Re reading Luntz, I'm struck by his instruction to think about the environment and other issues in terms of a "story". "A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth." (pg 132) It makes me wonder why this is; when in the course of our society did we begin to favor this emotional approach? Our ability to feel and recognize emotion, to empathize and sympathize is inherent, instinctual. Public relations has been a part of 'government' as long as government has been around, but when did they - the mysterious "they" who do our thinking for us - decide to prey upon our emotional capacities in this manner? I'm not ignorant of the fact that those responsible for portraying the public image of this institution have always used a form of this appeal, in a "we're looking out for your best interests" way, but perhaps I was labouring under the misinformation that they used a fact-based approach. Hopeful candidates have been told for years that they need to be personable, likeable, approachable. They need to get their ratings up and so they kiss babies. But when did the idea of emotional politics vs objective politics really take off? I wonder if its possible it began when women were allowed to vote, changing the way candidates approached voters with the theory that "rational" men didn't require someone to "tug at their heart strings" to get them to vote on an issue.

But really I think the point of my rambling is to question why we allow this to happen. Why are we complacent about this deliberate cover up? How is it so many of us don't take any accountability for educating ourselves? I admit I fall into Luntz's theory- I'm definitely susceptible to compelling narrative and am lazy about researching all the facts. However, this begs the question- should we be responsible for finding out all the information ourselves? For certain circumstances, we definitely should be, but I'm not so sure about our government. In the true spirit of a democracy, shouldn't we be presented with all the facts of an issue - as unbiased as possible - before being responsible for choosing the party to fix it? I realize this is a highly idealistic position, and that people might not even consider the facts before voting, but I feel it should be easily and readably available to those who want it. Is there no method for succinctly listing the pertinent information without having to resort to fabricating stories full of double entendre and deeply embedded code? Of course there is. But it would put Luntz out of a job.