What We Need To Understand As We Prepare For Election Season…
I am continually amazed at how the American electorate falls for the deceptive strategies developed by Bernays, Lippman, and Alinsky - and used by the political public relations sector, especially during each election cycle. This year is no exception, and may even surpass previous instances in terms of manipulative communication tactics.
In essence, the primary objective is to achieve victory at all costs. The integrity of truth, adherence to facts, and any demonstration of moral conduct are inconsequential. The ultimate aim is to manipulate a sufficient number of voters for the purpose of acquiring power and influence.
Discredit Where Discredit Is Due: A Brief History
Edward Bernays, often referred to as the "father of public relations," played a significant role in the development of political propaganda and deceptive political marketing. His work in the early 20th century helped to shape the modern political landscape and establish many of the practices that are still used today.
He was instrumental in the development of propaganda as a tool for political manipulation. Working on numerous political campaigns, he helped to create some of the most iconic propaganda campaigns of the 20th century, including the promotion of the United States' involvement in World War I and the demonization of communism during the Cold War.
Bernays coined the term "engineering of consent" to describe the process of using propaganda and psychological manipulation to influence public opinion. He believed that by understanding the psychology of the masses, political leaders could effectively shape public opinion and control the political narrative.
He is also associated with the concept of the "hidden persuaders," which refers to the use of psychological techniques to manipulate public opinion without the target audience being aware of the manipulation. This approach involves using subtle cues and messaging to influence people's thoughts and behaviors, often without their conscious awareness.
Bernays strongly advocated for the use of emotional appeals in political propaganda and marketing. He believed that by tapping into people's emotions, political messages could be made more persuasive and effective in swaying public opinion.
Howard Lippman, who was attracted to socialism and Fabianism before he converted to progressivism, was another pioneering political consultant and campaign strategist who significantly contributed to the development of deceptive political marketing tactics. His work in the 1960s and 1970s helped shape the modern political landscape and established many of the practices that are still used today.
Lippman is credited with popularizing the use of negative campaign tactics, which involve attacking an opponent's character or record rather than promoting one's own qualifications. This approach can be highly effective in swaying public opinion and has become a staple of modern political campaigns.
He was instrumental in the development of attack ads, which are television commercials that focus on discrediting an opponent. These ads often use misleading or false information to create a negative impression of the opponent in the minds of the voters.
Lippman is also associated with the invention of the “push poll,” a deceptive polling technique designed to influence voter behavior rather than gather accurate information. Push polls typically involve asking misleading or false questions to sway respondents' opinions about a candidate or issue.
Lastly, but certainly not an indication of his full influence on the use of misleading political tactics, Lippman is credited with identifying and exploiting "wedge issues," which are contentious topics that can be used to divide the electorate and drive a wedge between different groups of voters. By promoting these issues, political campaigns can create divisions and gain support from specific constituencies.
The work of both Bernarys and Lippman has had a lasting impact on the modern political landscape and has significantly contributed to the highly polarized and contentious nature of contemporary political discourse.
The Evil Brilliance Of Saul Alinsky
After Bernays and Lippman, there came the communist agitator Saul Alinsky. His book "Rules for Radicals" – a book dedicated to Satan – is a set of tactics designed to empower special interest and activist movements while shifting power dynamics.
The 13 rules are:
Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have: This rule emphasizes the importance of perception in gaining power.
Never go outside the experience of your people: It's crucial to relate to your audience and their experiences.
Wherever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy: Exploit your opponent's weaknesses by introducing unfamiliar situations.
Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules: Hold your opponents to their own standards, exposing their hypocrisy.
Ridicule is man's most potent weapon: Use humor and satire to diminish your opponent's credibility.
A good tactic is one that your people enjoy: Engage your supporters with tactics that resonate with them.
A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag: Keep tactics fresh and engaging to maintain momentum.
Keep the pressure on with different tactics: Continuously adapt your approach to keep your opponent off-balance.
The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself: Use fear and uncertainty to your advantage.
If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive: Change the narrative by relentlessly pushing a negative image of your opponent.
The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative: Offer a viable solution to the problems you criticize.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it: Focus on a specific target and make it the face of the issue.
Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have: Close the loop by reinforcing the perception of power.
You can see the use of each of these rules – these tactics – in many modern-day political campaigns, especially in campaigns for Left and far-Left candidates and especially at the federal level.
Smaller Can Appear Bigger
The concept of the "small but loud" faction is prevalent in politics and special interest activism. This phenomenon occurs when a relatively small group manages to amplify its voice and influence, often through strategic tactics and effective communication.
