• Mikie
    6.7k
    This being a pivotal moment in world history, I think it's worth reflecting on why otherwise normal, average citizens vote the way they do -- that is to say, against their interests. I come back, over and over again, to the manipulation of attitudes, values, and beliefs.

    Not a profound insight. We've always known that powerful minorities, when they cannot use a bludgeon to control what the masses do, often turn to indoctrination and propaganda of various kinds: apologetics, sophistry, appeals to emotions or prejudices, misinformation -- or otherwise sowing fear, doubt, and confusion in some way. Various religions have served this purpose for long periods of time.

    The scale increases the more free and democratic a nation is. Right now, in the United States, thanks in large part to sophisticated and ubiquitous propaganda, a large minority of the population is ready to vote enthusiastically for a man who in the next four years will essentially take us over the edge of the cliff in terms of the looming environmental disaster, claiming it's a hoax. Any outside observer would wonder how this could be the case, and the answer -- I believe -- is found largely in the propaganda model.

    I mentioned "otherwise normal citizens," and I believe that: they're generally friendly, peaceful, good people. People who are appropriately critical of bizarre assertions and who demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. People who want to live good lives, get a decent job, fall in love, raise families, maybe buy a house. People who see friends, have BBQs, watch sports, love TV and movies, go out to restaurants and bars, music concerts, etc. etc.

    However, get them thinking and talking about politics and, for a significant fraction of those interested, what comes out is truly shocking: outlandish conspiracy theories, attempts to inappropriately undermine credible sources, denial of facts and evidence, rejection of expertise (if it contradicts their beliefs), hostility towards intellectuals, disdain for education, and complete distrust for government and media (except the ones they identify with).

    I'm seeing this on "both sides," but I refuse to pretend that both sides are equally extreme. They aren't. Here the case of climate change is especially relevant. This is not an issue about abortion, guns, or immigration -- this is an issue that is settled. It's an issue that is now being seen all around us, and can be understood by anyone who can read a graph. What does the political "right" currently say about this existential threat? The leader of the party, Donald Trump, says it's a "Chinese hoax," or else says that the scientists "don't really know." But they do know, and the evidence is overwhelming.

    So why would anyone deny something like this is happening, especially something so important? It would be like astronomers saying that an asteroid is coming towards Earth, and will destroy all living things in 50 or so years, and half the population of the world saying that they're completely wrong. Who should we believe? Even if the scientists were only 20% sure, wouldn't all of us start taking drastic action right now to avoid the potential catastrophe? In a rational world, I would say "Yes," of course all but the most pathologically insane people would agree to do something.

    We face a very similar threat right now, and what we do, as the most powerful nation in the world, matters more than anything else. Especially by the end of this decade.

    So why are so many still convinced that nothing is happening, that Donald Trump is more trustworthy than scientists, that trickle-down economics works, that even more power should be given to the corporate sector, etc?

    The manufacturing of consent -- the power of propaganda. We see it now more than ever thanks to social media, which is a accelerating the spread of misinformation, and confining people to information "echo chambers" where preferred information is encouraged and anything else is algorithmically excluded.

    Thus, the question is: how do we get out of this?
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    The question is: how do we get out of this?Xtrix

    Imo, we got into it with the stupidification of the American voter starting after WW2 - that the fault of the American system of education. That is, from at least 1750 to about 1945-50.the American voter had a reasonable amount of both knowledge and common sense. And in many cases uncommon sense. The historical record shows clearly that they read and could reason about difficult issues. The way back is a revamping/rehabilitation of education. And imo, that means firing all the "educators" and replacing them with professional teachers; so-called educators being nothing more than bureau-rats looking out first, second, third, for their own interests, while teachers are usually interested in improving the minds and understanding of their students.

    But the teachers have been stupidified too, so it's a long-haul process. Nor would it surprise me if it entailed significant and major changes in the workings of the larger society.
  • Mikie
    6.7k
    The way back is a revamping/rehabilitation of education. And imo, that means firing all the "educators" and replacing them with professional teachers; so-called educators being nothing more than bureau-rats looking out first, second, third, for their own interests, while teachers are usually interested in improving the minds and understanding of their students.tim wood

    The educational system has already been infiltrated. They've mostly been centers of indoctrination, selecting for obedience and conformity, with a few exceptions (when needed for innovation). This has gone on for a long time. Those who aren't "educated" in the sense of schooling, however, are especially up for grabs for charlatans like Trump, pseudo-intellectuals like Jordan Peterson, and pundits/political commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. They want answers for why their lives are so crappy, and they receive them from these sources. On the other side of the spectrum, the liberals are also sucked into their echo chambers and start taking their stands on things that don't matter much.

