Chapter 6 - Propaganda And Political Leadership

page 86:

• THE great political problem in our modern democracy is how to induce our leaders to lead. The dogma that the voice of the people is the voice of God tends to make elected persons the will-less servants of their constituents. This is undoubtedly part cause of the political sterility of which certain American critics constantly complain.

• Interesting that 100 years ago the leaders did not lead either. Today our “leaders” are little more than figurehead puppets dancing to distract the masses. They weren’t and certainly aren’t servants of their constituents. More like servants of their donors.

• No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.

• Fortunately, the sincere and gifted politician is able, by the instrument of propaganda, to mold and form the will of the people.

• Here he goes again, talking about how the masses will is molded by the propagandist through gifted politicians. If the masses’ will is molded by an external force, can it rightly be called the masses’?

page 87:

• Unfortunately, the methods of our contemporary-politicians, in dealing with the public, are as archaic and ineffective as the advertising methods of business in 1900 would be to-day. While politics was the first important department of American life to use propaganda on a large scale, it has been the slowest in modifying its propaganda methods to meet the changed conditions of the public mind. American business first learned from politics the methods of appealing to the broad public. But it continually improved those methods in the course of its competitive struggle, while politics clung to the old formulas.

• This is what I was pointing to in the last chapter. If propaganda manipulates a country to buy this product or that, it is’t the end of the world. But, if those propaganda techniques are used to manipulate a nation’s politics, the consequences might be dire.

• The political apathy of the average voter, of which we hear so much, is undoubtedly due to the fact that the politician does not know how to meet the conditions of the public mind. He cannot dramatize himself and his platform in terms which have real meaning to the public. Acting on the fallacy that the leader must slavishly follow, he deprives his campaign of all dramatic interest. An automaton cannot arouse the public interest. A leader, a fighter, a dictator, can. But, given our present political conditions under which every office seeker must cater to the vote of the masses, the only means by which the born leader can lead is the expert use of propaganda.

• Well, those 100 years of practice have sure paid off. Today, and for 2-3 generations I suspect, politics has been dominated more and more by the dramatic. I am reminded of a quote I hear years ago: “Washington D.C. is Hollywood for ugly people.” I think this is an accurate assessment. Reagan was a literally actor. Clinton was known as Slick Willy. I remember hearing the George W. Bush would be a great guy to have a beer with. Trump was of the new breed of celebrity. These and others like them use their “drama” to, quite successfully, appeal to the public. Yet people like Ross Perot who were logic driven are driven out of the political arena. (To be fair, Perot was likely threatened when he was actually winning.)

• Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of making the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life.

• This is my major concern. If you take anything away from these presentations it is that propaganda is used in politics to shape nations. The consumer side of propaganda is merely used to demonstrate how effective these tools are. The modern day influencer is also a valid concern because, as society continues to wither under anti-intellectual pressures, they shape culture which in turn is reflected in politics.

page 88:

• The successful business man to-day apes the politician. He has adopted the glitter and the ballyhoo of the campaign. He has set up all the side shows. He has annual dinners that are a compendium of speeches, flags, bombast, stateliness, pseudo-democracy slightly tinged with paternalism. On occasion he doles out honors to employees, much as the republic of classic times rewarded its worthy citizens.

• But these are merely the side shows, the drums, of big business, by which it builds up an image of public service, and of honorary service. This is but one of the methods by which business stimulates loyal enthusiasms on the part of directors, the workers, the stockholders and the consumer public. It is one of the methods by which big business performs its function of making and selling products to the public.

• We see here again that business is only interested in creating an image, not an actual, that the public finds appealing. This is done solely with the ends of profit in mind.

• Political campaigns to-day are all side shows, all honors, all bombast, glitter, and speeches. These are for the most part unrelated to the main business of studying the public scientifically, of supplying the public with party, candidate, platform, and performance, and selling the public these ideas and products.

page 89:

• Emily Newell Blair has recounted in the Independent a typical instance of the waste of effort and money in a political campaign, a week’s speaking tour in which she herself took part. She estimates that on a five-day trip covering nearly a thousand miles she and the United States Senator with whom she was making political speeches addressed no more than 1,105 persons whose votes might conceivably have been changed as a result of their efforts. The cost of this appeal to these voters she estimates (calculating the value of the time spent on a very moderate basis) as 15.27 for each vote which might have been changed as a result of the campaign.

