[Paleopsych] How can Steve be successful with propaganda?
shovland at mindspring.com
Mon Jan 3 02:10:07 UTC 2005
Thanks for your comments.
Now, with your mind viewed as a neural net,
From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 4:50 PM
To: The new improved paleopsych list
Subject: [Paleopsych] How can Steve be successful with propaganda?
Steve asked, apropos of "Jesus = Liberal"
>From a social- or cognitive- science point of view, what makes it
Steve, excellent question.
First, there is an evaluative process when a person sees / hears a
propaganda message, such as "Who is saying this, why are they telling me
this?" Successful propaganda must come from authorative sources. If you
haven't established yourself as a scholar of christianity, the link
rings terribly hollow. Symbols don't occur in vacuum; those that try to
do so are irritating since they don't have the imprimatur of authority.
Can you get the Pope to endorse the link (ex cathedra)? I doubt it.
Second, when you use a universal iconic symbol, whom are you targeting?
Liberals will already believe such links (Jesus = Liberal) whereas
conservatives will be offended. They will say, and with considerable
justification, that it is clear that Jesus revered life and were he here
on earth today he would be revolted by the practice of abortion,
something that liberalism tied itself to. One such contradiction will
cause your Christian targets to reject the link.
People in the middle - moderate christians - might be offended
because if they have even a passing acquaintance with history, they know
how people appropriate religious themes for selfish, destructive ends.
That is an empirical question, of course, but such use of icons,
especially by "out-group" people, are especially upsetting to the "in
group." Have you established your bona fides as an in-group member?
Third, scholars will immediately know that Libeal/Conservative
labels do not apply to epochs other than our own. For example, to label
Washington "liberal" creates much discomfort to those who have studied
the early history of our country (Federalists = liberal? I don't think
so!0 Republicans under Jefferson waged an intense hate speech campaign
asserting that the Federalists were elitists who simply wanted a kind of
big business aristocracy. Conservatives? But Hamilton expanded the
Federal Government enormously, and instituted deficit spending.
Liberals? Jefferson appealed to the masses and used emotional language
much more than Federalists (liberal?) yet he hated and distrusted all
government (conservative?). The issues weren't the same. The labels
simply don't fit that era.
Similarly, during the time of Jesus there were two "political"
parties, the Sadducees and the Pharasees. They are not liberal or
conservative, except by special pleading which makes the comparison
invalid. Sadducees doubted life after death and were more inclusive
(liberal?) and Pharasees were concerned with preserving traditional
Judeism and were big on "letter of the law" (conservative?) but Jesus
eschewed both sides. He tangled with both, and appeared to have no
interest at all in political institutions. I speak as one who has read
the New Testament dozens of times in various translations and two
languages, and read several commentaries on the life of Jesus. So to
label him that way immediately makes you lose any credibility in the
eyes of people who know history and theology.
If I could offer some advice, I would say drop the labels and use
something that is already successful. The word"liberal" is so full of
negative meanings to the majority of US citizens I don't think it can be
redeemed for perhaps fifty years. Your efforts to redeem it will be seen
as clumsy and manipulative. You as a source will be discounted.
Piggyback on a successful idea. Take the tsunami devastation. A
photo of the suffering with the (already successful) question, "What
would Jesus do?" That is likely to produce a positive affective
response from almost everyone.*
*(Actually, he would probably say to ignore what governments do and
take independent action, sacrificing your own purse to help those in
need. He would be more pleased with the enormous church-based fund
raising going on now than with forced contributions via taxes. Jesus
never taught corporate response [Sinai covenant] but instead emphasized
individual response [Elijah covenant], so Jesus says "sell all you have
and give it to the poor and come and follow me" but only to the rich
To me, one reason that liberalism has become morally bankrupt is
that it substitutes the Sinai covenant for the Elijah /Christian
covenant, and substitutes corporate action for individual virtue. I am
not sure how you can overcome that, without changing the fundamentals of
Thanks for the question,
Steve Hovland wrote:
>>From a social- or cognitive- science point
>of view, what makes it offensive?
>From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com]
>Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 5:31 PM
>To: The new improved paleopsych list
>Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Another well-known liberal
>Crude, but at least it is highly offensive . . .
>Steve Hovland wrote:
>>paleopsych mailing list
>>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> << File: ATT00001.html >> << File: ATT00002.jpeg >> << File: ATT00003.txt >>
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
<< File: ATT00008.html >> << File: ATT00009.txt >>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 95497 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the paleopsych