Miscellaneous

The Social Engineers and a Synthetic Candidate

by

Gad Saad, a Canadian professor who seems a lot saner and more courageous than the general run of academics, has published an article in Newsweek:  Kamala Harris is Hoping You Turn Your Brain Off and Vote on Emotion.  He cites actor Ben Stiller on the reasons for his support for Harris:  “All the energy and excitement that is around this movement right now.”

Emotional appeals are of course nothing new in politics: Plenty of people surely voted for John F Kennedy because he seemed more ‘youthful’ and ‘vigorous’ than did Nixon.  And, as Professor Saad noted, emotional appears are also common in commercial marketing–“Sell the sizzle, not the steak” is an old saying in sales and marketing. And constructed iconic figures such as Betty Crocker have long been common.  Still, it is also true that the marketing had better not depart too far from the truth about the product: if the steak is no good, the restaurant isn’t going to be getting a lot of return visits. If the cake mix results in an inedible cake, the customer is probably not going to buy that brand again.

Although emotional appeals are nothing new in politics, it seems clear that the Harris/Walz campaign is taking such appeals to new heights/depths. The characters projected for Harris and Walz has been constructed by some very smart people based on their assessment of what will sell.  Does ‘opportunity’ poll well? Then have her talk about the ‘opportunity society.’  Is ‘freedom’ valued by most Americans?  Then have her use that word a lot, regardless of how disconnected it may be from her actual policies.  Indeed, the strategy appears to be to have her delay talking about policy as long as possible, similar to the way an overpriced restaurant may want to avoid having you see the actual menu until you’ve already made a reservation, parked (with valet parking) and have your entire party sitting down at the table.

There’s a pulp novel from 1954, Year of Consent, which projects a future United States which is nominally still a democracy–but the real power lies with the social engineers, sophisticated advertising & PR men who use psychological methods to persuade people that they really want what they are supposed to want. When I reviewed this book in 2021, I saw some disturbing parallels with our present society.  Today, and especially in the context of the Harris/Walz campaign, the parallels are even more disturbing. Review is here.

In the world posited by this novel:  While the US still has a President, he is a figurehead and the administration of the country is actually done by the General Manager of the United States, who himself serves at the pleasure of the social engineers. Don’t we see a great deal of this today, with the increasing power of the administrative departments–and, especially, the figurehead nature of the current President, all highly dependent on the goodwill of the Communicating Classes?  And isn’t the rage against X/Twitter and Elon Musk driven by the perception that this platform dares to defect from the unity of those Communicating Classes?

Are there enough people in the US today who are willing to seriously think about issues and policies, rather than just supporting and voting for what gives them a positive instantaneous feeling of some kind?  By analogy, will they evaluate the car for reliability, performance, mileage, and crashworthiness, or will they just go with the model that shows the car with happy and attractive people?

And how can rational candidates do a better job of coupling solid policy stories with emotional appeals that are truly relevant as well as hard-hitting?

Worthwhile Listening

by

Some recent musical discoveries and a few old favorites.

Riflemen of Bennington, The Committee of Correspondence

Sadness as a Gift, Andrianne Lenkeer

Yosemite, Molly Tuttle

It’s Allright, Emily Keener

Runaway Train, Roseanne Cash.  I’d assumed that this song was written by one of the Cashes, but it was actually written by John Stewart, whose version is here.

Shenandoah, Dave Alvin

Beautiful Trouble, Tom Russell

Hong Kong Boy, Tom Russell

What Work Is, Tom Russell

Broken Hearted Mama, Eric Andersen

Love is Teasin’, Marianne Faithfull

Hiroshima and Counting All the Dead

by

It’s how you frame the question that often determines the answer you will receive.

Today is the 79th anniversary of the surrender of Japan. It is today, and not August 6th, when it is most appropriate to discuss whether dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was the correct decision.

The arguments are by this time well rehearsed. The opponents of the bombing answer that its use was not only unnecessary and gratuitous but immoral. They state that the Japanese were going to surrender anyway, shocked into submission given the declaration of war by the USSR, and the only reason Truman ordered the bomb’s use was to intimidate the now-menacing Soviets.

There of course was the remorse of the scientists, clergy, academicians, then and since, who denounced the death and devastation caused by the bombing. Many quoted Aquinas, others less eloquent pointed to moral failings of America and its people.

Read more

“Defeat” is Not an Option

by

I am not trying to keep up a running commentary of the day’s events, but there are some things that run so deep that they must be accounted for in real time.

I saw this tweet from H.R. McMaster:

Bari Weiss is right. “Statements of sorrow from the leaders of the free world are insufficient. The message to terrorists and those who support them should be that the defenders of civilization will defeat them. No matter the cost.”

I like Bari, but I am not a big fan of McMaster — too interagency for me — but my first reaction was “Heck yeah!” and then I realized what he was saying was in reality what he was condemning, cheap sentiment that is insufficient.

Let’s start off by saying that we use the term “defeat” for all sorts of things like cancer or the urge to eat too much ultraprocessed foods. It has lost its punch. Also I think that just about everyone in the world, especially after our performance the past 20+ years, doubts our will power to defeat anyone.

An American overseas was kidnapped, held for nearly a year, probably tortured in ways I cannot describe on a family blog, used as a human shield against the laws of war, and then murdered. When I travel abroad, I’m always aware of two things; the first is that on my passport is the message from the Secretary of State:

The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection.

The second is when I cross back into the US and go through Immigration, the official at the desk hands back my passport and says “Welcome home.”

Hersh Goldberg-Polin was never rendered all lawful aid and protection and he never came home. That means something on a very emotional level.

We look after our own. I didn’t care for Britteny Griner before she got picked up and railroaded by the Russians, but I’m glad we got her back. Cost us a lot on trade, but we can settle the Russians’ hash some other ways. We look after our own and to her credit Ms. Griner has shown her gratitude.

There needs to be something very personal and visceral to balance the scales with the murder of Mr. Goldberg-Polin, for and on the behalf of all Americans.

Read more

You Don’t Hate the Media Enough (1)

by

I had something longer to drop for tomorrow but I saw some stories that left me spitting Chiclets both about the Biden-Harris Administration and the media that works for them.

First, Arlington Cemetery Controversy Deepens as Trump and Harris Trade Attacks

This is a headline that doesn’t match the article. Kamala and Trump didn’t trade barbs. Kamala accused Trump of using Arlington as a campaign prop and in general impugned his character. Trump did not “trade attacks” but merely posted messages from the various Gold Star families who attended the ceremony. Those families stated that not only had they invited Trump, but they asked his team to take pictures and video. They also slammed Kamala and her administration for having no one there.

So what about the other nail that the Democrats are hanging their Arlington narrative on? That Trump’s use of pictures and video for campaign purposes was inappropriate? That’s what Army Secretary Christine Wormuth had said earlier. To CNN’s credit they quoted Sen. Tom Cotton saying that “neither the families nor President Trump violated cemetery regulations or policies.”

Of course they added the qualifier that Cotton was “…not present during Trump’s trip to the cemetery.” Neither CNN nor Wormuth were present, so Cotton had just as much right to comment as they did. CNN also failed to mention that Cotton wasn’t just an “Army veteran,” but had served in the Old Guard which is responsible for memorial affairs at Arlington; he also wrote a book about it. Seems like a critical factor.

Read more