[WS:] Chomsky's problem was that he did not understand cognitivism. That failure did his linguistics in, and undermined his politics as well. It is not about people having or not having analytical, critical thinking skills - but about using them selectively, as determined by a cognitive framing of an issue, which in turn is determined by socio-linguistic contexts.
In other words, most people are fully capable of critical analysis of events as well as uncritical repetition of spoon-fed pablum. Which of these these two they will use in any particular situation depends mainly on the cognitive framing of that situation. In the US as well as the USSR, the cognitive framing of another country's politics called for a critical assessment, whereas cognitive framing of the domestic politics called for repetition of spoon-fed pablum. Both were rational responses within the respective cognitive frame.
That is why I prefer Lakoff to Chomsky.
Wojtek
^^^^
CB: My intuition ( giggles) is that it is the emotional-soical framing of the cognitive that is the critical difference. But nice idea-scheme u put out to chew on .