Remember the Big Shift around 1980? We can create a New Turning Point now.

[Armstead]

I believe a basic historical point gets lost in the current debates over "centrism," the DLC and larger discussions about the course of the nation and the Democratic Party and liberalism now and overthe last three decades.

What we are seeing today is the result of a shift that occurred very quickly around 1979-80. It was very distinct and clear. Older DUers can probably remember this, if you think back to that period. Younger ones can learn from what really happened back then.

It wasn't just the election of Reagan. That was a symptom. It was a much more basic shift that occurred in the late 1970's because of the Energy Crisis, the realization that the US is part of a globally interdependent economy and the other economic upheavals and stagnation of the 70's and the bureaucracy and appearance of failure of many liberal policies. And the nation was worn out by rapid social change and division.

This led to the rise of the "accountant mentality" and all of the results in policies and individual and social values that vflowed from that. Rather than being a corrrective balance it sent us in an extreme direction because of the right wing and corporate oligarchs who exploited it.

Out of all that preceeding turmoil and problems, certain basic messages were brought out and hammered home within a very short space of time. Like many things, it had a certain basis in reality, but it was then carried to an extreme. That message was this:

We can no longer be a liberal humanistic society. That is a luxury we can no longer afford. We must start paying more attention to practicalities. US businesses must become more ruthless to compete in a global economy. We must allow them to do what is necessary to compete and win. Workers must make sacrifices to enable us to become more competitive. This does not only apply to business. Government is an obstacle. Human services, culture the environment and other humanistic, spiritual and not-for-profit goals and services must also become more "businesslike." They must justify what they do on economic grounds.

One obvious effect was to remove the accountability of business to the greater good. All that mattered was the "bottom line" regardless of the consequences. Ultimately, it was claimed, everyone would benefit because that would create a more prosperous society.

Another effect was to force other social and individual values and organizations to play the same game. Art, for example, could no longer be justified on its own terms. It had to have economic benefits. As a result, cultural institutions became more like businesses.

As I said, this shift happened very quickly within a few years years immediately before and after 1980. It was kind of like the shift that happened after 9-11.

What we are seeing today is the logical result of this process. In political terms it is why Liberalism has been neutered. It is why so many people believe that what hurts them is actually good for them. It is why too many Democratic leaders are no longer real Democrats. It's why Bush and the GOP feel free to be so brazen.

It's also why a few Corporations have been allowed to become so immense and abusive and unaccountable. It is why our popular culture has been demeaned and cheapened. It's why Journalism has become a handmaiden to power.

On a brighter note, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TURN THE TIDE. More people are waking up to the negative effects of this. More people are seeing it directly hurting them and their communities. They rae realizing that the Emperor has no clothes.

Everything is in place to start pushing the pendulum in the opposite direction again, towards such values as community, altruism and a more rational and balanced form of self interest. ("We all do better when we ALL do better.")It is possible for liberalism to become the mainstream again.

It is also a time when people are looking to reconnect to spiritual values and a culture of meaning.

In order for that to happen, though, we have to stop echoing the phony assumptions that have come to dominate public and private life since 1980. We have to show that the so-called CONservative "solutions" proposed back then were a sham and are destructive when taken to an extreme.

That's why the DLC and the "centrist" approach has got it wrong. Today's center is artificial and distorted. It is simply the Creation of a very effective long-term effort by the right wing and corporate oligarchs.

People want something new and better than that. We can provide it if we all wake up and unify and push that pendulum towards the left to get to the real center again.

[Deja Q]

1. The one thing they forgot was to control the quantity of the populace

3 billion back then; nearly 7 billion now...

70s tv shows made a mention of inflation and other problems.

Something ain't addin' up.

[Armstead]

2. It's really simple, actually

We threw the baby out with the bathwater.

[HereSince1628]

3. a rerun of early 1930's might save us.

