Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, February 25, 2019

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.

56 comments:

  1. I COUDN'T GET PAST YOUR FIRST SENTENCE, SAM, UNTIL I LOOKED THIS UP. I HOPE IT MAY HELP OTHERS BESIDES MYSELF TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT yOU ARE DRIVING AT.

    APOPHENIA and PAREIDOLIA

    Apophenia is the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena. The term, coined by German neurologist and psychiatrist Klaus Conrad (1905-1961), focused on the finding of abnormal significance in random experiences by psychotic people. … The term has found a place outside psychiatry and is used to describe the natural human tendency to find meaning and significance in random, coincidental, or impersonal data.

    Pareidolia a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus perceived as clear and distinct. For example, in the discolorations of a to a …sted English muffin one sees the face of Jesus. Or one sees the image of Mother Teresa in the folds of a cinnamon bun …

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Franco,
      Thanks for the help for the lexicon!

      Delete
    2. Apophenia sounds a lot like the surrealists "paranoiac critical method"...

      ... and Pareidola from the facial recognition regions of the "occipital & fusiform face areas" of the brain. It is largely considered a subcategory of Apophenia (above).

      Delete
    3. Apophenia sounds like the name of a goddess frm ancient Greek mythology –– or the name of a rare disease.

      Imagine discovering the ruins of the long lost Temple of Apophenia on the Acropolis or one of the Grecian isles.

      Pareidola sounds more like an abstruse term from higher mathematics or perhaps astronomy.

      Delete
  2. Plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose.

    The more things change, the more they remaun the same.

    I first learnt the phrase in French where I believe it may have originated. I studied French for three years, learned to pronounce it properly, acquired a fair reading knowledge, studied the poetic texts of French [and German] art songs with considerable intensity, but Alas! could never claim to have mastered French.

    At any rate, as you may have noticed, I use the phrase often, myself, usually in English, because I think it expresses a fundamental truth about human nature applicable to many-if-not-most of the issues and events that trouble us so today..

    The sets change, the costumes change, technology has kept changing at ever-increasing rates since the early nineteenth cntury. The buzzwords and shibboleths in and out of fashion evolve stylistically but not substantially.

    Despite all that, basic human nature doesn't appear to have changed hardly at all over millennia.

    Despite immense material progress, we are still subject to the same passions, prejudices, misperceptions, moral failings, and relentless antagonism that first emerged in The Garden of Eden.

    No society yet has been able to eradicate the Seven Deadly Sins, and as my hgh school civics teacher, Mr. Strawman, pompously intend, "The lesson we learn from history is that we learn NOTHING from History."

    I hate to say it, but after sixty years of being buffeted around since graduating from high school, I can no longer avoid coming to the conclusion that Mr. Strawman was right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As far as "going back to horses", those who insist upon "green" energy sources don't realize just how technology "regressive" this would be.

    "If man wants to progress, he must create new forms of energy of greater and greater densities."--Lazare Carnot (1753 – 1823)

    Nuclear energy is the only energy form that currently meets this requirement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump was getting a lot of flack from the Democrats for Flynn's advocacy of a "Marshall Plan for the Middle East" that would sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia, but retain control of the Saudi's "fuel cycle" so that they couldn't enrich tritium and make hydrogen bombs (like the Iranians are trying to do). The Saudi's aren't stupid. They know that Lazare Carnot was right.

      Delete
  4. The Left is attempting to influence public opinion? Say it ain't so...

    Where are the film codes and censors when you need them?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Speaking of horses (from above):

    Doesn't Alexandria Ocasio-Kotex realize that HORSE'S FART TOO?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AOC says whatever she wants. After all, she is "the boss." So she more or less declared the other day. Sheesh.

      Delete
    2. Do you think i would be a ood idea if we accepted AOC at face value, or should we "KEEP an OPEN MIND" about her?

      Bak in the dear dead days beyond recall, when I was much more moderate, I used to advocate 'oen mindless about many controversial figures and ideas of the day. And then someone said to me, "Be careful. You don't want your mind to remain so open that your brans fall out, do you."

      I took umbrage at the time, but as the patently obvious degeneration, disntegration and imminent dissolution of our society became increasingly apparent, I realized the lady (for it was,indeed, a lady) had made a very good point.

      Delete
    3. Franco,
      AOC has condemned herself with her out-there proclamations.

      Age 29-30, and she thinks that she can hold forth wisely about policy issues? Pfffft.

      The other night, I had dinner with one of my former students, a 25-year-old. A wise 25 year old. He said, "I can't imagine that I in four more years could make wise proclamations. AOC is making a fool of herself."

