Saturday, September 29, 2012

Engineering Public Sentiment

Old Gadfly:  IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind), you look tired and sad.

IM:  I am.  As I prepared for today’s conversation I found disturbing evidence to support my hunches about how politicians and the media are deliberately engineering public sentiment. 
Gadfly:  But don’t both sides do it?

IM:  Yes, but not to the same degree or depth.  Republicans might vet policy ideas to measure public sentiment—this is not the same as engineering public sentiment.  However, politicians and mainstream media (80% of Americans still get 80% of their news from a left-leaning mainstream media) who have aligned themselves with the progressive movement deliberately engineer public sentiment and in doing so are guilty of mendacity, complicity, and duplicity.  I’ll explain with plenty of public domain evidence.
Gadfly:  We talked about mendacity in our last conversation (“Dry, Parched Lips, September 23, 2012), and how wide-spread the comfort level with untruthfulness can be.  How do you define complicity and duplicity?

IM:  Complicity is a state of being an accomplice in perpetrating or tolerating mendacity.  Our mainstream media has been egregiously complicit.  Duplicity is deceitfulness in speech or conduct.  President Obama and his strategic advisors, especially David Axelrod, have structured their reelection campaign based on the art of duplicity.  And some in the media have played deliberate roles in support of this duplicity, such as David Corn with Mother Jones.
Gadfly:  These are serious accusations, IM.

IM:  Yes, and I am prepared to be criticized or persecuted for speaking out.  In fact, I fully expect to be punished for any number of bogus reasons.  Look how the current Justice Department has cracked down on states (Voter ID laws, purging voter registration records of disqualified or ineligible people, etc.) and individuals, such as Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  (By the way, one of the fathers of the American progressive movement was Woodrow Wilson.  It was Wilson who championed the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.  This Amendment shifted political power from the states to the federal government.)  As ample evidence shows, the Obama Administration punishes dissenters.
Gadfly:  Wait, just this week at the United Nations, President Obama said, "True democracy -- real freedom -- is hard work.  Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissent. In hard economic times, countries may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies, at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the painstaking work of reform."

IM:  Sounds great doesn’t it.  There are three key phrases in Obama’s speech:  “resist the temptation to crack down on dissent,” “countries may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies,” and “focusing on the painstaking work of reform.”  All three phrases clearly demonstrate duplicity.  For example, as I just described, Obama and his lieutenants do punish dissent. 
Gadfly:  Good point.  What are your concerns about Obama’s phrase, “countries may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies”?

IM:  This phrase is the ultimate example of mendacity and duplicity on the part of Obama.  He portrays the top 1% of taxpayers as the enemy of the middle class because they do not pay their fair share.  Yet, he and his lieutenants and a complicit mainstream media demonize Romney as the enemy when he tries to explain how difficult it may be to convince the 47%, who pay no federal income tax, that he has a better idea as to how to grow the economy.  It does not take a rocket scientist or London School of Economics Ph.D. to understand that it’s the economy, stupid—even Clinton understood this:  the economy produces wealth; wealth provides tax revenue for the government.  Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan understands this.  As an example of Ryan's very clear and “non-Copernican drone” thinking on this topic, see his excellent Wall Street Journal critique of Jeffrey Sachs’ progressive ideas of government.  Ryan is a threat (and enemy) to the progressive agenda.  Look at how the White House’s own website tried to rally people against Ryan’s proposed budget.  Yet, with a complicit Democrat-controlled Senate, there has been no budget since Obama took office.  Since then, he has increased our national debt by nearly 50% in four years, thanks to annual deficit spending well in excess of a trillion dollars.  Bush never reached an annual deficit in excess of even half a trillion, despite having to plus up a military force after the Clinton era to defend America against a real existential threat.
Gadfly:  Good point, IM.

