Point granted. But where does that leave us? If the masses are an empty vessel to which anyone with the proper propaganda apparatus can pour whatever he/she wants - that is indeed a convenient excuse for unpopular populists, but the implication of such a view seems to be even more cynical than my detractors on this list attribute to me. It is tantamount to denying any human agency in anyone but the elite and its propaganda henchmen.
A more realistic approach is that propaganda is an interactive system. A propagandist may lead the masses to the point where they may not go without his effort, but he cannot lead them to any point he wants. The direction in which he pushes must resonate with the direction where the people are going anyway. Only then his efforts will succeed - otherwise he will miserably fail.
I think it is fair to assume that about 10-15% of any population are naturally conservative, and about the same percent are naturally liberal. By naturally conservative or liberal I understand a cognitive and affective disposition that makes people uncomfortable with ambiguity ands uncertainty, rigid-minded, fearful and defensive or, respectively, flexible, relativistic, wishy-washy and thriving in ambiguities and shades of grey.
This means that about a quarter or maybe a third of the population will be attracted to either right-wing or left wing-ideologies pretty much independently of any "external" influences, such as situation, agitation, conventional expectations, etc. By the same virtue, the political orientation of the rest of the population (70-80%) is situational - that is - it depends on:
-the situation (when people feel threatened they tend to be more defensive, rigid-minded and right wing then in the absence of a real or perceived threat);
- prior life experiences (people brought up in authoritarian or liberal families or communities);
- conventional expectations in the surrounding communities or reference groups;
- the posture of the major social political institutions, such as government, political parties, civil society, business etc.; and
- deliberate propaganda efforts.
In that light, deliberate propaganda efforts (such as the Faux News) is only one element of the many situational factors that affect people's political orientation. Therefore, its success or failure depends, for the most part, whether it is consistent or inconsistent with the general ideological tenor of the population, grounded in many situational and institutional influences.
The US population tends to be overly conservative mainly because of the unusually heavy influence of the traditionally conservative institutions, especially religion and business, and the unusual weakness of the traditionally liberal institutions, such as labor unions and left-wing political parties. There are many historical reasons for that - enough for another discussion. The bottom line is that the US population is far more receptive to the right-wing ideology than to its left-wing counterpart.
Anyone who believes that the political tables can be turned around simply by more effective liberal "organizing" i.e. agitation is fooling himself. The left in the US has repeatedly failed, but it was not because of the lack of trying.
Wojtek