It is publicity when you use it yourself and propaganda when the other fellow uses it. It is an educational campaign when it is in harmony with your own thoughts, opinions and aspirations, and propaganda only when you disagree emphatically with the views set forth. The average man has one infallible rule, therefore, by which he can always tell whether an editorial, a sermon, a leading article or a political speech is or is not propaganda. The thoughts expressed come under this opprobrious epithet if the reader does not agree with them. To the Dry, the arguments against the imbibing of intoxicating liquors and the evil effects therefrom constitute an educational campaign of great moral value and any criticism of the Eighteenth Amendment is propaganda for the liquor interests. To the Wet, literature that is disseminated to prove the evils of alcohol is nothing but propaganda, and opposition to the Eighteenth Amendment is a statesman-like effort to bring our Constitution back to first principles. Judging by this standard anyone may recognize propaganda at a glance merely by reading, or hearing the argument in dispute and deciding whether it does or does not agree with his personal prejudices, his inherited traditions, his religious convictions or his political opinions.
Nevertheless, there is such a thing as propaganda. It is a deliberate effort on the part of an organized group to influence public opinion for a definite end. It makes no difference whether the end in view is good or bad; whether the effort to influence public opinion is made in an attempt to conserve the traditional institutions of a country or to break down those institutions and bring about a revolution. It is propaganda if it is an organized effort for a deliberate purpose. It is absurd for the defenders of our ancient institutions to claim that all dissenters are the victims of propaganda while all the orthodox are exercising the right of free thought and free will. It is equally ridiculous for those who hold revolutionary, or unorthodox, views to look upon themselves as persons of free mind and free opinion while declaring that all the conservative, the orthodox, and the respectable are victims "of institutional propaganda, past and present. Every large group that is making an attempt to influence public opinion for any purpose not only does use propaganda but must use propaganda. And there are many such groups. The man who really wishes to do his own thinking, or whose duty it is, because of his official position, to weigh and balance various forces at work on the public mind, must be able to recognize this propaganda when he sees it and trace it to its source. Otherwise he will not be able to judge its content or to evaluate its importance.
The question to be decided in the last analysis is, of course, the truth or falsity of the argument itself. But before it is possible to begin to weigh the value of an idea it is necessary to ascertain whether the idea is spontaneous, forced upon the speaker by the facts, or is part of an organized propaganda with some distant end in view. There has been, for instance, an agitation of late for the prohibition of firearms in the United States. It is very difficult for the best informed citizen to decide for himself as to the value of such legislation. There is much to be said on both sides. On the one side is the obvious disadvantage of permitting the criminal classes easy access to firearms. On the other side is the disadvantage of depriving a citizen who lives in the country of his means of defense, as well as the very serious blow that would be dealt our national defense by the abolition of our arms manufacturers. This is a wholly domestic question and should be decided exclusively on its merits. Yet to the skilled propagandist the agitation has all the earmarks of organized propaganda. Now it is important to the man who must cast his vote on such questions, especially to the man who as editor,
minister or politician has an influence over the votes of others, that he know, with reasonable certainty, just what is the source of such a campaign. If, as may be the case, this particular agitation is a spontaneous demand on the part of the police and the courts for legislation that will assist them in dealing with crime it is deserving of every consideration. Those who have the responsibility for suppressing crime should be heard with respect when they speak on that subject out of their own experience. If, on the other hand, the demand for the abolition of firearms in this country, for ostensibly domestic purposes, has been stimulated by various semipublic organizations at the behest of the League of Nations, for the purpose of preparing the American mind for participation in League activities in regard to the private manufacture of arms, it is deserving of no respect whatever.
This illustration has been given at length to make clear the reason why it is necessary for those charged with the guidance of public opinion to understand something of propaganda. The average man, before he can weigh an opinion with any confidence, must know whether the proponents of that opinion are urging it for its own sake or for some more distant purpose. There is much talk in intellectual circles about the necessity for valuing an opinion on its merits without regard for the authority behind the opinion. But, in a complex civilization, such an ideal is impossible. No man can have genuine opinions on anything outside his own specialty and his own hobby. He must rely in other matters upon the authority of those who have made a lifelong study of the subject. It is therefore essential that he know whether the authoritative opinion is an honest opinion, a real opinion, or whether it is part of an organized propaganda.
There is a large body of belief, represented by many of our leading citizens and by the most conservative section of the press, that holds that the way to stop propaganda is to make every man, woman and child in the United States do his own thinking. It is urged that we so educate the entire population that each individual will view life and affairs with a disinterested mind, unswayed by emotion, and thus become unsusceptible to propaganda. It is surprising that the very people who scoff at the milleniums urged by socialists and others should be the ones to invent this little Utopia of their own. A great population capable of guiding all its affairs on the basis of pure reason would be a magnificent achievement were there the slightest hope of producing such a population, by education or otherwise, within the next two thousand years.