Only 60% of American adults are working. While the administration lauds job creation, the reality is that American consumers can't keep up and are using up their savings as they try.

American savings in 2005 was the same as it was in 1933. . . a negative growth of 5% in savings. And as most of us know Americans had very little savings to start with.

Americans lives are mortgaged too heavily and ride an irrationally exuberant hope that future asset appreciation will leverage them out of personal finances that are quagmires.

Bad times are coming. If they are really bad, and they just may be, Americans will run begging for government to rescue them. When they do, the majority will be begging for a new New Deal.

[Armstead]

4. Let's hope it doesn't require that

Things are bad enough already.

Our side ought to be able to start the Big Pushback now, if we become more pro-active and stop echoing the message that the right-wing has been pushing for over 30 years.

[Nederland]

11. I'm sorry

...but I've been hearing that "bad times are coming" speech for about thirty years now.

[HereSince1628]

12. So they must be closer!

:hi:

[Armstead]

14. Bad times are here

They have been for about 30 years. :evilgrin:

Or I shouold say we've been going in a bad direction for about 30 years. Personally I don't foresee an apocolyptic disaster, but we do face the Death by a Thousand Cuts if we don't at least start pushing back to a real center of actual balance.

[raccoon]

17. "Slow-motion depression" was the term Kennedy used in a speech

a few years ago.

I think the term fits.

[Armstead]

18. Or Fast-Motion Regression

They want to take us back to the Gilded Age via 1930.

[raccoon]

19. Yes! nt

[megatherium]

35. The 1970s is an instructive example:

The Great Depression was triggered by an enormous stock market collapse, which began in 1929 but continued for a couple of years as the market kept relentlessly going downwards. But in the 1970s, there was no crash -- but the market (DJIA) traded in the 700-1000 range for the entire decade, in a decade that saw 200% inflation. The result was that the market lost 70% of its real value in that time frame. Currently, we have a market that six years after its peak is no higher than that peak, and if the current market behaves like previous bear markets, this condition might persist another decade or more.

[mom cat]

42. Thanks for your instructive post. It really put things in perspective.

[Nederland]

22. Here is the problem

On one hand you are saying that things are getting worse, but on the other hand you are saying we need more government to solve these problems. The average person looks at those two statements and sees a contradiction. Over the last 50 years, our spending on the environment, anti-poverty, and education has increased in real dollar terms. If we are spending more money while at the same time things are getting worse, how can you justify spending even more money? It doesn't make sense.

The only real solution to this is stop lying about whether or not things are getting better. Most things ARE getting better by every measurable statistic. The air and water is cleaner today than it was 50 years ago. A smaller percentage of people live in poverty than 50 years ago. A larger percentage of people are graduating from college today than 50 years ago.

How did this happen? It's simple: GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS WORKED.

[Armstead]

27. It depends on what you are looking at -- and through what filter

Some things are better and some things are worse....And many things that got better are now under attack, like the environment.

For example, families that used to be able to support themselves on one paycheck now require both parents to work to maintain the same standard of living. That's a setback. The fact that jobs that once were available to the working cloass are now being shipped overseas is a setback. They are not being replaced by a sufficient number of equivalent jobs. Instead many peope have to take lesser jobs just to get by.

Also there is a filter that has to be applied. Our government spending has increased in dollar terms largely because the population has gotten bigger, and inflation also chips away at actual value for dollars spent.

More important, it is equally possiblde to look at your first statement another way. We have had about 35 years of Conservatism, with attacks on government and "liberal" programs. So its equally possible to say that the massive shift to the mentality of "profit uber alles" has not been successful.

[zbdent]

5. Reagan rode the back of the Ayatollah Khomeini

into the White House . . . if it weren't for the fact that Carter was trying to save 52 American lives (funny how that seems important, compared to now . . .) and hamstrung by the Soviet Union just licking its chops waiting for us to make a military threat, the stain of Nixon and Ford's pardon of Nixon would have pretty much killed the Republican party . . .