IM:  You want another example?  How about the Tea Party?  While I am not personally affiliated with this movement, I certainly sympathize with their concerns about runaway government spending and a growing central government.  This is a group, by the way, that peacefully protested without any arrests or trashing of assembly areas, unlike the Occupy Wall Street movement, which was celebrated by the Obama Administration, prominent Democrats in Congress, and the mainstream media.  Look how a complicit mainstream media has rallied people against the Tea Party: 
·         Nicholas Kristof, of The New York Times, called Tea Party sympathizers “extremists,” and equated Tea Party opposition to the Obama and Democratic agenda a moral equivalent to the threat from al Qaeda.  
·         Thomas Friedman, of The New York Times, called the Tea Party the “Hezbollah faction” of the Republican Party. 
·         Joe Nocera, of The New York Times, claimed the Tea Party movement is waging jihad against America.  
·         Maureen Dowd, a columnist for The New York Times, has called members of the Tea Party movement “cannibals,” “zombies,” and “vampires.”
Gadfly:  I must say, IM, you have done your homework for our conversation.  How about the reform mentioned in Obama’s UN speech?
IM:  The reform Obama’s UN speech alluded to is part of his “hope and change” strategy.  For example,
·         Obama wasted no time when sworn in (in fact he offered many public speeches and appearances in his self-proclaimed position:  Office of the President-Elect.  His organization even formed a website in an attempt to seize control of the public narrative before even being sworn in.).  Within a month of his inauguration, he spent around $800 billion on a stimulus effort.  This move involved no civil or bipartisan efforts, nor the normal Congressional processes for introducing and conferring on legislation.  In the end, the bill passed with no Republican votes in the House and only two Republican votes in the Senate (Snow and Collins from Maine).   As we now know, the stimulus bill, which was based on the Keynesian theory that government stimulus can generate aggregate demand, did not stimulate the economy.  Other economists claim that an increase in aggregate demand results from a growing economy; government spending does not cause a growing economy.  Further, lofty speeches about rebuilding infrastructure and investing in green energy revealed incredible naiveté about how the broader economy and private sector business actually work together.  John F. Kennedy understood this, which is why he is famously known for his axiom:  “A rising tide lifts all the boats.”  Of course, the corollary is also true:  a diminishing tide lowers all the boats.  This is why, under the Obama Administration and its Keynesian economic policies, more people are now dependent upon food stamps and other forms of government assistance. 
·         Obamacare was another hope and change achievement (without a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate).  What made the hair on the back of my neck stand up during his March 22, 2010 (11:47 EDT) victory speech was when he said two things:  first, “change in this country comes not from the top down, but from the bottom up”—even though the majority of Americans were not in favor of such a comprehensive bill; and, second, when Obama paused and looked straight into the camera (at about six minutes and seven seconds into the speech), saying, “This is what change looks like.”  President Obama clearly proclaimed to all Americans that he had every intention to push his progressive agenda.  He reiterated this intention in his “The Country We Believe In,” speech on April 13, 2011.  As a modern grand inquisitor (see “Dry, Parched Lips,” September 23, 2012), President Obama, cheered on by progressives who currently have political power at the federal level, disregarded what the majority of Americans want.  And even though Obama campaigned on themes of civility and bipartisanship, there was nothing, civil or bipartisan, about the tactics involved in passing the stimulus and healthcare acts.
Gadfly:  Perhaps President Obama is demonstrating visionary leadership by pushing reform that may not be popular now but makes life better for more people over all in the future?
IM:  First, for now, Americans live in a Constitutional Republic.  We, the people, elect officials to represent us in matters of governance.  All elected officials serve the will of the people, not the other way around.  Yet, the President and the Democratic Party in Congress pushed policy that was not desired by the majority of the people.  Second, in Obama’s UN speech, he also cautioned about cracking down on dissent.  Yet, unknown to most Americans, President Obama signed a unique provision into law in the recent National Defense Authorization Act—the power to detain citizens indefinitely.  This news was not reported in the American mainstream media.  I found it in The Guardian, a British newspaper.  Publicly, Obama claimed he would veto the Act if it contained the provision.  In private, however, Obama threatened Congress that he would veto the Act if the detention provision was not included.  This is a blatant example of duplicity.  About this time, FEMA solicited contractor bids for containment camps (five per state) to be established within 72 hours for populations up to 1,000 inhabitants per five acres in all 50 states.  Even Rachel Maddow of MSNBC expressed concerns.  And, amazingly, our President claims to have the power to assassinate American citizens, without due process.
Gadfly:  I remember when we made such a big deal about waterboarding.  If I had a choice, I’d clearly take waterboarding over death by drone.  Yet, to be frank, IM, I don’t see anything so far that seems out of the ordinary for Washington, DC.  How does this relate to engineering public sentiment?
IM:  I’m just getting warmed up, Gadfly.  As I casually observed actions and behaviors that seemed somewhat isolated from each other, I also kept hearing in the back of my mind: drip . . . drip . . . drip . . .   Then, these seemingly isolated drops began to merge into a stream with force and direction.  I pulled my copy of George Orwell’s 1984 (with John Hurt and Richard Burton) off the shelf and inserted it into my DVD player.  At the very beginning of the movie was a black screen, then these words in white: 
“WHO CONTROLS THE PAST