    Neither group goes after the real power in America -- the fortune 500 and the corporate sector -- and when they do they're very quickly beaten back. It's fine to talk about guns, abortion, immigration, defunding the police, gay rights, transgender bathrooms, women's rights, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. etc., but it's never been OK to talk about capitalism -- whether right or left. If you do, better make it a debate on Keynesian or neoliberal approaches -- don't question whether the entire system should be overthrown a la slavery and feudalism.
  • BC
    13.5k
    I mentioned "otherwise normal citizens,"Xtrix

    I think/hope/believe that otherwise normal citizens make up the majority of the population, and that we are not helpless dupes of various cynical propaganda machines.

    outlandish conspiracy theories
    attempts to inappropriately undermine credible sources
    denial of facts and evidence
    rejection of expertise
    hostility towards intellectuals
    disdain for education
    distrust for government and medial
    Xtrix

    Hey, great list. Want to rule the world? Do this.

    I think the list should be viewed as the means by which otherwise normal citizens' thinking is distorted or derailed, rather than the consequence of propaganda. Trump makes an extreme statement one day, denies it the next, repeats it on the third day, and spins it on the fourth. Maybe Trump is merely crazy, or maybe he is (perhaps inadvertently) undermining the certainty of truth. "What? No, I didn't say that; that's what THEY are saying!" One day the CDC states that the corona virus can be transported on aerosols from sneezes, coughs, etc., can travel a significant distance, and infect people. The next day the CDC pulls that claim (almost certainly at the behest of the White House). So what is true? What is true for Donald Trump keeps getting a little closer to "whatever I say is true".

    Adolf Hitler was always right. This was more a governing principle, the fuhrer prinzip, less a conclusion. If der Fuhrer said the war was going well, it was. If he said the world was flat, it was. Don't agree? Maybe some time in Dachau will clarify your thinking. German culture was, historically, at least as sound as any culture--maybe more so. Nonetheless, Nazi rubbish--as crazy as QAnon--became government policy.

    The QAnon conspiracy displaces normal explanations of real events with bizarre demons. Since the demons do not actually exist, whatever they are purported to say or do can not be contradicted. Contrary evidence never appears, because there is nothing there.

    vote the way they do -- that is to say, against their interestsXtrix

    I've complained about this for a long time. People are voting against their interests! There is an obvious explanation you will probably not hear on mainstream media (which is pretty broad):

    Voters are presented with two political parties and their candidates who essentially intend to, and do, pursue extremely similar goals. Both parties back capitalism unconditionally, and do not intend to overturn what it means for working people--exploitation. So, vote for a Democrat, vote for a Republican; it makes mo difference. Either way, one is voting against one's interest. The idea of two opposing parties, one representing XYZ policy, the other representing ABC policy, is a deeply ingrained myth. Fact is, they both represent XYZ policies and are both against ABC policies. The actual truth of the political system is NEVER broadcast authoritatively to the people. Naturally, a crackpot here and a crank there will say it, but they are all crazy, right? Right. So if you are a poor working white, you should definitely vote Republican; and if you are a poor working black you should definitely vote Democrat or... whatever. They both want everybody's vote.

    What is at stake in the election isn't who will benefit the workers. What is at stake is who will be in charge of taking care of Capitalists.

    To expand a bit on an old saw, "Neither law nor sausage should be made in public." Because the actual workings of lawmakers are as disreputable as sausage-makers who put bad meat into the sausage mix. The critical decision making in the state offices or national congress (maybe even in your local township board) are not made during public sessions. Decision makers consult, advise, give and receive bribes, (depending on what's at stake, and bribes should be generously interpreted here), decide who wins and who gets shafted, and so on. (Usually YOU are going to get shafted, because you are not one of the major power players possessed of great wealth).

    (Otto von Bismarck (1815–98) said it first: If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made.)
  • Daniel
    458


    I don't think the United States of America is the most powerful nation in the world anymore; and if it is, it won't be such by much longer. I might be wrong, of course. That said, I think that the "otherwise normal citizens" of the United States of America must start acting not like the most powerful citizens in the world but as citizens of the world if they still want a United States of America. (By the way, that goes to almost every nation in the world).
  • jgill
    3.8k
    Here the case of climate change is especially relevant. This is not an issue about abortion, guns, or immigration -- this is an issue that is settledXtrix

    True enough. What is not settled is whether it can be altered significantly. Especially with not all nations on board. Don't buy beachfront property in Miami.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.