Sometimes I get the feeling the average DUer actually believes

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

that the average American is as informed (or maybe half as informed) as the average DUer. They're not. Half of them don't vote. They don't give a shit. They think we've already found WMD in Iraq. 2/3 believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. These are an uninformed mass of people who have to work 50 hours/week. They digest the easily digestible. This is the media's job. Make a profit by selling the easy story. Almost everything here of consequence will never be seen by most of the populace. They showed dead faces yesterday for no discernible, newsworthy reason. This is how they (the administration and the media) sell the war. And our citizens eat it up. They love it. This is what we're dealing with. Most of us cringe (some of us may actually pray for Saddam's sons). Empathy is weakness in America, unless you empathize with the right people and can sell that empathy with pithy slogans.

So, for example, look at the threads about Clinton's "move on" remark. We can speculate about the motivations all day (and it's fun). Which candidates does it help? Which does it hurt? Whatever. Ultimately there is only one thing that matters with his words: "move on" is easily digestible for the mass consumers of news. The political ramifications, how it confounds the repubs. in their repsonse, how it really makes them look like hypocrits, how it actually opens the door for other cadidates to now bash Bush, are all fine observations. But more than anything, it gives the 70% of the population who don't really care about politics in July a soundbite, a moment in time in this "nucular" thing.

The more complicated the issue, the bigger a loser it is (especially in July). Blowjobs get you into trouble. It's something people are interested in and can relate to. It's E Channel fodder, and Americans eat that garbage up.

Here's something even more astounding: poll after poll demonstrates that the bigger liability to a candidate is intellectual prowess. People would prefer a less intellectual person in office. This is not a choice between smart versus liakble. No, it's smart versus not-as-smart. And they choose not-as-smart everytime (this is why I can't figure out why the dems. always play the "stpuid" card against repub. candidates, even though their stupidity is frightening--and dangerous).

You must treat the people as idiots. Chew their news for them, sprinkle some democratic sugar on it, and spit it into their mouths. "But we like nuance." Well, we can like it here as much as we want. But nuance upsets the collective American tummy. Information, real information, is a 20 year Bordeaux in Franzia world.

Bottom line: I hope everyone here realizes that we will never win on Truman's dictum: "Give 'em hell, Harry. I'll just tell them the truth and they'll think it's hell." The truth takes too long. And Americans aren't interested. Here's the 2003 Truman truism: "I'll just package the truth into easily digestible dichotomies, market it into electoral specific markets, utilize a catchy alliterative slogan or two, and they'll think it's hell."

Think about this: Clinton's shrewdest political move was doing Arsenio and MTV (saxophone, boxers, and inhalation). Game-set-match. Eat it, Bush, "message: I care." It's that easy, folks.

O.K., more coffee.

[ewagner]

1. Humor and truth

I appreciate your humor and recognize the underlying truth. I think we are an attention deficit disorder country. We like our news in slogans and soundbites. Whoever the Dem nominees is, he will have to master the soundbite, the clever phrase. That's why its so hard to get Bush's lies to sink in...they're complicated to explain. They are not given well to sound bites.

Good post. Thanks

[lastliberalintexas]

2. Very good analysis, IMHO

You are spot on as to why this was such an unacceptable comment from him, of all people. If Clinton, the subject of an investigation himself, thinks that we should just move on, then the Dems are just playing politics.

The vast majority of Americans do not have the time, the capacity or the interest to consider this to be anything more than a mere soundbite. Intentionally or not, Clinton wholly undermined what the Dems have been saying, and there can be no legitimate reason for it.

[GCP]

3. OMG, the problem is, you're correct

It's so depressing. I try and do my bit by edumacating people I work with. It can be almost amusing when they say' "no way! you've got to be kidding me", then they find out about stuff 6 months down the line when the main stream media catch up.

