Contempt for the public cannot be voiced politely even when activists privately feel it

Evidence

This kind of radicalism assumed a great distance between ”radicals” and ”the public” — the assumption would be that if most people are just stupid, then there is no harm in manipulating them. The relation between spectacle and message, between cultural radicalism, political analysis, and winning their immediate battle was a topic of recurrent debate. Activists worried that the public forum was hopelessly poisoned by people with money and power, who could explain themselves by greasing palms and twisting arms. … There was no way to express these doubts about the public without sounding ”radical” like Tom and Donald, without insulting the public. Since most activists did not want to sound arrogantly scornful of the public, they could not voice these concerns. — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics, 1316

Categorization

• QUESTION: Does the inability to voice anti-public contempt force activists toward either silence or self-styled radicalism, closing off a middle register?
• XREF: connects to: Activists switch to depoliticized language when speaking in public. — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”: The work of avoiding…, 118; Volunteer groups suppress political talk even though members privately care — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 192; Activists sound less publicly minded in public than in private — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 1205 (+2 more)