Site icon Fabius Maximus website

Successful propaganda as a characteristic of 21st century America

Larry Kummer, Editor

Introduction:  This is the first in a series of dashed off speculative opinions.  Normal procedure on the FM website for these topics would be 3 thousand word posts, supported by dozens of links.  I dont’ have the time to finish them, and too many of these outlines have accumulated in my drafts file.  Perhaps these will spark useful debate and research among this site’s readers.  All of these have been discussed at length in other posts on the FM website.

A major revolution in American politics during the past decade or so:  the increased use of outright propaganda, and Americans acceptance of it.  Both side have participated, but only one side has been successful.

To see how far we’ve decayed, I recommend a look at the transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates (also see the Wikipedia entry). They read like term papers of today’s college sophomores.  They are longer, more complex and sophisticated than the “debates” of today, in which candidates volley sound-bites with journalists.  The L-D debates gave tangible evidence of a vibrant democracy.  American will be back on track when we produce something like this.

Contents

  1. On the left
  2. On the right
  3. Bipartisan lies
  4. Conclusions
  5. For more information from the FM site

(1)  On the left

On the left we have the intense campaign to convince people about the imminent danger of global warming.  Almost all the major news media, educational institutions, and scientific institutes signed on to the crusade (to some degree).  Their opposite was a small number of skeptics and conservatives (big corporations financed both sides).    Much of the governments regulatory apparatus signed onto the crusade, seeing the potential for a vast expansion of their powers.

Nevertheless he project has failed to capture the high ground of US public opinion.  Without this they have little ability to implement powerful new regulations, let alone reshape America’s society and economy — no matter how intensely believed by the green minority.

(2)  On the right

The right (conservative) end of the political spectrum undertook a more ambitious task:  erase from the public’s awareness much of what we know about macroeconomics and replace it with fake history and faux theory.  I have not seen a full description (let alone analysis) of this, but the broad outlines are easily stated.

The last has become a primary principle for conservatives, as explained in this excerpt from page 291 of The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill Ron Suskind (2004):

The package of post-Waco tax proposals, led by a 50% cut in the individual tax on dividends, had been all but buried since O’Neil took his stand in early September. It came up infrequently, and always in the past tense — what we were thinking of doing but couldn’t afford. After the midterms, though, {Treasury Secretary} O’Neil could sense a change inside the White House, from Rove, Lindsey, and others. … Now Cheney mentioned them again …

O’Neil jumped in, arguing sharply how the government was ‘moving toward a fiscal crisis’ and ‘what rising deficits will mean to our economic and fiscal soundness.”

Dick cut him off. “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said.  O’Neil shook his head, hardly believing that Cheney — whom he and Greenspan had known since Dick was a kid – would say such a thing. He was speechless.  Cheney moved to fill the void. ” We won the midterm elections. This is our due.

For example for this propaganda in action, see Glenn Reynold’s Instapundit website.  During Bush Jr’s Administration deficits were seldom mentioned and less often blamed on him — and reports of the recession were attributed to media bias (see his mocking “Dude, where’s my recession” posts even 6 months after the recession started).  Now almost every bit of bad news is tagged to Obama.  And although the current Federal fiscal year began 1 October 2009 (even before the election), they blame Obama for the resulting deficits.

(3)  Bipartisan lies

Both parties support our wars, which requires a large superstructure of lies.  Wars are wonderful things for making the proles fearful and obedient.

The original rational for the Iraq War sent down the memory hole, we’re told to consider as victory the conversion of a secular enemy of Iran into a Islamic ally of Iran — at a vast cost in lives and money (perhaps 2 trillion dollars, whenever it ends).  Tough luck for the women and religous minorities of Iraq, but we can easily ignore their problems.

The Afghanistan occupation requires bolder lies.  Although almost irrelevant to 9-11, the occupation prevents more 9-11’s.  A few hundred al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan become a threat to the entire region, perhaps even a cause of atomic war.  An so forth.  For more on this see The Big Lie at work in Afghanistan and You can end our war in Afghanistan.

(4)  Conclusions

Let’s not point the finger of blame (or any other finger)  at our political activists.  Political debates consist of exaggerations and lies to the extent that we passively accept them.  We have the tools to become well-informed, and minds with which to balance competing theories.  We we have become gullible, that’s our problem — not theirs.

(5a)  For more information from the FM site

To read other articles about these things, see the FM reference page on the right side menu bar. Of esp relevance to this topic:

Reference pages about other topics appear on the right side menu bar, including About the FM website page.

(5b) Afterword

Please share your comments by posting below.  Per the FM site’s Comment Policy, please make them brief (250 word max), civil and relevant to this post.  Or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).

Also — you can now subscribe, receiving posts by email — see the box on the upper right.

Exit mobile version