[Armstead]

6. His bigger message is what resonated

In ideal terms Reagan offered a sunny alternative to the "malaise" that existed.

But there was a darkler side to that sunny perscription. Those are the chickens that are currently roosting on the US.

[Greyhound]

10. He gave the bigots and the selfish the green light be even more

bigoted and selfish. That was the real message that resonated, the rest was simply distracting window dressing.

[Armstead]

13. I wouldn't underestimate the reasons

You're correct in regard to a certain portion of the population.

However a lot of decent unselfish people also supported him for other reasons. Or they got sucked up in it as enablers over time. (The DLC being a good example.)

It would never have become the dominant political force if bigotry and selfishness were the sole causes.

There was a need to reevaluate a lot of things at the time, including the approach of Big Government Liberalism. One did not have to be a bigot or hard-hearted conservative to agree with the need to reassess things after a long period of change and turmoil and entrenched problems.

A lot of people who were liberal by instinct also got caught up in that. The reason it was allowed to become so extreme and out of hand is more complicated than just saying the bigits and selfish gained control.

It's important to recognize that because dismissing the reasons for the Right Wing ascendency as minimizes what really happened and what we really need to do to turn things around.

[Greyhound]

20. This statement, "There was a need to reevaluate a lot of things at the...

time, including the approach of Big Government Liberalism." indicates that you, yourself have bought into The Big Lie. The nation was going through a difficult time to be sure, but the blame never lay with liberalism, it was the inevitable readjustment in reaction to the economic disruption that the Oil Industry caused. The economy would have recovered stronger and more quickly had JC been re-elected than it did under raygun.
My point is that it is emotion, not facts, that stimulate change. The re:puke:s understand this, thus the okey-dokey to bigotry and greed, and the Democrats remain willfully ignorant.

[Armstead]

21. No, I recognized reality at the time

Things weren't working. We'd gotten stuck on many levels, and the nation was exhausted after a decade of rapid and dramatic social change, economic change and war.

Part of the problem was that bureaucracy had become too cumbersome and ineffective, and the economy was going through a hard time too. That is not an ideological or political statement. It's just the nature of institutions.

I am not saying liberalism was wrong at the time. My belief then (as now) was that we simply needed to look at what was not working and making some course corrections.

If I'm eating something and it's giving me indigestion, that doesn't mean food is inhgerently bad. It just means I have to look at what I've eaten, and revaluate whether I should re-adjust my diet.

I agree with you about emotions. But one of the reasons we've been losing is that we failed to legitimately appeal to the emotions by connecting then with real answers.

And don;t forget that Jimmy Carter was not some wild-eyed liberal. He basically was the first step towards the centrist Conservative Democratic movement that evolved into DLC centrism.

P.S. I volunteewred in the campaign of Fred Harris, a left populist progressive, against Jimmy Carter in the primaries in 76. So I wasn't drinking the conservative KoolAid.

[Greyhound]

26. What raygun did was to cripple the governments ability to respond

to the rapidly changing landscape. His administration was an impediment to the progress that was being made. JC had initiated programs to fund research into alternative energy sources, tax credit for those who chose to adopt them, re-alignment and refining the programs that used to exist to address the casualties of the corporate war. All of that, and much more, was undone for no reason other than to line the pockets of his contributers and the party's pockets, and they used pure, unreasoning, emotionalism to garner the unthinking support of the masses.
What would our world be like today if we had continued to research alternative energy for the last 28 years? Just one example, there are many, many more.

Edit to correct verb-tense problem.

[Armstead]

28. I agree with that

My response to your earlier post was based on disagreement with the notion that the swing to the right was based solely on bigotry and selfishness.

We have to look at the legitimate reasons that so many otherwise reasonable people either went along with the right-wing trend or gave up on actively challenging it, if we are ever to address the larger reasons that it has been allowed to go on for so long.

