These quotes are from Hannah Arendt's 1951 book, The Origins of Totalitarianism. Her observations came from her research into the nature and origins of murderous 20th century totalitarianism in its savage 19th century anti-Semitic and imperialist roots. These sentiments remain generally relevant to American politics today.
“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”
“Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.”
“Caution in handling generally accepted opinions that claim to explain whole trends of history is especially important for the historian of modern times, because the last century has produced an abundance of ideologies that pretend to be keys to history but are actually nothing but desperate efforts to escape responsibility.”
“One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive.”
“True goal of totalitarian propaganda is not persuasion, but organization of the polity. ... What convinces masses are not facts, and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably part.”
B&B orig: 5/17/19
Monday, June 3, 2019
Truth Decay
Over the last couple of years, the RAND Corporation has been doing a deep dive into the political-social phenomenon they call truth decay. The study is part of an effort to "restore the role of facts and analysis in public life."
That sounds much like the anti-biasing anti-ideology, pragmatic rationalism, ideology that is advocated here at B&B. Two of the four core moral values that pragmatic rationalism is built on are (i) fidelity to trying to see objective facts and truths, to the extent they can be objectively based, with less bias and distortion, and (ii) fidelity to trying to apply less biased conscious reason (roughly, logic) to the facts one thinks one sees. Apparently, RAND and B&B are significantly on the same page.
RAND's 326 page 2018 book, Truth Decay, can be downloaded for free here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2314.html [1]
In a summary post, RAND comments:
RAND's findings so far point to the main drivers of truth decay as being (i) cognitive biases, (ii) the rise of social media and other changes to the information environment, (iii) demands on the educational system that limit its ability to keep up with changes in the information ecosystem, and (iv) political and social polarization. Political and social polarization can reasonably be seen as political and social tribalism that tends to be significantly fact- and logic-destroying or distorting for most people (~95% ?) most of the time.
A prior discussion about a survey of experts of President Trump noted that he was ranked as the most polarizing President in US history, significantly out ranking Abe Lincoln, who came in a fairly distant second. Both RAND's sources of truth decay and its drivers seem be generally in accord with the political reality of at least the last 15 years or so, maybe the last 30 years or so.
An existential threat?: Over at his happy blog, Neurologica, Steven Novella posited RAND's truth decay observations as possibly constituting an existential threat, presumably at least to modern civilization, and maybe to the human species itself. Novella writes:
The short chain of moral logic: Cognitive and social science both strongly argue that the human mind is inherently susceptible to truth decay or dark free speech such as lies, deceit, and unwarranted emotional manipulation, especially fomented negative emotions such as fear, anger, hate, distrust, intolerance and bigotry or racism, all of which are usually intentionally associated with a person's tribal identity. Use of truth decay to deceive and manipulate the public is common among people with low or essentially no decent moral values because it works. The purveyors of truth decay either don't care about the morality if it, or they believe the usually immoral proposition that the ends justify the means and is thus moral, at least when they do it (but it's not when the other side does it).
The limited grasp of history I have says that social and international conflicts are usually (≥ ~95% of the time?) seeded by shrewd purveyors of truth decay to whip an up antagonistic us vs. them social mentality. That appears to be so common that one can argues there is a chain of logic with two necessary links in it. The first link is heavy seeding of the social milieu with vast quantities of truth decay or dark free speech. That seeding of the public with lies, deceit and irrational emotion is the necessary prelude to unnecessary violent conflict, at least by aggressors.
If that logic is sound, then from a moral point of view, one can argue that use of truth decay to deceive, mislead and foment the negative emotions needed for social acceptance of violence is the moral equivalent of the actual violence itself. One could even see truth decay as a form of violence because it relies on coerces minds into false and/or irrational beliefs.
When viewed in that way, fidelity to objective facts and truths, to the extent they can be ascertained (and they often cannot be fully ascertained, leaving some degree of ambiguity), can bee seen as one of the highest, most important moral values a human can hold. The same applies to the moral value of trying to be less biased in one's conscious reasoning about the facts and truths one thinks one sees.
So, the question is this: Is using truth decay or dark free speech to deceive and emotionally poison minds as immoral as actual unwarranted violence?
Footnote:
1. The first paragraph and a half of the book says this: "Much has been written about the growing disregard for facts, data, and analysis in political and civil discourse in the United States. Increasingly, it seems that important policy debates, both within the federal government and across the electorate, are as likely to hinge on opinion or anecdote as they are on objective facts or rigorous analysis. However, policy decisions made primarily on the basis of opinion or anecdote can have deleterious effects on American democracy and might impose significant costs on the public.
The current discourse about the diminishing role of, trust in, and respect for facts, data, and analysis is often hamstrung by the use of conflicting language and unclear or undefined terms. Without a common language with which to discuss the problem—which we are calling Truth Decay—the search for solutions becomes more difficult. This report seeks to address this gap by offering a clear definition of Truth Decay and an examination of its drivers and consequences—all with the aim of creating a foundation for more-meaningful discussion of the challenges to U.S. political and civil discourse."
B&B orig: 5/16/19
That sounds much like the anti-biasing anti-ideology, pragmatic rationalism, ideology that is advocated here at B&B. Two of the four core moral values that pragmatic rationalism is built on are (i) fidelity to trying to see objective facts and truths, to the extent they can be objectively based, with less bias and distortion, and (ii) fidelity to trying to apply less biased conscious reason (roughly, logic) to the facts one thinks one sees. Apparently, RAND and B&B are significantly on the same page.
RAND's 326 page 2018 book, Truth Decay, can be downloaded for free here: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2314.html [1]
In a summary post, RAND comments:
There are four trends that characterize Truth Decay:
1. increasing disagreement about facts and analytical interpretations of facts and data 2. a blurring of the line between opinion and fact 3. the increasing relative volume and resulting influence of opinion and personal experience over fact 4. declining trust in formerly respected sources of facts.
Most of these trends are not unprecedented in American history. But today's level of disagreement over objective facts is a new phenomenon.
RAND's findings so far point to the main drivers of truth decay as being (i) cognitive biases, (ii) the rise of social media and other changes to the information environment, (iii) demands on the educational system that limit its ability to keep up with changes in the information ecosystem, and (iv) political and social polarization. Political and social polarization can reasonably be seen as political and social tribalism that tends to be significantly fact- and logic-destroying or distorting for most people (~95% ?) most of the time.
A prior discussion about a survey of experts of President Trump noted that he was ranked as the most polarizing President in US history, significantly out ranking Abe Lincoln, who came in a fairly distant second. Both RAND's sources of truth decay and its drivers seem be generally in accord with the political reality of at least the last 15 years or so, maybe the last 30 years or so.
An existential threat?: Over at his happy blog, Neurologica, Steven Novella posited RAND's truth decay observations as possibly constituting an existential threat, presumably at least to modern civilization, and maybe to the human species itself. Novella writes:
What is the greatest threat facing human civilization? This question is obviously meant to be provocative, and is probably inherently unanswerable. But I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that perhaps the greatest threat is the deterioration of fact-based political and social discussion. The argument is that this is a meta-problem that keeps us from effectively addressing all other problems.
