Among journalists of a certain age no one is as well respected as Walter Lippmann. Lippmann defined American journalism in the first half of the 20th-century. But he should be more controversial than he is. The reason? He gradually developed a very elitist view of government in a representative democracy. When you have a chance, you should peruse his 1922 book Public Opinion. Here’s a taste.
Because of their transcendent practical importance, no successful leader has ever been too busy to cultivate the symbols which organize his following. What privileges do within the hierarchy, symbols do for the rank and file. They conserve unity. From the totem pole to the national flag, from the wooden idol to God the Invisible King, from the magic word to some diluted version of Adam Smith or Bentham, symbols have been cherished by leaders, many of whom were themselves unbelievers, because they were focal points where differences merged. The detached observer may scorn the “star-spangled” ritual which hedges the symbol, perhaps as much as the king who told himself that Paris was worth a few masses. But the leader knows by experience that only when symbols have done their work is there a handle he can use to move a crowd.
You see? Flag-pins are vitally important. Lippmann’s insight was that representative democracy is an imperfect device. No sampling of the public will ever be a suitable tool for determining the correct economic or foreign policy, especially in real time where leaders must make snap decisions. Using a contemporary example, Lippman makes the point:
Thus [Ferdinand] Foch and Sir Henry Wilson, who foresaw the impending disaster to Cough’s army, as a consequence of the divided and scattered reserves, nevertheless kept their opinions well within a small circle, knowing that even the risk of a smashing defeat was less certainly destructive, than would have been an excited debate in the newspapers. For what matters most under the kind of tension which prevailed in March, 1918, is less the rightness of a particular move than the unbroken expectation as to the source of command. Had Foch “gone to the people” he might have won the debate, but long before he could have won it, the armies which he was to command would have dissolved. For the spectacle of a row on Olympus is diverting and destructive.
Lippmann’s Public Opinion is a tour de force that is filled with brilliant observations that were novel at the time. For example:
Those programs are immediately most popular, like prohibition among teetotalers, which do not at once impinge upon the private habits of the followers. That is one great reason why governments have such a free hand in foreign affairs.
And:
Leaders in touch with popular feeling are quickly conscious of these reactions. They know that high prices are pressing upon the mass, or that certain classes of individuals are becoming unpopular, or that feeling towards another nation is friendly or hostile. But, always barring the effect of suggestion which is merely the assumption of leadership by the reporter, there would be nothing in the feeling of the mass that fatally determined the choice of any particular policy. All that the feeling of the mass demands is that policy as it is developed and exposed shall be, if not logically, then by analogy and association, connected with the original feeling.
So when a new policy is to be launched, there is a preliminary bid for community of feeling, as in Mark Antony’s speech to the followers of Brutus.7 In the first phase, the leader vocalizes the prevalent opinion of the mass. He identifies himself with the familiar attitudes of his audience, sometimes by telling a good story, sometimes by brandishing his patriotism, often by pinching a grievance. Finding that he is trustworthy, the multitude milling hither and thither may turn in towards him. He will then be expected to set forth a plan of campaign. But he will not find that plan in the slogans which convey the feelings of the mass. It will not even always be indicated by them. Where the incidence of policy is remote, all that is essential is that the program shall be verbally and emotionally connected at the start with what has become vocal in the multitude. Trusted men in a familiar role subscribing to the accepted symbols can go a very long way on their own initiative without explaining the substance of their programs.
But wise leaders are not content to do that.
But this is the really important insight that has ramifications for our democracy:
The established leaders of any organization have great natural advantages. They are believed to have better sources of information. The books and papers are in their offices. They took part in the important conferences. They met the important people. They have responsibility. It is, therefore, easier for them to secure attention and to speak in a convincing tone. But also they have a very great deal of control over the access to the facts. Every official is in some degree a censor. And since no one can suppress information, either by concealing it or forgetting to mention it, without some notion of what he wishes the public to know, every leader is in some degree a propagandist. Strategically placed, and compelled often to choose even at the best between the equally cogent though conflicting ideals of safety for the institution, and candor to his public, the official finds himself deciding more and more consciously what facts, in what setting, in what guise he shall permit the public to know.
That the manufacture of consent is capable of great refinements no one, I think, denies. The process by which public opinions arise is certainly no less intricate than it has appeared in these pages, and the opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands the process are plain enough.
The creation of consent is not a new art. It is a very old one which was supposed to have died out with the appearance of democracy. But it has not died out. It has, in fact, improved enormously in technic, because it is now based on analysis rather than on rule of thumb. And so, as a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner. A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power.
Within the life of the generation now in control of affairs, persuasion has become a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government. None of us begins to understand the consequences, but it is no daring prophecy to say that the knowledge of how to create consent will alter every political calculation and modify every political premise. Under the impact of propaganda, not necessarily in the sinister meaning of the word alone, the old constants of our thinking have become variables. It is no longer possible, for example, to believe in the original dogma of democracy; that the knowledge needed for the management of human affairs comes up spontaneously from the human heart. Where we act on that theory we expose ourselves to self-deception, and to forms of persuasion that we cannot verify. It has been demonstrated that we cannot rely upon intuition, conscience, or the accidents of casual opinion if we are to deal with the world beyond our reach.