• This, she says, was a drive for votes, just as an Ivory Soap advertising campaign is a drive for sales." But, she asks, “what would a company executive say to a sales manager who sent a high-priced speaker to describe his product to less than 1,200 people at a cost of $15.27 for each possible buyer?” She finds it “amazing that the very men who make their millions out of cleverly devised drives for soap and bonds and cars will turn around and give large contributions to be expended for vote-getting in an utterly inefficient and antiquated fashion.”

• Here we see the beginnings of politics looking to business for a more efficient manner of “buying” votes.

page 90:

• Big business is conducted on the principle that it must prepare its policies carefully, and that in selling an idea to the large buying public of America, it must proceed according to broad plans. The political strategist must do likewise. The entire campaign should be worked out according to broad basic plans. Platforms, planks, pledges, budgets, activities, personalities, must be as carefully studied, apportioned and used as they are when big business desires to get what it wants from the public.

page 91:

• The first step in a political campaign is to determine on the objectives, and to express them exceedingly well in the current form—that is, as a platform. In devising the platform the leader should be sure that it is an honest platform. Campaign pledges and promises should not be lightly considered by the public, and they ought to carry something of the guarantee principle and money-back policy that an honorable business institution carries with the sale of its goods. The public has lost faith in campaign promotion work. It does not say that politicians are dishonorable, but it does say that campaign pledges are written on the sand.

• I’ll say it: politicians are dishonest. If 100 years ago these statements were true, how much worse do you think it is today? Does anyone actually trust the modern candidates? How often are you voting AGAINST the other guy? How often do you have to “hold your nose” and vote for the “less or two evils?” When was the last candidate that actually gave you hope that things might improve? Obama ran on “hope and change” but we got more of the same. Trump ran on “make America great again” and we got… more of the same. Both sides will tell you what you want to hear. Both sides will repeat their slick slogans. And both sides will sell you down the river once they have your vote. (Assuming Dominion is counting fairly.)

• To aid in the preparation of the platform there should be made as nearly scientific an analysis as possible of the public and of the needs of the public. A survey of public desires and demands would come to the aid of the political strategist whose business it is to make a proposed plan of the activities of the parties and its elected officials during the coming terms of office.

• They study the public so they can know which cords to pluck to get us to rally behind them. If a person were to run for office and actually want to improve the nation, they would study the problems and offer solutions. Whether the public would accept and vote for those solutions is a problem of morals and education, not pandering.

• Many, if not most, nations today are suffering from decades of poor policies. To undo these bad decisions, sacrifices will have to be made. The modern voter does not want to make sacrifices. They don’t want to take responsibility, roll up their sleeves and do the unpleasant work that needs to be done. They want instant gratification. They want a savior.

page 93:

• A political campaign should be similarly budgeted. (to a business) The first question which should be decided is the amount of money that should be raised for the campaign. This decision can be reached by a careful analysis of campaign costs. There is enough precedent in business procedure to enable experts to work this out accurately. Then the second question of importance is the manner in which money should be raised.

• Charity drives might be made excellent models for political funds drives.

• We do see this today. Political campaigns will put forth a grassroots person and appeal to the common man to “chip in” 5 or 10 dollars. They still solicit the big donations from the wealthy, but leave no couch unrummaged in search of every penny they can get.

• Again, as in the business field, there should be a clear decision as to how the money is to be spent. This should be done according to the most careful and exact budgeting, wherein every step in the campaign is given its proportionate importance, and the funds allotted accordingly. Advertising in newspapers and periodicals, posters and street banners, the exploitation of personalities in motion pictures, in speeches and lectures and meetings, spectacular events and all forms of propaganda should be considered proportionately according to the budget, and should always be coordinated with the whole plan.

page 94:

• Big business has realized that it must use as many of the basic emotions as possible. The politician, however, has used the emotions aroused by words almost exclusively.

• To appeal to the emotions of the public in a political campaign is sound - in fact it is an indispensable part of the campaign. But the emotional content must:

  • (a) coincide in every way with the broad basic plans of the campaign and all its minor details;

  • (b) be adapted to the many groups of the public at which it is to be aimed; and

  • (c) conform to the media of the distribution of ideas.

page 95:

• The emotions of oratory have been worn down through long years of overuse. Parades, mass meetings, and the like are successful when the public has a frenzied emotional interest in the event. The candidate who takes babies on his lap, and has his photograph taken, is doing a wise thing emotionally, if this act epitomizes a definite plank in his platform. Kissing babies, if it is worth anything, must be used as a symbol for a baby policy and it must be synchronized with a plank in the platform. But the haphazard staging of emotional events without regard to their value as part of the whole campaign, is a waste of effort, just as it would be a waste of effort for the manufacturer of hockey skates to advertise a picture of a church surrounded by spring foliage.

