First let me qualify my post. My goal isn't to lambast Obama or his administration. My point is that all administrations, indeed all governments use this tactic against its people. The source I'm quoting covers primarily the current administration and a few references to the previous administration. The source is a progressive writer with a strong bent towards civil liberty.(which makes him somewhat uncommon)
If you choose to comment please check your response for the tell tale signs of partisanship. If you're unable to express your idea without using the words Democrat, Republican, or (insert political party, or well know partisan advocate here) then you're really not engaging the spirit of the post, and this thread may not be for you.
One of the biggest challenges posed to a non-statist is that of references and source. I often read and use the term "court jesters" to refer to the panoply of sources arrayed against me in whatever topic we're tackling in a given thread. This term is based on the middle ages' practice of employing magicians and counselors that were groomed as "then time" experts to shape opinion and back up whatever decree the feudal lord desired.
My argument is based on the idea that because government is so involved in both public and private research, including public and private universities, it exerts a distorting factor on the quality and content of papers, research, and opinion we receive from the recognized set of experts for a given topic, as well as outright picking whom is considered an expert, and how much publicity their opinion receives.
On the contra, ideas that fly in the face of the marketed and monied ideas are dismissed as unserious or conspiratorial. Counter-marketing takes place to insure these ideas never receive purchase.
While it is not very difficult to find overt examples of opinions that are bought and paid for, the more insidious types of opinions are those that were pre-crafted via the mechanism.
Consider the market of ideas and determine what opinions have a monied interest or coercive power stimulating the market. What is the market value for the global warming concept? What is the market value for the Bush Doctrine? Who is stimulating the market? What marketing campaigns are in effect?
Consider the above premise in relation to this article by Greenwald.
Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal
Quote:
Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs."
In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.
This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
Quote:
Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).
This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role." Sunstein's 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story's Daniel Tencer.
Quote:
Consider the recent revelation that the Obama administration has been making very large, undisclosed payments to MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber to provide consultation on the President's health care plan.
With this lucrative arrangement in place, Gruber spent the entire year offering public justifications for Obama's health care plan, typically without disclosing these payments, and far worse, was repeatedly held out by the White House -- falsely -- as an "independent" or "objective" authority.
Obama allies in the media constantly cited Gruber's analysis to support their defenses of the President's plan, and the White House, in turn, then cited those media reports as proof that their plan would succeed.
This created an infinite "feedback loop" in favor of Obama's health care plan which -- unbeknownst to the public -- was all being generated by someone who was receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in secret from the administration (read this to see exactly how it worked).
That's about all I can quote and be true to the fair use concept but the entire article is a great read. What Greenwald is exploring is the "infinite feedback" of the state via funding, regulation, and licensing, constructing experts that advocate sanctioned opinion.
He is careful to point out that in both the case of Bush and Obama the payrolled advocates didn't change their opinions they simply were financed and marketed because of their opinions. In this way a market was manufactured.
Sunstein's concept of manufacturing consent by infiltrating popular forms of media including blogs, websites, and even chat rooms is a textbook caricature of Chomsky or Machiavelli. There's nothing new in his paper, just a stronger statement of the existing structure posing as new.
Please allow me to state the simple-minded responses up front so as to avoid wasting people's time with them.
"Bush did the same thing" - True.
"The retired generals Bush hired lead us to war which is more destructive than even a bad health care plan" - Hard to quantify but likely True.
"Obama is a warrior poet and can do no wrong, thus you're unfairly picking on him." False
"Corporations do the same thing" - Again hard to quantify. I'd argue they're much less successful but certainly attempt the same thing.
