by Marvin Olasky
July 27, 2006

Some public relations pros don’t twist and shout. They truly subscribe to John Milton’s faith from the 1640s that truth and falsehood should be allowed to grapple, for truth would not lose “in a free and open encounter.” But others try to snuff out that “open encounter” — and that’s the trouble with what’s happening on the eve of Kansas’s Aug. 1 GOP primary.

A bit of background: 22 years ago I interviewed a remarkable fellow, Edward Bernays (1891-1995), nephew of Sigmund Freud and founder as a young man of modern public relations. Bernays was 93 when we talked and full of memories of famous clients ranging from tobacco industry poobahs (he convinced women to embrace smoking as an expression of their liberation) to Eleanor Roosevelt. Their photos decorated the walls of his house near Harvard.

Bernays said he had no belief in God but a strong faith in what he had declared openly six decades before: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

He proudly considered himself one of “the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses.” He was proud to “pull the wires which control the public mind” so that “vast numbers of human beings … live together as a smoothly functioning society.” The politically-liberal Bernays considered himself, even as he tried to make millions of people his puppets, a defender of democracy: If he didn’t act as he did, the dark night of fascism would descend on America.

In the 1930s, with Hitler and Mussolini in power across the ocean, and Depression-driven fears animating many domestically, Bernays’ concerns were not irrational. But what about now? The Bush administration’s attempts to intercept terrorist communications and financial transfers don’t bother me. That seems like the minimum of due diligence required when the bin Ladens of the world are taking us to and beyond the eve of destruction.

Still, even if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzalez endangers our liberty, is there also a vast Bush-led conspiracy to take away the opportunity for children to become proficient in science? That’s what the Campaign to Defend the Constitution (DefCon) would have us believe. In true Bernaysian fashion, DefCon wants to “highlight the threat the religious right poses to our children’s education and … prevent the erosion of science.”

Here’s DefCon’s problem of the week: The state of Kansas has curriculum standards that “call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory.” Is that a crime? Maybe. DefCon and another group with a euphonious name, Kansas Citizens for Science, are propagandizing voters to kick conservatives and moderates off the Kansas Board of Education next Tuesday.

The Kansas board had acted moderately: It has just wanted schools to “teach the debate” about evolution. It’s strange: Science is all about asking questions, so how is a group “for science” when it wants to cut off even the tiniest amount of question-asking? The attempt to scare voters into purging the Kansas Board of Education only makes sense in Bernaysian terms. “We have no being in the air to watch over us,” he told me, so we need “human gods” to preserve us from “chaos.”

Bernays saw Judaism and Christianity as potent lies that had to be fought by PR folks such as himself who would “make the public believe that human gods are watching over us.” Today, those “human gods” are the scientific establishment. Questions about Darwinism suggest the possibility that some “being in the air” might be involved — and if we fall for such a myth, according to Bernays, we end up in chaos.


— Dr. Marvin Olasky, is editor-in-chief of World Magazine and is widely credited as the father of President Bush’s “compassionate conservatism”.