Now, the real tension exists at the point where one internalizes Lippmann’s truth that public opinion is at once, incapable of governing and subject to manipulative molding. That is where the role of journalism in a representative democracy comes into play. Is their job to take the walking orders of Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and Douglas Feith and manufacture consent for an invasion of Iraq, or is it to arm the public with as many objective facts as they can to enable us to make proper decisions of support or opposition to public policy?
There is no simple answer to that question, despite our instinct to prefer the latter option. In some sense, we are reliant on the wisdom of our leaders. We hope that they will not embark on foreign policies that are unwise and unworthy of public support. Provided that our leaders, or elites, make prudent decisions, we are safe in supporting their causes once initiated. Few people complain about the stifling of dissent during the second world war because the cause was manifestly just and the outcome was satisfactory.
But two problems present themselves. Our foreign interventions since the second world war have not been unambiguously good or necessary causes. From Korea to Vietnam to Panama to Kuwait to Iraq, we have followed our leaders into one intervention after another, often with bad information provided in support. In each of those cases, the media initially played the role of manufacturing consent by demonizing the enemy, only to come later (in most examples) to question the wisdom of the elites and to amend the information that they initially provided to the public.
All of this is a long way of prefacing the point that last night’s debate that was moderated by ABC was a disservice to our nation. It was a disservice in much the same way as the media failed us in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Ordinary citizens cannot make foreign policy because no public will (as expressed by majority opinion) will ever be qualified to make those types of tough decisions. And the public will is only measured in elections and more imperfectly in polling. But that makes it all the more imperative that the public is provided with the best information that the media and our educational institutions can provide. We must know, in as far as possible, what the facts are, and what our candidates believe and advocate. Only then does the public have the ability to express an informed will.
But the media has no faith in public opinion, and so it emphasizes ‘character’ as expressed by flag-pins and other symbols that can be used as ‘handles to move a crowd’. This is a problem that is endemic in our society. But it doesn’t have to be this way. One reason that new citizen-driven media is so important is that ordinary citizens have no investment in manufacturing consent for the policies of elites. Regular citizens do not allow easy demonification of foreign leaders like Hugo Chavez, who run afoul of American businessmen. They do not fall in line when the government says we must invade another country on faulty intelligence.
When ABC uses a presidential debate to harp on games of gotcha they waste prime opportunities to educate the public not only about the candidates, but about policy in general. And that is the great sin of what Gibson and Stephanopoulos perpetrated last night.
All of which is a long way of saying ‘it’s bad enough that we have to rely on the wisdom of elites, don’t deny us what little chance we have to make informed decisions about policy.’
Lippman’s profound insights into the manufacture of ‘consent’, of how easily the public mind is duped provides the context wherein it’s easy to see why the scare-mongering tactics so prevalent in our political discourse are so effective in weaponizing the ignorance of the masses in a way that achieves that desired ‘consent’.
it’s a two-fer.
It’s extremely dangerous to this, particularly when there near universal consent that we are operating under extreme;y faulty leadership.
You need to add “Use charges of elitism to keep the informed in line”.
ah yes, to be informed and to voice your informed opinion is to belittle the masses. Better to show them a monkey and while their transfixed by the monkey, start a land war in Asia.
Yes! It’s standard operating procedure to demonize any and all who choose to look into and analyse what’s going on for themselves rather than blindly accepting the propaganda.
It’s so easy to capitalize on the ignorati’s resentment of people more aware than they are. This is how the Imbecile in Chief Bush got elected, after all.
The majority cast their votes and make other important decisions based more on sentiment than on facts or reason. I don’t think that’s ever been more true than it has been these last several years, and despite the appearance of major changes in political calculus, I don’t see this unfortunate dynamic changing much in the near future.
because here Obama is being hammered by elitists for being elitist. ABC represents corporate interests that believe regular folks can be easily distracted from important issues and criteria of voting for president with vapid questions about flag pins. As elitists themselves they believe television viewers are too ignorant and lack the attention span to process “real” information. Furthermore, they prefer people remain ignorant and addicted to their saturating the air waves with brain massage content. And what can be more elitist than that?
Nothing.
I generally defend the 60s culture against attacks from later generations, but their invention of the whole “elitist” attack never made any sense and has poisoned political debate ever since. They have much to answer for in that respect, at least.
The millionaire media mannequins have been their own biggest fans for decades. All that narcissism, all those delusions of grandeur and the accompanying appetite for power have left no room in their damaged psyches to be responsible to the truth, or to perform the duties of the ‘press’ for which they’vereceived constitutional protection.
They actually feel aggrieved when ‘elitists’ like us blogging types, (a cabinetmaker like me, for instance,) castigate them for their egregious failures.
All that self-love and ambition has left no room for principle.
as utter fucking morons. Sorry for that invective, but by accepting debate-sponsorship from this most vile, racist media empire called Disney/ABC, they once again demonstrated how utterly out of touch with progressive thought they really are. Look at the line-up of ABC Radio:
Imus – Limbaugh – Hannety ….