Due to their dedication, agility, and strategic use of communication tools, the smallest factions in politics and special interest activism can have the loudest voices. By understanding these factors, it becomes clear how a small group can effectively portray itself as much larger than it is.
There are several reasons for this:
Highly Motivated Individuals: Members of a small faction are often highly motivated and passionate about their cause. This dedication allows them to invest significant time and energy into promoting their message, making their voice more prominent.
Effective Messaging: Small groups can be more agile in crafting and disseminating their message. They can quickly adapt their tactics and messaging to resonate with their target audience, giving them a stronger presence (this concept is lost on the Republicans at the national level).
Amplification Through Media & Technology: Social media platforms and other communication tools allow small factions to amplify their message and reach a wider audience. By using these tools effectively, a small group can create the illusion of a larger and more influential presence.
Focusing on Specific Issues: Smaller factions often concentrate their efforts on specific issues or causes, allowing them to become highly knowledgeable and vocal about their area of interest. This focus can make their voice more impactful.
Organizational Efficiency: Small groups can often function more efficiently than larger organizations, as they have fewer bureaucratic hurdles and can make decisions more quickly. This agility can give them an advantage in responding to events and shaping public discourse.
Coalition-Building: Small factions can form alliances with other groups to amplify their message and increase their perceived influence. By working together, these groups can create the appearance of a larger, more powerful movement.
You can easily see this concept in action by looking at the recent pro-Hamas protests on college campuses and at locations related to Democrat elected officials and the Democrat Party. In each case, a small group of protesters appeared much larger than they actually were due to their tactics with media coverage and social media presence.
A great example of coalition building is the 1968 Democrat National Convention riots in Chicago. Many smaller anti-war groups came together to appear as a larger, more unified, more organically cohesive group. This same strategy will likely be seen again at the 2024 Democrat National Convention, again in August, and once again in Chicago.
Rahm Emanual Said It Out Loud
The proposition of "never letting a good crisis go to waste" is a political strategy that involves using crisis situations to promote specific agendas or interests. This concept is often mistakenly credited to former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who is famous for saying, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
The idea behind this strategy is that crises can present opportunities for change by disrupting the status quo and grabbing public attention. By framing the crisis in a way that aligns with their goals, disingenuous and nefarious political actors can leverage the situation to advocate for policy changes, garner support, or sway public opinion.
There are several ways in which this strategy can be employed:
Pushing for Policy Changes: Crises can create a sense of urgency, making it easier to pass legislation or implement new policies. By presenting their proposed solutions as necessary responses to the crisis, politicians can garner support for their agenda.
Shifting Public Opinion: Crises can also be used to sway public opinion on specific issues. By framing the crisis in a way that supports their position, maleficent political actors can influence how the public perceives the situation and the proposed solutions.
Gaining Political Support: During times of crisis, politicians, especially those who are gullible, may be more susceptible to manipulation and may be more likely to accept solutions that benefit a specific political ideology. By framing their agenda as a necessary response to the crisis, unscrupulous political actors can garner support from other, less discerning politicians, creating perceived alliances.
Generating Media Attention: Crises often attract significant media coverage, which can be leveraged to promote specific ideas or ideological agendas. By framing the crisis in a way that supports their goals, political actors can use the increased media attention to their advantage.
The concept of "never letting a good crisis go to waste" involves using crisis situations to advance specific agendas or ideological interests. By framing the crisis in a way that supports their goals, political actors can capitalize on the disruption to effect change, gain support, or shift public opinion.
This reality was evident during the so-called COVID pandemic, during which people saw their governments disenfranchising them of their rights under the guise of a “health emergency.” This disenfranchisement served to both expand government and increase the potency of unelected global organizational mandates in sovereign nations.
The COVID “crisis” also saw several Democrat legislatures and city governments foregoing fidelity to election law to maximize the vote to their benefit. While many simplistically defined these actions as “stealing the vote,” they were, in fact, illegal acts that transgressed state constitutions and violated codified election law. To date, no one has been held accountable for these illegal acts.
I Know You Are But What Am I
The political tactic of projecting one's bad actions onto an opponent involves accusing the opponent of engaging in the same negative behavior that the accuser themselves is guilty of. This strategy aims to discredit the opponent, deflect attention away from the accuser's own actions, and create confusion among the public.
There are several reasons why this tactic can be effective:
Discrediting the Opponent: By accusing the opponent of engaging in negative behavior, the accuser can create doubt in the public's minds about the opponent's character and integrity. This can lead to a loss of support for the opponent and a potential advantage for the accuser.