[Greyhound]

29. And I didn't make it clear that I am trying to get somebody that

matters to see that issues are irrelevant in amerikan politics, it is the emotions that the issues stir up that is the key to success. I cannot believe the Democratic Party is that stupid, therefore they must be purposely ignoring this self-evident fact to further another agenda. One I'm sure we would not approve of.

[Armstead]

30. Emotions are what originally what pushed me to the left

Appeals to our better natures by peopel like MLK, Bobby Kennedy and others is one of the things that persuaded me to take the left turn in the road instead of the right when I was young. The more I thought about it the more it made sense, but emotions helped too.

We need to reconnect with that, in a positive sense. There was certainly a taste of that in some of Coretta King's funeral speeches today.

[Greyhound]

40. Yes, that is the key. The liberal ideal is the most appealing social

model on earth, but the enemies of social equality have successfully drained the emotion out of the discourse.
The Democrats must get it back to have any chance at all. That's why it is so disappointing to watch them reject every opportunity to make an emotional statement of protest. It won't change the result, but will make a difference. They will be mocked and ridiculed every time they do it, but it will be seen. They will be threatened and punished, and then it will begin to resonate...

[Wilms]

7. Thank you, thank you, thank you. (And Recommended, too.)

I think you did a great job capturing, and putting into words, the situation at that point in time.

Your phrase (/admonishment) "to stop echoing the phony assumptions" is especially relevant. Even my so-called liberal acquaintances at that time fell victim to the mentality that descended on the country like locust.

Thanks for your essay. It helps me grieve.

[Armstead]

8. Thanks

But rather than grieve we should all wake up and start working harder with a sense of optimism.

[Wilms]

9. Grieving is a step along that way.

It is to realize the circumstance, not feel crazy for having such a vision, and to come to terms with it (so to speak). It leads to freed-up energy to face the new, if difficult, day.

Grieving is the mother of re-birth, and optimism.

Thanks so much, again, Armstead.

[KoKo]

15. I would only add that the emergence of the DLC was to take advantage

of what the Reaganites were doing. The Dems felt they needed to turn around the Dem Party which was then seen as the party of Peacniks and Bra-Burners who were losing elections. The DLC (which, sorry to say, I supported then) felt that they had to turn the Dem Party more Pro-Business and Bill and Hillary and those "New Years Gatherings at Hilton Head Island, Georgia" were the founders along with others of this new vision to turn what they saw as a Dem Party Titanic around. In doing so they created the DINO Dems many of us here complain about.


Now, sadly, we have we have a comparable situation where the DLC has become so embedded with Corporatist/Globilization policies that that in effect our party has been "Sold Out." The DLC is cutting off it's "Peacenik/Activists/Womens Right Supporters/Labor and Enviro Activists" to still chase after the policies of the Reaganites whom many are now the Neo-Cons."

So, it's as if the Dem Party has been cutting off it's nose to spite it's face for decades now. They are always on the side of those who want the Dem Party dead.

This is why if we are to turn this ship around we need a strong ACTIVIST WING which won't be marginalized or cut out like it was all those years ago with the rise of the DLC. The DLC was helful in getting Clinton elected, but it ran him and then didn't support him when he went down to the Repug Right Wing. We can't allow that to happen again. The DLC's policies are as bad as the Neo-Cons because both groups were allowed to get OUT OF CONTOL. They didn't start badly but their dominant power was the result of the "law of unintended consequences."

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone here who hasn't lived through it ...but it's what I saw going on...and my interpretation in a simple form of what happened. :shrug:

Thanks for the post. We long time DU'ers have discussed this all before but many newbies don't know what's been covered around here on this and why some of us are always complaining about the DLC. We have good reason to, I think...if we've watched them since their founding.

[Armstead]

16. Law of Unintended Consequences -- Very accurate term

The DLC did try to do some necessary moderatioin in the Democrats back then. But they went way too far, and ultimately helped to make the Right Wing/GOP/Corporate Spin part of the mainstream, and had a major role in marginalizing liberalism.

