A RIGHT TO MISLEAD?

False premises are hard to defend, but only if the truth of the alleged concluding “facts” are given in their actual context with the assumption of the premise, so they must be separated. False premises are defensible in appearance, if emotion can be substituted for reason. The whole equation of what can seem to be truth, has its math altered in propaganda’s altered reality matrix. At times, opinion is not just a point of view, it is a whole ideological twist as to how facts relate or are otherwise believed to be connected.

Our problem is; deceptive reasoning does work in political campaigns where look and attitude have more impact than facts in their actual full context. In times of public election campaigns, anything that “sticks” or “brands” your opposition, is not necessarily dependent on real truth, just an assembled facsimile. Since the public tends not to be up on the width and length of any particular issue as it pertains to all real world relationships, many ideas can be made to seem to fit in with the attitude one wishes to convey.

Pundits are expert at manipulating relative ignorance to pander to their own viewpoints. For some, there seems to be no limit to what cause and effect in their imaginations can connect to via the manifold invisible dots ignorance can connect via imagination. Some of these are in ideological holes, not able to appreciate how inaccurate their presumptions are. They are certain that their ideas are right. Truth seems to them, to be as obvious as the walls of their own ideological cave.

During the Democratic Campaign, one obvious conditional truth dependent on ignorance was; the question of who Barack Obama was. This unknown opened up a whole smorgasbord of things to tag him with; a wild preacher, a wild neighbor association, what his wife said about her feelings, even the tribal slant that he is somehow not like the majority, was used to turn identity assumption toward a fringe element. And since Barack Obama was in this relative unknown zone, a tag of not enough experience was one lasting “truth” available for assembled to order rationalizations.

With a population relatively in the dark about his political motivations, they were open to be construed as any negative; naive, untrustworthy, and suggesting even secretive. US election campaigns are mostly campaigns in psychological warfare. Fearful unknowns are classic rejection strategies, since one never really knows all about someone, a new face is quite vulnerable to suspicion. One party constantly uses tax in times of economic stress, and so called “values” to entice population segments with wedge issues. This negative focus campaigning has proved to be a powerful aphrodisiac for the right wing. Once in office, they can go on to fully support the very wealthy over the rest of the population with impunity, helping to precipitate the very vices tagged to opponents during campaigns. Fear works.

In comparison regarding qualifications for president; the Texas governorship was considered the third most important position in that state, yet it was the seasoned proof of an alleged bipartisan compassionate conservative ready to be president. That, and his father was one before, which is quite a plus in conformist status quo ideological elite comfort zones. I hardly remember a word over his lack of experience, if anything, it was sold as a plus; change Washington. Yet the narratives gained some hold, that Gore as well as Kerry were reckless and irresponsible tax and spend liberals. It is hard to imagine a more costly to America administration as this last one. Fear is the bread and butter of many politicians, and that view is dragging the nation downward.

For these brands to take hold, whether true of false or kinda in-between was immaterial. Repetition and a media’s acceptance of a tag as good for gossip, was about all that was required for the repeating machine gun of the corporate press to shoot accusations of questionable merit, until they take hold. This is exactly the kind of strategy the Republicans often use. It is great at covering up ones own lack of accomplishments as far as the voters are concerned. Then, turning to grand abstractions, as if we all forget who is who, and when what happened and why.

I was in Costco recently, I tell you this just to show you extreme examples of the misleading intentions of a campaigns effects in the real world. The guy ahead of me was talking with the cashier, and said with a laugh, that Obama’s idea of an energy solution was for everyone, “to let the air out of their tires”. It was not even necessary for this guy to have the propaganda right. McCain’s answer of more offshore drilling immediately, will never save as much oil as properly inflating ones tire will. The truth was ridiculed, while the lie seems as the sound guys answer.

This is how reality is turned on its head, and exactly the kind of false premise, false assumption, and out of context reasoning that made the Iraq invasion seem to most Americans as a prudent decision (at the time). Those who know how propaganda works, know that most anything can be tared and feathered to look like something it is not, resulting in choices that are wrong, yet assumed right. Since this strategy is proven to work; it will be implemented.

TURNING STRENGTH TO WEAKNESS

Rovian negative double think has taken one’s pluses to new levels of minus, thanks to ad-hominem association with the negatively framed issues. We have seen John McCain, for instance, endorse many a misleading commercial based primarily on false assumption, including false association and erroneous context. Then in the commercial, comes the list of grand old abstractions he magically possesses that will make it all better. Occasionally the Democrat’s will be caught in aspects of this overboard reasoning, usually associated with some arguable statistic or conclusion, and not the whole entire premise. Pundits will call both of these kinds of cheating the same; they all do it.

