Propaganda and Democracy

If knowledge is power, as the world's knowledge expands, the net power is continually increasing.  Does this increased available power pose a threat to individual freedoms?  According to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1938) and Brave New World Revisited (1958), the answer is yes.  Huxley argues that we are increasingly loosing our freedom due to the development of various technologies, and as overpopulation creates stresses on our social structure, a tend toward over-organization and decreased individuality is likely.

I would encourage all to read Brave New World Revisited as it is a very concise and articulate explanation of what one of the most brilliant literary and scientific minds of the past century perceives as the greatest threats to our freedom.  Perhaps the greatest threats mentioned is that authoritarian practices will likely be resorted to if we do not check overpopulation.  However, I would like to discus the most immediate and relevant threat we face today, as articulated in the chapter on Propaganda in a Democratic Society.

Huxley dichotomizes propaganda into rational propaganda ("in favor of action that is consonant with the enlightened self-interest of those who make it and those to whom it is addressed") and nonrational propaganda ("not consonant with anybody's enlightened self-interest, but is dictated by, and appeals to, passion").  Nonrational propaganda often "offers false, garbled, or incomplete evidence, avoids logical argument, and seeks to influence its victims by the mere repetition of catchwords, by the furious denunciation of foreign or domestic scapegoats, and by cunningly associating the lowest passions with the highest ideals[.]" 

I couldn't help but think that our political system runs on non-rational propaganda.  Rational propaganda techniques are implemented only while appealing to a minority group consisting of the intellectual, academic, and political elite.  The majority of the population is victim of nonrational propaganda characterized by meaningless catchphrases ("Hope You Can Believe In"), garbled or incomplete evidence, and furious denunciation of opposing party members. 

Luckily, in order for a candidate to be in a position to appeal to the masses he must first attain the endorsement of many who are not victim to nonrational propaganda.  However, once campaigns are geared toward the public, does it not appear as though it is a contest in who can best master nonrational propaganda techniques?  I wonder what our elected officials would look like if these techniques were forbidden and every voter heard the candidates' true stances.  I doubt many politicians who are in power today would be if this situation was a reality.