Phony Populism -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:21:37 03/20/03 Thu
Author: Arkady
Author Host/IP: NoHost / 148.183.241.13
Subject: Phony Populism

One of my biggest pet peeves is the tendency for shrewd pundits and politicians to make disingenous appeals to the herd instinct. This phony populism comes in two basic forms. One is for the speaker to characterize his position as being more in line with the popular sentiment than it actually is. The intention of that technique is to convince the lowing masses that if they want to be safely within the herd, they have to adopt that position. The other variety is for the speaker to flatter the hell out of the masses. The intention there is to inspire a reciprocal feeling of sympathy and identification, making your message more appealing.

An example that shows both varieties of phony populism is a statement like, "the American people are too smart to buy the snakeoil being sold by the proponents of socialized medicine." That comment works, if it works, by: 1) making those who support socialized medicine feel marginal, increasing the likelihood they soften that stance a bit; 2) making those who oppose socialized medicine feel like they're in good company, so they don't feel as much need to reflect on the reasoning behind that opinion; 3) flattering the people into believing the speaker thinks highly of them, which makes them more open to his message, and 4) implying the speaker's opponents must not think highly of the people, which makes the people more hostile to their message.

Such a cheap appeal to the herd instinct and such crass brown-nosing would be a bit irksome even if there weren't the taint of falsehood, but it's all the worse when it's so patently false. In reality, back when such statements about socialized medicine were in vogue, it was precisely because the drug industry and the other medical profiteers had become fearful of growing American sentiment in favor of drastic reforms. The herd was moving against them and so they trumpeted the lie that the herd was moving with them... you can't stop a stampede with logical appeals to the herd's individual members, but you can coax the whole herd in a new direction. And, then they gave that lie kick with a deceptive compliment (in reality, it was precisely because they thought the American people were "stupid enough" to buy the "snake-oil" that they felt the need for the flattery).

Although I think conservatives are far more guilty of this kind of thing than liberals, it does go both ways. Clinton was a master of a subtler form of the same thing, on the left. He was forever trying to coax the American people into thinking the mainstream was drastically at odds with the GOP, whether that was true or not on a particular issue, and he was awfully fond of the slick populist compliment dropped into an appeal for support.

A recent example of left-wing phony populism can be found here:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

On his web page, Michael Moore repeatedly tries to flatter the American people, while disingenuously trying to make it sound like the majority of them are not with Bush on the Iraq issue:

"There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war."

That's simply not true, as much as I wish it were. There are vast numbers of people in this country who approach this war with an untroubled eagerness best reserved for action movies... and, even among the mainstream who may not be "gun-ho" for war, the majority do support the war.

"The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected
you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass
distraction."

Bull. The majority of Americans clearly have been fooled. Bush is, overall, quite popular. Is it the rising crime, unemployment, poverty, and deficits, the falling real wages, and stock prices that have led to that high approval rating? Of course not. It is because the people have been distracted from those concerns by 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

"Finally, we love France."

Moore may wish this was true (especially in light of how much the French love him), but it isn't. Most Americans I've met show something between a vague dislike on up to a vengeful hatred of all things French. Vicious French jokes are circulating everywhere, even among those who would never think to indulge in such spiteful, sweeping prejudices if the subject were blacks or Jews. Even the most white-bread and inoffensive of populist Americans, like Jay Leno, are chiming in, suggesting just how broad and accepted this anti-French sentiment is.

My point is that Moore knows all these things, but he's intentionally lying about them to try to score some cheap rhetorical points. He doesn't really have such a high opinion of the general public -- in fact, the way he's willing to be so transparently disingenuous right in front of their faces suggests he has a very low opinion of their BS detectors, if nothing else. Likewise, if he really thought a lot of them, he'd be arguing against the Iraq war with appeal to the public's reason (it can be done), instead he's arguing against it with attempts to create an irrational response. If he really thought highly of the people, he'd level with them. He'd say that he thought they were wrong about X, Y, and Z, and he'd try to convince them. Instead, he pretends the people agree with him about X, Y, and Z, and hopes they'll take his word on it.

Unfortunately, I know I'm being overly idealistic here. I'd LOVE to say that leveling with the People would succeed. I'd love to say such a straight-talking approach would work -- that the people are wise enough to recognize such sincerity and smart enough to respond to rational argument. But, if I were to say these things, then I'd be doing exactly what I'm faulting these politicians and pundits for. I'd be pretending to think more of the people than I really do, in hopes of getting some cheap sympathetic gain.

So, I won't indulge in the falsehood that the majority of Americans really would reward an end to the populist deception and false flattery. In reality, at least from the time of Reagan, it's been clear that politicans abandon that script at their peril. Act like Reagan -- complimenting the hell out of your audience and trying to characterize even your most extreme positions as in line with Middle-America -- and you'll succeed wildly. Any other path will end with you marginalized and despised. That's the great irony here -- those who think too much of the people to try to manipulate them that way are damned to failure, while those who think little of the people and thus pretend to think the world of them are handed the keys to the public's heart.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Phony Populism -- Richard, 15:24:05 03/20/03 Thu
- Re: Phony Populism -- Arkady, 16:47:49 03/20/03 Thu
  - Something you might enjoy -- Richard, 17:04:38 03/20/03 Thu