      This former student is a graduate of both Hillsdale College and Johns Hopkins University. Among other jobs, he wrote press releases for Senator Ted Cruz and composed one of the daily-intelligence briefings for the White House. Yet, he is humble.

      AOC, on the other hand, is arrogant beyond measure. Just imagine her ego if she gets re-elected!

      Delete
    4. Franco,
      Do you think i would be a ood idea if we accepted AOC at face value, or should we "KEEP an OPEN MIND" about her?

      Evaluating her at face value IS keeping an open mind!

      Delete
    5. To get back to Sam's blog post, AOC really does influence public opinion -- for a certain age group, that is. And it is alarming that so many Dems running for the 2020 POTUS nomination have swallowed her New Green Deal.

      Delete
    6. Rest assured, AOW, the Demoratic leadership is still in thrall to the oil industry.
      A O-C is correct in proposing that the program needs to be severe but naive in assuming the entrenched Dem leadership has the integrity to support any part of it.

      Delete
  6. There is no shortage of closed minds in our society today.

    Indeed.

    Have we, as a society in the 21st Century, thrown out the idea of keeping an open mind so as to evaluate the information from all sides of a given issue?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you know the answer to that.....

      Rare is the open mind these days.

      Delete
    2. The entire consumer-oriented apparatus [news, education, forums, etc.....] is geared increasingly more towards only acknowledging "two sides". Exclusively that situation with regard to the media.

      Often, "both sides" are wrong. Open-mindedness is discouraged and almost shamed in light of this paradigm.

      Delete
    3. CI,
      Well, if the answer remains that way for a long enough period of time, our republic is finished. Kaput!

      Delete
    4. The Republic is already dead, it just doesn’t seem to know it yet. Self described Constituionalists ignore the enumerated powers and accept infringements upon their own liberties......irrespective of the Leftists.

      We’ve had plenty of opportunities to claw our way back.....and have discarded them like used Kleenex.

      Delete
    5. CI,
      The Republic is already dead, it just doesn’t seem to know it yet.

      So, what do you tell your children about their future?

      Delete
    6. My daughters are hoping for the best, but prepared for the worst. I’ve raised to be survivors, not to surrender.

      Delete
    7. Foremost, my kids know to not just be open minded, but to critically question everything, to challenge their biases......and give slogans, chants and buzzwords the worth they deserve: nothing.

      Delete
    8. A FEW QUESTIONS FOR PHILSOPHICAL DISCUSSION:

      1. Are you OPEN MINDED, or merely INDECiSIVE?

      2. Are you BIGOTTED, or do you simply have FIRM CONVICTIONS?

      3. Are you a RELIGIOUS FANATIC, or do you simply have an honest belief in an loving, all-powerful GOD?

      4. Are you a MERCY FREAK and a GRIEVANCE JUNKIE, or do you simply have a KIND HEART and a GENEROUS DISPOSITION?

      5. Are you a GLUTTON, or are you a GOURMET?

      6. Are you a SEX ADDICT, or do you just have an AMOROUS DISPOSITION?

      7. Are you a GREEDY CAPITALIST PIG, or just a COMFORTABLE MIDDLE CLASS PROPERTY OWNER who loves living well?

      8. Are you a RACIST, or only a REALIST?

      ];^}>


      I believe it all depends on your circumstances and personal point of view –– or doesn't it?

      Delete
  7. Racism was DEAD in 1970. The dems brought it back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. You have to admit, FreeThinke, Kid's claim is absurd.

      Delete
    3. Duck,
      Kid's claim is absurd.

      Ahem. You may disagree with Kid's claim, but that doesn't make Kid's claim absurd. In fact, Kid is making the claim from his own observation.

      Delete
    4. Yeah. I liked nigras a whole lot better in 1970 –– and long before –– than I have since 2008.

      Delete
    5. When it cimes to evaluating phenomena an awful ot depends on one's circumstances and personal point of view, don't you think?

      For instance:

      Are you OPEN MINDED, or merely INDECiSIVE?

      Are you BIGOTTED, or do you simply have FIRM CONVICTIONS?

      Are you a RELIGIOUS FANATIC, or do you simply have an honest belief in an loving, all-powerful GOD?

      Are you a MERCY FREAK and a GRIEVANCE JUNKIE, or do you simply have a KIND HEART and a GENEROUS DISPOSITION?

      Are you a GLUTTON, or are you a GOURMET?

      Are you a SEX ADDICT, or do you just have an AMOROUS DISPOSITION?

      Are you a GREEDY CAPITALIST PIG, or just a COMFORTABLE MIDDLE CLASS PROPERTY OWNER who loves living well?

      Are you a RACIST, or only a REALIST?

      ];^}>


      As I said, it all depends on your circumstances and personal point of view –– or doesn't it?

