaign of lies was carried out, and after admissions by both the President and Sectetary of State that there was no evidence of that link, over sixty percent of the citizens of this nation still believe the lies.

“Propaganda is not perfect. It can, in fact, undermine itself, if it’s too rigidly dogmatic, and if it runs counterfactual for too long. It can become an albatross around the neck of the people who use it. How much trouble did the “sixteen words” get Bush into?”

I agree with your statement but it is still incomplete. The actual trouble Bush is in because of those words is small compared to what it ought to be. Those words had an impact on events, which have all gone his way up to this point. It is the actions by leaders that the words enable that makes propaganda so damaging to any nation. Propaganda works, ask any student of the Third Reich, Russia in the fifties and sixties, or China during the cultural revolution.

“Besides trying to outlaw it will make us look like we’re trying to muzzle their political speech. And that’s first amendment territory.”

Stephen,
Their use of government funds to promote their lies is not guaranteed by the first ammendment. If they promoted this propaganda with private funds I might object to it’s content but I would never expect to control what they said. They have no established right to lie to the people with tax funds as the means of promoting their lie. They are dangerously close to establishing a precedent that no Republican or Democrat Administration will hesitate to use if it is allowed to continue. It is explicitly the use of government funds that tripped my trigger here and I have said that over and over again.

Manipulation of people by the government is wrong no matter which Party is in power. I am far from despair, but I have little faith that anything will change soon. I expect us to go through years of these battles before the changes come that help people assert their control over our government.

No illusion about the power of facts will alter the reality of of this problem. It is a problem related to the abuse of the power of the State by our Administration which is using tax funds to promote policys rather than simply informing us about them through the press. The manipulation of the Media, with taxpayers funds, in order to deny the rights of the citizens to know what our government is really doing and why is wrong, dangerous and destructive of our rights.
Henri

The polls paint a more complex picture. I think you have to factor in that Saddam was a easy target for the scumbag of the year award, even before 9/11. Bush has successfully played on that. It’s not that people are stupid, really, but rather that there are other reasons for their acceptance of the war now.

The picture of America’s acceptance of the war is much more complex than it seems at first glance. A recent Newsweek poll indicated that most American will be less likely to vote for Bush because of his expenditures in Iraq, and his policies and decisions, during and after the war will more likely have a neutral or a negative effect on their decision to vote for Bush than a positive one. The one bright spot for him is the capture of Saddam Hussein. That, if nothing else spared him the full brunt of the consequences of this war on his election chances. If things turn significantly downhill in Iraq, that may not even be enough. People don’t believe, according to a CBS poll, that the war in Iraq was worth it on the results alone. Removing Saddam is well favored, but not the war itself. Only a minority believed that Iraq required immediate action. Most people either thought containment was possible, or that he wasn’t a threat at all. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that going into the war either had no effect on the threat terrorism, or had an aggravating effect on it. Most want an international court, and don’t believe we’ll see a stable government there withing the next two years.

According to a Pew research Center As of 12/03, almost half of americans had doubts as to whether Bush had a clear plan, and almost two thirds of those surveyed believed that hadn’t clearly explained his plan.

I could go on for a while, but the picture I get is that Bush may end up cancelling out much of his gains with his screw-ups. Americans may think that things are going somewhat well, but they aren’t necessarily giving that credit to Bush. I think it was smart for the Democrats to step in and support the soldiers from the get go, as that defused any idea that only the Republicans were supporting the troops, which would have funnelled more credit Bush’s way as he defended the soldiers against the mean ole Dems. Whatever the cause, Americans believe that for the most part, we are succeeding in Iraq on the quality of our soldiers and weapons, not on the quality of the Bush Administration. Bush is going to get the blame, if things go rotten enough in the next few months.

Perhaps Bush is like the Chihuahua in the Taco Bell Commercials He’s great publicity, but not very good marketing.

Besides, when it come down to it, Bush has done too good of a job. People are now less worried about Iraq than they are about the economy.

So don’t be pessimistic. People aren’t stupid. They’re just complicated. They haven’t been coopted by Bush’s system, especially where it counted most for them. If Saddam had died or escaped, I doubt Bush would be in much of a position to brag right now.

Now what we have to do now, is keep on beating the drum, keep on doing the fact checks and keeping ourselves aware of the situation.

If you want to fact check me on the issues, here are the links. Be sure to take note that on the approval ratings, Bush is trending downwards.

Polling on Bush’s Handling of Iraq.
Polling on America’s priorities.
National Barometer.

There’s an additional interesting one which has Bush and whatever Democrat pops his head up in a statistical dead heat: Bush Vs. Dem.

“It’s not that people are stupid, really, but rather that there are other reasons for their acceptance of the war now.”