But of course we don’t want to assume anything, which would ironically be part of the very problem itself. We first need to ask – are these trends actually happening or are they just illusion and confirmation bias? Also, can we put these trends into historical context? RAND recently conducted a study looking at item #3 – the relative volume of opinion vs fact-based reporting in the media over the last 28 years.
They identified several trends, which may contribute to Truth Decay. The first is that prior to 2000 broadcast news tended to be more academic and fact-based. After 2000 the news became more narrative based – presented more as simplistic stories, with less complexity and nuance.
Over this same time there was a shift in viewership from broadcast to cable networks. The cable networks contained much more opinion-based reporting, and far less fact-based reporting. They were more likely to have people discussing the news rather than giving a prepared factual report of the news. So essentially we went from watching Walter Cronkite to The View.
In print they saw a similar pattern. Print newspapers have changed the least, but also have shifted toward a more narrative style (just not as much). Meanwhile there was a shift to digital print news, which is more personal and anecdote-based.
All of these trends verify the concern that the overall volume of information being consumed by Americans has shifted from fact-based reporting to personal stories, narratives, discussions and opinions. We are no longer content to have a talking head give us a prepared digested form of “Just the facts, Ma’am” (which is, ironically, itself a bit of false reporting). We want to be entertained with a story, we want our emotional buttons pressed.
The short chain of moral logic: Cognitive and social science both strongly argue that the human mind is inherently susceptible to truth decay or dark free speech such as lies, deceit, and unwarranted emotional manipulation, especially fomented negative emotions such as fear, anger, hate, distrust, intolerance and bigotry or racism, all of which are usually intentionally associated with a person's tribal identity. Use of truth decay to deceive and manipulate the public is common among people with low or essentially no decent moral values because it works. The purveyors of truth decay either don't care about the morality if it, or they believe the usually immoral proposition that the ends justify the means and is thus moral, at least when they do it (but it's not when the other side does it).
The limited grasp of history I have says that social and international conflicts are usually (≥ ~95% of the time?) seeded by shrewd purveyors of truth decay to whip an up antagonistic us vs. them social mentality. That appears to be so common that one can argues there is a chain of logic with two necessary links in it. The first link is heavy seeding of the social milieu with vast quantities of truth decay or dark free speech. That seeding of the public with lies, deceit and irrational emotion is the necessary prelude to unnecessary violent conflict, at least by aggressors.
If that logic is sound, then from a moral point of view, one can argue that use of truth decay to deceive, mislead and foment the negative emotions needed for social acceptance of violence is the moral equivalent of the actual violence itself. One could even see truth decay as a form of violence because it relies on coerces minds into false and/or irrational beliefs.
When viewed in that way, fidelity to objective facts and truths, to the extent they can be ascertained (and they often cannot be fully ascertained, leaving some degree of ambiguity), can bee seen as one of the highest, most important moral values a human can hold. The same applies to the moral value of trying to be less biased in one's conscious reasoning about the facts and truths one thinks one sees.
So, the question is this: Is using truth decay or dark free speech to deceive and emotionally poison minds as immoral as actual unwarranted violence?
Footnote:
1. The first paragraph and a half of the book says this: "Much has been written about the growing disregard for facts, data, and analysis in political and civil discourse in the United States. Increasingly, it seems that important policy debates, both within the federal government and across the electorate, are as likely to hinge on opinion or anecdote as they are on objective facts or rigorous analysis. However, policy decisions made primarily on the basis of opinion or anecdote can have deleterious effects on American democracy and might impose significant costs on the public.
The current discourse about the diminishing role of, trust in, and respect for facts, data, and analysis is often hamstrung by the use of conflicting language and unclear or undefined terms. Without a common language with which to discuss the problem—which we are calling Truth Decay—the search for solutions becomes more difficult. This report seeks to address this gap by offering a clear definition of Truth Decay and an examination of its drivers and consequences—all with the aim of creating a foundation for more-meaningful discussion of the challenges to U.S. political and civil discourse."
B&B orig: 5/16/19
The Power of Irrational Emotion to Make People Irrational
An article in the Independent says this about the power of hate and bigotry to lead people into irrational beliefs.
That shows the power of irrational bigotry and hate to shut down logical thinking. This is why ideologues, demagogues and tyrants routinely resort to dark free speech (lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity to hide truths, unwarranted emotional manipulation to foment negative emotions, especially fear, anger, hate, intolerance, bigotry, racism, distrust, etc.). By fomenting an irrational, emotion-dominated mindset, ideologues, demagogues and tyrants can better create false realities as they make their run for ideological dominance, power and wealth.
Does that mean such people are stupid? No. It does mean they have been deceived and used in service to the agenda of others who don't care about adverse consequences to the deceived and used people. That is what divisive dark free speech-driven politics is doing to American society today. We all know who is doing this to us.
Do we need to rename Arabic numerals as American numerals?
B&B orig: 5/18/19
Seventy-two per cent of Republicans oppose Western world's standard numeric system, according to research designed to 'tease out prejudice among those who didn't understand the question'.
Fifty-six per cent of people say the numerals should not part of the curriculum for US pupils, according to research designed to explore the bias and prejudice of poll respondents.
The digits 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are referred to as Arabic numerals.
The system was first developed by Indian mathematicians before spreading through the Arab world to Europe and becoming popularised around the globe.
A survey by Civic Science, an American market research company, asked 3,624 respondents: “Should schools in America teach Arabic numerals as part of their curriculum?” The poll did not explain what the term “Arabic numerals” meant.
Some 2,020 people answered “no”. Twenty-nine per cent of respondents said the numerals should be taught in US schools, and 15 per cent had no opinion.
John Dick, chief executive of Civic Science, said the results were “the saddest and funniest testament to American bigotry we’ve ever seen in our data”.
That shows the power of irrational bigotry and hate to shut down logical thinking. This is why ideologues, demagogues and tyrants routinely resort to dark free speech (lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity to hide truths, unwarranted emotional manipulation to foment negative emotions, especially fear, anger, hate, intolerance, bigotry, racism, distrust, etc.). By fomenting an irrational, emotion-dominated mindset, ideologues, demagogues and tyrants can better create false realities as they make their run for ideological dominance, power and wealth.
Does that mean such people are stupid? No. It does mean they have been deceived and used in service to the agenda of others who don't care about adverse consequences to the deceived and used people. That is what divisive dark free speech-driven politics is doing to American society today. We all know who is doing this to us.
Do we need to rename Arabic numerals as American numerals?
B&B orig: 5/18/19
Pragmatic Rationalism: An Anti-Biasing, Anti-Ideology Ideology
Cognitive and social science research shows that political and other ideologies often foster distortion of perceptions of reality and truths and conscious reasoning about what is perceived, true, false or ambiguous. That can and often does generate irrational politics and policy. The problem is generally more pronounced for hard core ideologues and authoritarians, neither of which can tolerate the cognitive dissonance between what unbiased reality, truth and reason lead to compared to what the ideology or authoritarian mind needs these things to be. For most of those people, fact, truth and reason fall to ideological beliefs and authoritarian goals when they are at odds.
Living in a society that is awash in lies, deceit and irrational emotional manipulation makes matters worse, but that cannot be avoided in a liberal democracy. That often makes what is false and irrational seem real and acceptable. That reflects the mental workings that evolution conferred on the human species. We can't help being what we are. The best that can be done is to acknowledge our 'flawed' biological traits and try to deal with them as rationally as our minds allow.
The other pragmatic rationalisms: At least two pragmatic rationalism (PR) ideologies appear to exist. One is posited as a general theory of the human world that is grounded in (i) physics; (ii) mathematics; (iii) philosophy; and (iv) the algorithmic part of human knowledge, which could be computerised, whatever that means. The author describes his all-encompassing theory of everything in abstract terms. It doesn't seem to have much to do with mass politics.
The other PR looks to be much more relevant to mass politics. That one is posited as an inquiry into understanding how scientific knowledge variably influences formulating and implementing political policies depending on the policy at issue. That PR is getting close to the PR this discussion is focused on.
This pragmatic rationalism: The PR political ideology posited here is intended to work as an anti-bias, anti-ideology ideology. It is built on is built on four, easy to understand, core or highest moral political values. The moral values are (1) fidelity to try to see relevant objective facts and truths, to the extent they can be ascertained (they are often not fully ascertainable) with less bias, (2) application of less biased conscious reasoning (roughly, logic) to the facts and truths, (3) applying the facts and reasoning in service to the public interest, and (4) willingness to engage in reasonable compromises in view of political, social and other relevant factors. Service to the public interest is envisioned to constitute a transparent competition of fact- and reason-based ideas.
This PR attempts to account for sources of bias and irrationality in politics by (i) forcing a larger role for more objective, less biased, less distorted fact, truth and logic in politics, (ii) ignoring standard ideologies, making them of secondary importance, (iii) induce some power and influence to flow from powerful special interests to the public interest, and (iv) forcing compromise onto the process as a bulwark against the rise of both single party rule and authoritarianism.
This variant of PR is thus an ideology that is more constrained by facts, truths and logic than all other ideologies, which tend to promote distortion of facts, truths and logic to fit the needs of the ideology. This amounts to an effort to build a mindset open to politics based more on objectivity, to the extent it can be ascertained, and less on subjective factors such as personal morals and identification with irrational tribalism.
Whether nations or whole societies can accept and/or adopt such a PR mindset is an open question. It asks a lot of people to set aside their prejudices and sacred beliefs when they are at odds with objective reality and reason. Maybe the human species cannot rise to a higher level of mental performance because the cognitive load is just too high. It is an experiment that needs to be tried to know if it would lead to more rational and efficient, but less conflict-prone politics and outcomes.
B&B orig: 5/20/19
Living in a society that is awash in lies, deceit and irrational emotional manipulation makes matters worse, but that cannot be avoided in a liberal democracy. That often makes what is false and irrational seem real and acceptable. That reflects the mental workings that evolution conferred on the human species. We can't help being what we are. The best that can be done is to acknowledge our 'flawed' biological traits and try to deal with them as rationally as our minds allow.
The other pragmatic rationalisms: At least two pragmatic rationalism (PR) ideologies appear to exist. One is posited as a general theory of the human world that is grounded in (i) physics; (ii) mathematics; (iii) philosophy; and (iv) the algorithmic part of human knowledge, which could be computerised, whatever that means. The author describes his all-encompassing theory of everything in abstract terms. It doesn't seem to have much to do with mass politics.
The other PR looks to be much more relevant to mass politics. That one is posited as an inquiry into understanding how scientific knowledge variably influences formulating and implementing political policies depending on the policy at issue. That PR is getting close to the PR this discussion is focused on.
This pragmatic rationalism: The PR political ideology posited here is intended to work as an anti-bias, anti-ideology ideology. It is built on is built on four, easy to understand, core or highest moral political values. The moral values are (1) fidelity to try to see relevant objective facts and truths, to the extent they can be ascertained (they are often not fully ascertainable) with less bias, (2) application of less biased conscious reasoning (roughly, logic) to the facts and truths, (3) applying the facts and reasoning in service to the public interest, and (4) willingness to engage in reasonable compromises in view of political, social and other relevant factors. Service to the public interest is envisioned to constitute a transparent competition of fact- and reason-based ideas.
This PR attempts to account for sources of bias and irrationality in politics by (i) forcing a larger role for more objective, less biased, less distorted fact, truth and logic in politics, (ii) ignoring standard ideologies, making them of secondary importance, (iii) induce some power and influence to flow from powerful special interests to the public interest, and (iv) forcing compromise onto the process as a bulwark against the rise of both single party rule and authoritarianism.
This variant of PR is thus an ideology that is more constrained by facts, truths and logic than all other ideologies, which tend to promote distortion of facts, truths and logic to fit the needs of the ideology. This amounts to an effort to build a mindset open to politics based more on objectivity, to the extent it can be ascertained, and less on subjective factors such as personal morals and identification with irrational tribalism.
Whether nations or whole societies can accept and/or adopt such a PR mindset is an open question. It asks a lot of people to set aside their prejudices and sacred beliefs when they are at odds with objective reality and reason. Maybe the human species cannot rise to a higher level of mental performance because the cognitive load is just too high. It is an experiment that needs to be tried to know if it would lead to more rational and efficient, but less conflict-prone politics and outcomes.
B&B orig: 5/20/19
Are Rural Areas In Unavoidable Economic Decline?
In 2103, the New York Times published an article, The Russia Left Behind: A journey through a heartland on the slow road to ruin. The article noted that there were hundreds of towns shrinking into villages and villages decaying into forest. That was intentional Soviet Union policy. The Soviets cut off support during efficiency drives in the 1960s and ’70s. Towns and villages were categorized as “promising” or “unpromising.” The unpromising ones were cut off from support and left to shrink or revert to primeval forests with roving packs of wolves.
In 2017, the New York Times published a related article, Russia’s Villages, and Their Way of Life, Are ‘Melting Away’, indicating that Russia's population is declining. Many small towns and villages are simply going extinct in terms of people living there. After restrictions on movement relaxed after the fall of the Soviet Union, many young people fled resource-starved parts of the countryside for big cities. Researchers estimated that out of 8,300 area villages in 1910, 2,000 no longer have permanent residents.
In 2016, the National Review published an article by Kevin Williamson that ferociously attacked the allegedly self-inflicted misery, immorality and self-deceit about life in rural areas slowly dying from lack of economic activity. Williamson's article pointed to the immorality of belief in Trump's campaign promises because it masked reality:
It may be that unfavorable economic trends make it impossible to sustain many rural populations in the US and elsewhere. Rural decline is underway in Canada. Agriculture continues to automate, so that is probably not a major source of rural job growth.
The political ramifications aren't clear. Rural population loss suggests there could be a decline in republican party affiliation as urban areas tend to be more democratic and independent than rural areas. How to deal with economic decline is not clear either. Some evidence shows that urban areas tend to subsidize rural areas, although most conservatives vigorously dispute that. Regardless, rural economic decline seems to be real and it seems to be a major source of social and political antagonism. This problem just might not be fixable by anyone. Economic trends have a way of going where economic forces make them go, politics and ideology be damned.
B&B orig: 5/22/19
In 2017, the New York Times published a related article, Russia’s Villages, and Their Way of Life, Are ‘Melting Away’, indicating that Russia's population is declining. Many small towns and villages are simply going extinct in terms of people living there. After restrictions on movement relaxed after the fall of the Soviet Union, many young people fled resource-starved parts of the countryside for big cities. Researchers estimated that out of 8,300 area villages in 1910, 2,000 no longer have permanent residents.
In 2016, the National Review published an article by Kevin Williamson that ferociously attacked the allegedly self-inflicted misery, immorality and self-deceit about life in rural areas slowly dying from lack of economic activity. Williamson's article pointed to the immorality of belief in Trump's campaign promises because it masked reality:
It is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn’t. The white middle class may like the idea of Trump as a giant pulsing humanoid middle finger held up in the face of the Cathedral, they may sing hymns to Trump the destroyer and whisper darkly about “globalists” and — odious, stupid term — “the Establishment,” but nobody did this to them. They failed themselves.In 2018, the New York Times published an article, The Hard Truths of Trying to ‘Save’ the Rural Economy, that asked if economic rural decline is inevitable. The NYT wrote: "There are 60 million people, almost one in five Americans, living on farms, in hamlets and in small towns across the landscape. For the last quarter century the story of these places has been one of relentless economic decline. ... the United States has grown by 75 million people since 1990, but this has mostly occurred in cities and suburbs. Rural areas have lost some 3 million people. Since the 1990s, problems such as crime and opioid abuse, once associated with urban areas, are increasingly rural phenomena."
If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy — which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog — you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that.
Nothing happened to them. There wasn’t some awful disaster. There wasn’t a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence — and the incomprehensible malice — of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain’t what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.
If you want to live, get out of Garbutt.
It may be that unfavorable economic trends make it impossible to sustain many rural populations in the US and elsewhere. Rural decline is underway in Canada. Agriculture continues to automate, so that is probably not a major source of rural job growth.
The political ramifications aren't clear. Rural population loss suggests there could be a decline in republican party affiliation as urban areas tend to be more democratic and independent than rural areas. How to deal with economic decline is not clear either. Some evidence shows that urban areas tend to subsidize rural areas, although most conservatives vigorously dispute that. Regardless, rural economic decline seems to be real and it seems to be a major source of social and political antagonism. This problem just might not be fixable by anyone. Economic trends have a way of going where economic forces make them go, politics and ideology be damned.
B&B orig: 5/22/19
The US Constitution: A Source of Urban-Rural Polarization
Analysis by the New York Times indicates that the US Constitution itself is a significant source of urban-rural polarization. The NYT writes:
The articles goes on to point out that European elections often allow for proportional representation and the urban-rural divide is softened by making geography less important than it is in the US. Underrepresentation of urban voters is a feature of any democracy that draws winner-take-all districts where the urban voters are concentrated in cities and at odds with rural voters. That is what happened in 2016 when Hillary Clinton won only three of eight congressional districts in Minnesota despite winning the whole state.
US rural areas will oppose constitutional and other changes to reduce the power imbalance. It looks as if American politics will stay unequally tipped in favor of conservative rural areas for quite some time. This is of concern for the US Senate. It is starting to seem unlikely that democrats will be able to retake the Senate in 2020. Given the way the polarization has destroyed normal functioning, it is reasonable to believe that any democratic president will have some or all nominations that require Senate consent blocked for all four years.
Flaws in the Constitution are becoming clear. Those flaws are leading the US from a liberal democracy to an anti-democratic, authoritarian system dominated by a minority conservative ideology. The rejection by President Trump of congressional authority to investigate him and his associates is undeniable evidence of America's slide toward a corrupt authoritarian system. Unless democrats step up their messaging and outreach, we just might be witnessing the beginning of the end for American liberal democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law.
B&B orig: 5/22/19
But urban-rural polarization has become particularly acute in America: particularly entrenched, particularly hostile, particularly lopsided in its consequences. Urban voters, and the party that has come to represent them, now routinely lose elections and power even when they win more votes.
Democrats have blamed the Senate, the Electoral College and gerrymandering for their disadvantage. But the problem runs deeper, according to Jonathan Rodden, a Stanford political scientist: The American form of government is uniquely structured to exacerbate the urban-rural divide — and to translate it into enduring bias against the Democratic voters, clustered at the left of the accompanying chart.
Yes, the Senate gives rural areas (and small states) disproportionate strength. “That’s an obvious problem for Democrats,” Mr. Rodden said. “This other problem is a lot less obvious.”
In the United States, where a party’s voters live matters immensely. That’s because most representatives are elected from single-member districts where the candidate with the most votes wins, as opposed to a system of proportional representation, as some democracies have.
Democrats tend to be concentrated in cities and Republicans to be more spread out across suburbs and rural areas. The distribution of all of the precincts in the 2016 election shows that while many tilt heavily Democratic, fewer lean as far in the other direction.
As a result, Democrats have overwhelming power to elect representatives in a relatively small number of districts — whether for state house seats, the State Senate or Congress — while Republicans have at least enough power to elect representatives in a larger number of districts.
Republicans, in short, are more efficiently distributed in a system that rewards spreading voters across space
The articles goes on to point out that European elections often allow for proportional representation and the urban-rural divide is softened by making geography less important than it is in the US. Underrepresentation of urban voters is a feature of any democracy that draws winner-take-all districts where the urban voters are concentrated in cities and at odds with rural voters. That is what happened in 2016 when Hillary Clinton won only three of eight congressional districts in Minnesota despite winning the whole state.
US rural areas will oppose constitutional and other changes to reduce the power imbalance. It looks as if American politics will stay unequally tipped in favor of conservative rural areas for quite some time. This is of concern for the US Senate. It is starting to seem unlikely that democrats will be able to retake the Senate in 2020. Given the way the polarization has destroyed normal functioning, it is reasonable to believe that any democratic president will have some or all nominations that require Senate consent blocked for all four years.
Flaws in the Constitution are becoming clear. Those flaws are leading the US from a liberal democracy to an anti-democratic, authoritarian system dominated by a minority conservative ideology. The rejection by President Trump of congressional authority to investigate him and his associates is undeniable evidence of America's slide toward a corrupt authoritarian system. Unless democrats step up their messaging and outreach, we just might be witnessing the beginning of the end for American liberal democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law.
B&B orig: 5/22/19
Evidence of Trump's Obstruction in the Mueller Report
Writing for Lawfare blog, Quinta Jurecic published a great analysis of evidence of President Trump's obstruction of justice in the Mueller report. The analysis looks to be sufficient to support at least indictment of Trump for obstruction of justice on four different occasions. Since impeachment is a political process, not a legal process, the level of evidence needed is possibly lower. Here's Jurecic's analysis:
Ms. Jurecic writes on Trump's effort to fire Mueller, item E in the table above:
If these analyses are reasonably reliable, Trump actually tried to obstruct justice on multiple occasions. Only the adults in the room, e.g., his counsel Don McGahn, kept him from stopping Mueller's investigation.
B&B orig: 5/22/19
Ms. Jurecic writes on Trump's effort to fire Mueller, item E in the table above:
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”She also points to a similar analysis by another expert another legal expert, Richard Hoeg.
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”
If these analyses are reasonably reliable, Trump actually tried to obstruct justice on multiple occasions. Only the adults in the room, e.g., his counsel Don McGahn, kept him from stopping Mueller's investigation.
B&B orig: 5/22/19
An Explanation: Constitutional Crisis vs. Constitutional Rot
Uncle Fester: Dementia, what a beautiful name.
Dementia: It means "insanity."
Uncle Fester: My name is Fester. It means "to rot."
Constitutional scholar Jack Balkin (Professor, Yale Law School) wrote a short chapter for the 2018 book Constitutional Democracy in Crisis?, edited by Mark A, Graber et al. Balkin's chapter 2, Constitutional Crisis and Constitutional Rot, explains the difference between the two concepts. The topic is timely because many people are concerned that the US is in or near a constitutional crisis in view of President Trump's divisive rhetoric and actions. Constitutional rot is a concept that most people are not aware of, while constitutional crisis is mostly misunderstood. Knowing the difference helps put America's political situation in much better context.
Constitutional crisis defined: Balkin and another scholar Sanford Levinson, have described what a constitutional crisis (CC) is and is not in a constitutional democracy. That is summarized in Balkin's chapter 2. There are three different kinds of CC. The Type One CC occurs when politicians and/or military officials announce they will not obey the constitution any more. That can happen when politicians and/or military officials refuse to obey a court order. Once refusal to adhere to constitutional rules has occurred, the constitution has failed.
The Type Two CC occurs when the constitution prevents political actors from trying to prevent an impending disaster. This is rare because the courts tend to find ways to allow political actors to avoid disasters. The Type Three CC occurs when many people refuse to obey the constitution. In these scenarios, there can be street riots, or, states or regions try to secede from the nation. This involves "situations where publicly articulated disagreements about the constitution lead political actors to engage in extraordinary forms of protest beyond mere legal disagreements and political protests: people take to the streets, armies mobilize, and brute force is used or threatened in order to prevail."
Balkin goes on to argue that most time when the term CC is used, it is hyperbole. Constitutions rarely break down.
Constitutional rot (CR): By contrast with a CC, CR arises when norms that held power in check fall, partisans play constitutional hardball and fair political competition comes under attack. We are seeing this now. For example, it was constitutional hardball by the Mitch McConnell to ignore President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland. In CR, politicians favor short-term political gains over long-term damage to the constitutional system. As CR progresses, the political system becomes less democratic. State power becomes less accountable and less responsive to the public, while politicians become more beholden to backers who keep them in power. In essence, the country drifts into oligarchy.
While that is happening, the public loses trust in government and the political system because they have been abandoned: "When constitutional rot becomes advanced, and the public's trust in government is thoroughly undermined, people turn to demagogues who flatter the public and who stoke division, anger and resentment. Demagogues promise they will restore lost glories and make everything right again. They divert the public's attention to enemies and scapegoats within and without the republic. They divide the public in order to conquer it. They play on people's fears of loss of status. They use divisive rhetoric to distract attention, maintain a loyal set of followers, and keep themselves in power. There are always potential demagogues in a republic, but healthy republics restrain their emergence and ascension. When demagogues manage to take power and lead the nation, however, CR has become serious indeed."
Does any of that sound familiar?
The four horsemen of CR: Belkin describes the four horsemen of CR as (1) loss of trust in government and fellow citizens, (2) polarization that leads to people seeing fellow citizens as enemies of the state, (3) increasing economic inequality which foments anger, resentment and a search for scapegoats, and (4) policy disasters such as the Iraq war and the 2008 financial crisis, which undermine public trust in political leadership and constitutional governance. He argues that each one of these tends to feed into the one or more of the other factors. For example, polarization deflects public attention to symbolic and zero-sum conflicts, which allows wealthy interests to entrench their power and foster oligarchy. In turn, that tends to undermine public faith in a government that is drifting away from them and their interests. Rot begets more rot.
Belkin sees hardball politics and attendant destruction of norms of fair politics as leading to "a gradual descent into authoritarian or autocratic politics."
Regarding our current situation, Belkin sees it like this: "The United States is not currently in a period of constitutional crisis. But for some time--at least since the 1990s--it has been in a period of increasing constitutional rot. The election of a demagogue such as Trump is further evidence that our institutions have decayed, and judging by his presidential campaign and his first year in office, Trump promises to accelerate the corruption."
Sounds definitely like we're in for more CR and a descent into authoritarian, autocratic politics. How gradual the process may be is a matter open for debate.
B&B orig: 5/24/19
Dementia: It means "insanity."
Uncle Fester: My name is Fester. It means "to rot."
Constitutional scholar Jack Balkin (Professor, Yale Law School) wrote a short chapter for the 2018 book Constitutional Democracy in Crisis?, edited by Mark A, Graber et al. Balkin's chapter 2, Constitutional Crisis and Constitutional Rot, explains the difference between the two concepts. The topic is timely because many people are concerned that the US is in or near a constitutional crisis in view of President Trump's divisive rhetoric and actions. Constitutional rot is a concept that most people are not aware of, while constitutional crisis is mostly misunderstood. Knowing the difference helps put America's political situation in much better context.
Constitutional crisis defined: Balkin and another scholar Sanford Levinson, have described what a constitutional crisis (CC) is and is not in a constitutional democracy. That is summarized in Balkin's chapter 2. There are three different kinds of CC. The Type One CC occurs when politicians and/or military officials announce they will not obey the constitution any more. That can happen when politicians and/or military officials refuse to obey a court order. Once refusal to adhere to constitutional rules has occurred, the constitution has failed.
The Type Two CC occurs when the constitution prevents political actors from trying to prevent an impending disaster. This is rare because the courts tend to find ways to allow political actors to avoid disasters. The Type Three CC occurs when many people refuse to obey the constitution. In these scenarios, there can be street riots, or, states or regions try to secede from the nation. This involves "situations where publicly articulated disagreements about the constitution lead political actors to engage in extraordinary forms of protest beyond mere legal disagreements and political protests: people take to the streets, armies mobilize, and brute force is used or threatened in order to prevail."
Balkin goes on to argue that most time when the term CC is used, it is hyperbole. Constitutions rarely break down.
Constitutional rot (CR): By contrast with a CC, CR arises when norms that held power in check fall, partisans play constitutional hardball and fair political competition comes under attack. We are seeing this now. For example, it was constitutional hardball by the Mitch McConnell to ignore President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland. In CR, politicians favor short-term political gains over long-term damage to the constitutional system. As CR progresses, the political system becomes less democratic. State power becomes less accountable and less responsive to the public, while politicians become more beholden to backers who keep them in power. In essence, the country drifts into oligarchy.
While that is happening, the public loses trust in government and the political system because they have been abandoned: "When constitutional rot becomes advanced, and the public's trust in government is thoroughly undermined, people turn to demagogues who flatter the public and who stoke division, anger and resentment. Demagogues promise they will restore lost glories and make everything right again. They divert the public's attention to enemies and scapegoats within and without the republic. They divide the public in order to conquer it. They play on people's fears of loss of status. They use divisive rhetoric to distract attention, maintain a loyal set of followers, and keep themselves in power. There are always potential demagogues in a republic, but healthy republics restrain their emergence and ascension. When demagogues manage to take power and lead the nation, however, CR has become serious indeed."
Does any of that sound familiar?