• Emotions. Not logic. Not solutions. Not even an understanding and clear stating of problems are even mentioned in regard to political campaigning. Emotions are what has been driving politics for the last hundred or more years. Emotions are why we find ourselves near or in a dystopian world.

• Present-day politics places emphasis on personality. An entire party, a platform, an international policy is sold to the public, or is not sold, on the basis of the intangible element of personality. A charming candidate is the alchemist’s secret that can transmute a prosaic platform into the gold of votes.

page 96:

• It is essential for the campaign manager to educate the emotions in terms of groups. The public is not made up merely of Democrats and Republicans. People to-day are largely uninterested in politics and their interest in the issues of the campaign must be secured by coordinating it with their personal interests. The public is made up of interlocking groups —economic, social, religious, educational, cultural, racial, collegiate, local, sports, and hundreds of others.

• When President Coolidge invited actors for breakfast, he did so because he realized not only that actors were a group, but that audiences the large group of people who like amusements, who like people who amuse them, and who like people who can be amused, ought to be aligned with him.

• We move even further away from solutions and policy. From emotion to personality. Then we see the propagandists break down the people into little boxes. Economic (which really would be everyone), religious, racial, etc. Do we not see this same, what we might call divide and conquer still used (probably even more-so) today? We have countless special interest groups all vying to inject their pork in a bill. We have corporations pandering to these same groups by supporting this policy (or at least paying lip service) or that protest.

• Even the example Bernays gives of the president inviting actors as a kind of publicity stunt. The people are more concerned with the celebrity goings on and gossip than policy. I don’t think examples of how frequently this exact tactic is employed today are hard to find. Heck, you might even argue that Trump (and Reagan before) are celebrities first and politicians second. Though I don’t love citing films, I think it is warranted here to merely mention Idiocracy.

page 97:

• The political campaign having defined its broad objects and its basic plans, having defined the group appeal which it must use, must carefully allocate to each of the media at hand the work which it can do with maximum efficiency.

• At present, the political campaigner uses for the greatest part the radio, the press, the banquet hall, the mass meeting, the lecture platform, and the stump generally as a means for furthering his ideas. But this is only a small part of what may be done. Actually there are infinitely more varied events that can be created to dramatize the campaign, and to make people talk of it. Exhibitions, contests, institutes of politics, the cooperation of educational institutions, the dramatic cooperation of groups which hitherto have not been drawn into active politics, and many others may be made the vehicle for the presentation of ideas to the public.

• But whatever is done must be synchronized accurately with all other forms of appeal to the public.

page 98:

• News reaches the public through the printed word— books, magazines, letters, posters, circulars and banners, newspapers; through pictures—photographs and motion pictures; through the ear—lectures, speeches, band music, radio, campaign songs. All these must be employed by the political party if it is to succeed.

• Here we can see that any and every avenue for disseminating the (synchronized) message can and should be employed. Today this would certainly include social media and influencers at the bare minimum.

• It is understood that the methods of propaganda can be effective only with the voter who makes up his own mind on the basis of his group prejudices and desires.

• I know I am belaboring this, but Bernays states clearly that “prejudices and desires” are what the voter must use to make up his mind, not policies and solutions.

• It is not necessary for the politician to be the slave of the public’s group prejudices, if he can learn how to mold the mind of the voters in conformity with his own ideas of public welfare and public service. The important thing for the statesman of our age is not so much to know how to please the public, but to know how to sway the public.

• More examples of molding the minds of the voters. Does this not contradict the other (less numerous) passages about how the leader or corporation is really beholden to the public?

page 99:

• But campaigning is only an incident in political life. The process of government is continuous. And the expert use of propaganda is more useful and fundamental, although less striking, as an aid to democratic administration, than as an aid to vote getting.

• Good government can be sold to a community just as any other commodity can be sold. I often wonder whether the politicians of the future, who are responsible for maintaining the prestige and effectiveness of their party, will not endeavor to train politicians who are at the same time propagandists. I talked recently with George Olvany. He said that a certain number of Princeton men were joining Tammany Hall. If I were in his place I should have taken some of my brightest young men and set them to work for Broadway theatrical productions or apprenticed them as assistants to professional propagandists before recruiting them to the service of the party.

