Propaganda
"A measure of propaganda is necessary to maintain a stable polity, yes even in democratic societies" - Murna Gilbert
Labeling
In democratic societies, one of the means of stifling debates and framing agenda is "labeling." An issue is given a label whose symbol resonates with the public and any debate on the issue is thus nipped in the bud. Take the "universal healthcare plan," for instance. The political Right has succeeded in giving it a socialist label, a ploy that has mustered critics against Obama. This is because critics of socialism need no elaborate definition of the term; they already know what socialism is. All that is left is for them to throw the universal healthcare plan into a heuristic basket for socialist relics. Yes, labeling is an effective means of preventing a reasonable debate on an issue affecting the society. It is fruitless debating what the public thinks it is already convinced of - and especially so when debates no longer rely on objective reasoning but on the subjectivity of the debaters. Something about this reminds me of Karl Marx's warning regarding manipulation and "false consciousness."
Responsibility for State Actions
If a democratic state derives its legitimacy from the people, shouldn't the people, then, be responsible, although vicariously, for its actions? If this is true, then the notion that Americans are good and their government bad begs the question, since the government derives its political will from the people. In no other form of government are the citizenry more liable for their their country's foreign policy objectives than in a democracy. The very definition of democracy itself implies that the people are not distinguishable from their government - the people are the government, and the government is the people. Implicit in the nature of its construct is the notion that a democratic government is the reflection of its people. Thus the government is, to a large extent, what the people are, or what they want it to be. A democratic government is therefore imbued with a moral quality which is either similar to that of its citizenry or tolerated by them.
On Violence, Manipulation, and their Moral Value
Suffice it to say that dictatorships maintain their hold on power through violence, it would be safe to assume that democracies achieve the same feat through manipulation. And suppose you ask, "What is wrong with manipulation?" I would like to know, "What is wrong with violence?" It would seem that the question of the rightness or wrongness of the use of violence and manipulation as effective means of obtaining specific political outcomes is a moral one. So to suggest that one is wrong may necessarily imply that the other is right. If one were to suggest, for instance, that it is wrong to use violence to maintain the status quo, then one would need to show - through normative analogies - why it is wrong. And if manipulation were to fail the same test used to evaluate violence, then a dictatorship would be no less moral than its democratic counterpart.
"A measure of propaganda is necessary to maintain a stable polity, yes even in democratic societies" - Murna Gilbert
Labeling
In democratic societies, one of the means of stifling debates and framing agenda is "labeling." An issue is given a label whose symbol resonates with the public and any debate on the issue is thus nipped in the bud. Take the "universal healthcare plan," for instance. The political Right has succeeded in giving it a socialist label, a ploy that has mustered critics against Obama. This is because critics of socialism need no elaborate definition of the term; they already know what socialism is. All that is left is for them to throw the universal healthcare plan into a heuristic basket for socialist relics. Yes, labeling is an effective means of preventing a reasonable debate on an issue affecting the society. It is fruitless debating what the public thinks it is already convinced of - and especially so when debates no longer rely on objective reasoning but on the subjectivity of the debaters. Something about this reminds me of Karl Marx's warning regarding manipulation and "false consciousness."
Responsibility for State Actions
If a democratic state derives its legitimacy from the people, shouldn't the people, then, be responsible, although vicariously, for its actions? If this is true, then the notion that Americans are good and their government bad begs the question, since the government derives its political will from the people. In no other form of government are the citizenry more liable for their their country's foreign policy objectives than in a democracy. The very definition of democracy itself implies that the people are not distinguishable from their government - the people are the government, and the government is the people. Implicit in the nature of its construct is the notion that a democratic government is the reflection of its people. Thus the government is, to a large extent, what the people are, or what they want it to be. A democratic government is therefore imbued with a moral quality which is either similar to that of its citizenry or tolerated by them.
On Violence, Manipulation, and their Moral Value
Suffice it to say that dictatorships maintain their hold on power through violence, it would be safe to assume that democracies achieve the same feat through manipulation. And suppose you ask, "What is wrong with manipulation?" I would like to know, "What is wrong with violence?" It would seem that the question of the rightness or wrongness of the use of violence and manipulation as effective means of obtaining specific political outcomes is a moral one. So to suggest that one is wrong may necessarily imply that the other is right. If one were to suggest, for instance, that it is wrong to use violence to maintain the status quo, then one would need to show - through normative analogies - why it is wrong. And if manipulation were to fail the same test used to evaluate violence, then a dictatorship would be no less moral than its democratic counterpart.
Your blog entry leads right into the point about who controls and frames the messages. It isn't the government in the case of the United States, but, for the most part large corporate media conglomerates who exist to make money. This is why the "liberal" media myth is so hilarious. It is in none of the media conglomerates financial interests to have a "liberal" bias. It is, however, in their interests to support a political philosophy which discourages government involvement in big business and encourages tax cuts for the wealthy rather than the middle class. Ruppert Murdock and Fox news are case study examples of this, but let me assure you CNN and the rest of the media (other than NPR, PBS and Pacifica) follow suit. This is why they pick up on what you call the "labels" from the right wing (like the whole "flip flopper" thing with John Kerry). I enjoy your blog, keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete