In line with this, I suggest that you have 50% of the people who will think as follows:
Good people: honest, hardworking, unselfish, courageous, realistic, patriotic, moral, Christian, clean, remember 9/11, hate Osama, hate Saddam, trust the president, he's doing a good job, support the troops. Those people will say that Saddam probably had something to do with 9/11, and they will say they support the war. These are the responses I will select, because I am like those people.
Bad people: selfish, rich, cowardly, don't have to work for a living, immoral, anti-religious, dirty, pro-abortion, pro-drug, pro-crime, love Bill Clinton, put the civil rights of terrorists above safety and common sense, don't give a damn about the firefighters who died in the WTC, hate America, burn the flag, spit on the troops, hate the president. Those people will say that Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and they will say they oppose the war. Those are the responses I will avoid, because I am not like those people.
The point of the theory is that it's not what people think happened in the real world ("who knows what really happened, I'm no expert"). It's not about facts, it's about morals and character and identity. It's what your responses say about who you are; who you are being like, and who you are being unlike. If you say that you believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, and you support the war, you are being like some upstanding young churchgoing Marine sergeant. If you say that you believe that Saddam was not behind 9/11, and you oppose the war, you are being like Rosie O'Donnell.
Oh, and what do we do about this? Somehow we have to get across the message
that if you are for the war you are like a clueless dupe, and if you are
against the war you are like an intelligent worker who has seen through the
bosses' bullshit. But this is only a part of the problem. The real problem
is that you have such a large number of workers who are so devoid of class
consciousness that they think that Bush is their spokesperson.
LP
> Carl Remick wrote:
>
> >Figuring out most Americans' reasoning is like analyzing a Monty
> >Python sketch. I believe the thinking goes like this: Saddam
> >wasn't responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but the attacks were just
> >the type of thing he would have done if he'd had the opportunity.
>
> Slavoj argues, in the interview I'll be broadcasting later today,
> that the "reasoning" is this: AQ hates America, SH hates America, so
> they're all the same and must be destroyed.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk