Generally this ‘aim high, hit low’ approach applies to a lot of things. If you say an attack killed 60 people, and your enemy says it killed 5, people will feel that it probably killed something like 20 or 30. If you put out propaganda saying that blackouts are, actually good - whether you paint them as some noble sacrifice for the cause, or as secretly-beneficial, or whatever - then people who would otherwise hate them will be swayed to a comfortable neutrality.
The next best thing after someone who supports you is someone who tolerates you, and the best way to get lots of people to tolerate you is by making them think that, maybe, they should really be supporting you. It’ll be rare to get someone to believe that whatever political maneuver you’re pulling is actually righteous, but, if you make it (seem like) an opinion that at least exists, then the comfortable middle-ground most people will take will be to simply not oppose it.
There doesn’t need to be a difficult argument on whether something is good, or exists, there just needs to be an argument. That’s enough to make people steer clear of it.
