To believe that our "leaders" actually lead is to believe that the tail wags the dog. Health care legislation became watered down because the intere$ted partie$ were able to change public opinion on the matter. Gay marriage is making slow but sure progress not due to our elected officials, but because public opinion is changing.
You can work your butt off to get Democrats elected, but how much of a difference does it make? The lead in the game goes back and forth between the two major parties. Four downs and punt. Our problem is not who is leading the game at the moment, but the fact that the whole game is taking place on the wrong end of the field.
There's more leverage in changing minds than in changing politicians. You have the power, as Howard Dean says, and here's how to use it.
Remember that Karl Rove et al. hire Frank Luntz not only to manage opinion about candidates, but about issues. They get that public opinion about issues matters. A lot.
Witness the "death tax". "Tax relief". "45% of people in this country pay no income tax at all! Expand the tax base!" "Class warfare!" "Soak the Rich" Etc., etc., ad nauseum.
All of these are direct efforts to change the way the public thinks about these issues. In service of getting their candidates and their agenda passed.
While they've had mixed success with the candidates (2008), they've had a ton of success on their agenda. I used to think it was because they were tougher and more willing to take no prisoners than the dems, which I still believe they are, but they use that toughness and discipline to mold public opinion, which is how they get what they want despite the fact that it is in the interest of a very few.
How do you fight them?
Use their playbook. Everybody run out right now and read Thinking, Fast and Slow by Nobel winner Daniel Kahneman, which details how the human mind works, and how we make decisions. No time? Let me save you some.
Our thinking occurs in two realms, one is fast and intuitive, one is slow and intentional. We are lazy. Oops, value judgement. Make that, we conserve cognitive energy for when it's really needed. The upshot, we all (not just your annoying mother-in-law) make intuitive judgements and stick to them despite the evidence.
It doesn't matter whether you are intelligent or not. (See Keith Stanovich's What Intelligence Tests Miss, the Science of Rational Thought). And, sadly, the better informed you are the less likely you are to accept and incorporate new information into your thinking.
Substitution heuristics explain a lot of decision-making. If the decision is complex (fast thinking doesn't do nuance), we substitute a different decision for which the answer is more obvious. Eg., I'm not sure what I think about changing the health care system, so I substitute what I think about "death panels", "the government making my health decisions" or "socialism". Those things I know, while health care is complex. Decision made.
The human mind seeks coherence, not truth. This is why candidates can bald-face lie with impunity... as long as the lie fits the existing belief. I believe in Rick Santorum, so when he tells me that political ads are so nasty because campaign finance reform limited the amount of money (rich) entities can donate directly to candidates, causing the SuperPacs to make nasty ads, I believe him. Understanding campaign finance reform is hard! So I substitute what I know about Rick, he's a good Christian, and go with whatever he says.
The stuff Frank Luntz does, anyone can do. I'm going to make a proposal here, and decide based on interest whether to continue.
We make a little weekly group here with a diary to share messaging ideas, then go and populate our local paper comment threads---strategically, which if you are interested in I'll detail in the next diary, detailing how to have influence rather than catharsis--and do what Luntz does, but rather than doing it on Fox and having all the pundits pick it up and having it trickle down to the grass roots, we go right to the roots. With targeted, smart messaging, delivered strategically (really, technique matters, and if you are interested you will have to rate up that less exciting diary) and with finesse. On a regular basis.
This would be a group effort. Several people could share the responsibility of putting up the diaries. We'd all discuss messaging, and strategy. We'd report back what's working--what's moving the needle on opinions in our circles.
Someone is going to lambaste me for suggesting that people stop walking the precincts. I'm not. But while that may be a necessary condition for getting the right people to Washington and causing change, it is not a sufficient condition. Changing opinions is where the real leverage is.
I believe it with my whole heart, and brain.
Now, back to my real job. :)