A case in point is last night's ABC report about how the CIA dropped the ball when they knew 2 of the 9/11 high-jackers had entered the country after a meeting of terrorists in Indonesia in 2000 or 2001. They never told the FBI. It was known on the internet last year about this, suddenly ABC announces it likes it's news.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

13. "Half of our battle is against ignorance not Conservatism."

Yes, and maybe half is a bit much. Maybe more like 80%. I really have no problem with Conservatism per se. It's a philosophy like other philosophies with which I disagree. Unfortunately, it's also a philosophy that has a created a great narrative/myth about itself--independence, ruggedness, ingenuity, individualism. In America the "me-against-the-world" narrative is the most powerful one. And it's simply one that liberalism can't claim as its own. We can deconstruct the myth all we like, show how it really is a myth created for an elite few in this country, demonstrate how even the founding fathers were hesitant to buy into it. But that's a book-length study with words like "narrative" and "deconstruction."

[G_j]

5. and if Clinton

doesn't understand this, nobody does.
:think:

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. quite the system this country has

Work the average american to the bone so that they're so tired they don't have the time, nor energy, to give a shit about anything that doesn't directly affect them.

My parents are that way. And my parents marched against Vietnam. But now, after 25 years of working 40+ hour weeks and raising two kids, they could care less.

They just want to retire and forget about the world's problems.

[kentuck]

7. And what does it say that the Repubs understand it better than Dems?

Who is really stupid here? Comprehension would have something to do with intelligence, I would think?

[tjdee]

8. I agree--but I don't treat people like idiots.

I agree with most of what you said--but I don't think people should be talked down to or treated as if they are 3 years old.

I think most Americans think they *are* well informed.

It's a weird thing, surely. I do think that it becomes very difficult for one person (in this case, the Presidential nom) to do ALL the 'truth talking' and 'hell giving'. One person can't take the entire voting population to school, as it were.

[ewagner]

12. Yes...and..

that's where WE come into play....

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

16. You don't have to talk to them as if they were idiots.

But keep in mind taht they are uninformed. Here, you nail it: "I agree with most of what you said--but I don't think people should be talked down to or treated as if they are 3 years old. I think most Americans think they *are* well informed."

Great, now combine these two ideas. Run with the idea that most Americans (or most humans, for that matter) think they are well informed. Combine that with how one goes about communicating one's ideas to them. And I think you get this formula:

Joe says "X," which is so wrong you don't know where to begin. You could swamp him with facts and figures, spew venom at the right wing media, call Bush a chimpy. OR you could say, "I think I got you. What you're saying is "Y." But "Y" bears no resemblance to "X." It's your reading of "X" that you've put into Joe's mouth. Now that he's said it, and you agree, and you say he's right, now you can keep going where Joe's brilliant ideas take you.

This seems cheesey and contrived. And it is. But you'd be AMAZED how well it works. If someone catches you, then you have to change courses. Sometimes try this: "Can we agree that "X" is true?" Make sure "X" is a foundational to your argument though seemingly distant from the argument. Once you get them to agree to "X," then they have to contradict themselves somewhere.

[CWebster]

9. Well, we don't have to sink to that level

The question is, is it worth it enough for all of us to bother?

The answer is, there is no other choice - it may start with only one voice and then grow to a few and eventually you get a massive chorus.

In my provincial, highly conservative and insulated community, I noticed an announcement in the old guard paper for a gay men's support group. Unheard of 10 years ago. Always look ahead -there will always be work to do, always, but don't fail to recognise the gains.

[cmd]

10. A correct assessment

It's too much bother to think.

[Tigermoose]

11. Spot on. Welcome to the Decadence.

Might as well smoke a phat one and ride it out :)

[Armstead]

14. There is no such thing as "the average American"

I would agree with you partially.

I would completely agree that there is a large contingent of completely self-centered conservative half-wits who will buy anything that's spoon fed to them.

However, it's not that simple. We forget that people are individuals at our peril. We also should not ignore their basic intelligence and good intentions.

