The 1% fail to manage perceptions.

    The Democratic victories in yesterday's elections coupled with the recent birth of the Occupy movement seem to be evidence of a different political climate than we had even two or three months ago. It appears that we are out of the doldrums, a bit of a wind in the mainsail. I am tempted to meld all the different events into a pattern, disregarding the nature of the separate events. I want to say things like, "changed perceptions got people up off the couch," "now Democrats have a new reality," as if there were clear relationships between cause and effect. But it's not that easy. If my car stopped on the freeway because it "ran out of gas", contingent causes might be that my gas gage was broken and I was too cheap to repair it. But aside from the complexities of cause and effect and the invention of new realities, why do Democrats seem to have things going their way? 

    In trying to understand this new climate and kicking the tires of google looking for the underpinnings of such words as perception I ran across the term, "Perception Management." In fact it is a term of the DOD, an actual strategy--based to a large degree on dis-information to our enemies. Domestically, I think we have been living under Perception Management by the top 1% for quite some time. How else could we have been deprived of our common sense about wealth distribution, foreign wars, Wall St. chicanery, and bigotry for such an extended period? Perhaps as long as thirty years. Recent events suggest our perceptions have changed. The reason may be related to a recently discovered (this morning) principle which states, "As governmental extremism increases, the degree of difficulty in managing perceptions increases."

    In recent history the 1% have been able to elect politicians who then created the legislation, the wars and the deficits which have brought our country and our economy to a near standstill. Aside from a war based on dis-information to our own populace, the most egregious outcome of 1% control has been the banking crisis---resulting in a near Depression. The evidence of successful Perception Management by the top 1% is the lack of push back by voters. In effect, people voted against their own economic interests--that is, they voted to maintain the continued wealth accumulation of, and control by, the top 1%. at their own expense. The proof is that they kept getting poorer while the top 1% were getting richer---exponentially so.  The consciousness of the 99% who so voted and whether they innately believed that the fruits of the political pie were not a zero sum game, I don't claim to know. But they did it. And then something changed.

    In my estimation the most fundamental thing that changed, in the aftermath of which were such things as yesterday's election results and the Occupy movement, was the 2010 election of extremist Republicans who took over many state legislatures and the House of Representatives. There began a scorched earth policy including religious oppression, voter rights oppression, trade union oppression, not to mention oppression of the American people in the hostage taking strategy of the Republicans' debt ceiling negotiators. Extremist Republicans moved too quickly and too radically to implement the agendas of the 1%. They trampled upon the sense of fairness and common sense that is the essential core of the American people. 

    Extremism wakes people up and gets them up off the couch. Their common sense comes into focus and they quickly see the reality of the situation. They have a kind of flight or fight response. And, put in plain language, their bullshit antennae go up. When people get this riled up you can't manage their perceptions because their own perceptions become dominant.

    The Republican-enabled policies of the top 1% in the aftermath of the 2010 elections failed to recognize the basics of Perception Management, that extremism and easy perception management are inverse---at least in a functioning democracy.  In the vernacular, the 1% blew their own cover. They are now a recognizable entity whereas before they were amorphous. As a definable target they themselves have now become prisoners, imprisoned by the strengthened perception by the 99% of their own power.

    In tossing around metaphors for how the 1% are now the prisoners, I perused such words as stalag and gulag. It gave me the idea for a new movie, Stalag 1%. And in what will never become a familiar movie quote and in a gross mixture of genres, the Commandant looks at the inmates standing in the hot sun at Stalag 1% and says, "What he have here ... is a failure ... in Perception Management."

    Comments

    I'd like to believe this is right, but I think we are only at the beginning of a long period of change—as unsettling as that may sound.


    I agree. There are seismic ideological shifts going on driven partly by global events, partly by history, and partly by reactions to other ideological shifts (as articulated in this piece). I expect that it will take years, maybe decades, for the dust to settle.


    Thanks. Demographics being part of history, perhaps. Well, the movie has to be out before the 2012 election so we'll have to make some of that other stuff up.

    Welcome back, BTW, I hope you are much refreshed.


    Thanks, I'm much refreshed but still busy, trying to wrap up a book proposal. I'll blog about it all later.


    Is this the one about how all the marbles roll to one side of a Republican's brain?

      


    Right. Many battles to be fought. To your point, one of the questions in Ohio, for example, is will there be carryover in 2012 which will help Obama. Maybe there won't be. And will Kasich pull in his horns and hunker down for a time--he has three more years to go---only to resume his regressive agenda.   


    First was OWS.

    Second was yesterday ... the ballot box.

    The next will be 23 November ... that's when the Super Committee is suppose to announce its recommendations.

    If those recommendations support anything like what OWS is protesting against and what many voters rejected at the polls as well as cuts to social programs, like medicare and social security, it's going to hit the fan.


    Thanks, Beetle. So, in keeping with my theme, what do you see as the cause and effect between OWS and yesterday, if any?