• The newspaper man looks to him (the politician) for news. And by his power of giving or withholding information the politician can often effectively censor political news.

• Now we finally come to some explicit stating of what I have mention several times before: propaganda being used in politics instead of in business. Government can be sold as a commodity. Politicians of the future (that would be now) might be trained propagandists (or at least employ them). Broadway (or Hollywood) tactics might be employed for selling a candidate.

• And finally we see that the then politician was able to, by his position of disseminating information, censor political new. Do you think Big Tech being in bed with most of our politicians would have a similar result? We already know, and I suspect it was only the tip of the iceberg, from the Twitter Files reports that government and twitter (pre-Musk purchase, but I wouldn’t be shocked to find similar goings on still occuring) were working together hand in glove.

page 100:

• Let us suppose that he is campaigning on a low-tariff platform. He may use the modern mechanism of the radio to spread his views, but he will almost certainly use the psychological method of approach which was old in Andrew Jackson’s day, and which business has largely discarded. He will say over the radio: “Vote for me and low tariff, because the high tariff increases the cost of the things you buy.” He may, it is true, have the great advantage of being able to speak by radio directly to fifty million listeners. But he is making an old-fashioned approach. He is arguing with them. He is assaulting, single-handed, the resistance of inertia.

• If he were a propagandist, on the other hand, although he would still use the radio, he would use it as one instrument of a well-planned strategy. Since he is campaigning on the issue of a low tariff, he not merely would tell people that the high tariff increases the cost of the things they buy, but would create circumstances which would make his contention dramatic and self-evident. He would perhaps stage a low-tariff exhibition simultaneously in twenty cities, with exhibits illustrating the additional cost due to the tariff in force. He would see that these exhibitions were ceremoniously inaugurated by prominent men and women who were interested in a low tariff apart from any interest in his personal political fortunes. He would have groups, whose interests were especially affected by the high cost of living, institute an agitation for lower schedules. He would dramatize the issue, perhaps by having prominent men boycott woolen clothes, and go to important functions in cotton suits, until the wool schedule was reduced. He might get the opinion of social workers as to whether the high cost of wool endangers the health of the poor in winter.

page 101:

• In whatever ways he dramatized the issue, the attention of the public would be attracted to the question before he addressed them personally. Then, when he spoke to his millions of listeners on the radio, he would not be seeking to force an argument down the throats of a public thinking of other things and annoyed by another demand on its attention; on the contrary, he would be answering the spontaneous questions and expressing the emotional demands of a public already keyed to a certain pitch of interest in the subject.

• These are the same tactics we saw promoted earlier for selling velvet, soap, and pianos. And here we see how what might not have seemed like a big deal - who cares about velvet, soap, and pianos - can be used to manipulate people on much more important political positions. The idea of planting ideas via dramatization prior to giving a speech is a kind of predictive programming. This is a tactic where you “prime the pump” by alluding to something you plan on addressing later so that the target audience doesn’t feel blindsided.

• I also find it quite interesting that boycotts are mentioned. I think today boycotts are the most effective way to enact change (consumer and political). Boycotts of the past decade or so have been largely ineffective (NFL knee taking, Target LGBT clothes) but in more recent days they have been more effective (Bud Light LGBT). I think that “cancel culture” has been largely applied (beyond the actual cancelling) to dissuade people from boycotting. This is silly in my opinion as they are not the same at all. Cancel culture is often bullying a person out of their position. This is often spearheaded by a small vocal minority. Boycotting on the other hand is a true market force and only works when the majority stops buying. I plan on exploring this more deeply in a future video.

page 102:

• It will be objected, of course, that propaganda will tend to defeat itself as its mechanism becomes obvious to the public. My opinion is that it will not. The only propaganda which will ever tend to weaken itself as the world becomes more sophisticated and intelligent, is propaganda that is untrue or unsocial.

• Again, the objection is raised that propaganda is utilized to manufacture our leading political personalities. It is asked whether, in fact, the leader makes propaganda, or whether propaganda makes the leader. There is a widespread impression that a good press agent can puff up a nobody into a great man.

page 103:

• The answer is the same as that made to the old query as to whether the newspaper makes public opinion or whether public opinion makes the newspaper. There has to be fertile ground for the leader and the idea to fall on. But the leader also has to have some vital seed to sow. To use another figure, a mutual need has to exist before either can become positively effective. Propaganda is of no use to the politician unless he has something to say which the public, consciously or unconsciously, wants to hear.