      Delete
  8. I've been told by liberals in conversations that I'm unusual in that I listen and consider what they say...they're shocked, and that's sad. I don't attend anymore a Republican Women's group here in Brentwood because I went to a luncheon with a friend who used to write Bobby Shriver and other Kennedy speeches....They wouldn't let her hawk Shriver at the luncheon "because he's liberal"...he actually is so more centrist you wouldn't believe it, but they were rude and "We don't allow liberals to talk here". I left and haven't returned. Oddly, I have never seen anything like comparisons of, for example, CNN and FOX> FOX has approx 10 libs a day, strong, bright ones, and they're listened to. Richard Fowler, Jessica Tarlov, etc..>REALLY pushy, smart, strong libs....CNN has maybe 1-2 Cons a day and they're all very weak, very 'Never Trump" like Ana Navarro and Mitt Romney, Michael Steele (who's a regular on MSNBC) and others...(Yes, STeele, the past RNC Head!) So, we need to stay open minded, we need to stop BSing ourselves that both sides listen, and hope more people do. The Republic deserves it.

    AOW....what to tell the children? Thankfully for them, they'll never know how good it was here.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you look up TV and Radio in the World Book
    Encyclopedia, only one definition for both: Propaganda...
    When someone ask me about the Bible, I say,
    other than telling about Gods love; the Bible
    is about 4 thousand years of explaining the story of
    HUMAN NATURE.
    Nothing has changed in 6 thousand years--but technology.
    Singing story tellers (Bards, the Kings traveling minstrels). Then publications = News Papers and Books.
    The "Wizard of Oz" was a big story about Communism--The Man Behind The Curtain. Clicking together the Red Shoes- "No Place Like Home" ie... Come back to the Republican Party.
    Then came Radio, and bumper stickers and TV.
    Now we have the Internet > twitter and facebook.

    TsWs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you know that you said EXACTLY what I said in my initial statement above, but in simpler, more direct language.

      Yet another example of GREAT MINDS THINKING ALIKE. }:^)>

      Delete
  10. The easiest thing in the world to do is convince people that they’ve been right, all along.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I've seen in 78 years of living one could NEVER convince a LEFTIST that he's WRONG about ANYTHING, but that doesn't mean we should let him get away with it, does it? ;-)

      The same thing is true, of course, of religious "FUNDAMENTALISTS."

      Delete
  11. Am I the only one who thinks the HILLALOGO is ironiclly amusing, because the ARROW is not only RED, it's also pointing RIGHT?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm sorry to have to to break it to you Democrats, but the way Dems are headed, Trump will win another term by a landslide!

    I'm really not sorry to break it to you

    ReplyDelete
  13. Remember when Michelle Obama said "when they go low, we go high"? I don't think liberals listened, because they went Lower!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Democrats Are Wrapping a Gift for Trump by Richard Cohen. First paragraph:

    I don't quite know what a handbasket is, but the Democratic Party is heading in one to electoral hell with its talk of socialism and reparations. Given a Republican incumbent who has never exceeded 50 percent in Gallup's approval ratings poll and who won the presidency thanks to a dysfunctional electoral college, the party is nevertheless determined to give Donald Trump a fair shot at re-election by sabotaging itself. In fact, it's veering so far to the left it could lose an election in 1950s Bulgaria....

    May it be so!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but what is this typical WashPo Ricky-Commie Cohen CRAP about a "Dysfunctiinal Electoral College?"

      The CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED institution functioned BRILLIANTLY in the 2016 election.

      Isn't that why the DemoMarxicrats are champing at the bit and salivating to ABOLISHIT?

      Delete
    2. Franco,
      I expect nothing less from Cohen than to mention dysfunctional electoral college. After all, the electoral college saves us from the oligarchic rule of America's two coasts.

      But the rest of his essay is pretty good.

      Delete
  15. AOW! The reverse discrimination is hideous! P.S. I'm back! hugggzzz!:)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry, but I just HAVE to get the off my chest:

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!

    That was a Primal Scream in case you didn't recognize it.

    (:-x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course not!

      I can smell bullshit a thousand miles away, and I have always little taste for low farce.

      If you must know, trying to engage in genuine convesation in the bogusphere is bcoming more and more like trying to light a fire in the rain with wet matches.

      Delete
    2. Too bad, the Cohen hearing offers a good chance to discuss the thread topic.

      I think opinions are so blinkered it may be you're correct and it' not possible.

      Delete
    3. Duck,
      The Cohen Hearings are red meat for no-Trumpers and Trumpers. No more, no less. None will have been persuaded to switch sides.

      My two cents' worth.

      Delete
  17. "Where there's no sense, there's no feeling."

    ~ GBJP (1912-1984)

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

!--BLOCKING--