Expect people to
INTENSIFY THEIR OWN "GOOD"
Expect sincere people (e.g. Conservatives & Liberals) to have very different worldviews and assumptions. Expect persuaders to bond their own group, and to try to get others to agree with their views, to see the world the way they do.

Expect the content of positive claims about the candidate basically to be: "I am competent and trustworthy; from me you'll get more "good' and less "bad."

Expect some political persuasion targeted at outsiders (Independents, Undecideds, Indifferents - reached openly in the mass media) simply to use the pattern of an advertising "pitch." Persuaders doing this often use softer tactics (name-recognition, positive associations, soothing messages) and seek a simple response ("Vote for us").

Expect people often to act , not only in their own self-interest but also to be self- righteous, to claim moral superiority -- with virtue, justice, fairness, and/or reason as being on their side of an issue.

Expect frequent repetition of such positive ideas to be expressed sometimes by direct, explicit claims (as in praise words, or "glittering generalities"); but more often by indirect, implicit suggestions (as in images, music, words) with positive associations with "good things" already liked by the intended audience: e.g. God and Country, Home and Family.

Expect stories (narratives -- including some ads) to present their leaders in the best possible way, as heroes and models, deserving respect and support. Stories also show followers the attitudes, actions, and roles expected of them.

Expect political campaigns to be well funded and well composed by professionals persuaders using sophisticated new techniques and technology

Counter-Propaganda Axioms:

When they intensify, downplay.

When they downplay, intensify.

 

Expect people to
DOWNPLAY THEIR OWN "BAD"
Expect omission to be the primary way people downplay their own "bad." People can suppress, conceal, hide, cover-up their "bad" (errors, crimes, problems, weaknesses, any unfavorable information) by means of secrecy. Governments, administrations often can use censorship, controls to ban the press or internal critics; silencing, eliminating, or "disappearing" the opposition.

Expect denials ("saying it isn't so") to include deliberate lying to others and self deception. For example, denying that something is, or is bad, or is not that bad, or denying responsibility ("I didn't do it") or intent ("I didn't mean it"). Wishful thinking, alibis, excuses, and "plausible deniability" are also common ways people deny reality, deceive themselves, downplay their own "bad."

Expect euphemisms to downplay one's own "bad" by using softer words to minimize, understate, sweeten, blur or obscure the "bad."

Expect diversions as a very common defense, to distract focus away from main issues, to focus on side-issues, to counter-attack others. Traditional names include diversionary attacks against the person (ad hominem); stirring up people's emotions or fears (ad populum); sympathy appeals (ad misericordium); "attacking a straw man"; "red herrings"; "bread and circuses"; "pointing to another wrong"; dismissals ("it's all politics"): "poisoning the well" (the media is biased); or any evasions, or stalling to avoid substantive issues.

Expect confusion to mask or hide problems, a "smokescreen" effect. Confusion can be accidental (carelessness, errors); but, language can also deliberately be used to create confusion by means of ambiguity, vagueness, unfamiliar words, jargon, contradictions, circumlocutions, circular definitions. In a wider context, confusion can be caused by frequent changes or variations, or anything to overload the audience.

Expect disrespect Words and attitudes are often used which are patronizing, or condescending toward others, humiliating others, treating others as less than equal, or less than human. Humor (mockery, sarcasm, satire) is used to belittle, degrade, insult, or ridicule others.

Expect the more that language is abstract and general (including labels, numbers, statistics, charts, polls, body counts), the less that people are able to "see" ( to comprehend) the specific individuals of the Other. In domestic politics, for example, it's easier to hate someone who is abstractly labeled a "Liberal" or "Conservative" than it is to understand a real person -- a friend or a neighbor -- whose worldviews and assumptions are different.

In war, it's easier to kill "things" than to kill human beings (mothers, fathers, children). We often do need to generalize, but remember abstract language dehumanizes.