CONTROLS THE FUTURE

(Following a short pause, the next two lines appeared on the screen)

WHO CONTROLS THE PRESENT

CONTROLS THE PAST
This is when I truly understood the magnitude and danger of Obama and the progressive movement’s design for engineering public sentiment.  Unfortunately, many of our younger voters have no idea that Orwell was capturing the real dangers he actually witnessed in the Soviet Union and Germany when he wrote the original book in 1949.
Gadfly:  IM, you are starting to frighten me.  Didn’t Lenin and Hitler promise hope and change? 
IM:  Yes, Lenin and Hitler did inspire the masses with promises of hope and change.  In Lenin’s case, change was revolution (from capitalism to socialism and then communism) and the promise was shared freedom and shared prosperity.  Hitler promised to restore the dignity and esteem of the German population through massive changes in government administration and cultural norms (political correctness) following the harsh and demeaning consequences of the Versailles Treaty after World War I. 
Gadfly:  How did people buy into these promises?
IM:  The people were agitated.  Lenin and Hitler were able to create public narratives to rally the people against “perceived enemies” such as the bourgeoisie and Jews.
Gadfly:  Do you think people anticipated the unintended consequences of the hope and change?
IM:  Perhaps many did but felt powerless to do anything about it.  This is why it is important for American citizens, right now, to take a closer look at what is going on in America.  Clearly, those who control the present control the past, and by engineering sentiment about the past (even the recent, nearly four dismal years of a sluggish domestic economy, not to mention foreign policy failures), they control the future. 
Gadfly:  Who do you mean by “those” and how do they do this? 
IM:  “Those” are the progressive politicians who currently control the federal government (and to a certain extent state, county, and municipal governments, given the extent of unionization) and the mainstream media.  Let me give some examples.  Obama brings a philosophy and unique set of experiences into his governing style.  He was inspired by Saul Alinsky (so was Hillary Clinton; and while husband Bill was President, Wellesley College was pressured not to make public her thesis on Alinsky).  Alinsky was a University of Chicago-educated radical of the 60s and 70s.  He wrote a book in 1971, Rules for Radicals:  A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.  Alinsky gave a special acknowledgement to the one who inspired him:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical:  from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.” (p. xii)
Alinsky also explained the rationale for his approach:
Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. (p. xix).
This sounds a lot like hope and change.  Further, Alinsky was very transparent in his goal:
WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be.  The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power.  Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. (p. 3)
Gadfly:  I’m not sure I see what’s wrong with this goal from an idealistic perspective.
IM:  What is disingenuous about Alinsky’s assertion is that Machiavelli described how princes managed power in competition with other princes in an international system, similar to the way prince Obama attempts to manage or balance power with princes in Russia, China, Iran, or the Middle East.  Alinsky even presented tactics for taking away power in the form of rules.  I’ll single out four of the 13 to demonstrate how they are used in the current state of affairs.
·         RULE 5: “‘Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.’ It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.  Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage” (p. 128).  Recall the rampant ridiculing of Sarah Palin, or even more recently, Clint Eastwood.
·         RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose” (p. 128).   Remember Harry Reid’s comment about Romney not paying taxes for 10 years?  While not true, the comment was political noise that generated mainstream media news cycles.  In another example, rule 8 delivered great results in the state of Colorado.  See Fred Barnes’ analysis of these tactics in his article, “The Colorado Model.”  The key point of his article is that most Americans are completely unaware of the integrated, behind the scenes efforts to create political noise (allegations that do not need to be true) that starts news cycles with mainstream media.  A recognized master of this particular tactic is David Axelrod.  Axelrod has made a lot of money for his public relations firm by engineering public (and decision-maker) sentiment through a method called astro-turfing.  Another professional tactician of rule 8 is David Corn of Mother Jones.  Corn is the one who generated news cycles with Romney’s 47% comments.  Corn also generated the news cycles that prompted the Valerie Plame federal investigation.  The problem is that no law was broken, but once momentum developed in the mainstream media, Bush felt compelled to appoint a federal investigator (something Obama refuses to do for many of the potential illegal activities--such as Fast & Furious, Solyndra and other green energy failures--under his Administration; but, then again, despite nearly singular efforts on the part of Fox News, Obama’s not pressured by any news cycles in the mainstream media).  Although there was no real legal basis for the investigation, Scooter Libby (advisor to Cheney) became the sacrificial lamb and a victory for the progressive movement’s effort to shape a public narrative painting a corrupted Bush administration.  Perhaps on another day, I can explain what I learned regarding the Bush experiment—the progressive movement demonstration (e.g., George Lakoff and the Center for American Progress) on how to demonize an individual and those affiliated with him, thus, presenting a false dichotomy to a voting public.
