Por estes dias, já só consigo pensar no grande William Riker.
" 'Democratic political outcomes (...) are an amalgamation that often operates quite personally and unfairly, giving special advantages to smarter or bolder or more powerful or more creative ot simply luckier participants' (Riker 1982, p. 200). The outgrowth of the indeterminacy Riker sees in democratic regimes is a type of political entrepeneurship he labels heresthetic. This is the art of creating successful coalitions by reframing alternatives, so that people are induced or compelled to join without necessarily being persuaded to the leader's point of view."
Linda L. Fowler, recensão de The Art of Political Manipulation
"The classic heresthetic is reducing or increasing dimensionality. Thus, when 'a person expects to lose on some decision, the fundamental heresthetical device is to divide the majority with a new alternative, one that he prefers to the alternative previously expected to win. (...) A pure heresthetic does not shape preferences but structures a situation so that other participants must act in a way that suits the heresthetician's interests even though the former's preferences remain unchanged."
Andrew Taylor, Stanley Baldwin, heresthetics and the realignment of British politics
"Advocates attempt to manipulate preferences in several ways. (...) However, the most frequently attempted manipulation - and the one to which advocates devote most of their creative energy and time - is the formulation and presentation of 'interpretations' of various policy proposals. (...) An 'interpretation' consists on a set of arguments about the consequences of the policy proposal. (...) The aim of each interpretation is to emphasize a dimension of judgement what will lead people to prefer on policy proposal over competing, alternative proposals."
Richard Lau et al, Political Beliefs, Policy Interpretations, and Political Persuasion.