Is "obfuscation" the KILLER?

[Just Me]

I've been reflecting for a long time about what it takes to WIN *LOL* the perpetuation of that "experiment" called Democracy.

I finally realized that, "democracy" is NOT an experiment,...but rather a VISION which is possible IF there are enough participants.

Unfortunately, all willing and active participants have been crushed by those who HATE the concept of "democracy",...those who are obsessed with control and power over all others.

I believe we CAN better identify those who are ANTI-DEMOCRACY,...by their actions.

I believe we are doing a poor job whenever we "target" anyone by a single vote or an imperfect past rather than TARGETING THOSE WHOSE RECORD OF ACTIONS DICTATE THEIR HEARTS/MINDS/MOTIVATIONS.

I believe, ANY OBFUSCATION FROM THESE MANIPULATIVE, PROFIT-SEEKING, POWER-MONGERING, HEARTLESS PREDATORS simply serves those evil people.

When will we UNITE against them?

When will we refuse to be distracted by their mind-fuck games?

When?

When?

[w4rma]

1. Democracy requires an educated and informed populous.

"Obfuscation" un-informs the populous.

[mzmolly]

2. Perhaps we'll unite when we invest in our message as Lakoff points out:

;)

Why do conservatives appear to be so much better at framing?

Because they've put billions of dollars into it. Over the last 30 years their think tanks have made a heavy investment in ideas and in language. In 1970, Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that.

And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who started the Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system. They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.

Why haven't progressives done the same thing?

There's a systematic reason for that. You can see it in the way that conservative foundations and progressive foundations work. Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.' And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that. Why? Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in "Moral Politics," has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well.

Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, 'We're giving you $25,000, but don't waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don't use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.' So there's actually a structural reason built into the worldviews that explains why conservatives have done better.

Great topic !!!! :toast: