(In defense of our nation)According to Perloff, social scientists and philosophers have theorized for years about the best methods to craft a message to influence attitude and or, opinion change. Returning to the previous section’s discussion on fear messages, a well framed argument will contain the element of fear but also a recommended course of action to alleviate that fear, or avert the potential danger causing it. Perloff states that “a fear-arousing message contains two basic elements: threat and efficacy information, or a problem and a solution.
A message must first threaten the individual, convincing him or her that dangers lurk in the environment.” The American media is infamous for presenting the news in a manner that suggests there is always a danger, and that freedom itself is a dangerous concept.
There is always a problem, and a potential solution. This solution generally leads to less freedom for the individual and more control for the government.
This method of framing arguments bears striking similarity to something called the Hegelian Dialectic. This is based on dialectical materialism, which according to Ray Nunes, who was once chairman of the Worker’s Party in the 1990’s, is central to the Marxist push for social change. Dialectical materialism posits the idea that all progress is made through conflict, and, because matter existed before conscious thought, progress through conflicting matter has brought us to where we are.
The Hegelian Dialectic is based off the ideas of Georg Hegel and applied to Fredrick Engels and Karl Marx’s theories on communism. It is also known as the problem-reaction-solution strategy.
The idea is to strike fear into the hearts of the masses, which would motivate them to demand change and, implement the solution which was already been predetermined.
There are numerous examples to draw from.
Anytime the media is pushing a fear message or framing an argument, it is being done with the intent of influencing opinion or attitude change and/or motivating the masses into action of some kind.
The left arguing to completely defund the police is a good example. This argument forces the right to take the exact opposite position, even though there are several well-reasoned arguments in the middle as to why some police reforms may be needed. No knock raids and asset forfeiture are good examples. The argument is now framed from the perspective of either defunding the police completely or showing one hundred percent support for everything they do. This is a brilliant strategy if the end goal is to grow the states policing powers.
Another example is the 2020 presidential election. How would you get the public to demand a national identification card or an increase in government power in general? Present the masses with a broken down, corrupted, unworkable election system and force them to demand change.
Read the rest at In Defense Of Our Nation
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.