Reply #40: Either one believes that popular pressure can affect the political class, or

[struggle4progress]

one does not believe it. In the first case, one is interested to construct that popular pressure; in the second case, one dismisses it as a waste of time

Apparently some people believe that popular consent matters, since substantial capital and intelligence is invested in the mass reproduction of political ideas through the media industry. Of course, access to the media is determined largely by its owners, who have particular interests: if such interests benefit by ill-informed consent, more than by informed consent, then the media may mass-produce inaccurate fictions rather than facts

The political class, charged with decision making, is subject to similar systemic pressures. The social apparatus for applying that pressure is well-established: it is a business enterprise, and it pays its employees well

So regardless of the outcome of any election, the pressure exerted on popular opinion (by the media and the pressure exerted on the political class by the professional lobbyists and social theoreticians) remains approximately constant: discourse remains constrained within an "acceptable realm." Absent counter-balancing pressure, the political class (regardless of its inclinations) is unlikely to drift far from pre-existing policies: the forces, that created those policies originally, continue to reproduce them. The ability of any one person, or any small group of people, to resist that inexorable paid army, of advocates for existing interests, is limited. So I think you are correct to dismiss the political class itself as the primary "psychological battleground" -- for one knows in advance the direction in which Obama or Clinton will be forced

Against that constant pressure, on the political class by self-conscious interests, there is always the possibility of applied "people-power" but it does not arise spontaneously: it must be organized. But it cannot be effectively organized unless the "acceptable realm" of discourse is enlarged -- and that requires actually meeting and educating people and motivating them to take concrete action. The people who must be educated and motivated, however, have long been the target of mass-produced ideas, and they will usually be inclined (at first) to understand their world according to the mass-produced and pre-packaged concepts -- after all, the mass-produced and pre-packaged concepts were mass-produced and pre-packaged precisely to prevent critical thought. So to tap into "people-power" on an issue, it is necessary to convince people that there are useful interpretations outside the "acceptable realm" of discourse: that is, there is an important "psychological battleground" for the minds of constituencies that might affect the political class