The real problem today is a larger cultural mindset that has been foisted upon the average person by the elite and the Media Monopolies. Stupidity has been made into a virtue. And selfishness and narrow-mindedness are being used as marketing tools.

Most people are not into the nuances of detailed policy debates on every subject -- nor are most DUers, myself included. Hoever, they do want to be honestly and clearly informed about the overview. That's what the role of "the news" has been -- until the Corporate Sharks were given a free hand.

Now instead of getting real news of substance, journalism has been turned into a circus. It's been a long slide into that. Journalistic issues that were debated until a few years ago have long since been left in the dust, as the PT Barnums took over the media newsrooms. When "tabloid TV" first appreared, there were debates about it, and it was generally considered a disreputable sub-genre. But now ALL of the Mainstream News is tabloid.

Human nature is to gravitate towards what is "fun" and exciting. None of us is immune from that. That's why flash and trash seems to sell. However, most people want to balance that off with at least a responsible touchstone of reliable Real News.

But if they don't get that responsible supplement, they don't realize it. That's the dilemma we're in today. When the sources of news and opinion are shallow and distorted, the "average person" does not have the opportunity (or motivation) too look for the alternatives. BUT given a choice, most people DO want the news to fill its role honestly.

Also, people may be very well informed about particular issues, and not as well informed in others. A person may not be up on foreign affairs, for example, but as a parent they pay very closer attention to education. Anotehr person who has a specific interest in medical issues may know a lot about health care...But they all want to know the basics about things.

Basically, I guess I'm saying if we continue to pander to our own worst instincts, we will all collectively bring ourselves down further into the mud -- both individually and as a society.

People can handle the truth.

[ewagner]

20. ..no trueer words spoken......

"Stupidity has been made into a virtue. And selfishness and narrow-mindedness are being used as marketing tools."

I distinctly remembere hearing those same words when Ray-gun was elected. Many of my democratic friends said that the success of the Republicans since 1980 has been based on the Reps making us feel comfortable with our prejudices and out ignorance. Think about these themes:

"We won the west without planners" (R Reagan)

"It's YOUR money" (several repubs)

"College isn't for everybody" (George I)

[Snellius]

15. If they don't care, then they don't count.

If they don't care enough to vote, they certainly don't care enough to find out the truth about what they're voting for. Republicans, who lack a integral mass base, figured this out long ago and went over to the cynical side: saying whatever it is they think people want to hear. Democrats still have some scruples about such things as truth and justice. Which is probably why they don't do well on medias like talk radio and FOX where it has been a long-accepted rule that it's okay to just make things up as long as it's in the service of some higher goal. But eventually stupid is stupid and it becomes impossible to lie your way out of the fact that you're falling off a cliff.

[welshTerrier2]

17. the wrapping and the product

since I haven't said so before, welcome to DU, grendelsuncle. I've enjoyed reading many of your posts ...

in a post a few days ago, i wrote that far too many voters decide on a candidate for "less than ideal" reasons ... they like bush because he "can relate to the common man" ... they like Clinton because he's "really smart" ... i'm sure if you took a poll today and asked voters to tell you everything they knew about Al Gore, most would say he was "kind of wooden" and that he claimed he invented the internet ... they probably couldn't tell you a single thing he wanted to do as president ... not one single thing ...

so, on the surface, i couldn't agree more with your points that the american public is very ill-informed ... but it's not clear to me where you were going with your post ... does this suggest democrats only need to hire madison avenue types instead of policy analysts ???

if so, there's where we disagree ... i'm in full agreement that much of the mission, perhaps all of the mission, must be understood and sold from a marketing perspective ... HOWEVER, it is critical that under all the fancy packaging is good, sound policy ... it can't just be about saxaphone playing and photo ops on aircraft carriers ... my motto is still: "It's the policy, stupid !!" ...

it's important that we don't become a party of pretty packaging with poor quality merchandise on the inside ... and it's important that we never forget that ...