    Listening to the financial guys, who I think sometimes have a realistic view of raw politics---many feel that not much of anything will be achieved by the Super Committee--pushing the whole debate into the election cycle. On balance, I'm thinking it's to Obama's advantage to do so. Do you want me and an end to the Bush tax cuts, or do you want Romney?

     


    OWS and yesterday's election cycle are the starting  pieces in a long row of dominoes ready to fall <see videos below>. The Super Committee report will cause more to line up to create an even larger mosaic. As to your theme, I am of the opinion neither Obama, Romney or any of the other GOPer clowns realize it's a public indictment against them all. It's not about whose political game plan is better ... they all stink because they entirely omit the public - too pro business and Wall Street. So if they really want the public to rally behind their plans, they'll have to stick it to Wall Street, the TBTF banks and the business fat cats  and their lobbyists.

     

    This is the elegant way things could fall into place...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ve4M4UsJQo

    And this is the messy way ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qybUFnY7Y8w

    Either way it will be fun to watch.


    That Rube Goldberg machine is incredible! What a laugh. What are the odds against getting that thing to work all the way through? I hope it's that much fun.

    As to fun and Wall St. Maria Bartiomo of CNBC (presumably an advocate of the financial industry) was just booed by the Republican debate audience when she asked Herman Cain about sexual abuse allegations. The circus continues.


    I'm partial to the first one ... isn't it nice when things just work.

    That's were I see OWS and Tuesday's election results heading ... every instance where a political move is played by Congress or a state legislature or governor happens, an opposite but equal reaction is spawned by the public opposing their overreach and negligence of the public good. That's why 23 November is so important.

    If the Super Committee fails to reach an agreement or what they do present places too much burden on the public allowing Wall Street, TBTF banks and business fat cats and their lobbyist to skate, it will be a wake-up call it's time for the public to stand up and be heard ... the scorched earth political policies of the GOPer's, both in Congress and States, as well as the Democrats apolitical posturing on all issues in Congress will finally strike a nerve.

    There's still the 1%-ers that have financial control over Congress to deal with as well as those in the public venue who still believe the rich are the salvation of us all that must be dealt with. And the videos represent my vision ... either we will eloquently pursue a well thought out process to arrive at a solution where the public's interest is served best at little inconvenience or we'll go to whatever legal extremes necessary to force the public's interest on those who were elected to carry out the wishes of the public. 

    I do believe the tide is turning on those who were booing the commentator simply because the outrage they have been capitalizing on has morphed into indignation by the rest of us at the very process their outrage that caused. I suspect there will be more public in-your-face confrontations as a result, but it's what needs to happen ... they need to be told by their peers they have their heads up their asses.


    Great point on the "outrage". It's seems to me that the right wing has been trading on this special brand of outrage beginning with the Palin rallies in '08 and it has carried through to last night---the booing in all of the debates, and all the rest of it. It will not end and time soon. But it may be wearing thin with people at large. I guess the questions are how will that outrage continue to morph and which politician or party is going to take advantage of it.

    As an overall comment on the status of the Republican Primary I know it's very late but I wonder if Haley Barbour will step in here. They could get Perry to drop out because his meds are going haywire and Barbour could pick up the apparatus--which I assume he is already familiar with.  Or perhaps Paul, or someone else, will mount a third party effort.

     


    Both Barbour and Christie are playing it smart. Just look at Reagan back in the 1980 election.

    Reagan had a distinct advantage over Carter in that his team figured out the sky-high interest rates installed by Volcher at the FED were actually working extremely well and would be obviously apparent to all within the first year or two after the election ... which Reagan claimed all the credit for because it happened on his watch and everyone went along with even to this day. Explains why he was so cheerful and optimistic back then whilst everyone else was in the doldrums.

    Today, there's no magic bullet for this economy at the moment ... the GOPer's in Congress are keeping it under wraps so as to deny Obama any creditability. So if any GOPer manages some how to get elected they'll find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Better for the smart ones to wait it out and let Obama struggle against another 4 years of a hostile Congress and let everything go into the tank.

    As for the outrage, it is slowly growing every time a GOPer sticks his dyck out ... it'll get smacked down hard by a rising public anger tired of the gamsmanship being played at their expense. So the more they play their games, the cheering will get dimmer and fewer will think their antics to be funny or serious. It will be a challenge for those with common sense against whom are clueless ... and the odds are even because lady chance doesn't care about what is right, wrong or just.


    Also trying to make sense of the 2011 elections, Andrew Sullivan offers his take on The Tea Party's Fatal Delusion:

    Longtime readers will know I've long had a theoretical scenario for politics under this president - and the results from the elections yesterday seem to confirm it. To be frank, I was taken aback by the immediate and total obstructionism from the GOP in 2009. I thought it would be a little less crass. But I never thought they'd moderate after 2008. There was always a long-suppressed backlash against the Bush era of massive debt, reckless spending, and unwinnable land-wars. And there was also a cultural panic at a biracial president and the new America he represented. Both these prompted a spasm of ideological abstraction and purism, in which there were only two choices in political life: freedom or slavery. If you think I exaggerate, try reading Mark Levin's best-seller.


