The problem is to identify the irrational people and show the rational ones what they are doing, not just to say I do not agree.

That was a challenge but it did not explain to the masses why it was wrong. It did nothing to get the average person behind him. It did nothing to explain the cause and effect of what was going on.

The support or lack of support should be in the form of sales. There should be no need for the general population to have warm fuzzy feelings for you, unless it is by their will that you are allowed to exist. Since the hero characters disagree with the 'allowed to exist' premise, they just do their best to ignore the 'pull' currency (popular sentiment).

Yes. That was my problem too. These characters were smart people, but they're completely stymied when it comes to politics. It was hard to believe they could get as far as they did without being able to deal with people they didn't agree with.

He hired Mouch with the expectation that Mouch would do what he was paid to do, and said he would do, represent him. The underhanded dealings of Mouch are the same as what we get from our 'employees', those we elect and pay to represent us. Their motives are usually hidden from our scrutiny and we never know how we're getting screwed until it happens.

A scene from the walking dead comes to mind....when the new comers show up at the prison and one of them showed his cards in some way that he was just waiting for an opportunity to slay them...the sheriff did not miss this queue and didn't hesitate to machete him right then and there. Threat gone. Also when Carl was approached by a teenager in the woods with a gun and Carl said, "Drop the gun!" and instead of dropping the gun the teenager acted like he was going to hand Carl the gun and Carl shot him and said, "I said to drop it." There are times when you don't hesitate once intent has been shown even if they're not charging you....yet.

the threat of force constitutes force.

"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live.
Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no “right” to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.
To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment; you threaten him with death if he does. You place him in a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.
Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: “Your money or your life,” or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: “Your children’s education or your life,” the meaning of that ultimatum is: “Your mind or your life”—and neither is possible to man without the other." Galt's Speech

One time against many missed opportunities. It is just like the Republicans saying that they need to talk to the people more. They put together a team to analyze the problem. Their answer is not to explain more to the people but to find more ways to put the same stuff out to the people. In other words turn up the volume.

Yes they had given up, but all I saw was as the going got tougher they worked harder to make their businesses work. They never tried to involve the people in understanding what was going wrong. A current example would be the stimulus the government has and wants to do. No one is explaining why it won't work to the people. Scientifically, the stimulus is a form of perpetual motion and there are many examples that can show this.

The problem is that those in a position to do something about it are too busy talking to listen or engage in a conversation with anyone who wants to challenge their ideas.

Instead of trying to attack individual points, what is need is to get the media involved so that there are people to cover multiple points at one time. Maybe a concerted effort to shame a few high profile people into connecting the dots!