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

22. my motto is still: "It's the policy, stupid !!" ...

Absolutely. Poll after poll shows that we win on policy. We not only win, we destroy the repubs. Yet they occupy the Oval office, the House, and the Senate. So we have to ask HOW.

I think your concerns are correct: we should never abandon core beliefs for message. I think this is where the DLC faulters. if you believe in the DLC policies, I have no problem with that. But if you don't believe in the policy and message/focus groups become policy, then that's a recipe for disaster (losing the Oval office, the House, and the Senate). Policy is policy. But message is political currency for power. All of politics can be boiled down to language. If we hold tight to the fact that language is power (Truth is not power; ideals are not power; good intentions are not power), we will dominate American politics for a long time--or at least until the very few relinquish political control over the many.

[Robb]

23. I agree, partially

...In that while the policy must be the central, guiding entity, without buy-in from the voters it's useless.

Crafting the message is as important as the message itself, even more so. A good message communicated in a way no one understands (or can identify with) becomes a message no one likes. It's not just packaging -- it's more essential than that. Think of it as "labeling", maybe, to grab a metaphor and run....

[ewagner]

27. Well done.

thanks

[Shakeydave]

18. Well put!

Thanks for the riff! :hi:

[G_j]

19. MLK quote,

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity."

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

[sangha]

21. I think you are wrong

I know plenty of people who would seem to fll into the group you characterize as people who "don't give a shit", and my perception is that these people not only do "give a shit", they are better informed than you realize. Granted, these people may not be familiar with all of the details, such as how BFEE squashed investigations into the Saudis links to terrorism, or how they raised funds for their adventures by looting banks in the 1980's, etc, but they are not so blind as to miss the basic nature of this regime; corrupt and authoritarian. I've even heard an 80+ year-old woman who NEVER reads the news compare Bush* to Hitler.

IMO, the problem is not apathy or ignorance. The problem is people's feelings of powerlessness. It echoes everytime I here "But they're all the same", and "But what can we do about it?" I hear it when people say "It has nothing to do with me" which really means "There's nothing I can do about it"

In psychological circles, it's called "learned helplessness", and guess who's the "Education President"?

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

24. I think I can agree with you here.

First, if you think that a vast majority of people really aren't ignorant and that they just feel powerless, then I can't agree with you. However, if you want to say that a good part of the American populace feels powerless and this manifests itself as apathy, then I can agree with you. In fact, if you wanted to say that a good part of the American populace feels powerless and this manifests itself as their willful iognorance, then I could agree with you.

[sangha]

25. Yes and no - I'll clarify

If you go back and re-read my first post, you may note that I didn't deny people's ignorance. I even mention two issues where people are for the most part ignorant (9/11 investigation, and the S&L scandal). I want to be clear on this. Many (most?) people ARE ignorant. However, while that is *A* problem, it is not *THE* problem, mainly because ignorance has not prevented many of them from recognizing this regime's true nature. That's why I mentioned the 80+ year old lady's opinion of Bush*.

And I don't think it's a case of powerlessness manifesting itself as apathy. I don't see people as apathetic. I see people who care about war, terrorism, the environment, etc. I see people who do care about their families, and their jobs, and they know that Bush* is hurting the economy, and they do care. It's not apathy and it's not ignorance.

Remember the "Serenity" prayer? People have come to the reasonable conclusion that it makes no sense to worry about things they cannot change.

[sandnsea]

30. Ah, wisdom to know the difference

Is it wisdom that has brought them to that conclusion or the sense of helplessness? If they had real wisdom; and I don't really know who can fully claim that in our political unreality, but if they did; would they continue in their apathy? I doubt it.