• This passage reminds me of the Hegelian dialectic. Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis. Or Problem - Reaction - Solution. This is where you want a particular outcome so you create a problem that will elicit a reaction ultimately leading to your desired outcome. If you read the Project For a New American Century report from a few months before 9/11, you might come to the conclusion that the USA wanted to invade the middle east. That would be the synthesis or solution. Working backward PNAC said that what was needed to get there was a “new Pearl Harbor”. That would be the thesis. A few month later 9/11 happens and the response (reaction or antithesis) is an outcry from the public in support of invading the middle east.

• But even supposing that a certain propaganda is untrue or dishonest, we cannot on that account reject the methods of propaganda as such. For propaganda in some form will always be used where leaders need to appeal to their constituencies.

• Again he makes bold statements without a lick of supporting evidence. That doesn’t mean he is wrong, but he presupposes that propaganda will “always be used”. And that simply needn’t be true.

page 104:

• The public actions of America’s chief executive are, if one chooses to put it that way, stage-managed.

page 105:

• But they are chosen to represent and dramatize the man in his function as representative of the people. A political practice which has its roots in the tendency of the popular leader to follow oftener than he leads is the technique of the trial balloon which he uses in order to maintain, as he believes, his contact with the public.

• But he often does not know what the disturbances mean, whether they are superficial, or fundamental. So he sends up his balloon. He may send out an anonymous interview through the press. He then waits for reverberations to come from the public—a public which expresses itself in mass meetings, or resolutions, or telegrams, or even such obvious manifestations as editorials in the partisan or nonpartisan press. On the basis of these repercussions he then publicly adopts his original tentative policy, or rejects it, or modifies it to conform to the sum of public opinion which has reached him.

page 106:

• It is a method which has little justification. If a politician is a real leader he will be able, by the skillful use of propaganda, to lead the people, instead of following the people by means of the clumsy instrument of trial and error.

• We see the same “trial balloon” tactics being used to this day. The more interesting part is the “anonymous interview.” There is no mention of how, through something like the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, a group (in this case the executive office of the USA) could use their close ties with the media to plant anonymous interviews to not only gauge public responsiveness to a particular policy, but also to nudge the public into accepting policies by way of normalization.

• The propagandist’s approach is the exact opposite of that of the politician just described. The whole basis of successful propaganda is to have an objective and then to endeavor to arrive at it through an exact knowledge of the public and modifying circumstances to manipulate and sway that public.

• And here we see that. The propagandist will, by way of “anonymous interviews” as an example, “manipulate and sway the public."

• The political leader of to-day should be a leader as finely versed in the technique of propaganda as in political economy and civics. If he remains merely the reflection of the average intelligence of his community, he might as well go out of politics. If one is dealing with a democracy in which the herd and the group follow those whom they recognize as leaders, why should not the young men training for leadership be trained in its technique as well as in its idealism?

• “When the interval between the intellectual classes and the practical classes is too great,” says the historian Buckle, “the former will possess no influence, the latter will reap no benefits.”

page 107:

• Propaganda bridges this interval in our modern complex civilization.

• Here again Bernays alludes that the common man is unintelligent (he tactfully says “average intelligence”) and the propagandist and the leaders that employ them are intelligent. Also, putting aside the argument of democracy vs republic in the case of the USA, isn’t democracy supposed to be something akin to the will of the people? If that is the case, why would Bernays compare it to a herd following a leader?

• Only through the wise use of propaganda will our government, considered as the continuous administrative organ of the people, be able to maintain that intimate relationship with the public which is necessary in a democracy.

• As David Lawrence pointed out in a recent speech, there is need for an intelligent interpretative bureau for our government in Washington.

• There should, I believe, be an Assistant Secretary of State who is familiar with the problem of dispensing information to the press—some one upon whom the Secretary of State can call for consultation and who has sufficient authority to persuade the Secretary of State to make public that which, for insufficient reason, is suppressed.

