To further illustrate, in an intro to sociology class I once taught I tried to address the issue of citizen control of the economy. Specifically, I tried to dispel the myth of "consumer choice" as the means of influencing business behavior. After a brief exposition of the Keyensian model (borrowed from an Econ 101 textbook) i explained that even if by some improbable coincidence a sufficient number of people decided to boycott an industry, the effect of the boycott can be easily offset by the government decision to maintain the demand by increasing orders. Ergo, citizens can influence buisness behavior not by consumer choice, but by affecting the political process whereby government economic decisions are made.
That argument did not to seem to be terribly difficult to grasp, I suppose.
Nonetheless, most students answered "consumer choice" to the test question on that subject.
In more general terms, that experience illustrates an underappreciated fact that people are not rational when it comes to public policy. To be rational, they would have to have access to adequate information, and that requires time, effort, and money. As a result of that information asymmetry, most people's perception of public affairs is based what sociologists refer to as "stock knowledge."
Stock knowledge is a system of covnventions, stereotypes and beliefs presumed to be a priori valid in a given society. Questioning or challenging these conventions is pointless, because it deprives people of the only sense-making mechanism they have to cope with the matters they otherwise do not understand. It is like trying to take away an abacus from an old geezer and asking him to use a computer instead. The abacus is the only way of making sense of the numbers he can understand - taking it away will just make him angry.
That, btw reminds me an old court joke. A witness in a divorce case testifies about the defendants's infidelity. He says "I am walking through the park and I see this man fucking on a park bench that woman over there."
The judge interrupts "That is not the proper language in court! Let the witness repeat his testimony by using an appropriate expression, such as 'the defendant and the woman having an intercourse.'" So the witness repeats "I am walking though the park and I see the defendant and the woman over there having an intercourse." Then he pauses and says desperately "But your honor, as I got closer I really saw them fucking."
Ditto for the political process in this country: regardless what the discourse is - all what most people can comprehend and respond to is candidates fucking unpopular strawmen.
wojtek