It's kind of like giving a baby a bath, and then drowning it in the tub. That's what the DLC have been doing to the Democrats.

[KoKo]

23. I just heard Biden interview with Terry Gross on PBS and

when he was asked by Terry about a Pilly Enquirer article about the Democratic "factions" who are battling with each other, his comment was the quote from Will Rogers: "I don't belong to an organized party...I'm a Democrat."

Then he went on to say that the Party that is out of in power never has a leader and until Newt Gingrich came along the Repugs didn't either. :eyes: He then added that the problem is that the Democrats and Republicans have much in common but the "Red State Blue State" talk had divided the country. He said we can't focus on Bush, Bush, Bush but his policies..and find common ground where Democrats agree with him to stop the "divisiveness" in the country.

Biden never addressed the differences in philosophy in the Dems on the Left , Middle and Right...preferring to make it about finding as he said "commity" between the parties.

Biden hasn't learned anything, I gather..and lives in a "Bubble" like Bush.
How many more of them think working with Bush will one day gain them anything.

[Armstead]

25. Exactly -- There are philosophical differences

I also believe like Biden that we need to work across party lines and ideological differences to get things done.

But that's not what's happening. It's all a one-way street. The Repugs have positions and a philosophy and will not budge. So compromise becomes impossible

Also, I believe much of the nasty polarization today is NOT because of ideological mifferences. Just the opposite. As the actual substanative differences shrink, the parties look for other ways to attack the opposition and get and keep power. Like personalities and empty images.

Paul Wellstone was a perfect antodote to the Biden style of empty cooperation. He showed how it was possible to both have a very strong ideological position, but pursue it in a way that avoided personal polatrization, and even allowed for working together across the aisle when it was appropriate in individual issues, like disability rights.

[KoKo]

34. I worry that McCain and Biden are so Close! Do they both live in Bubbles

that they support each other?

And, I remember that during lead up to 2004 Primaries that many DU'ers thought John Kerry should pick McCain as his running mate!!!! :eyes:

I really can't see after another "LOST ELECTION" that ANY DEM should ENTERTAIN thoughts of McCain running with a DEM or on any "Consolidation Party" TICKET!!!

Do many DU'ers STILL THINK that John McCain is working for Democratic principles? :shrug:

[warrens]

24. It's difficult and dishonest to dumb down our message...

The way the Repukes do. Appealing to the lowest common denominator may win elections, but it does nothing to make the country better. There was an interview with Joan Baez the other day, saying how nice it was to have an optimist like her around. She said, oh, bullshit, I'm a total pessimist. We haven't gained a damn thing, we might have lost ground. But you gotta keep fighting.

[Arugula Latte]

31. Good post.

I remember '79 to '80. I felt as though one day I'd woke up in Crazyland, with that stupid piece of crap Ronnie as the King of Crazyland. It was a feeling similar to what I had after the 2000 election. It also corresponded with me entering a high school filled with preppy rich Republican asshole children. It was shocking to me, and turned me into a diehard liberal very quickly.

[Arugula Latte]

32. What makes our task very hard, however, is that

corporations saw their goal of making more and more money compatible with rightwingnutcase politics. It is so hard to fight their advantage of billions of dollars ... so hard ... and that's why we've been sinking for more than 25 years.

[Armstead]

38. In unity there is strength

A cliche I realize, but if we can ever mobilize the people behind a contrary political agenda we can even the scales.

[KoKo]

39. It might take a decade or two to undo their DAMAGE...but we've got to

start NOW...

As MLK said: "I might not Make It WITH YOU."

Many of us might not make it...but we want to know that OTHERS WILL CARRY ON. It's too important not to... :shrug:

[ClayZ]

33. Speak out!

The Weight of a Snowflake

"Tell me the weight of a snowflake," a coalmouse asked a wild dove.

