Influencing Public Opinion

By Sam Huntington

“The more things change, the more they stay the same,” is an axiom with several connotations, an apophenia if you prefer, leading us in different directions while remaining remarkably human.  Humans tend to seek out patterns, which sometimes leads us to false positives. What we may perceive as significant isn’t, and what we think may not matter, does.  Humans are naturally nostalgic; we relate things in the present to experiences of the past.  The above phrase could be voiced to signal our resignation to life’s many cycles.  We may hope for social progress, but the greater our optimism, the more likely we are to be disappointed in social progression. Changes in our lives without foundational consistency would, I suspect, produce a very disordered society; it would be like the sound of one hand clapping.

Lasting social progress takes time.  So much time, in fact, that unless we are paying careful attention, we may not even recognize social changes, whether positive or negative.  As an example, someone growing to maturity in the past twenty or thirty years, who did not experience the violent racism of the Democratic Party in the years before their birth, may not recognize the progress we’ve made since 1950 (which, in my opinion, was largely undone by the presidency of Barack Obama). A young person’s point of reference is confined to what think they know, and that may be entirely predicated on what they’ve been told by leftist educationalists (and parents) pursuing their own peculiar agenda.  Should anyone think that I am speaking now about the leftist brainwashing that is prevalent in our public schools, they’d be correct.

Still, some things don’t change at all.  Not really. Human politics is one of those things that never actually changes.  There is a remarkable consistency of human politics today as compared to two-thousand years ago.  The Romans used slogans to shape public opinion.  These were pithy, easy to remember phrases that were intended to gain the support of the masses.  It might have been something as simple as lining up support for an upcoming election or motivating others to support a military expedition.  We continue to do this today—and we’ve stayed with it because it works.  Human being respond to such phrases as “Senatus Populusque Romanus.”  More recently, such phrases included “No taxation without representation,” “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too,” “Happy Days Are Here Again,” and “Yes We Can.”  The use of political phrases may have remained more or less constant, but technology has changed how we display them, and how often.

In the period between George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, politicians used campaign buttons; Andrew Jackson used a medal designed to be worn in the manner of a personal decoration.  At first, buttons and medals contained an image of the political candidate, but eventually images of candidates gave way to slogans. “I like Ike” is one example, but so too is the use of iconic symbols: Obama’s symbol was a setting or rising sun (either one of these could be correct, depending on your own political point of view) and Hillary Clinton’s was a capital H with an arrow through the middle, which I suppose was intended to show "left turn ahead."

In Eisenhower’s day, campaigns began using bumper stickers. More people had cars in the 1950s (as compared to earlier years) but the idea actually came from Henry Ford’s Model A in 1927.  The bumper on the Model A was made for decoration, but it was really Eisenhower’s campaign that made the most of campaign advertising.  In 1956, the Eisenhower campaign came up with “We like Ike and We’ll Stick with Ike and Dick.”  The phrase might have provided Stevenson with reason for mirth, but it was a start. With the war in Viet Nam, we began to see bumper stickers that fostered a wide spectrum of sentiments, some of which were divisive: “Make Love Not War,” and “America: Love it or Leave it.”  I recall seeing one years ago that read “Disco Sucks.”  One sentiment expressed on a bumper sticker actually wound up in the Supreme Court: Baker v. Glover, 1991.  The decision in this case held in favor of Baker, whose sentiment included a profane word. Judge Thompson opined, “... for those citizens without wealth or power, a bumper sticker may be one of the few means available to convey a message to a public audience.”

More recently, political bumper stickers are designed to appeal to a particular audience—remarkably, targeting those whose opinions will not be affected by “Worst president ever.” Many of these anti-candidate stickers mimic the designs rendered by the official campaign designs and they’ve caused some political analysts to conclude that these kinds of stickers encourage people to rely on them as voting guides.  There may be something to this; how many voters conduct independent research before deciding how to vote?

Politicians too seem to have become more focused on their branding efforts than with the content of their platforms.  It must work well for candidates, especially when voters are happy to make vague generalizations about important issues.  Bumper stickers haven’t caused voters to think differently about their politics; they only provide a different way of communicating what they think they know about their world.

Now, we’re at a new stage: the YouTube video.  I have no data, of course, but I suspect that as tools, YouTube videos are quite effective convincing people that they’ve been right all along —about what they’ve come to know is true.  Recently, AOW presented a well-done video that, without snark, asked young people to evaluate what they know about a political topic. This seemed to me an effective tool but I’m sure others will evaluate it differently ... if for no other reason than it contradicts what they personally believe about this particular issue —and this would be an example of a closed mind.  There is no shortage of closed minds in our society today.

The video linked above makes two important points.  First, it is easy for people to support emotionally attractive political themes, even (or especially) when important information has been omitted.  Second, the more one learns about significant issues, the more one realizes how complex some of these are.  If the problem is difficult, then solving it will also take careful thought and perseverance.  This may have been the most important lesson for these young people to learn.  Still, it is easy to fool people who want to be fooled.  Imagine ... the arrogance of those who think that the earth needs saving.  Earth was just fine before people arrived and it’s my guess that earth will remain long after we’ve joined the list of extinct species. It all comes down to what we know, and how we know it.  For all the clamor about air pollution from gas-burning engines, shall we opt to return to horses as our primary form of transportation?  In the year 1900, there were 13-million horses inside New York City. Can anyone imagine the pollution, filth, and impact on the environment of that many animals inside a bustling city?

It’s true: the more things change, the more they stay the same.