Walter Lippman's Modern Dinamics of Public Opinion

"For the most part we do not first see, and then define, we define
first and then see. In the great blooming, buzzing confusion of the outer
world we pick out what our culture has already defined for us, and we tend
to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by
our culture...( p2)".
Walter Lippman, was a great thinker and important commentator of the 1920s-1970s. He was also a theorizer on the dynamics of public opinion. He, along with Arthur Bullard, convinced president Woodrow Wilson that propaganda was very necessary for America to be successful during WWI. He published two books, Public Opinion (1922), and The Phantom Public (1925). In these books he expresses how the public's perceptions are shaped. He says that we imagine most things before we experience them, therefore we form preconceptions that unless our education is able to make us aware, we might perceive thigs in a different way, which might not be the intended message. He also believes that images, symbols, and the image of a leader are very important to capture an audience.

The Raw Truth-response

"Lay down your lives for land you do not own,
And spill each other's guts upon the feld;
Your gory tithe of mangled flesh and bone.
But whether in the fray to fall or kill
You must not pause to question why nor where.
You see the tiny crosses on that hill?
I took all those to make one millionaire. Pg 106 (House of Truth)

Put your life at risk for something that isn't yours. Kill each other on the battle field. All messed up. Kill or be killed? -No time to think. It took all those crosses at this particular cemetary to make one $millionaire chi ching$!
This quote struck me to be a very powerful anti war -put an end the war message. But i like how the text just gives you the raw truth, the different perspectives, and combines it all to really make you think about how World War 1's propaganda and inteligent people who spoke against it.
Mike :)

Its war, who is coming with us?

Governtment officials presumed that the majority of Americans would accept
the
decision to go to war, but there were significant pockets of
antiwar
sentiment and potential resistance that were causing them serious
concern. pg 104

This quote talks about the American people and their thoughts on the war. It
shows how no one really knows who is for or against the war. Most American born
Americans are for the war, while some immigrants including German immigrants
seem to question the war. With the thought of people protesting the war, and
others not agreeing on the war it was a fear that government officals had to
face. Also it shows there is a class war going on as well, many say this
is a rich mans war, and the working class doesn't feel they should get involved.
This is showing how the war immeditaly effected Americans and their involvements
with the war.

U.S. Must Intervine

It is clear that the US has and is constantly sticking its nose in other countries business. Citizens of the US often ask themselves, why must we go there? The answer is strong economics and profit as well as new market. The US is always trying to prevent economic stagnation. The current war in Iraq and Afghanistan is the most recent proof of this argument. The media along with government officials do a great job in camouflaging this reality, portraying the US as the great savior.
US citizens will never support a war if government says; we don't care about the people in that country, we are taking our army there for our own benefit. It just doesn't sound appealing to the US population, therefore, the media is incharge of making it look good.
In Primary Documents, page 2 says: "But in elite journals like the North American Review, justifications for going to war were much closer to the creed of blood and gold. While many prominent business men, such as Mark Hanna and Andrew Carnegie opposed the war, others were seduced by the expansionist rhetoric of new markets. For Charles Conant, the choice is stark: imperialism is a battle for markets to secure profit and social order; isolationism is economic stagnation, resulting in depression and the chaos of revolution"

Social Darwinism masquerading as Progressivism?

In Stuart Ewing's book 'House of Truth', the role of Goerge Creel as civilian director of the CPI (committee on public information) is described in detail. The most fascinating, and troubling, aspect of the discusion is Mr. Creel's motivation for accepting the post, and his vigourous pursuit of it's goals, which often led his committee to engage in acts usually employed by authoritarian regimes, not democracies. In fact, I find myself taking issue with his ideas of what a democracy should be:

"In a number of ways the active collaberation between progressivism and the war effort made historical sense. By 1917, the aims of progressivism and the agenda of the CPI were not that far apart...For some time, progressivism had articulated a vision of the future in which intellectuals and social technicions would come to lead a new and rational world order. In 1917, with one of their own-Woodrow Wilson-at the helm of government, many saw the war as an opportunity for American and American liberal values to frame the world's future."

The word progressivism has such a nice ring to it, like 'let's change things for the better'. Too bad it's just Social Darwinism in disguise. The poor, struggling, stupid masses of uneducated workers (Women, African Americans, Poles, Slaves, Italians, Irish, etc.) need well educated, white males like Mr. Creel to lead them to the promised land of peace, prosperity, and social order. History is full of well meaning men who were too smart for their own good, yet not smart enough to understand the common good of self-determination, the founding principle of American Democracy. It is no surprise then, that the progressives became the repressives. In order to ensure 'The Future of Democracy', Ameica was turned (for 2 years) into George Orwell's 1984.

"The Muslim Phobia Card"

"The use of propoganda has been an integral part of human history and can be traced back to ancient Greece for its philisophical and theoretical origins. By the end of the 19th Century, improvements in the size and speed of the mass media had greatly increased the sophistication and effectiveness of propoganda." (Jowett & O'Donnell, pg. 49)

And even today, we see how propaganda evolves much more into the 21st Century. Someone like Hillary Clinton (Or the people under her) used such tactics to dig up negative information about Barack Obama. Whether he came from a Christian, Muslim, etc. background, that should all be irrelevant for this campaign.

What's more important is that we want a President who can resolve the issues at hand regardless of their ethnic or religious background. I believe it's just a tasteless act on behalf of Clinton's team to try and sway the people to Hillary's side.