The pursuit of propaganda therefore, devolves upon the leaders of the community. Those who are required by the nature of their work to speak from the college platform or the pulpit, to write for the press, or to reduce political ideas to simple formulas are the ones, and the only ones, who need to make such a study, are indeed the only ones who can make such a study. They comprise the only section of the public that takes a real and continuous interest in large questions of social and political importance. It is for that very reason that much propaganda, especially foreign propaganda, is aimed at the intellectual rather than at the mass. It is believed, and correctly believed, that a subversive idea once firmly planted in university, religious or cultural circles, will percolate slowly downward.
How then can the educated man interested in public affairs so train himself that he will recognize propaganda? How is the minister, who is urged to preach a sermon on Peace on Earth, to know whether the alleged facts in regard to war that are supplied him by some peace society are honestly compiled for an honest purpose or are supplied by an organization which draws its inspiration, if not its funds, from the propaganda bureau of a foreign power, eager to see us weakened in the face of an armed world? How is the editor, busily engaged in disseminating the news from day to day, to know whether the carefully reasoned argument that he hears from a prominent citizen is the genuine opinion of this man, whom he knows and trusts, or is the echo of some highly colored and disingenuous speech with which his friend has been recently impressed? How is the professor to know whether the economic opinions of the eminent scholar, who has come from abroad to teach at his university, are based upon that scholar’s own study and research or are opinions that have been handed to him by his own government for dissemination here? How, in a word, is even the most highly educated person to know all this at a glance? The answer is, of course, that it simply can’t be done. There is no man living who can “recognize propaganda for just what it is whenever he hears it or wherever he reads it.”
But while it is quite impossible to recognize propaganda on sight, just because it is propaganda, it is quite possible to become so familiar with any given propaganda that it will reveal itself in spite of the best efforts of its proponents to conceal it. A study of the aims, dogmas, slogans and apologetics sent out by the large propaganda groups, social, religious and political, will be sufficient to guard the average man against the more serious pitfalls.
It is not necessary to discuss here the propaganda that is spread for commercial purposes. Such propaganda has been greatly over emphasized by the press, and this over emphasis has lead to a general adverse criticism of everyone who attempts to use this method of promoting a cause or spreading an idea. Publishers object to having a commercial idea appear in the news columns of a paper that has advertising space for sale. But whether or not the trade name of some commercial article creeps into the news column or remains within the proper bounds of the advertising column is a matter of concern to the trade only. It is a question that is of very little importance to the general public. Even where a skillful bit of commercial propaganda does have its effect upon the general public it is not a matter that need cause any serious apprehension. There is, for instance, a certain gentleman in England who feels that he can rest upon the laurels of a well spent career. He made it his life work to convince the public that tea should not be boiled, thus greatly increasing the sales of that staple product. But after all, the question of whether to boil or not to boil our tea is one that will not vastly affect the happiness of mankind, whichever way it is decided. It is the great social, religious and political propagandas that must be studied lest they wreck our institutions and ruin our future.
The methods by which propaganda is disseminated are not in themselves of the least importance. Whether an idea is presented from the lecture platform by an enthusiastic orator or is spread by word of mouth from one professor to another, whether it is sent out in the form of a poster or slipped into
* Editorial in the Saturday Evening Post, January 15, 1927.
the columns of the daily paper, has nothing whatever to do with the value or lack of value of the idea presented. Whether the idea carries with it an emotional appeal to the simpler prejudices and instincts of mankind, or is couched in the complicated and highly technical language of the so-called expert, has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the argument. Just as many silly ideas, subversive ideas, have been foisted upon the public under the guise of scholarship as by the demagogue. The particular method used in spreading an idea is not, therefore, important in itself. It depends entirely upon the constituents of the group to be reached and the character of the idea to be spread, whether the method chosen is of one kind or another.
These methods increase in complexity according to the size of the group that must be reached and the importance of the end to be gained. It is propaganda when a group of charitably minded neighbors organize for the purpose of raising funds for a new park or to improve the health conditions of a township and make speeches and distribute literature with that end in view. It is not, however, a very difficult sort of propaganda to detect. There is no reason to conceal the object behind the effort and no great amount of subtlety is required to achieve the purpose. Even a nationwide campaign for some obviously useful purpose can use methods so open that they are instantly recognized. The campaigns of the Red Cross to raise funds or the campaign conducted by the Government during the war to conserve the food supply were propaganda campaigns on a large scale but, as there was no opposition to the ends in view, there was no need to conceal the fact that the efforts were propaganda efforts and they could be, and were, recognized as such. It is not until a propaganda campaign meets real opposition that it begins to take to cover, not until there is a feeling on the part of those conducting the propaganda that its aims will be distasteful does it begin to use subtler and more involved methods.
Let us use as illustration the workings of a propaganda that everyone understands and with which everyone is familiar. Science has found itself, of late, opposed by the organized propaganda of a certain school of religious faith. This group, as everyone knows, is made up primarily of those who believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God. It is not hard, therefore, to understand such an event as the Scopes trial. Those who believe the above mentioned dogma must, almost inevitably, take a position opposed to the doctrine of evolution. It would be perfectly foolish, therefore, to go in search of some psychological mystery or weakness in scientific thought with which to explain the phenomenon in Tennessee. All that it is necessary for the searcher after the truth to do, in order to understand the opposition to evolution, is to send to one or another of the great churches involved for literature and to familiarize himself with the arguments and dogmas there set forth. He will never thereafter be in any danger of mistaking an argument against evolution that is based upon religion for a genuine scientific doubt. He will recognize almost anywhere the point of view and the phraseology of those anti-evolutionists who are speaking or writing from a religious premise. There is not the slightest danger that he will mistake a Methodist tract for a pamphlet by the Smithsonian Institute.
But while the searcher after the unadulterated truth is making this and other studies for the purpose of innoculating himself against propaganda, there are a few simple rules that can be put into effect at once.
Beware of pamphlets and free literature. Arguments, information or statistics that are widely distributed free to the public at large, or to selected sections of the public, are necessarily and on the face of them, propaganda of some kind. No one gives away something for nothing. There is a purpose good, bad, or indifferent behind every such distribution of literature. And the alleged facts or statistics are almost certain to be colored by that purpose. Use these facts and statistics, by all means, if they are interesting or significant. But verify them first by reference to an encyclopedia, an almanac, a government report, or any other neutral source of information. And make a mental note of this pamphlet and propaganda so that you will recognize it thereafter wherever you see it.
Take the advice of foreigners, all foreigners, with a grain of salt. This sounds a little provincial at first glance but is necessary, nevertheless, in order to maintain an unbiased view of the world. It is only human nature to have prejudices based on inherited tradition. Every man, consciously or unconsciously, is first an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German, a Dutchman or a Jew, and only secondly a citizen of the world. It is sad, but nevertheless true, that even scientists and scholars are afflicted with this common human trait. We have with us at present a great many visiting lecturers and university professors who are advising the American public how to conduct its affairs. It is greatly to the advantage of our scholarship that the poverty of Europe has given us the opportunity to profit by the learning of such men. What they have to say on their own subjects is a gain for this country, but when they speak on international affairs they must and do speak from the point of view of their own country rather than from that of the United States. And they are apt to carry with them some of their intimate friends and colleagues of American stock. A recent proclamation by forty-eight Columbia professors upon the subject of the cancellation of the war debts illustrates luridly how readily even scholarship may be made a pawn in the game of propaganda.
Never present one side of a problem only. Have the other side presented as well. Much propaganda is spread by the simple device of supplying lecturers free, or at low cost, to clubs of various kinds. Rather than go to the expense of engaging another lecturer, who may have to be paid full rates, to present the other side of the question, the club hears only one side and thus the propaganda spreads and spreads. If it is impossible to obtain a lecturer on each side of every controversial question one side may be made the subject of research by the club itself.
Be a bit cautious of sudden popular enthusiasms that have no apparent cause. A genuine popular wave of feeling always has some event as its motive force. Hatred of Spain was focused by the blowing up of the Maine; attention was called to Germany by the outbreak of the war in Europe; interest in the public health is stimulated in case of an epidemic; interest in party politics is aroused by the necessity for electing a president; and so on. But whenever a subject flares up as a matter of public interest without the presence of any event as a cause, that interest is almost certainly being stimulated by somebody’s propaganda. Everyone, for instance, was interested, to some extent, in Russia at the time of the Revolution. But as nothing new of a startling nature has occurred in Russia for years, interest in that country, such as it is, must be kept alive by artificial stimulation. The League of Nations, also, is a subject of this kind.
It is sometimes possible to spot an individual as a leader in some form of propaganda by noting the various activities with which he becomes associated. If a noted man appears on one committee as advocating racial equality; if he appears on another committee as urging better relations with the Orient; if he appears on a third committee for the purpose of stimulating an appreciation of Japanese art; and if in addition he has a decoration from the Mikado; the inference may be drawn that he has some definite connection, sentimental or sinister, with the Empire of Japan. And it may be said in passing that a decoration from a sovereign government is not infrequently conferred upon an American for his propaganda activities, intentional or otherwise, on behalf of that government.
