How Propaganda Works Jason Stanley Analysis

Political speech is important for a democracy to function as a collective unit of individuals who make up a society that solves problems together. There is, however, the problem of propaganda when dealing with persuasive rhetoric aimed at a populous looking to find the best solution of the options available to them. Politicians find themselves looking towards the sensational rather than the rational when grabbing the attention of the masses. The discussion of political speech is one that spans centuries from ancient thinkers like Thucydides to the contemporary thinker Jason Stanley. In his book “How Propaganda Works”, Stanley looks to dissect the use of propaganda in society and differentiate what he deems demagoguery and civic rhetoric. Thucydides

Speech that is focused on grabbing people’s attention to what is incorrect and a manipulation of the truth will may be effective for the demagogue himself but it is not virtuous for all of society. He believes that in a healthy democracy it should be the goal of a public official "to dissolve [ideological beliefs] rather than rely on them" (86). One example of this type of political speech Stanley mentions is the term fiscal cliff used in economic policy. The term describes how the US government funds it’s own debt and in turn reduces the deficit, however according to a survey poll 47% were misled by the terminology to believe it would increase the deficit instead of decline (83). The use of the word cliff was strategic because of its negative connotation with the concept of falling off of a cliff. This small choice shows how important one misunderstood word can be in political speech and how demagoguery can condition people to believe what it wants to be

Sharing ideas, especially in a large group of people, means that it is not always possible for the best idea to gain traction through words. DiLulio said in his interview with Elizabeth Becker that if he could go back in time he would have advocated for the “prevention of crimes” instead. One wonders if the story would have had as much attention because it does not have the same intrigue that the myth of the super-predator did and in the end that was what mattered more to the media and to the every day American. In propaganda the importance is placed on rhetoric instead of the facts and if the language is not strong enough, the best idea may be thrown to the wayside. The production of knowledge in this system tends to fall on the elites, in this case DiLulio and Fox, because people lack the incentive to do their own research because they can rely on someone else to do it for them. The people are not making decisions for themselves but rather they are convinced by whatever option is presented in the most positive or appealing fashion. This also creates a stagnant way of life because people are not compelled to look inward and create their own alternatives or ideas besides the ones that are proposed to