·         RULE 12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying ‘You’re right—we don’t know what to do about this issue.  Now you tell us’” (p. 131).  Two relatively recent examples demonstrate this tactic. 
o   The first involved the debt issue.  Obama could not afford to revisit this issue before the 2012 election.  See Bob Woodward’s account of the standoff in an excerpt to his book, The Price of Politics.  Ironically, Diane Sawyer on the ABC Nightly News managed to shape the interview with Woodward in such a way as to make Obama’s success in managing the debt crisis on a scale of Kennedy’s Cuban Missile Crisis.  Another blatant example of mendacity, complicity, and duplicity.  Unfortunately, attempts to inform the public with more objective views from other news sources get drowned out by the left-leaning pro-Obama mainstream media. 
o   The second example involves how Obama and Democrats provided a constructive alternative (to manipulate the public narrative) involving the payroll tax holiday.  On December 20, 2011, I caught a headline on page A23 of the New York Times (New York edition): “House Republicans Refuse to Budge on Extension of Payroll Tax Cut” (the online heading was “House Set to Vote Down Payroll Tax Extension.”)   The article commends the Senate for exercising leadership and advancing a solution, and harshly criticizes the Republican-led House for being obstinate. What the article does not say is that House Republicans had already forwarded a bill, passed on December 13.  House Resolution (H.R.) 3630, “Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011,” passed with 224 Republicans and 10 Democrats voting in favor, and 14 Republicans and 179 Democrats voting against the bill.   H.R. 3630 provided for a 12-month payroll tax cut.  On December 17, the Senate sent to the House an amendment (Senate Amendment 1465) to H.R. 3630 that changed the 12-month payroll tax cut to 2 months.  Yet, The New York Times headline and content made it look like Republicans blocked the payroll tax cut.  Why would the Democrat-controlled Senate not approve the House bill?  Three reasons:  (a) Democrats could not afford to let the public narrative suggest Republicans are interested in helping the middle class; (b) President Obama and other Democratic politicians need this issue to support their middle class warrior strategy against the wealthy; and (c) Obama and Democrats count on mainstream media complicity in shaping public narratives. 
·         RULE 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” (p. 131). While Romney and his affiliates have produced negative ads about Obama policies and performance; they have not gone after Obama as a person.  Obama on the other hand is fully exploiting rule 13.  He is fully aware of this, but chooses to play by Alinsky philosophy (the end justifies the means, even if the means are immoral) and tactics.  Obama admitted to such tactics in an interview segment not aired on Sunday’s (September 23, 2012) 60 Minutes.  Further, someday, history will more objectively record how George Bush was stigmatized by rule 13.  Obama continues to blame today’s lack of economic recovery on Bush policies.  He even suggests Romney wants to take America back to the policies that caused the economic mess we’re still experiencing (despite analysis strongly suggesting other causes for the economic crisis).  In another example, once the Tea Party was sufficiently excoriated in the mainstream media, it was relatively easy to target individuals affiliated by the Tea Party.  These individuals are labeled, “extremists.”  Yet, if one were to really look at the core principles of the Tea Party movement, he or she would see that members of the Tea Party are not anti-government (most of them are hard-working middle class Americans).  They are concerned about a government that is (a) too large and unsustainable; and (b) too egalitarian in taking away freedoms (or property, such as earned income) from some to promote equality for others (redistribution of wealth).  Thus, members of the Tea Party believe the recent political direction and actions of the Obama Administration appear to demonstrate what Jefferson cautioned against in the Declaration of Independence:   
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
By today’s progressive definitions, Jefferson would be called an extremist. 
Gadfly:  But perhaps we live in different circumstances than in Jefferson’s time.
