>Krugman:
>
>"The main lesson of Conason's book, however, is that hypocrisy works.
>Phony populism convinces the public that the greedy rich are regular
>guys; whining about the "liberal media" helps to entrench a de facto
>conservative bias; noisy tirades about morality convince voters that
>liberals are sinners; flag pins in the lapels of draft dodgers let them
>question the patriotism of critics."
>
>This IS all about the political right using Gramsci's theories to
>establish cultural hegemony through skillful framing of issues and the
>use of right-wing populist rhetoric that generally plays well to a broad
>audience in the U.S. What is puzzling is why the liberals and the left
>can't seem to break through this crap with a set of frames and messages
>that captures the public's attention.
>
>Some of them actually cite Gramsci.
>
Well, to be frank, I really don't see how _any_ message to the effect of
"They're citing Gramsci!" is going to capture the public's attention.
I'm a little reluctant to diagnose why the Left just isn't getting a lot of mainstream attention. After all, most of us are sort of out of the mainstream already, and it's not easy to develop a serious, well-reasoned, and accurate analysis of people who we _aren't_. Imagine if we dropped in on a mailing list where they were asking each other, "Why do those people on the Left refuse to join in on the mainstream consensus?" We'd probably laugh ourselves sick over the answers they came up with.
Let's say, hypothetically, that I was put in charge of every bit of propaganda generated by anything to the left of _The New York Times_. What messages would I be hammering on? Well, the obvious one is to remind people that the economy was not _always_ this precarious; the 1960s and 1970s saw a tremendous movement of black Americans into the middle class, employers were able to provide decent health plans to their employees, and that labor unions provided tremendous advantages to employees. I'd report more and more about employee' conditions in Europe, letting more Americans know what they've been screwed out of, like health care and longer vacations. By and large, I'd cultivate a deep suspicion and resentment of corporations and the rich, reminding people that if _they_ remain in power, the _rest_ of us are going to be reduced to serfs.
I'd also encourage the reporting of success stories as well: shops where the employees managed to buy the place, community co-op organizations, home schooling success stories, etc. Anything to encourage people to take a can-do, do-it-yourself, we-can-do-it-together atttiude. Call this pollyanna-ish, but do you have any idea how popular shows like _The Old House_ really are?
Okay, what messages would I _not_ allow in this wonderful little juggernaut? Well, I'd slice out all the jargon: terms like "hegemony" don't turn up in most people's everyday conversation, and I see no need to sound like a Martian when trying to sway people's opinions. And I'd remind people that they are Americans living in the 21st century, and not immigrant socialist coal-miners in the 1920s; so if you want to use the word "workers" instead of "employees," fine, but people are going to think of the swing gangs of _Metropolis_ instead of their own cube-farm compatriots. I'd also go easier on liberals than right-wingers, if only for the sake of keeping them on our side, and re-educating them slowly and gently.
Now, I have no idea how well this sort of thing'd work. After all, if I were some devious Master of Propaganda, I'd probably have a better job.