What Manipulation Looks Like
In September 2025, Canadian MP Rachel Thomas rose in the House of Commons to address the issue of political violence. It is a subject no one can oppose. Her statement was framed as a call to unity, a reminder that democracy cannot survive if intimidation and force replace debate. Yet, in the same breath, she praised Charlie Kirk, a polarizing activist known for his hostility to LGBTQ rights, his dismissal of racial justice movements, and his conspiracy-tinged attacks on democracy. Members of Parliament applauded. In that applause, they were endorsing the universal value of rejecting violence and, whether they meant to or not, also applauded Kirk.
A similar kind of bind played out on a much larger stage during the Super Bowl. Millions of viewers saw glossy ads under the banner “He Gets Us,” which portrayed Jesus as a figure of compassion, humility, and unity. On the surface, nothing could be safer to endorse.
But reporting by the Associated Press and others revealed the campaign was funded by groups tied to conservative causes, including opposition to abortion and LGBTQ rights. By applauding the ads, audiences were not only embracing the message of love and forgiveness. They were, knowingly or not, lending legitimacy to the political agenda of their funders.
Both cases reveal the same propaganda tactic, an applause trap: tie something everyone agrees on with something deeply contested, so that applauding one means endorsing both — and it quickly becomes impossible to say no.
Why Manipulation Through Propaganda Matters
These applause traps are not just clever rhetoric. They are tools of manipulation that reach far beyond governments or high-profile ad campaigns. When a value like safety, freedom, or faith is tied to a divisive cause, it creates pressure on everyone who hears it. Politicians risk reputational damage or attack ads if they withhold support. Donors face calls for boycotts. Journalists and influencers are accused of being hostile to faith or freedom if they raise objections. Ordinary citizens also feel the weight, caught between not wanting to oppose cherished values and not wanting to endorse policies they may find troubling.
Manipulation is powerful. Toxic ideas are laundered into respectability. Polarizing figures gain legitimacy through association with values everyone holds. And the public sphere narrows as people feel they have no choice but to comply. This matters because democracy depends on free and informed judgment. If values as wrappers are used as a means to force consensus, then debate is no longer free, and real democracy ceases to exist.
Background: Genealogy of the Tactic
The propaganda strategy of wrapping contested agendas in accepted values is not new. Rhetorician Richard Weaver describes these values as “god terms” – words so powerful that they command automatic agreement. To reject them is to risk appearing immoral or unpatriotic. Their counterparts, “devil terms,” are used to discredit opponents by attaching them to universally despised concepts. These words are what we now refer to as “hot button” terms. They bypass reasoning and spark emotion first, often outrage or pride, leaving little room for thoughtful debate and forcing people into agreement.
History offers many examples. The Cold War, which lasted from the end of World War II in 1945 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, was a clash of ideologies — Soviet Union communism versus American capitalism — that shaped everything from foreign wars to domestic politics. During this period, American leaders often used the language of “freedom” to justify interventions abroad, covert operations, and loyalty tests at home. McCarthyism, with its investigations and blacklists, became the most notorious of these tests, pressuring citizens to prove their loyalty or risk their careers. Questioning such policies meant appearing to side with communism, an accusation that could end a career.
A generation later, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States passed the Patriot Act. It was framed as essential to “safety” and “national security.” Lawmakers who raised concerns about intrusive surveillance and civil liberties were quickly painted as weak on terror.
The same tactic has appeared in Canada. During the Afghanistan mission, from 2001 to 2014, Members of Parliament regularly stood for “support our troops” motions. On the surface, these were gestures of respect for soldiers, but they also served as tacit endorsement for the war itself. Opposing the mission risked being seen as disrespectful to the men and women in uniform, even if the objection was to government policy rather than the troops themselves.
Anatomy of the Tactic
The pattern of propaganda is always the same. First, choose a value that works as a moral cover — one no one dares to oppose, like freedom, safety, or faith. Next, wrap it around a policy or cause that might not win support on its own. Finally, turn disagreement into a moral failing: questioning the policy is perceived as being anti-freedom, anti-safety, or anti-faith.
Case Studies
The clearest way to see the propaganda tactic at work is in practice.
Faith / Jesus
On the right. “He Gets Us” Super Bowl ads presented Jesus as a unifying figure of compassion, but the campaign was funded by groups tied to anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ causes. Turning Point USA uses the wholesome slogan “Faith. Family. Freedom.” to shield its culture-war politics, making critics look anti-faith or anti-family. The NRA frames gun ownership as a “God-given right,” transforming regulation into an attack on religion.
On the left. Progressive clergy-led climate groups frame environmental action as a “moral responsibility” of faith communities. Civil rights leaders often describe justice campaigns as rooted in a sense of religious obligation.
Safety
On the right. After 9/11, the Patriot Act expanded surveillance powers under the banner of safety. Anti-immigration policies are also framed as a means of keeping communities safe. Calls for policing reform or accountability are countered with slogans like “back the blue” or “law and order,” turning needed critique into a supposed threat to public order.
On the left. Gun control campaigns often invoke school shootings and the slogan ‘keeping our kids safe.’ It’s a powerful frame, but it can flatten debate by making any opposition sound like indifference to children’s lives. Some critics may not reject safety, but instead question whether certain laws would be effective, fairly enforced, or respectful of lawful ownership. Environmental advocates do something similar when they frame climate policy as essential for ‘a safe future.’ The value of safety resonates, but it blurs the lines between policy disagreements over cost, speed, or scope and an outright disregard for survival itself.
Freedom
On the right. During the Cold War, critics of loyalty tests were portrayed as siding with communism, which was seen as the opposite of freedom. Business lobbies brand deregulation as “economic freedom” even when it weakens protections for citizens. More recently, politicians and media figures have invoked “freedom of speech” as a shield for disinformation campaigns, making any attempt at fact-checking or moderation look like censorship.
On the left. Advocates often frame universal healthcare as a matter of freedom — the freedom to see a doctor when needed and not to go bankrupt if you get sick. It’s powerful language because everyone wants that kind of security. But the framing also makes the debate lopsided: anyone who questions costs, for example, risks being painted as anti-freedom or anti-health.
These examples show that the tactic isn’t tied to one side’s beliefs. Whether the value invoked is faith, safety, or freedom, moral covers make it harder to question policy without appearing to reject the value itself.
However, the tactic’s use does tend to differ. Progressives often draw on moral arguments to advance rights-based causes, such as reproductive freedom, civil rights protections, and climate responsibility, where the value and policy points align in the same direction. Conservatives, by contrast, more often use moral covers to shield agendas that are corrosive or exclusionary if described plainly: eg. restricting LGBTQ rights, expanding surveillance, or rolling back regulations.
Both sides rely on the tactic, but the right has made it a playbook, embedding it into party platforms, media ecosystems, and movement slogans. The sheer reach of the tactic, combined with the harmful policies it protects, makes it hard for people to resist.
Coming up:
In part 2 of the series, we’ll explore why propaganda is dangerous, who benefits from it, and how intimidation and coercion keep it in place. We’ll also look at ways to expose propaganda and protect the integrity of genuine democratic debate.