The four horsemen of CR: Belkin describes the four horsemen of CR as (1) loss of trust in government and fellow citizens, (2) polarization that leads to people seeing fellow citizens as enemies of the state, (3) increasing economic inequality which foments anger, resentment and a search for scapegoats, and (4) policy disasters such as the Iraq war and the 2008 financial crisis, which undermine public trust in political leadership and constitutional governance. He argues that each one of these tends to feed into the one or more of the other factors. For example, polarization deflects public attention to symbolic and zero-sum conflicts, which allows wealthy interests to entrench their power and foster oligarchy. In turn, that tends to undermine public faith in a government that is drifting away from them and their interests. Rot begets more rot.
Belkin sees hardball politics and attendant destruction of norms of fair politics as leading to "a gradual descent into authoritarian or autocratic politics."
Regarding our current situation, Belkin sees it like this: "The United States is not currently in a period of constitutional crisis. But for some time--at least since the 1990s--it has been in a period of increasing constitutional rot. The election of a demagogue such as Trump is further evidence that our institutions have decayed, and judging by his presidential campaign and his first year in office, Trump promises to accelerate the corruption."
Sounds definitely like we're in for more CR and a descent into authoritarian, autocratic politics. How gradual the process may be is a matter open for debate.
B&B orig: 5/24/19
Trump Threatens Journalism
The New York Times reports that new charges the Department of Justice has filed against Julian Assange verge on making it illegal for journalists to gather information for news stories. The NYT writes:
*** Dark free speech: lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity to hide corruption, relevant truths and facts, unwarranted emotional manipulation to foment irrational, reason-killing emotions, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, and all kinds of bigotry including racism
B&B orig: 5/24/19
Journalists and press freedom groups reacted with alarm on Thursday after the Trump administration announced new charges against Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks leader, for publishing classified information, in a case that legal experts say takes direct aim at previously sacrosanct protections for the news media.Given the obvious run at some form of tyranny-oligarchy that President Trump is making, and his openly expressed hate toward the free press, this is reasonably seen as a direct attack on the press. Trump and the GOP can reasonably be seen as against free speech for the press, but unlimited speech, especially dark free speech***, for themselves.
In indicting Mr. Assange for obtaining, accepting and disseminating classified materials, the Department of Justice opened a new front in its campaign against illegal leaks. While past cases involved government employees who provided material to journalists, the Assange indictment could amount to the pursuit of a publisher for making that material available to the public.
“It’s not criminal to encourage someone to leak classified information to you as a journalist — that’s called news gathering, and there are First Amendment protections for news gathering,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer who frequently represents media organizations like CNN. “The ramifications of this are so potentially dangerous and serious for the ability of journalists to gather and disseminate information that the American people have a right to know.”
The charges against Mr. Assange are likely to face a challenge on First Amendment grounds. And journalists’ use of illegally obtained materials has been upheld in Supreme Court cases. But Mr. Miller said prosecutors had now skated to the edge of criminalizing journalistic practices.
“The Espionage Act doesn’t make any distinction between journalists and nonjournalists,” Mr. Miller said, referring to the law that Mr. Assange is accused of violating. “If you can charge Julian Assange under the law with publishing classified information, there is nothing under the law that prevents the Justice Department from charging a journalist.”
“The calculation by the Department of Justice is that here’s someone who people don’t like,” Mr. Boutrous said. “There’s a real element of picking the weakest of the herd, or the most unpopular figure, to try to blunt the outcry.”
*** Dark free speech: lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity to hide corruption, relevant truths and facts, unwarranted emotional manipulation to foment irrational, reason-killing emotions, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, and all kinds of bigotry including racism
B&B orig: 5/24/19
Dark Free Speech, Censorship and the 1st Amendment
“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow.” Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
“. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.” Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, Democracy for Realists, 2016
Dark free speech: Constitutionally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, confuse and demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide corruption, and inconvenient truths and facts, and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including unwarranted fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism. -- Germaine, May 2019
This discussion is long, over 1,900 words. It is based on parts of an essay that is over 11,000 words in length. My thanks to PD for bringing this extremely important essay to my attention.
In September of 2017, Tim Wu (Professor, Columbia Law School) asked if the First Amendment (FA) is relevant to modern free political speech: “We live in a golden age of efforts by governments and other actors to control speech, discredit and harass the press, and manipulate public debate. Yet as these efforts mount, and the expressive environment deteriorates, the First Amendment has been confined to a narrow and frequently irrelevant role. Hence the question — when it comes to political speech in the twenty-first century, is the First Amendment obsolete?”
Government censorship of free speech: Wu observed that the FA was dormant as a source of law until the 1920s. The FA came to life after the US government mounted a massive propaganda and speech censorship campaign that ran from 1917 until 1919. New Espionage and Sedition Acts were passed into law in 1917 and 1918. That was accompanied by creation of The Committee on Public Information. Woodrow Wilson created this committee by Executive Order 2594. The committee was a major federal propaganda effort with over 150,000 employees. Its goal was to coax Americans into accepting America fighting in World War I. The presidential candidate for the Socialist Party, Eugene Debs, was arrested and imprisoned for a speech that criticized the war effort when he told the crowd that they were “fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.”
In response to government crackdown on speech, a few leading jurists led by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis and Judge Learned Hand began to articulate the contours of modern FA law, which became firmly entrenched by the 1970s. The concern was to limit government’s ability to silence dissidents and their public free speech. Although there were free speech cases on the Supreme Court docket when he wrote his essay, Wu pointed out that none of them had anything to do with government censorship of political free speech in the 1920s when the world was information poor and speakers could be easily targeted and silenced. That concern had passed into history decades before Wu wrote.
Wu argues that “the Amendment has become increasingly irrelevant in its area of historic concern: the coercive control of political speech. . . . . But today, speakers are more like moths — their supply is apparently endless. The massive decline in barriers to publishing makes information abundant, especially when speakers congregate on brightly lit matters of public controversy. The low costs of speaking have, paradoxically, made it easier to weaponize speech as a tool of speech control.” One concern is that existing FA law can be used to block efforts to deal with some of these modern free speech problems.
Modern censorship: Wu writes: “As Zeynep Tufekci puts it, ‘censorship during the Internet era does not operate under the same logic [as] it did under the heyday of print or even broadcast television.’ Instead of targeting speakers directly, it targets listeners or it undermines speakers indirectly. More precisely, emerging techniques of speech control depend on (1) a range of new punishments, like unleashing ‘troll armies’ to abuse the press and other critics, and (2) ‘flooding’ tactics (sometimes called ‘reverse censorship’) that distort or drown out disfavored speech through the creation and dissemination of fake news, the payment of fake commentators, and the deployment of propaganda robots.”
A key point is the understanding of modern propagandists that limited human cognitive capacity is a severe constraint on the power of free speech. What is in critically short supply is human attention. By overwhelming people with an endless torrent of dark free speech. This situation was foreseen by a few people decades ago. Wu quotes one observer who commented in 1971: “in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.”
Development of the internet since the 1990s led to a massive decrease to speak online speaker, and it results in an “information flood” of “cheap speech.” Social media platforms now have an extremely important role in the shaping public discourse. Cheap speech also makes it easier for mobs to harass or abuse other speakers with whom they disagree. Wu points out that an “attention industry” now harvests personal information to information buyers. This industry consists of a set of actors whose business model is the resale of information designed to capture as much human attention as possible. These players, which include newspapers and social media platforms, work tirelessly to maximize the time and attention that people spend with them.
How the Russians do censorship: Since the early 2000s, the Russian government has deployed troll armies to deploy a flood of cheap speech against critics of government policy or leaders, especially President Putin. The point is to deploy abusive online mobs to wear down and demoralize targeted speakers either to make them go away, or to bury them in dark free speech. Troll armies include loyalists who get government encouragement, funded groups that pay commentators, and full-time staff that engage in around-the-clock propagation of pro-government views and attacks on critics. These tactics hide the government’s role in the torrent of cheap speech propaganda and attacks. Plausible deniability is always sought. This allows the Russian government to deny any responsibility for censorship or use of dark free speech attacks. Russia’s use of vicious, swarm-like attacks against critics isn’t new, but its coordination and international scope are on a scale previously unseen.
A Soviet-born journalist described Russia’s aggressive propaganda tactics like this: “What happens when a powerful actor systematically abuses freedom of information to spread disinformation? Uses freedom of speech in such a way as to subvert the very possibility of a debate? And does so not merely inside a country, as part of vicious election campaigns, but as part of a transnational military campaign? Since at least 2008, Kremlin military and intelligence thinkers have been talking about information not in the familiar terms of ‘persuasion’, ‘public diplomacy’ or even ‘propaganda’, but in weaponized terms, as a tool to confuse, blackmail, demoralize, subvert and paralyze.”
Wu notes that the Russians also use other dark free speech tactics: “Related to techniques of flooding is the intentional dissemination of so-called ‘fake news’ and the discrediting of mainstream media sources. . . . . In addition to its attacks on regime critics, the Russian web brigade also spreads massive numbers of false stories, often alleging atrocities committed by its targets. While this technique can be accomplished by humans, it is aided and amplified by the increasing use of human-impersonating robots, or “bots,” which relay the messages through millions of fake accounts on social media sites like Twitter.”
Russia and the 2016 US elections: Wu comments that members of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have asserted that a force of over 1,000 paid Russians were assigned to influence the U.S. election in 2016. An unknown number of unpaid propagandists were also involved.
How the Chinese do censorship: Both China and Russia rely heavily on reverse censorship or flooding to control speech. Flooding uses a sufficient volume of dark free speech to drown out disfavored speech and/or to distort the entire information environment. The dissemination of fake news is used to distract and discredit. This technique works as a means of listener-targeted speech control. Although China has embraced the internet, predictions from the West that the flood of information will loosen Chinese Communist Party control. That turned out to be a false prediction. Communist Party control has increased, not decreased.
Western Researchers found that up to two million people are paid to post on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party. They comment: “The government fabricates and posts about 448 million social media comments a year. In contrast to prior claims, we show that the Chinese regime’s strategy is to avoid arguing with skeptics of the party and the government, and to not even discuss controversial issues. We show that the goal of this massive secretive operation is instead to distract the public and change the subject, as most of these posts involve cheerleading for China, the revolutionary history of the Communist Party, or other symbols of the regime.”
The Chinese government understands that not arguing with criticism, but instead deflecting, distracting and ignoring it is a more effective form of speech control. Wu comments: “When listeners have highly limited bandwidth to devote to any given issue, they will rarely dig deeply, and they are less likely to hear dissenting opinions. In such an environment, flooding can be just as effective as more traditional forms of censorship.” (See the quote by Achen and Bartels at the beginning of this discussion)
Given the sophistication and persuasive power of dark free speech and modern cheap speech tactics in all forms of information media, one can begin to see how First Amendment law is weak in the face of the onslaught. America’s enemies are fully aware of our structural weakness to dark free speech and they are exploiting it to their maximum advantage. The damage that causes to American society and the public interest in unknowable with precision, but it is reasonable to think it is big enough to possibly constitute an existential threat to American liberal democracy. Disturbingly, American populism and conservatism appears to have been especially seduced by the relentless flood of foreign and domestic propaganda. That is polarizing American society. In turn, that undermines our liberal democracy and the rule of law.
Wu discusses some possible actions to combat dark free speech. That is topic for a different discussion.
B&B orig: 5/27/19
“. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.” Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, Democracy for Realists, 2016
Dark free speech: Constitutionally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, confuse and demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide corruption, and inconvenient truths and facts, and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including unwarranted fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism. -- Germaine, May 2019
This discussion is long, over 1,900 words. It is based on parts of an essay that is over 11,000 words in length. My thanks to PD for bringing this extremely important essay to my attention.
In September of 2017, Tim Wu (Professor, Columbia Law School) asked if the First Amendment (FA) is relevant to modern free political speech: “We live in a golden age of efforts by governments and other actors to control speech, discredit and harass the press, and manipulate public debate. Yet as these efforts mount, and the expressive environment deteriorates, the First Amendment has been confined to a narrow and frequently irrelevant role. Hence the question — when it comes to political speech in the twenty-first century, is the First Amendment obsolete?”
Government censorship of free speech: Wu observed that the FA was dormant as a source of law until the 1920s. The FA came to life after the US government mounted a massive propaganda and speech censorship campaign that ran from 1917 until 1919. New Espionage and Sedition Acts were passed into law in 1917 and 1918. That was accompanied by creation of The Committee on Public Information. Woodrow Wilson created this committee by Executive Order 2594. The committee was a major federal propaganda effort with over 150,000 employees. Its goal was to coax Americans into accepting America fighting in World War I. The presidential candidate for the Socialist Party, Eugene Debs, was arrested and imprisoned for a speech that criticized the war effort when he told the crowd that they were “fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.”
In response to government crackdown on speech, a few leading jurists led by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis and Judge Learned Hand began to articulate the contours of modern FA law, which became firmly entrenched by the 1970s. The concern was to limit government’s ability to silence dissidents and their public free speech. Although there were free speech cases on the Supreme Court docket when he wrote his essay, Wu pointed out that none of them had anything to do with government censorship of political free speech in the 1920s when the world was information poor and speakers could be easily targeted and silenced. That concern had passed into history decades before Wu wrote.
Wu argues that “the Amendment has become increasingly irrelevant in its area of historic concern: the coercive control of political speech. . . . . But today, speakers are more like moths — their supply is apparently endless. The massive decline in barriers to publishing makes information abundant, especially when speakers congregate on brightly lit matters of public controversy. The low costs of speaking have, paradoxically, made it easier to weaponize speech as a tool of speech control.” One concern is that existing FA law can be used to block efforts to deal with some of these modern free speech problems.
Modern censorship: Wu writes: “As Zeynep Tufekci puts it, ‘censorship during the Internet era does not operate under the same logic [as] it did under the heyday of print or even broadcast television.’ Instead of targeting speakers directly, it targets listeners or it undermines speakers indirectly. More precisely, emerging techniques of speech control depend on (1) a range of new punishments, like unleashing ‘troll armies’ to abuse the press and other critics, and (2) ‘flooding’ tactics (sometimes called ‘reverse censorship’) that distort or drown out disfavored speech through the creation and dissemination of fake news, the payment of fake commentators, and the deployment of propaganda robots.”
A key point is the understanding of modern propagandists that limited human cognitive capacity is a severe constraint on the power of free speech. What is in critically short supply is human attention. By overwhelming people with an endless torrent of dark free speech. This situation was foreseen by a few people decades ago. Wu quotes one observer who commented in 1971: “in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.”
