This peacetime application of what was, after all, a tool of war, began to trouble Americans who suspected that they had been misled. In The New Republic, John Dewey questioned the paternalistic assumptions of those who disguised propaganda as news. “There is uneasiness and solicitude about what men hear and learn,” wrote Dewey, and the “paternalistic care for the source of men’s beliefs, once generated by war, carries over to the troubles of peace.” Dewey argued that the manipulation of information was particularly evident in coverage of post-Revolutionary Russia. The Nation agreed in 1919, arguing that “what has happened in regard to Russia is the most striking case in point as showing what may be accomplished by Government propaganda… Bartholomew nights that never take place, together with the wildest rumors of communism in women, and of murder and bloodshed, taken from obscure Scandinavian newspapers, are hastily relayed to the US, while everything favorable to the Soviets, every bit of constructive accomplishment, is suppressed.”
When one considers the horrible legacy of the war, it is tempting to pin complete responsibility for American involvement on hate-mongering militarists in the CPI. Such retroactive condemnation is no more complex than a wartime slogan. Ultimately, their guilt is less important than the questions their activities raised about the role of propaganda in a democratic society.
Democratic theory, as interpreted by Jefferson and Paine, was rooted in the Enlightenment belief that free citizens could form respectable opinions about issues of the day and use these opinions to guide their own destiny. Communication between citizens was assumed to be a necessary element of the democratic process. During the first world war, America’s leaders felt that citizens were not making the correct decisions quickly enough, so they flooded the channels of communication with dishonest messages that were designed to stir up emotions and hatred of Germany. The war came to an end, but propaganda did not. For the past seven decades, those who lead our nation, along with those who seek to overthrow it, have mouthed the ideals of Jefferson while behaving like Bernays.
Is propaganda compatible with democracy, or does it undermine the population’s ability to think critically about world events? What happens when simplistic, emotional appeals are endlessly repeated? During the war, Bourne complained that “simple syllogisms are substituted for analysis, things are known by their labels, [and] our heart’s desire dictates what we shall see.” Could this description apply equally to a political climate in which slogans like “Three Strikes, You’re Out,” “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and “Just Say No” are treated as if they were actual policies for dealing with social needs?
What of the propagandist’s argument that the complexity of the modern world makes obsolete the Enlightenment faith in popular wisdom? It is impossible for one person to simultaneously be an expert in foreign policy, labor disputes, the environment, the educational system, health care, constitutional law, and scientific regulation. Even the President is forced to rely on the advice of key advisors. Should America follow Bernays’ prescription and accept the wisdom of “a leadership democracy administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses?” Or is “leadership democracy” simply one stage of our democratic development? Could it someday be replaced by something more far reaching?
What contribution will emerging communication technologies make to the dissemination of propaganda? Does the myth of “interactivity” legitimize an unbalanced social relationship, or does it make it possible for the audience to challenge the propagandist? The hosts of radio talk shows claim that theirs is a democratic medium, but callers are screened in advance and filtered through a three-second time delay. Are truly interactive tools on the horizon?
The important difference between our “leadership democracy” and a totalitarian state is that we are allowed to raise questions such as these. However, history shows that, in times of political crisis and social dislocation, this freedom is one of the first to disappear. As we approach the end of the twentieth century, finding answers to these questions is more important than ever.
Bibliography
Chase, Stuart. Guides to Straight Thinking. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956.
Combs, James and Nimmo, Dan. The New Propaganda: The Dictatorship of Palavar in Contemporary Politics. New York: Longman Publishing Group, 1993.
Doob, Leonard. Propaganda: Its Psychology and Technique. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1935.
Edwards, Violet. Group Leader’s Guide to Propaganda Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938.
Ellul, Jacques. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Vintage Books, 1965.
Hummel, William and Huntress, Keith. The Analysis of Propaganda. New York: William Sloane Associates, 1949.
Institute for Propaganda Analysis. Propaganda Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938.
Institute for Propaganda Analysis. The Fine Art of Propaganda. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1939.
Lee, Alfred McClung. How to Understand Propaganda. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1952.
Lowenthal, Leo and Guterman, Norbert. Prophets of Deceit. 1949. Palo Alto: Pacific Books Publishers, 1970.
Miller, Clyde. The Process of Persuasion. New York: Crown Publishers, 1946.
Pratkanis, Anthony and Aronson, Elliot. Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1991.
Rank, Hugh. Language and Public Policy. New York: Citation Press, 1974.
Thum, Gladys and Thum, Marcella. The Persuaders: Propaganda in War and Peace. New York: Atheneum, 1972.