Centerfield

Jarvis Half-Right on Non-Spoonfed Citizenry

Jarvis was half-right in his latest post

If we feed them hope and we feed them reason and tolerance then they will become tolerant and reasonable and hopeful.”

Isn’t that essentially insulting? We are politicians’ empty vessels. We are molded by their rhetoric?

The Presidency isn’t a PBS self-improvement show. It’s an executive job.

He's half-right. We aren't simply politicians' empty vessels. Contrary to what many wingers seem to think, none of us are easily programmed by politicians', ads, or other propaganda. Now, I do think we do respond to what our chief honchos say at a deep level. Some people (a minority, I think) are inclined to simply believe the exact opposite of whatever he says. Others will grant what he says more attention than what other people say, albeit listen with skepticism. Others will be easier or harder to persuade, but nobody just believes the company line. The most you'll see is extreme respect for what the President says, I think.

BUT. When a President comes and opens his language and speeches to a broad coalition, he really does have alot of influence. Take George Bush, advocating the Iraq War. A majority was for it back when the war happened, and that's why - he was alot more careful than he is today (not great - see the Axis of Evil - but not bad). When he goes partisan, so do his listeners. As I've grumbled before, Bush has been alienating many centrists by his partisan tone when pushing the Surge. If he'd used this kind of speech when arguing to invade Iraq, polls would've been rather different, and Congress might've voted it down. At the least, Bush would've had to wait for an (R) Congress instead of being able to force the issue against a (D) majority.

Americans had fun debating the war, and alot of facts on both sides showed up in the debate. The only place you can even kind of vaguely find a fact or two on the Surge is in Petraeus' slides. That seems like a pretty good example of what Obama's talking about.