    Andrew Sullivan is a self-deluded moron.  The conservative backlash against establishment Republicans was never about "debt, reckless spending or unwinnable land wars."  There was barely a peep about Bush running up the deficit, no Republican is arguing for repeal of Medicare Part D, and Obama is getting slapped with the "cut and run" tag for pulling out of Iraq nearly a decade after Bush claimed victory (when conservatives aren't crediting Cheney and Bush with winning the war for him, that is).

    Conservatives left Bush after he attempted to reform  immigration, and after his political force was clearly spent.  Any attempt to portray conservatives' dissatisfaction with Bush as based on a principle other than political expediency is an attempt to re-write recent history. 

    Andrew Sullivan still seems to think there is something redeemable in American conservatism, and will go to great lengths conning himself into believing so.  Wake up, Andrew; American conservatism has no principles but gaining and holding on to political power in order to exploit the wealth of the most productive economy on earth for itself.  They have no interest in balanced budgets or smaller government unless it can be used in service of their greed.  


    Sullivan is hardly a moron, or an establishment Republican (is that redundant?). He's an anti-Christianist, pro-NORML, HIV-positive gay man who sees himself as a thinking conservative in the mold of Kirk or Oakeshott. He defends Obama, sees almost no one of value in the Republican field, and would probably agree with most of the criticisms of the party you just offered. I don't agree with him on everything, but I read him every day.


    I actually read your link after I commented, and do agree with most of what he wrote.  In fact, I agree with much of what he's written since 2004  My big problem with Andrew is that he considers himself a conservative, and is willing to distort the recent historical record in order to put the best face possible on conservatism.  I find that intellectually weak and dishonest, no matter how many pompous references to Oakeshott he slips into his writing.


    My big problem with Andrew is that he considers himself a conservative, and is willing to distort the recent historical record in order to put the best face possible on conservatism.

    How certain are you that it's deliberate, as opposed to being a blind-spot? I suspect it's more of the latter than the former.


    I don't think I claim that his misstatements of recent history are deliberate as opposed to being due to  the particular "blind spots" in his worldview, hence my characterization of his take on conservative opposition to the late Bush presidency as "self-deluded."  Whether deliberately so or not, his take on this slice of history is nevertheless wrong, and I don't see any reason to let it go unchallenged.   


    I've always felt that he carefully distinguished between movement conservatism, neoconservatism, Tea Party conservatism and the sort of conservatism that he professes.


    In other words, between conservatism as it exists in Andrew's interpretation of a few works of political philosophy, and as it is practiced by every political actor who has ever labeled themselves as a conservative in modern America.


    Shame on Sullivan for professing a more intelligent doctrine.


    You can polish a turd until it shines.  But it's still a turd. 


    On "delusion" and such, just had the thought that the right wing saw---in their world view---the election of Barack Obama as "extremism" and that they became unglued in the way that the Ohio folks just did in reaction to Kasich's actions.  


    We seem to give too little attention to the war within the Republican party. I think the great quality of a "Bush" was to keep the various factions from killing each other, as the factions are now doing.

    How do you parse how the tea wing has actually behaved in this Congress in relation to your notion that it is all about raw power and a take down of the establishment wing rather ideological beliefs. I more or less agree with you, but can't make the argument in terms of actual legislation and votes.  

    Don't the core centers of both the tea wing and the establishment wing want the same basic objective--the exploitation of wealth?   


    Thanks. That's a very good statement. Delusion. Panic is good--like buying more guns and bullets cause there are going to be riots.  

    And then there is that additional thing, even more pronounced than in the average politician--they really like to drink their own bath water.

     


    Or maybe not so good. I forgot the a-hole was a Conservative.


    To yesterday's wins we should add the success of the Wisconsin recalls.


    Especially because I had a few bucks in those elections.


    Funny you should mention perception management.  Here's something I scanned by today -- companies, particularly involved in fracking, flat out using military Psy-Ops techniques to counter protesters.


    Okay, your link is downright creepy, destor. For the past couple of years I have been following (and participating in) events surrounding the Eagle Mine project of the Rio Tinto Corp. in the U.P. of Michigan.
    Rio Tinto used every single one of those 10 psy-ops tactics to get their mine in operation.
    Every single one.
    And I can provide links, if necessary, to back up this claim.
    Honestly. I read Robert Johnson's article and it gave me shivers. And a heart-ache.
     


    That's pretty spooky all right---especially since half way through it my browser went down. Makes you wonder how asleep at the switch we have really been.


    Ha.  Businessinsider is rough on browsers sometimes.  Rather than view the slideshow, try hitting "view story as one page."

    Though, remember... paranoia doesn't mean they're not out to get you.


    W.C Fields, maybe. Never give a "paranoid" an even break.


    Oh Lord, this is a vast subject , not to be begun at the end of a thread but is it inequality that's offensive per se or inequality when those who have the least are suffering.? I suspect I'd rather be poor in Germany than in Cuba.


    Thanks, and very well put. The "capital" of the movement---what a great way to comprehend the core of the "99%" movement. I give this statement an award for the best and most comprehensive definition of the movement.   


    Latest Comments