*to Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Monday, 13 December 2010

Getting people to vote against their class-interests.

This post is a link to a must-read summation of who the enemy is, and their tactics.

A few highlights:
There then follows a detailed analysis of what motivates and interests working-class voters, with a focus on how to manipulate them into voting against their own economic and social best interests. Mr. Olson, quoting Mr. Muttart, notes the deep seams of optimism, fear, pride, anger at disrespect, belief in public order, patriotism, and concern about rapid change that motivate working class electorates. And he describes how conservative politicians can frame campaigns around these themes.
It is Orwellian double-talk. The conservative agenda seeks to impoverish all of Tim Hortons’ clients and to transfer their savings and income to people who view Starbucks as pedestrian. The conservative agenda is about the most massive transfer of wealth from ordinary people to the elite since the 1920s. The conservative agenda leads to more crime. The conservative agenda is about subordinating our sovereignty to global corporate interests – including the sale of our key assets to foreigners – and to the foreign policy agenda of another country.
But it is also, as a piece of political engineering, smart. And, as recent electoral results demonstrate, effective.
Reminds me of the logic of Harry Lime.  Orwell would recognize the methods, even if he'd be surprised by the authors.  I'd hope it wouldn't work forever, but when money controls the media high-ground, its pretty hard for the rest to be heard.  That position looks so assured, no wonder 'authorities' panicked when the terms of the dialogue were challenged by WikiLeaks.  'Authorities' should always remember they have two choices, if they take the long view: you can pay for social-justice, or you can pay for security; but you're going to pay to be wealthy.  If you push your position too far...  Let's just say that without interference the Muslim world would have been more democratic, and less of a refuge for fundamentalists.  There's no reason Anglophones wouldn't turn to violence if they are pushed far enough.

No comments:

Post a Comment