Political analyst have suggested that the Republican party is really good at this misinformation campaigning, knowing who and how to target audiences, getting certain segments of the population to fall for the bait. They suggest that for varying reasons, the Democrat’s try to explain their actual positions, or do not counterattack in kind, which then seems kind of wimpy and nuanced compared to the strong allegations tailored to deceive. This is a battle to get character type casting as negative for your opponent, and positive for yourself, while no one says anything has to be completely true or accurate.

Some believe that pulling out all the negative stops is the only way for the Republicans this season, to frame the Democrats into negative boxes, where truth and honesty are nothing more than your own wishful point of view, mandating you to drag your opponent into the mud, imaginary or not. Truth or not, we are left with no more Mr. or Ms. clean. This “competition” historically has taken a toll by both reducing voter turnout (disenchantment-apathy) and labeling ones opponent with disingenuous notions having little to do with factual reality and actual policy repercussions in a real world context. Rovian double think even has declared reality to be vastly overrated. If you can tar and feather your opponent, then call them a bird, the media will go on to ask; where will so and so roost next?

BEST DEFENSE IS A GOOD OFFENSE

As is classic in deception, ones own duplicitous motivations are branded onto ones opponent to confuse the whole situation, making the decisive elections middle of the fence voters take a more “survivalist”, who makes me feel more safe, turn to status quo security blankets. The Clinton’s used this same, he’s too naive, strategy against Obama. What was drawing folks to Obama’s message had to be condemned as being some sort of trick, if Obama is naive, then a bit by inference, those attracted to him are as well. The objective is to get the voting public to agree they would rather be practical than naive. But what ever happened to policy issues?

Some presume it worked well to go negative for her. Then if called out, the woman’s card could be played to arouse her supporters to her feminine martyrdom. (I must say that the culture at large, particularly in the MSM, treats women much different than men—in biased sex based attitude and assumption). It was seemingly easy for women to feel the bias, so presumably that framing worked as well. I remember many an interview with her fuming supporters purportedly exposing the male club presumed to be keeping her from her just and rightful win. Interesting how these days, many candidates to these offices seem to believe that they are next, or have a historical right to the position. I assume this is an attitude they wish the voting public to assume as well.

BUT WE KEEP DRINKING FROM THE POISON WATER TROUGH

While the public intuits that something systemic is wrong with the way Washington has come to operate, the very breath and depth of that problem is kept farther from reach than the voting button, card or lever. Its base is in the mind of the citizens who put the politicians gingerly into position to do what they do. Many incumbents are often “automatically” put back into office, to the point that changing Washington is usually never more than a naive figure of speech.

We seem to have surrendered to institutions that do not know how to evolve and adapt honestly to the modern integrating world, unless one calls the lobbyist culture as a good adaptation. We remain in anachronistic electoral and superficial issue based campaigns, driven by a corporate media always more interested in drama, in conflict, than in peace and understanding. Ignorance itself, has seemed to rise to the position of the nations guide.

It is we, the average American, who have let democracy slip out of our fingers, into a business and status quo machinery interested in its own self perpetuation, and not in citizen rights, national health or honest public input. In a collectively obvious way; too many of us have abandoned politics as a mechanism for addressing national problems. We have more important things to do it would seem, so ignorance settles in to roost. This choice of abandonment now haunts this country and its institutions.

One party in particular senses a great advantage to ignorance, and is continually attempting to stealthily place more limits on fair voting, defining downward who is eligible. They look forward to reduced voting in their opponents segments of the population, which can be selectively targeted in places, purging similar names on list, creating long lines and questionable yet unverifiable voting machinery. That is not an accident, but it is producing catastrophic results nonetheless, violating the very soul of freedom and democracy.

We have taken part in burying the hard fought USA reputation since World War Two. It is not Washington per-say that is the problem, it is what we have unconsciously let it become, an oligarchical estate federation that would just as much get rid of voting all together—for business sake, once their party is in across the board majority office. We are allowing infrastructures to come into being that may render true democracy mute (some suggest it long has been); the say of the citizen relegated to what they do or do not purchase. And all by letting our own insecurities get the better of us. Misleader’s are depending on it.

Everyone seems to agree in the abstract, that the real truth can hurt, the question then becomes, when one owns up to it, or relishes escapist cognitive dissonance instead. Democracy’s regression to an infantile state is not Washington’s fault, it is ours. Or are we just someone else’s puppets?

and the right wings favorite yet cynical weapon directed towards their own faith in naive and un-knowledgeable followers—–;Thought-terminating cliché

Who needs followers to have critical thinking anyways.  It only messes things up.