I think that most people do not have an opinion on most policy issues, or at least one that is consistent with an a priori held principle. Instead they react to policy based on two kinds of social cues - how the people they idenfy with (reference group) view the issue (e.g. whether thier fellow church goers support or oppose it) and how effectively the advocates or alleged advocates of that issue are demonized in popular discourse. So if the reference group takes a negative position on an issue and the media effectively demonize that issue (e.g. as "socialism") most people would oppose it and vote against it without even bothering to find out out what tat issue actually is, and how it would actually affect them and the country as a whole.
People may ex post facto rationalize their position on an issue in terms of political principles (e.g. this is "socialism," "fascism" 'unpatriotic" or what not) but their standing on that issue comes not form an examination of its consistency with an a priori held principle, but rather from group think (following cues coming from their reference group) and fearmongering in the media, the internet, etc.
As to a 'convincing' demon - what I meant was that people tend to respond more to fearmongering than to constructive proposals i.e. "the evil is looming, let's defeat it" instead of "let's do something good for the world." It is evident, inter alia, in the fact that the devil was a faer more lively and popular figure in many religions - as far as people's attention is concerned- than god or angels (the latter are barely noticed.) Anti- this or that (communism, capitalism,) war on this or that (drugs, crime, poverty, etc.) stimulates human mind - both conservative and liberal- to a far greater extent than constructive proposals. This is perhpas why many people found ex-Soviert media so boring - they ad nauseam reapeated the constructive messages (about building socialism etc.) and they generally refrained from castigating demons.
So if liberals want to win the popular support, they need to find a good demon to scare people into supporting them. "The bankster" would be a good choice, except that most liberal politicians are in the pockets of wealthy donors who would not allow demonizing one of their own. And since using the popular demons (the welfare mother, the criminal, the commie, the alien, the government, etc.) rubs liberals the wrong way, th epoor things are without a convincing demons, and thus rather short on public support.
Wojtek
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [WS:] I pretty much agree with Doug with one small exception. I do not
> > think that Americans tend to be conservative - or for that matter
> adhering
> > to any other political doctrine. They are merely more responsive to
> > conservative fear mongering than to liberal appeals, hence their voting
> > feeds into conservative causes.
>
>
> I think that's just what people mean, though, when they say that Americans
> "tend to be conservative" - what, do they view themselves as Burkeans? It's
> doubtful most Americans could even identify Burke, much less de Maistre or
> Oakenshott or whomever.
>
>
> > I am pretty sure that if liberals found a
> > convincing demon, they would whip up public support to th elevel that is
> > currently unimaginable.
> >
> > Wojtek
> >
>
>
> You've supplied a tautology, though. Of course a convincing demon would
> convince. Why don't liberal demons convince, though? Liberal
> politicians' hilarious incompetence? Or something to do with the audience?
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>