By Ron Raskin
The mass media and our information landscape are saturated with empty slogans. Unfortunately, most people often take these as authentic ideas and intentions, when in reality, they are simply “public messages” that often have little to do with what politicians truly believe.
These slogans frequently fuel intense battles between political groups, generating sensational headlines as they hurl rhetoric at each other, all while lacking any real connection to the underlying ideas and disagreements.
These conflicts stir up public emotions, evoking anger or a sense of spiritual inspiration, making people feel engaged, yet in many cases, they are merely illusions. Why does this happen, and how does it work?
In many situations, policymakers can’t reveal their true thoughts or intentions—either because it would expose plans better kept in the dark or because it would be too difficult to explain to the public. In both cases, the solution is to offer a simple message that the public will accept. Typically, this is an emotional appeal that guides people in the desired direction but has little to do with the actual reasoning behind the policy.
This isn’t quite the same as the “political sailing” I discussed in another post, but it shares a common thread: in both cases, the general public is kept in the dark about the true direction and intentions of the politicians.
Consider recent examples from the news, such as “Stop the war in Gaza”. This phrase serves as a placeholder for various underlying ideas and intentions. One of the most significant comes from the U.S. and some Western European countries. The true intention behind the call to “Stop the war in Gaza” is to encourage Israel to shift its strategy. Instead of focusing on the destruction of Hamas through military means, the idea is to bypass this approach by securing a peace deal with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations. According to this view, such a deal would ultimately do more to undermine Hamas than direct military action would.
A somewhat similar perspective, though focused more on “how to deal” with Hamas, is emerging within Israel itself, centered on the feasibility of breaking Hamas. According to this viewpoint, Hamas cannot be completely destroyed, so the best course of action is to minimize losses and contain the situation.
The third perspective comes from anti-Israel states and entities like Iran, Lebanon, and Turkey, as well as various pro-Palestinian movements. These groups essentially want Hamas to remain in power, viewing it as a defeat for Israel, with the long-term goal of dismantling the Israeli state entirely.
As these examples show, although all these ideas share the same message, their intentions and objectives can sometimes be completely opposed.
In summary, the political world operates on two parallel planes: one of genuine intentions and another crafted solely for public consumption. While there is some connection between these two planes, the link is often very tenuous. This leads to an important question: on what basis does the public actually judge their politicians?