IM:  In Orwell’s Animal Farm, written in the 1940s, Napoleon’s (modeled after Joseph Stalin) administration, which rallied the animals around a windmill (i.e., green energy), devolved into mere totalitarianism when the government could no longer deliver on promises.  The government’s original seven commandments (e.g., politically correct norms) were reduced to one:  all animals are created equal; some are more equal than others.  Orwell’s concern flowed from political ideologies that believed in the efficiencies of statism, the compassion of socialism, and the hubris of capitalism.  These same tenets define America’s progressive movement.  The outcome, if left unchecked, will be the same as in Animal Farm (and the former Soviet Union, Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, etc.)
Gadfly:  Americans should have enough power and common sense to do something in the November elections.  But, how would you convince them that Romney is a better choice?
IM:  Unlike your optimism in Americans having common sense, Bill Maher, a serial progressive, believes they’re stupid.  I do not.  Like you, I have confidence that Americans can do the right thing.  To our fellow Americans, I would say, “imagine this:  If Obama is reelected, then he would consider this fait accompli a mandate to continue his current policies.  When the debt inevitably continues to grow with no economic growth and in order to avoid a Greek-style collapse, the Administration will first seize the trillions of dollars corporations are still holding back while hoping for a more certain business climate, and then the Administration will seize personal retirement accounts.  Yes, IRAs, 401Ks, etc.  After all, as George Lakoff tells us in Whose Freedom, wealth in America belongs to the commonwealth:  “As we have already seen, America’s founders had a crucial idea:  to pool the common wealth for the common good to build an infrastructure so that everyone could have the resources to achieve his or her goals.  A government’s job was to administer the common wealth to benefit all . . .” (pp. 155-156).
Gadfly:  But the American people will protest.
IM:  Yes, if they can overcome the human bondage of emotion (i.e., the likeability index of political candidates) over reason (actual facts and what they mean).  But the Administration has already anticipated the possibility of protest—this is why Obama has already put in place, as we have already discussed, the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely in statewide FEMA camps, or even to assassinate those he deems a real threat to security.  Sounds like a dream, doesn’t it?  It can happen.  It has happened.  But, remember, those who control the present are working hard to control what we know about the past in order to control the future.  And when the end (control of the future) justifies the means, mendacity, complicity, and duplicity are not considered immoral behaviors.
Gadfly:  IM, your analysis is very discouraging.  And, while I’d like to find a way to mollify the harsh reality we’ve embraced in this conversation, I want to quote Neil Postman, who in 1985 wrote the following in the Foreword to his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death:
We were keeping our eye on 1984.  When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves.  The roots of liberal democracy held.  Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
            But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another--slightly older, slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling:  Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.  Contrary to common belief among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing.  Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression.  But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history.  As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
            What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.  What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.  Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.  Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.  Orwell feared that truth would be concealed from us.  Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.  Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.  Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.  As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”  In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain.  In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.  In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us.  Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
            This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right. (pp. xix-xx).    
IM:  An Obama reelection will be additional proof that Postman foresaw such an outcome 27 years ago.  If so, perhaps we can only console ourselves with the wisdom of Ecclesiastes 1:2-4, “Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities!  All things are vanity!  What profit has man from all the labor which he toils under the sun?  One generation passes and another comes, but the world forever stays” (The New American Bible).
Gadfly:  Very deep, IM.  Shall we have a glass of wine before we’re offered hemlock?

No comments:

Post a Comment