• The function of the propagandist is much broader in scope than that of a mere dispenser of information to the press. The United States Government should create a Secretary of Public Relations as member of the President’s Cabinet. The function of this official should be correctly to interpret America’s aims and ideals throughout the world, and to keep the citizens of this country in touch with governmental activities and the reasons which prompt them. He would, in short, interpret the people to the government and the government to the people.

page 108:

• Such an official would be neither a propagandist nor a press agent, in the ordinary understanding of those terms. He would be, rather, a trained technician who would be helpful in analyzing public thought and public trends, in order to keep the government informed about the public, and the people informed about the government. America’s relations with South America and with Europe would be greatly improved under such circumstances. Ours must be a leadership democracy administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses.

• He continues to harp on the “intelligent” people needed to guide the masses. To do this he suggests a “Secretary of Public Relation.” While I don’t think this official title exists in the White House, it certainly exists as a position. Press Secretaries we would probably call them today. And while we only see the Psakis and Jean-Pierres you can rest assured that there is an entire apparatus working behind the scenes to predetermine what questions and answers will be handled at the next conference. There is no doubt of this as evidenced by the giant book of answers they flip through before reading their canned responses.

• Is this government by propaganda? Call it, if you prefer, government by education. But education, in the academic sense of the word, is not sufficient. It must be enlightened expert propaganda through the creation of circumstances, through the high-spotting of significant events, and the dramatization of important issues. The statesman of the future will thus be enabled to focus the public mind on crucial points of policy, and regiment a vast, heterogeneous mass of voters to clear understanding and intelligent action.

• In the most on-brand way Bernays says we shouldn’t call it propaganda but education. His future (our current) “leaders” use the techniques of high-spotting and dramatization to “regiment” the masses and lead them to “intelligent action.” Again this assumes the unlead masses would be actin unintelligently.

• We see countless examples of high-spotting and dramatization of political issues every day. A president will harp on about on sliver of the economy - an unemployment number, a jobs created number, a green energy plan. They will beat the drums of war by focusing on one side of a conflict, on one statement, on one report. They will laud the one thing about them that is good and lambaste the one thing about their rival that is bad. Typical high-spotting (or low-spotting in some cases). Likewise we see dramatization when they try to spin things as human interest stories to tug at your heart strings. “Think of the children” they say. We need to censor the internet (pornography), or allow illegal immigration (children in cages), or get drugs off the streets (stop and search) all in the name of saving the children. You don’t hate children, do you?

• I think this chapter really starts to make my case that propaganda isn’t a particularly big deal when it comes to manipulating people to buy velvet hats or parlor pianos (though it is still underhanded), but when it is turned to manipulating people in a political sense I would go so far as to call it a soft coup or an invasion. “The long march through the institutions” is a perfect example of how people like Rudi Dutschke and Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School planned literal revolution by slowly acclimating people to ever more extreme ideologies. These ideologies would be dripped into institutions like schools, businesses, and government. Each generation allows another step to be normalized. After several generation you find yourself quite far from your initial ideology.

• Take for example, and I know I drone about this but it is an obvious example, the LGBT movement of today (2024). Before the 1990’s the LGBT culture was underground - in the closet. Stories of Matthew Shepard (which was misrepresented) were used to sell the youth on the acceptance of homosexuality. They were born this way. They were people like you and I. They didn’t deserve to be kept in the closet. Their love is as real as heterosexual love. What happens in your bedroom is your own business. Two consenting adults. All of this seems, even in hindsight, perfectly reasonable. My generation accepted this fairly completely.

• A decade or so later the institution of marriage was changed. (I’ll ignore the ridiculousness of government involvement and tax advantages for marriage here). A decade later we see an almost complete acceptance of homosexual behavior. They aren’t in the closet and they are in many cases celebrated. They are on TV and in the movies. They are held up as “brave.” They are seen as almost role models.

• And one more decade leads to Pride month, corporate sponsorship, hormone blockers, sex reassignment surgeries, legal action against anyone who criticizes the new protected LGBT class. What happened? It was a few baby steps to seed the idea of LGBT acceptance and then a leap to having drag queen story hour and naked parades down main street.

• Now, apply this same tactic to politics. Not that long ago democrats were anti-war. They stood up for the working class. The republicans were pro-business and wanted small government. Today? Neither party is anti-war. Democrats work for big tech. Republicans are “more” pro-worker, but not really. And small government? They want to poke their noses into everything. All of this happened in the same was as the LGBT movement came to power. Small steps. One election at a time. One policy at a time. A carefully crafted propaganda regime to deliver a particular narrative. Loaded with high-spotting and dramatization. All intended to tug at your heart, get you angry at “the other”, and make irrational emotional decisions.