Powerlessness is not inaction. Powerlessness recognizes the inability to change the absolutely unchangeable. An alcoholic recognizes the futility, the powerlessness, of trying to change his biology. But by changing the denial, blame, self-pity, etc., that the mind has set up as an excuse to drink; the alcoholic in effect 'takes control' over his alcoholism. In the same way, we can't change, or even reason with, the psychological makeup of Bush and the Cabal, we are powerless. But by recognizing the mindset that allows them to flourish; fundamentalism, authoritarianism, nationalism, etc.; we can take control of the public debate and get them out of office.

It is important that a rebirth of liberalism/progressiveness sweep the country. And it does have to be marketed in short sound bytes since that's what the public has become accustomed to. The Patriot Police, from Carvill, is one I really like. People quickly get it. The entire Democratic message and/or the liberal/progressive message has to have that kind of immediate impact.

I've babbled again, sorry.

[sangha]

32. NO need to apologize

I found your alcoholism analogy quite apt. Alcoholism is a disease, and the organ in which this disease first manifests itself is the brain. The brains of alcoholics work differently than the brains of non-alcoholics. Alcohol changes the way the brain works, and how the alcoholic thinks. "Learned helplessness" also affects how the brain works and what one is thinking.

And that's part of the reason why we need to tailor our message. We need to tailor the message so the victims of learned helpnessness can "get it", just as the programs that treat alcoholcs tailor their messages so that alcoholics can "get it".

[Beetwasher]

26. Great Line!

"Chew their news for them, sprinkle some democratic sugar on it, and spit it into their mouths."

Damn, that's good...mmmmm news w/ sugar....

Great post.

[chadm]

28. The only point I would disagree on...

is that the media's job is to "Make a profit by selling the easy story." I don't believe that's what they do. I don't believe that what they are selling is the most profitable product, and I don't think they are presenting easy stories. To the contrary, when I watch the media I get confused.

They sell labotomies. They sell confusion. They want the average American to believe, "Gollie, I must not be smart enough to understand what's going on here...I'll just leave it up to them smart people." Even the most clear-cut story is presented with an aura of confusion. Both sides have to be represented, but the "both sides" that are represented are kind of random observations. Disconnect from causality and dwell on meaningless and unfounded opinion.

We are supposed to walk away shaking our heads in confusion...not in anger or disbelief. And by all means, DO NOT allow the average person to understand what's going on.

[Kat45]

29. Great post, grendelsuncle.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Jakey]

31. Perhaps those "soundbites"...

become the substance and core of history books...no room or time or desire for "nuances", no room or time or desire for contemplative thought...information gets processed like meat through a grinder, stuffed into casings for easy distribution and consumption and digested by the masses...what SELLS is what will be re-produced...what doesn't gets turned into dogfood...this is the sustenance of Mr and Mrs. J. Q. Public. Observations of the politically, ideologically polarized have no place at their table.

Media manipulation and historical post-mortems are the bailiwick of the politically motivated and hard-core revisionists. IMO, you're tilting at windmills to think it has ever been, or will ever be, different.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

33. You're absolutely correct when you write:

"Media manipulation and historical post-mortems are the bailiwick of the politically motivated and hard-core revisionists."

I have no disagreement here. History is the battleground of narratives.

You write: "IMO, you're tilting at windmills to think it has ever been, or will ever be, different."

I hope I didn't give the impression that this was a new phenomenon. Wasn't this precisely what Gilgamesh was doing in the construction of his own memorial: "Returning from his journey, he engraved on a stone the whole story." As if we could ever trust Gilgamesh.

[greekspeak]

34. Great...now what?

You have summed up, now what do you propose to do about it? Pointing out what seems obvious is great, as long as you have a solution in mind. Don't allow these people to vote? That'll sure get their dander up. Take over the mama-bird-spitting-food-into-babies-mouths media and force people to ingest the truth? Fat chance. The only way I see to change minds is one by one, at the office water cooler, by family arguments over politics, by slowly building alternative media, and by spoon feeding them easy to digest news. Simple does not always mean dumbed down.