[lbo-talk] Why Jews Hate Republicans, Part XVIV

[Michael Dawson]

I don't think anybody in that list would deny that all people have agency
and some proportion of responsibility for the state of the nation and world.
But it's a question of relative power and responsibility.  To emphasize the
power and responsibility of the powerful is not to deny that little people
make the world, too.  On the contrary.  The idea is to document the
selfishness and unfairness and harmfulness of those who wield more power
than others, so that the littles can get together and redress the problem.

Meanwhile, I don't cotton much to dismissals of the population as a whole
because some people watch O'Reilly.  If the same pattern holds when Noam
Chomsky's "Turning the Tide" show is on a major network everyday (which, of
course, will be never) like O'Loofa's is, then I'll think about buying your
nihilism.  Meanwhile, I prefer (based on experience teaching and talking
about Chomsky and other good stuff) to believe that there's lots of reason
for hope about commoners, if only we can crack the system apart somehow.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Wojtek Sokolowski
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 3:41 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Why Jews Hate Republicans, Part XVIV
> 
> Doug, Eugene, Kelley, Michael D., Bryan etc. who pointed out that
> O'Reilley
> & Co are not neutral messengers:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk