Lipstick on Socialist Pigs

You don’t need a Republican strategist to spell out the McCain campaign strategy: direct, negative name-calling questioning Obama’s character. This week McCain, Palin and the infamous Joe the Plumber have dropped the S-bomb on Obama. His economic plans raising taxes for the riches in America and cutting them for the middle and lower classes have come under fire as “socialist.”

This word is clearly meant to connect Obama to negative “anti-American” sentiment. But this “socialist” attack just proves how out of touch McCain, his campaign -and many of us – really are with the rest of the world.

At the sound of the word “socialism” many are quick to recall cliche images of the Cold War: the USSR and the Space Race, Sputnik, Lenin. Perhaps we recall Mao and the Communist Revolution, the Viet Cong, Fidel Castro puffing at a cigar, and a few of us might even picture Mussolini and Hitler in a war room plotting world dominance in a dank basement. Regardless of our misinformation on the differences between socialism, communism, fascism and nationalism, they’ve all been conveniently clumped together to represent the same concept: an oversized watchdog government controlling crowds of emotionless citizens, an administrative body threatening to limit the basic freedoms we cherish so much as Americans, a danger to our collective options that make us happy citizens.

But many of our overseas buddies no longer equate Socialism with the 60s images of Soviet tanks invading a neighboring country or of school children pledging allegiance to a lifeless portrait of a mustached dictator. Rather, modern Socialism is becoming popular for it’s intriguing economic twist: democratic and representative regulation of the market. This populist economic reform plan rules that more collective ownership means better social investments and direct public reguation limits corruption.

 

Socialism is slowly gaining popularity in dozens of developed nations, with surprising results. Several countries have established strong and successful socialist parties, mainly in Europe. Spain’s Prime Minister Zapatero is the head of the Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party. Former French Presidential candidate Segolene Royal won 46% of the nation’s votes during the 2007 election. The Republic of Portugal, though a Republic in political organization, retains socialist references within its constitution. It’s the newest craze sweeping Europe.

 

It is true that several countries have dabbled with some degree of socialism in the past and have emerged economically worse off than they were before. But it would be a mistake to write off this political ideology when it’s failed in countries that didn’t have the resources to sustain itself to begin with. How well can wealth be distributed in a country that isn’t wealthy to begin with? Reorganizing a society towards equality means making sure everyone is okay with the lowliest available job, and in most cases that has meant redirecting the populace to the pesantry. But in developed countries with access to hundreds of resources and a comparatively high comfort level for its citizens, closing the growing wealth gap might take drastic action.

 

The recent economic crisis is a direct result of both an underregulated economy and uninformed citizens, but those truely caught in the worst situations cannot escape alone. Revitalizing the economy at this point will need temporary emergency funding from the top and then a constant flow to support the bottom, to keep currency in a consistant and steady flow. In order to get there from this point, it’s going to take a careful redistribution of wealth via raised taxes on the richest and tax cuts for the largest base – the money has to come from those who have it, where else?

 

We cannot be afraid of words like “socialism” when it comes to saving and reenergizing our own economy. Social welfare programs are just that – social. In a nation where over 70% of wealth is inherited, social darwinism doesn’t excuse our middle and lower classes anymore, and even the most financially successful can’t survive for long in a society that cannot support its own foundation. We have to be willing to listen to all options without cultural misconceptions of what horrible facist future we might have if we begin to redistribute our wealth.

 

And we better act fast, because the rest of the world won’t wait for us to catch up to their level of vocabulary.

Election ‘08 Propaganda from the Ominous Eyes of the Masters

Propaganda is everywhere, and I would hope we are at an age where “Propaganda” is no longer a scare word tied to the political tactics of Nazis and Soviets but a general term for any [propaganda (n.) –] “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person.”

Basically, anything used to get you to form an opinion about something is propaganda. Mac commercials help Apple sell computers and injure the PC market, Greenpeace would rather you blow your nose on bark than use Kimberly-Clark Kleenex, and your dear old aunt Mildred won’t stop gossiping about the little whore next door.

Then there’s the all too cliché propaganda subject matter of American politics, and with the 2008 election less than a month away the campaigns are going at it like gamecocks. Both campaigns have used more subtle propaganda techniques since they began their course 15-odd months ago, but with time running out and the race as close as it is, their styles are becoming desperately obvious and in most cases, downright shameful.

Sure, both Obama and McCain have used the basic forms of propaganda (confidence-assertion, conversion-retention, objection-handling). But their use and style of propaganda is not only a marker of how they will choose to lead but how effective they will be as leaders – thus, their handling of the matter during the campaign is nothing to be ignored, but something to be carefully monitored as a preview of the next 4 to 8 years.

I’m not going to pretend I give a shit about being non-partisan for the sake of credible analysis of the topic. Barack Obama is just damned better at propaganda than John McCain and the GOP are, and will win the election because of it. I’m SO calling it. Barack Obama’s positive-propaganda campaign has chosen to use subtler, more discreet ways of moving the public towards his side which have proven effective in the long-term build up of his voting base. McCain’s campaign, on the other hand, has used more surprising, one-shot political opportunities proven to shock for a burst in the polls, but the excitement wears off soon after the public realizes he’s made a poor move. Almost like the tortoise and the hare, where the tortoise remained steady and cautious building up momentum, and the hare relied on his short bursts of speed but keeps making wrong turns and at some point ends up in Alaska.

But that is not to say that the GOP itself has always sucked at propaganda – quite the contrary. In fact, the Bush Administration has indeed led one of the most impressive propaganda campaigns in modern history. It’s not easy to start a war with 90% of your country behind you, have leaders the world over support you, and then keep the war going to the end of your second term even after 75% of your own country has told you to STFU already. No, no, that kind of manipulation and back-alley building of power takes care and time, my friends.

So it might actually be the very fault of the GOP that Obama’s style of propaganda is so successful. After 8 years of an aggressive approach to propaganda, the attentive public is tired of the bandwagon, generalizing, emotional string-pulling that Bush has provided, which is really what McCain’s one-shot campaign moves have proven to be. Obama offers a calming alternative to the Bush Administrations’ approach to issues, not only in substance but in style.

Sure, Obama kicks at a hidden propaganda, but is it going to win the election? Of course it will. Yes, it’s too soon to tell and it might be a close win, but I already called it, so fuck it.

Yet two legendary Masters of Propaganda might not agree with who’s running the best propaganda campaign, or even with who will win. So I look towards the expertise of two Masters to define what the hell propaganda really is, and who the real winner is this election. Even though I SO already called it.

Edward Bernays is the author of Propaganda (1928), a sociological book tackling the subject of Propaganda as a socio-psychological study. It is also the second search option when you type “propaganda” into Google, making it the second highest authority on the subject behind Wikipedia.

Bernays is no stranger to a broad definition of propaganda, and he is known to have the most ominous opening line on the subject ever:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

The populace as a whole is dominated by a few propagandists, select individuals and groups that “understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses.” Bernays argues that these Lords of sociology are not just groups of people laughing manically as they pull your strings towards purchasing a product or voting a certain way – one hopes – but are necessary towards running an efficient democracy. After all, not everyone has the time to look into every little issue discussed in a campaign. Without a filtering system to narrow public choices down to two or three options, votes would be cast for hundreds of political options and produce nothing but chaos. So the public votes for the most gifted politicians, men who are able to mold the will of the people using propaganda as a means of political progress.

 

And the people want it that way! Some claim the office of the presidency is only perceived to be important because propaganda has decorated it so honorably, to which Bernays responds with a hearty “so the fuck what?”:

How are you going to stop a condition which accurately reflects the desires of a certain part of the public? The American people rightly senses the enormous importance of the executive’s office. If the public tends to make of the President a heroic symbol of that power, that is not the fault of propaganda but lies in the very nature of the office and its relation to the people.

That’s right, Bernays says that deep down inside, you WANT an elitist president, ‘cause no one wants Joe Sixpack in the oval office come the day Argentina comes in and looks at him funny. And Obama and McCain know this. They may throw the word “elitist” around to mean “out of touch with the American people,” but both have gone through hoops trying to prove themselves as better than you, using basic guilt-trip techniques. You hear it every time McCain mentions his extended stay at the infamous Hanoi Hilton, being starved and tortured by enemy soldiers. How much pain and anguish can you handle, you wuss? You hear it every time Obama talks about his leave from a high-paying job to become a community organizer in the poorest slums of Chicago. How many poor people have you helped today, you selfish bastard?

In Bernays terms, the medal of best propagandist goes to the politician with the best understanding of social patterns and mental processes, a more subtle manipulator of emotions, someone famous (or infamous) for pulling at heartstrings. The medal goes to Barack Obama. But the contest is not over.

I bring into the race the second Master or Propaganda, probably the most famous and well known actual professional Propagandist in modern history. Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s right-hand man and BFF, whose actual title was “Head Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda,” which probably made for some swanky-looking business cards. Don’t get me wrong, Goebbels was evil as hell, a dick of a womanizer, and actually more of an anti-Semite than Hitler himself (Imagine that). But seeing the influences he had on the social make-up of Nazi Germany, you have to admit he did become a master of the art of social pattern, which is all the more surprising when you realize how Goddamn ugly he was.

In Goebbels’ Knowledge and Propaganda (1928), propaganda is defined in its simplest terms, as a means of alluring other to your way of thinking:

At the moment at which I recognize something as important and begin speaking about it in the streetcar, I begin making propaganda. At the same moment, I begin looking for other people to join me.

Yet Goebbels had a somewhat differing view of “good” propaganda than his contemporaries overseas. Whereas Bernays would praise subtlety, Goebbels would say “fuck that” and slam your head into a wall covered in posters of injured women and crying babies:

It does not matter how clever it is, for the task of propaganda is not to be clever, its task is to lead to success. I therefore avoid theoretical discussions about propaganda, for there is no point to it. Propaganda shows that it is good if over a certain period it can win over and fire up people for an idea. If it fails to do so, it is bad propaganda.

By this definition, both John McCain and Barack Obama have arguably used “good” propaganda within their parties, as noted by each victory in the primaries, and more so by their shifting leads in the polls. Even then, McCain’s success in these terms is highly questionable, as his party has had difficulty rallying behind him after the primaries but before VP Barbie. But, by God, he’s trying.

Most importantly, Goebbels stresses the strongest and most powerful technique, the use of message repetition meant to stop thought and promote a simple message:

History proves that the greatest world movements have always developed when their leaders knew how to unify their followers under a short, clear theme.

And both the candidates have had a short, clear theme during the primaries. Barack Obama: Change. Change. Change. John McCain: Straight Talk. Maverick. Country First. Change.

 

Wait, what?

“Change” is a GREAT slogan. It’s better than a one-liner, it’s a one-worder. You can’t confuse it with any other slogan. Despite all of its criticism for being vague and unspecific, the very charm of the slogan is that anyone can view “change” in his or her favorable terms and fall into the trap of its cheap allure. The Hillary campaign realized that when it made its move from “Real Solutions” to the “Experience + Change” bullshit. The McCain campaign realizes that, too, and has shifted from slogan to slogan until it mimic’s the Obama campaign’s catchy slogan. It’s the entire reason Palin has the possibility of having an actual job. The Obama campaign has once again NAILED it.

And Goebbels’ wouldn’t be shy about handing him the medal, either:

In other words, there is no ABC of propaganda. One can make propaganda, or one cannot. Propaganda is an art. The task of a gifted propagandist is to take that which many have thought and put it in a way that reaches everyone from the educated to the common man.

If propaganda means anything in a campaign, and you bet your ass it does, Barack Obama’s got this in the bag. By the jury of two Masters of Propaganda, Barack Obama wins, regardless of margin.

 

Let’s hope I can repeat the last half of that sentence come the morning of November 5^th. Which I will, ’cause I called it.