Stephen,
Nowhere in anything that I have ever written is the implication that the people are “stupid” a theme. The principles behind why and when propaganda will work are more subtle than we can cover here but they do not require stupidity in the audience, just self interest. The main effort of propagandists everywhere is to link the self-interest of their audience to their message. That and the practice of blurring the boundaries between disapproval of someone(s) behavior and action against that person or group will often suffice. The most important element of self-interest linking is to link the security of the audience effectively to the desired action. In this case falsely linking the security of US citizens to the process of deposing Saddam using our military. The second most important link used by propagandists is the false link between patriotism and their desired action. The third and very important element in the linking process is to link all opposition to their course of action with opposition to our people in the field in any combat required as part of their action. There are many others but the establishment of those false links in the mind of the audience will work to raise approval for your actions during the critical phase of readying the people for the changes in the status quo that are coming. Approval prior to the action is all that is required even if that approval for that action erodes later. Other agendas are always arising that can be used to again link the audience’s approval to the desired target, in this case Bush, in the minds of the audience.

Thus the link between the idea that Saddam is a bad actor, with the idea that immediate action was in our interests carried the day before the war. Now that link is breaking down but the link between our security and Bushes action hero posturing as our Commander In Chief is more important, and the polls show that as still very strong. The audience approval of any Bush Administration action can be low, their approval of his policies can even be low, if the sum of the audience’s fears leave it insecure about the possiblity of terrorism and Bush is seen as effective in that one key area he is likely to be reelected. My wife thinks that Osama may be trotted out in October as a captive. Something will be happening then as the run-up to war with Saddam, not Iraq, was happening during the critical run-up to the mid-terms.

Manipulation as opposed to campaigning, using Federal Funds in the process of manipulating the critical links in citizens’s minds to reflect the Bush Administration’s desires, and the damage done to the rights of the people are the issues here. Not stupidity! Self-interest is the critical factor in how propaganda works. Sophisticated people often believe propaganda long enough for it to be effective. Total control of the press is no longer even required as it was felt to be in WWII by Hitler’s propagandists. Simple manipulation of the facts given to the press can be adequately effective within your nation. This can add to the sense of a society at siege when the rest of the world opposes your course as it did in the case of Iraq.

By the way polls do not establish facts, they merely reflect and attempt to measure opinions. As such polls are useful in argument only as a means of supplementing facts. Facts can only be established by other means. The fact that we have conquered Iraq exists. Thus the propaganda used to keep the people from opposing that course of action effectively worked prior to the action being taken.

In regard to the possible outcomes of the election, remember how the tragic death of a great Democrat, Paul Wellstone, was used against the Democratic party? Look for other propagandistic events of this kind to occur before the next election. Booing the people who were booed there was a really minor part of his memorial and done by a very few people. That became the point of the election in the press and the Republicans won in Minnesota, a key state usually in the Democratic fold. Don’t believe that a fifty fifty rating in the polls means anything at this point. Opposition to Bush has only hardened in thirty five percent of the population if I am reading the polls correctly. Forty eight or so percent are hardened in their approval of him. The rest remain only nominally at play unless some event occurs that turns the people against him. I will be very surprised if that event occurs before the election. I look for a Nixonian second term at best. I wish I thought we would win this one but who we run hardly matters at this point. A generic Democrat was doing better than any individual actually running the last time I checked.
Henri

First time visitor because of nomination for Bloggie.———-

Just a quick comment. It seems that this site has the potential for increasing the dissonance of the dialog of American politics. There is today a tolerated, expected and even encouraged extremism in political discussion. I chose this topic scanning recent posts since I too hope we stop using propagandistic methods. But ….

I’d suggest that the comments about “Bush lied about WMDs” is in fact propagandistic methodology itself. The use of loaded words like “lies” and repeated mantras is no different than selling soap or Nazi views.

The “series about the selling of the president” is not about the use of PR techniques but is in fact about the bribery of the campaign finance and lobbying systems. Thus slipping in an oft heard set of words is inappropriate “selling” of your concepts. Chuck Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity and project manager Alex Knott who led the latest “Selling of the President 2004” would probably object to the characterization of the work as describing a PR campaign.

These two examples of this column’s using propagandistic methods were easy to identify in a quick scan. No doubt the opposite side of the site will produce more easy examples of extremist writing.

A national discussion of facts needs to avoid the techniques being used here if you are serious. In addition the use of opposition as the premise to this web site is potentially counterproductive to real discussion, more than using PR techniques.

The calling for additional “editors” for this blog to be “passionate” is an invitation to confrontation rather than factual and logical discussion. It may in fact be an invitation to those who can deftly slip into the PR techniques of repetition, slogans and mantra repetition.

Respectfully and constructively, not confrontationally, sumbitted for consideration.

Gigi

Luigi, thanks for dropping in on WatchBlog. You are quite correct about the potential for stepping up dissonance of political debate in the design of this site. However, WB is well managed by all of the contributing editors here and unlike a host of sites, flames, troll-baiting and the like are not permitted and deleted when they occur, which is surprisingly, not very often.

As I have learned from WatchBlog over a half year now, is that one person’s fact is another person’s hype. WatchBlog cannot hope to function as an investigative journalistic site, therefore, WatchBlog is defined by the intelligence, sources, and biases of the 30 or so writers. The intelligence level across all the columns is quite high in my opinion. Sources are abundantly linked and referenced in most articles. Biases - well, we all have them, and the columns help define those to some extent for visitors and commentors.

I hope you enjoy WatchBlog participation as much as I have, and return often.