Deflecting Attention: By highlighting the opponent's falsely attributed misdeeds, the accuser can divert attention away from their own actions and potential scandals, which can help minimize the impact of any negative publicity surrounding the accuser.
Creating Confusion: When both sides accuse each other of the same behavior, it can be difficult for the public to discern the truth. This confusion can lead to a decrease in trust in both candidates, potentially benefiting the accuser if they are perceived as the lesser of two evils.
Psychological Projection: The accuser may truly believe that their opponent is engaging in the same negative behavior and projecting their own actions onto the opponent. This projection can make the accusation more convincing to the accuser and their supporters.
This tactic is commonly observed in political campaigns and debates, where candidates accuse their opponents of lying, cheating, or other unethical behavior. The accuser aims to undermine their opponent's credibility and gain an advantage in the political arena by using this strategy.
A perfect – and I mean perfect – example of this comes in the totality of Hillary Clinton’s political existence and, specifically, in her manifestation of “Trump-Russian collusion.”
Hillary Clinton's involvement in the false narrative of Trump-Russian collusion can be traced back to her 2016 presidential campaign and the subsequent investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The allegation was based on the release of a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, which contained unverified claims about Trump's ties to Russia.
The Steele dossier was commissioned by the research firm Fusion GPS and was partly funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee. It contained numerous false claims about Trump's alleged collusion with Russia, which were later found to be completely unsubstantiated and outright false.
Despite this, Clinton and her campaign continued to publicly promote the idea of Trump's collusion with Russia, using the Steele dossier as evidence. This narrative gained traction in the media and was later picked up by the FBI, which used the dossier as part of its justification to obtain an illegal FISA warrant to surveil members of the Trump campaign.
Following Trump's victory in the 2016 election, the false allegation of collusion continued to be a significant issue in American politics. Clinton and her supporters continued to promote the narrative, with Clinton stating in an interview that "there certainly was communication and there certainly was an understanding of some sort."
In 2017, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Following a nearly two-year investigation, Mueller's report found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
More Hillary Malfeasance
As Hillary Clinton propagated the false Trump-Russia collusion narrative, she was actually projecting her own wrongdoing onto her opponent.
Clinton had personal dealings with Russian assets that involved several instances where her actions and decisions have been scrutinized for potential conflicts of interest or improper conduct. Some of these instances include:
The Uranium One Deal
In 2010, while Hillary Clinton was serving as US Secretary of State, the Canadian company Uranium One was acquired by the Russian state-owned nuclear corporation Rosatom. The acquisition required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which included the State Department, then led by Clinton.
During this period, Uranium One's investors contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, sparking concerns about a possible conflict of interest.
While there is no direct evidence linking Clinton's approval of the deal to the donations, the situation has been criticized for creating the appearance of impropriety.
Skolkovo Foundation
In 2010, the Obama administration, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, backed the establishment of the Skolkovo Foundation, a Russian technology innovation center. The foundation received funding from the US and formed partnerships with American companies, sparking concerns about the potential transfer of technology to Russia.
Additionally, some of the Russian companies involved in the Skolkovo project had connections to the Russian government and military, raising questions about the project's true intentions.
Bill Clinton's Paid Speeches in Russia
During Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, her husband, former President Bill Clinton, received large sums of money for delivering speeches in Russia. Some of these engagements were with Russian companies and organizations that had interests in US policy decisions, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest.
The Clinton Foundation's Russian Donors
The Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in donations from Russian individuals and entities, including some with ties to the Russian government. Although there is no direct evidence of quid pro quo, these donations have been criticized for creating the appearance of impropriety and potential conflicts of interest.
So, in summary, Hillary Clinton's dealings with Russian assets for personal gain involve several instances where her actions and decisions implicate her in conflicts of interest or improper conduct. Yet, with all of this in her background – and it is impossible to deny her knowledge of each, she projected her conflicted and improper – and some would argue illegal – actions onto her opponent, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.
By All Means, Not A Finite List
These are just a few examples of the disingenuous and manipulative information coming toward the American electorate as we progress down the road to silly season. The manipulators of political public relations – bolstered by Madison Avenue marketing firms, the mainstream media complex, and deep-pocketed dark money donors – are never at a loss for how to manipulate people to their bidding.
All we can do, as voters, is to make our friends, neighbors, colleagues, and families aware of the tactics the deceptive political class uses so that they can be recognized; so that we all can hold them accountable for their lies and deceit at the ballot box come November.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.”
– Marcus Tullius Cicero