Propaganda can sometimes be traced by its phraseology. The Socialistic propaganda, particularly, has a habit of coining unusual and sometimes awkward words and phrases. When these awkward words and phrases turn up in an apparently unrelated bit of argument it is a fair indication that the writer is at least strongly influenced by Socialistic thought.
And there is one general rule that should be applied to every argument before it is passed on to the public by the editor, the clergyman, the club leader, or the politician with aspirations toward statesmanship. It is this. "If this argument is followed to its logical conclusion, who will he the immediate and greatest beneficiary? No matter what the ultimate aim of the course here advocated, is there not some group that will benefit immediately if the plan is put into execution.” An example of this line of reasoning would be an analysis of the pacifist program as applied to this country. It may, conceivably, be true that complete disarmament throughout the world would lead to universal brotherhood. But, as the voters of the United States have power only over our own armaments, to act upon the pacifist program would be to disarm ourselves. Who would be the immediate beneficiaries if such a program were undertaken? Obviously our armed rivals and potential enemies, if such exist. It would be fair, therefore, to suspect pacifism in this country of having the support of foreign trade rivals and potential enemies. This does not mean that every propaganda that has the support of some unrelated group, and most have, is wrong in itself. But that support should be taken into consideration.
But there are no tricks of the trade that will take the place of a serious study of the aims and purposes of the great organizations now actively engaged in spreading propaganda on a large scale. No man should attempt to guide others in their thinking upon large social and political issues until he has made such a study. Of course it is not necessary to follow up every cult, charitable organization and political notion that comes to his attention. Nor is it necessary to study even a great propaganda, such as that of Pan-Islam, that does not directly affect this country. But every such man should have a knowledge of the purposes, aims and fundamental dogmas of the three great religious groups dominant in this country; the group of Orthodox Protestant churches, commonly referred to as Fundamentalists; the group of Liberal churches, of which the Unitarian church is an historic example; and the Roman Catholic Church. He should know something of the code of morals and manners underlying monarchy and the feudal system. While no one is now advocating a return to those two institutions as forms of government the mental pattern produced by them is still actively at work in world affairs. He should understand the theories that underlie our form of government as expressed by its founders, and have some conception of the basic principles of the common law. He should be thoroughly familiar with the dogmas of Socialism, its aims, its purpose and its avowed method. Especially lie should read some of the propaganda emanating from Moscow, the official pronouncements of the Communist group. He should know the objects of the various racial groups resident in this country. And he should understand the purposes of the propaganda that originates in Western Europe.
This program is not, as would appear at first glance, a very large order. The reading of half a dozen standard works of history, which will be recommended by any good librarian, will give the background for many trends of thought that are to the American mind inexplicable and mysterious. Definite information as to the purposes of religious bodies, racial groups, and the Socialist school of thought can be had upon request. The purposes of Western Europe are not so openly stated by their proponents. They have been summed up by Mr. Garet Garrett, formerly editor of the New York Tribune, in an article in the Saturday Evening Post, as follows:
That Americans should charge the war debts to themselves; that the United States should sit with the powers of Europe in the League of Nations and submit to the World Court; that it should be content with the second largest navy and practice unpreparedness for war; that it should denationalize its ambitions, regard its wealth as a gift in trust for the benefit of the world, and feel internationally.
This summary is sufficiently comprehensive for a practical working guide. The details may be gathered from a perusal of the foreign press, or even excerpts from the foreign press published in America, together with the exercise of a little common sense.
But when all is said and done, the seeker after truth must bear one thing clearly in mind. In order to be useful it is not necessary to be cynical. Propaganda is not in it
self an evil or if it is undesirable in some respects, it is a necessary evil in the modern world. It may be that, after a careful study of propaganda such as is suggested in this article, the reader will find himself heartily in agreement with one or another school of thought here recommended for study. The thing to do in that case is to ally himself with the group with which he finds himself sympathetic and to push its propaganda openly and with enthusiasm. Man is a clubby and gregarious creature. It is a great satisfaction to join with others in a common cause and vibrate to a common emotion. All that can be expected of the ordinary mortal is that he shall understand clearly the cause for which he cheers. It is a rare soul who can free himself from all dogmas, theories and causes, and look reality in the face, who can understand all propaganda but follow none, who can truthfully say with Mirabeau, “I have swallowed all formulas.” But to such a man, when he does appear, mankind turns for leadership as irresistibly as the planets follow the sun.