I share Ian’s frustration about the state of the country and discourse and what it will take to wake up the general public. But I’m not quite as pessimistic. We know what works. We have seen Republicans and then Democrats in 2008 (or were they really Democrats or just disaffected Country Club Republicans in disguise?) shape the narrative and drive voters towards it. The techniques for influencing people are the same whether they are liberals or conservatives. They are humans, herd animals and can be treated as such for maximum impact. It’s not really that difficult, provided you have a big microphone where you can amplify your message.
The trouble is we tend to think of people with big microphones as those with the most money. This has proved to be the case in the past but it doesn’t have to be in the future.
No one I know trusts the news, not even the ones who I feel are most influenced by it. What I have noticed is that the people most influenced by consensus reality are the least exposed to alternative voices. That sounds pretty obvious but the problem is that it getting the great sea of voters to hear differing opinions is going to take ingenuity, not money.
As for revolution, I’m against violent revolutions but if there is going to be violence, it’s most likely to come from the people with the guns. That would pretty much exclude our side. Anyway, I’d rather try reason first before resorting to chopping off people’s heads. For example, when I post on policy advice to Hillary, I’d like to read about real ideas for policy. Don’t propose revolution until you’ve tried to solve a particular problem by proposing a real, thoughtful solution.
In the meantime, might I suggest that the activists on the left concentrate on ensuring the integrity of the primary process in 2016. They should let voters make up their minds without interference or vote manipulation.
If the left wants to change the world, it should start with shoring up its own moral authority.
Filed under: consensus reality, Ian Welsh, Media, moral authority, sociology, voting |
The Confluence 
You know firsthand that there is no integrity to ensure.
Well then, they’re risking the revolution starting in their own midst, aren’t they?
Maybe the left is just lazy.
I’d respond to this post, but I’m just too darn lazy. 🙂
I’d respond to your comment, but I’m tired.
I see that I have to clarify the lazy comment.
What I mean is advocating violent revolution takes a lot less effort than proposing solutions. And from what I can see, the left isn’t proposing any solution to the primary voting crisis that occurred in 2016. From what I can tell, we’re at the DNC’s mercy again. If they get bought again, there’s jo one to blame but ourselves.
I think that a lot of us feel that we have been proposing solutions for a long time, but when someone like Obama gets into the White House, they’re all left on the table.
We can propose until we’re blue In the face, but if no one disposes, what difference does it make?
I’ll say that at least Clinton did his best to stem the tide and life was pretty good for most Americans when he was in office. That’s enough for me to take another chance on Hillary.
People getting angry enough to demand changes wouldn’t be a bad thing; well, especially if they’re our people.