"Nothing more than nothing," the dove answered.

"In that case I must tell you a marvelous story," the coalmouse said. "I sat on a fir branch close to the trunk when it began to snow. Not heavily, not in a raging blizzard. No, just like in a dream, without any violence at all. Since I didn't have anything better to do, I counted the snowflakes settling on the twigs and needles of my branch. Their number was exactly 3,471,952. When the next snowflake dropped onto the branch--nothing more than nothing -- as you say -- the branch broke off."

Having said that, the coalmouse ran away.

The dove, since Noah's time an authority on peace, thought about the story for a while. Finally, she said to herself, "Perhaps there is only one person's voice lacking for peace to come to the world." - Source unkno

[Arugula Latte]

36. I like that story -- it reminds me a bit of the

"Horton Hears A Who" story ... When all the Whos were yelling there was one twerp shirking his duties and when he finally yelped the Whos were heard and not plunged into hot Beezelnut oil.

[many a good man]

37. Logical conclusion to 25 years of conservative policies

War, recession, and bankruptcy. Now is the time to draw philosophical distinctions between political ideologies. Our leaders must do whatever it takes to get this message to the public.

Reagan won by swinging the "angry white male" vote on issues of busing, quotas, and welfare. We need to win them back on basic issues like competency and fairness. IMO liberalism cannot by definition be ideological because it must be guided by reason.

[omega minimo]

41. Remember the Big Lie around 1980?

Hello Armstead :hi: very interesting OP and thread you got going here.

"I believe a basic historical point gets lost in the current debates over "centrism," the DLC and larger discussions about the course of the nation and the Democratic Party and liberalism now and overthe last three decades."

I believe another basic point is being downplayed here; one that is relevant to your search for "emotions" and a "reconnect to spiritual values and a culture of meaning."

"More people are waking up to the negative effects of this. More people are seeing it directly hurting them and their communities. They rae realizing that the Emperor has no clothes."

Please remember that THAT Emperor (Reagan) Had No Clothes (seen the book "The Clothes Have No Emperor" re Reagan?). As for people waking up, that's all relative now, after recent events, including the shove-through appointment of Elito to the SC and the continued bald-faced lying by Bush Co. that they don't have to comply with FISA because they say so.

greyhound1966 is exactly right:
10. ”He gave the bigots and the selfish the green light be even more bigoted and selfish. That was the real message that resonated, the rest was simply distracting window dressing.”

greyhound1966
26. ”What raygun did was to cripple the governments ability to respond to the rapidly changing landscape. His administration was an impediment to the progress that was being made...All of that, and much more, was undone for no reason other than to line the pockets of his contributers and the party's pockets, and they used pure, unreasoning, emotionalism to garner the unthinking support of the masses.”

Reagan did give the bigots and the selfish the green light. It was the “Greed Is Good” decade. Our sense of ourselves as a nation was unraveled. The writing was on the wall.

Armstead
13. I wouldn't underestimate the reasons
It would never have become the dominant political force if bigotry and selfishness were the sole causes.

And you’re right, there was more to it, that explains why some who would not want to be called “bigoted” or “selfish” got suckered in the shell game.

So here’s my point--

Greed is Good became the “dominant political force” and “they used pure, unreasoning, emotionalism to garner the unthinking support of the masses” because of the other Big Shift perpetrated on the country with Reagan-- and it continues to this day.

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

"It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

"Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

"For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, chapter X "Why The Second Reich Collapsed"

Now it is high art, it is totally blatant and in-your-face and delivered with a sneer and a smirk.

People whose awareness spans these decades were in a position to not let this happen (again). So much for waking up.

These bastards are cashing in on 25 years of Greed Is Good + The Big Lie. Their hateful hypocrisy appears unstoppable. If you think it's still possible to "all wake up and unify and push that pendulum towards the left to get to the real center again," then THE BIG LIE is what has to be awakened FROM.

