Bernays' & Lippmann's Articles

After reading both articles it became evident that Bernays took a more coercive approach and Lippmann favored a more persuasive approach. Bernays states, "the manipulation of the public mind, which is so marked a characteristic of society today, serves a social purpose. This manipulation serves to gain acceptance for new ideas." This statement favors rhetoric. To manipulate or coerce the general public into believing or adhering to certain views, styles, products, etc. is saying that in order for people to accept ideas, people with power, prestige and what society deems as "good-looking" are the voices and go-to's for developing an opinon, decision or belief. This completely baffles me. I've stated earlier how I cannot believe the public is so transformable, so reluctant to follow or attach oneself to the words and tactics used by huge corporations and higher-ups of society to pronounce what is "true," "hip," or "right." Bernays affirms, "analysis of the problem and its causes is the first step toward shaping the public mind on any subject." Why must the public mind be shaped into a particular subject? Why should any one individual be manipulated by another individual to think or feel a certain way? Why do people allow themselves to be the product of a coercive society who's existence is based upon creating sameness among its citizens? Another point Bernays brings up, in reference to audience, is "it is the power of the group to sway the larger public in its attitude toward ideas." I do not think any indivdual should be allowed the power to sway the public in its attitude toward ideas. This statement destroys the notion of free speech, free thought and freedom of opinion. Why can't individuals make decisions and opinions on their own, through their own research? This statement shows that the American public is so weak that individual thought cannot even occur because people's minds are so open and susceptible to the persuasive tactics of others.
Lippmann states, "men have general notions which influence their individual decisions and their direct experiences unconsciously govern their general notions." I fully believe this statement. Individuals have feelings toward every possible situation, event, occurence, etc., whether they have been directly involved, indirectly involved, or just feel a certain propensity toward it. Individuals, based on these strong beliefs and notions, shape their future decisions in accordance. Why should a person let the beliefs of another designate or change one's character?
I did not understand Lippmann's article. I do not know if it was his choice of situations or his choice of words, but I found it hard to follow and process.
The more I am reading about rhetoric, the less I like it. It seems the past couple of articles we have read deal with either persuading or coercing individuals to think, feel and believe a certain way. I adamantly believe in knowing oneself, listening to oneself, and not allowing one's being or thoughts to become the victims of manipulation by other individuals. I truly think people should not be swayed by the voices of others. Research, respect and listen to one's inner voice. This is the strongest part of oneself and if one can be so easily swayed to go against it, than one can never be completely happy with oneself, one's thoughts, one's beliefs.
I don't know if I totally went off topic here, I probably did, but I am just so caught up in these thoughts presented, and have such strong convictions against what is being said, that I felt it necessary to comment on it. Sorry!