As of a few minutes ago there are 14989 Comments on ABC’s Post about the debate, virtually all condemning ABC’s performance.
Wow, is a number like this unprecedented?
In this book, Lippman was writing before the Depression shattered near-unanimous faith in the competence and good intentions of the ruling elite. He was also seeing the horrors of unrestrained populism in the form of the Klan and its analogs. There is no denying that direct democracy is very far from being workable in all matters, even in this age of instant communications.
I don’t think the distinction is between “the masses” and the elite, but between contending elites. The readers of this website, for example, are part of one elite of high-information political junkies, contending with the established corporate media. So I think at this point we’d do well to not get sucked into the whole “elitist” meme and instead work to broaden access until everyone interested becomes the “elite”.
Yes, flag pins are important. So why doesn’t someone confront Mrs. Clinton with her not wearing one. She’s as lappelled as any man I’ve ever come across. Miss Rice too, and Mrs. georgie 2, Mrs. McSame, Mrs. Darth cheney, all of them. Only men need to display ostentatiously symbols of patriotism. Let the women free themselves of male chauvinism and sexism and adopt the flag pin as their call to the barricades. A diamond and ruby encrusted bracelet, earrings, angle bracelets, pendants, whatever would do as well. I’m sick of the sexism. Gloria Steinman can join in too.
Last night’s debate was disgusting because we no longer deny that we are completely at the mercy of the media and the rich. Completely and irrevocably.
He was asked whether questions about flag pins or Bosnia were important, and he said, “Absolutely.”
“The vote for the president is one of the most personal decisions that someone makes.
“When people make that choice, they take into account how candidates stand on the issues, but also are concerned with experience, character and credibility.”
So wearing a flag pin is a matter of “character?”
I’m someone who does not believe that character is irrelevant. In fact, it is important, along with stands on issues and governing philosophy.
But that’s the problem. The way character is defined by media personalities is bogus.
Character is truthfulness, courage, commitment to service of country and your fellow men and women. It is respect for others, respect for yourself. Some concept of honor and personal integrity. A commitment to law and social justice.
Wearing a flag pin a reflection of character? Someone who believes this is, at best, still stuck in moral kindergarten.
well, what do you expect him to say? That he’s an a-hole?
I haven’t read Lippman’s book, so I don’t know if he deals with the issue I’m going to bring up, but the dilemma he poses is an artifact of the lack of mediating institutions that stands between the individual and his government. Those institutions are multiple: they include the bureaucracy, which follows a rule by law, and thus restrains the untrammeled autocracy of the leader; it includes professional associations like the bar, the pastorate, the professoriat, all of whom at one time were held in respect for their learning and identification with a certain ethic. It also includes political parties.
The reason why we have a problem is because we have lost that intermediation. In my opinion the most serious loss is the destruction of the political party as an effective organ for coordinating political talk. As late as the 1960s it was usually necessary to get the support of the local party establishment to run with half a chance of success for Congress. By the 1980s anyone who could mass the funds needed to pay for volunteers and advertisers could manage a campaign. What did Schwarzenegger ever do in the Republican Party? He had name recognition and lots of money.
The Democrats are as responsible for this mess as the Republicans. The replacement of political parties by political cliques may have happened anyway, owing to the nature of television campaigning, but the one-off campaigns of McGovern and Carter and Clinton, all of whom came from the outside with outside support, finished it off.
The present administration has taken mighty steps to destroy what’s left of independent intermediaries in this country. They wrecked the bureaucracy, especially the critical one in DOJ; but they have done their best to castrate the DOD, the Treasury, and State. They also tried to go after the Universities, but have not succeeded. They have gone after the ‘liberal’ churches.
Hannah Arendt explained how it all works in her Origins of Totalitarianism. It’s all there. Lippman ws operating in a world where there were still intermediaries.
I will add also, again citing Walter Lippmann (1992, p. 32) from his book “Public Opinion” which argued that “analysis of the nature of news and of the economic base of journalism seems to show that the newspapers necessarily and inevitably reflect, and intensify the defective organization of public opinion.” And, perhaps, the most important path for future studies is to design a proper organization of public opinion in order the public voices to be more independent, sound and firm. The properly organized public opinion will give the news media the role of “formulator” of potential political decisions, rather than “apologist, critic, or reporter after the decision has been made.” (Lippmann, 1992, p.32)
I think there is much hope
Lippmann wrote Public Opinion shortly after World War I, which had involved a massive effort of manipulation through coordinated government and media propaganda — especially to get the US to support the allies and, ultimately, to enter the war. So, while it is true that there were still intermediaries in those days, they were coordinated into the propaganda effort — and they either got with the program or suffered greatly for resisting. Looking back from our present vantage point, no longer caught up in that particular moment, we find the “manufacture of consent” almost risibly obvious.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_on_Public_Information
What’s most interesting for us right now, is to see how these now time-tested methodes, bolstered by vastly more sophisticated technology, are finally running up against their limits, such as: declining credibility of the corporate elites, rise of new elites (e.g. bloggers) representing the enhancement of the public’s reality-testing and communication skills; and simply, reality itself. Obviously much more could be said about this!