:patriot:

[Armstead]

43. The obvious contradictions in the CON Job are what get me perplexed

I've always had a hard time figuring out how people could accept things that were in obvious contrast to their own beliefs and self-interests.

I mean, I'm a basic supporter of capitalism. But the basis of true free enterprise and econimic opoportunity for the majority have been trampled and distorted and undermined by the negative trends that have been enabled by the Corporate CONservative movement over the last 30 years.

For example, I'm not the sharpest card in the deck, but it seemed to me to be so obvious that real diverse grass-roots capitalism was being undermined by the consolidation trends of the last 30 years.

I'm puzzled at how the same conservative knuckleheads who are always spouting off about the glories of "free enterprise" and an "opportunity society" and "competition" also endorse policies and values that undermine their own beliefs, by allowing almost every industry to be swallowed up by monopolistic entities that crush both competition and oppportunities. It would seem to me that supporting this Winner-Take-All trend by enabling such mega-mergers and acquisitions is the exact opposite of the very values these CONNED conservatives espouse.

I can understand why the purveyors of this con job use those buzzwords as a selling point. But I can't understand why the CONNED conservatives and "moderates" who get hurt by it have continued to drink that brand of Kool Aid and allow it to undermine their own beliefs in competative capitalism, and their own self-interest.

That's the kind of hypnotic spell that our side has to break through, IMO.

P.S. Usually I dislike Hitler analogies, because I believe that bad as they are, the majority of American conservatives are not nearly in the same league of badness as the Nazis.

However, in terms of the relationship between art, propaganda and politics, you might want to check out the movie Max, starring John Cusack. It's a fictionalized account of Hitler's early days, when he was trying to become an artist. It makes some interesting points about how his creativity was perverted to become the basis of the Third Reich.

[omega minimo]

44. Analogy?

Analogy or handbook?

"Our side" is under the same "kind of hypnotic spell" of cognitive dissonance.

[Armstead]

45. The difference is in degree

But I'm in basic agreement that we are subjected to relentless propaganda, and that too many people who should know better, including Democrats, have been drinking Koolaid for too long.

What passes for "mainstream" centrist economics today would have been considered right wing lunacy by most people when I was a young 'un.

[omega minimo]

46. "Drinking the Koolaid" still suggests a voluntary act

IMHO altho in the origins of the expression, who knows how willingly the Jonestown cult victims partook?

We "all should know better" if we've been around for the past few decades-- where is the big disconnect in people's minds and memories b/w then and now, when an extremely vicious cycle is repeating?

That is now a rhetorical question because no one really wants to answer it. The quote that you interpreted as an "analogy" provides the best answer of how we got here, in terms of public will or lack of. The policy influences that you sketched out so well would not have succeeded without the accompanying mechanism of the Big Lie.

[Armstead]

47. We should fight the Big Lie with the Big Truth

I guess it can get into very complicated psychology and sociology to get to the core of why so many people bite into the shit sandwich with a smile on their face.

I think your "analogy" about the Big Lie is partially accurate, because frankly I'm susceptable to that myself. Believe it or not, despite my leftyness, I still instinctually believe that Bush and many other Republicans actually do think they have the country's best interests at heart. And as dangerous as I think corporate oligarchs are, I also believe they see themselves as doing something positive.

I know, I know...That's f'd up. But even when the evidence in my head is to the contrary and they go over the line of morality (such as lying to get into war) there's a big part of me that can't believe they would actually do something so horrific deliberatly....I think they are wrong, and passionatly disagree with them, but I still have a hard time believing there is real deliberate badness there.

So if someone like me -- who is so opposed to their beliefs -- is willing to subconsciously give them the benefit of the doubt, I can understand how someone who does not even have that counterveiling skepticism would buy into the package of the Big Lie.

But I think we can still combat the Big Lie with the Big Truth. Despite those mechanisms of denial, at some point people are able to break the spell and see that 2 plus 2 equals 4.