Development of the internet since the 1990s led to a massive decrease to speak online speaker, and it results in an “information flood” of “cheap speech.” Social media platforms now have an extremely important role in the shaping public discourse. Cheap speech also makes it easier for mobs to harass or abuse other speakers with whom they disagree. Wu points out that an “attention industry” now harvests personal information to information buyers. This industry consists of a set of actors whose business model is the resale of information designed to capture as much human attention as possible. These players, which include newspapers and social media platforms, work tirelessly to maximize the time and attention that people spend with them.
How the Russians do censorship: Since the early 2000s, the Russian government has deployed troll armies to deploy a flood of cheap speech against critics of government policy or leaders, especially President Putin. The point is to deploy abusive online mobs to wear down and demoralize targeted speakers either to make them go away, or to bury them in dark free speech. Troll armies include loyalists who get government encouragement, funded groups that pay commentators, and full-time staff that engage in around-the-clock propagation of pro-government views and attacks on critics. These tactics hide the government’s role in the torrent of cheap speech propaganda and attacks. Plausible deniability is always sought. This allows the Russian government to deny any responsibility for censorship or use of dark free speech attacks. Russia’s use of vicious, swarm-like attacks against critics isn’t new, but its coordination and international scope are on a scale previously unseen.
A Soviet-born journalist described Russia’s aggressive propaganda tactics like this: “What happens when a powerful actor systematically abuses freedom of information to spread disinformation? Uses freedom of speech in such a way as to subvert the very possibility of a debate? And does so not merely inside a country, as part of vicious election campaigns, but as part of a transnational military campaign? Since at least 2008, Kremlin military and intelligence thinkers have been talking about information not in the familiar terms of ‘persuasion’, ‘public diplomacy’ or even ‘propaganda’, but in weaponized terms, as a tool to confuse, blackmail, demoralize, subvert and paralyze.”
Wu notes that the Russians also use other dark free speech tactics: “Related to techniques of flooding is the intentional dissemination of so-called ‘fake news’ and the discrediting of mainstream media sources. . . . . In addition to its attacks on regime critics, the Russian web brigade also spreads massive numbers of false stories, often alleging atrocities committed by its targets. While this technique can be accomplished by humans, it is aided and amplified by the increasing use of human-impersonating robots, or “bots,” which relay the messages through millions of fake accounts on social media sites like Twitter.”
Russia and the 2016 US elections: Wu comments that members of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have asserted that a force of over 1,000 paid Russians were assigned to influence the U.S. election in 2016. An unknown number of unpaid propagandists were also involved.
How the Chinese do censorship: Both China and Russia rely heavily on reverse censorship or flooding to control speech. Flooding uses a sufficient volume of dark free speech to drown out disfavored speech and/or to distort the entire information environment. The dissemination of fake news is used to distract and discredit. This technique works as a means of listener-targeted speech control. Although China has embraced the internet, predictions from the West that the flood of information will loosen Chinese Communist Party control. That turned out to be a false prediction. Communist Party control has increased, not decreased.
Western Researchers found that up to two million people are paid to post on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party. They comment: “The government fabricates and posts about 448 million social media comments a year. In contrast to prior claims, we show that the Chinese regime’s strategy is to avoid arguing with skeptics of the party and the government, and to not even discuss controversial issues. We show that the goal of this massive secretive operation is instead to distract the public and change the subject, as most of these posts involve cheerleading for China, the revolutionary history of the Communist Party, or other symbols of the regime.”
The Chinese government understands that not arguing with criticism, but instead deflecting, distracting and ignoring it is a more effective form of speech control. Wu comments: “When listeners have highly limited bandwidth to devote to any given issue, they will rarely dig deeply, and they are less likely to hear dissenting opinions. In such an environment, flooding can be just as effective as more traditional forms of censorship.” (See the quote by Achen and Bartels at the beginning of this discussion)
Given the sophistication and persuasive power of dark free speech and modern cheap speech tactics in all forms of information media, one can begin to see how First Amendment law is weak in the face of the onslaught. America’s enemies are fully aware of our structural weakness to dark free speech and they are exploiting it to their maximum advantage. The damage that causes to American society and the public interest in unknowable with precision, but it is reasonable to think it is big enough to possibly constitute an existential threat to American liberal democracy. Disturbingly, American populism and conservatism appears to have been especially seduced by the relentless flood of foreign and domestic propaganda. That is polarizing American society. In turn, that undermines our liberal democracy and the rule of law.
Wu discusses some possible actions to combat dark free speech. That is topic for a different discussion.
B&B orig: 5/27/19
Trump Attacks Climate Science, Again
The New York Times reports that Trump is launching a major attack on of what is left of environmental science by the government. The new initiative is intended to distort and obscure climate change as an issue as much as possible. The NYT writes:
Lies and morals:In essence, Trump politics will distort and deny climate science to the extent it is possible to do so. This is how authoritarian regimes do business -- anything inconvenient that gets in the way of politics will be attacked, denied, distorted or otherwise eliminated or obscured as much as possible. This is an example of dark free speech[1] in politics and how damaging it can be to countries , the fate of civilization and maybe even the human species. This is why what Trump and his enablers are doing is fairly considered to be so deeply immoral as to constitute a crime against humanity, or something akin to it.
Or, does that overstate the seriousness of what is going on here? Is Trump justified in doing this, e.g., because there is too much uncertainty in long-term climate predictions?
Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, confuse and demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide corruption, and inconvenient truths and facts, and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism.
B&B orig: 5/28/19
Now, after two years spent unraveling the policies of his predecessors, Mr. Trump and his political appointees are launching a new assault.
In the next few months, the White House will complete the rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, initiated during the Obama administration. It will expand its efforts to impose Mr. Trump’s hard-line views on other nations, building on his retreat from the Paris accord and his recent refusal to sign a communiqué to protect the rapidly melting Arctic region unless it was stripped of any references to climate change.
And, in what could be Mr. Trump’s most consequential action yet, his administration will seek to undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.
As a result, parts of the federal government will no longer fulfill what scientists say is one of the most urgent jobs of climate science studies: reporting on the future effects of a rapidly warming planet and presenting a picture of what the earth could look like by the end of the century if the global economy continues to emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels.
The attack on science is underway throughout the government. In the most recent example, the White House-appointed director of the United States Geological Survey, James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously.
Scientists say that would give a misleading picture because the biggest effects of current emissions will be felt after 2040. Models show that the planet will most likely warm at about the same rate through about 2050. From that point until the end of the century, however, the rate of warming differs significantly with an increase or decrease in carbon emissions.
Lies and morals:In essence, Trump politics will distort and deny climate science to the extent it is possible to do so. This is how authoritarian regimes do business -- anything inconvenient that gets in the way of politics will be attacked, denied, distorted or otherwise eliminated or obscured as much as possible. This is an example of dark free speech[1] in politics and how damaging it can be to countries , the fate of civilization and maybe even the human species. This is why what Trump and his enablers are doing is fairly considered to be so deeply immoral as to constitute a crime against humanity, or something akin to it.
Or, does that overstate the seriousness of what is going on here? Is Trump justified in doing this, e.g., because there is too much uncertainty in long-term climate predictions?
Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, confuse and demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide corruption, and inconvenient truths and facts, and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism.
B&B orig: 5/28/19
Chapter Review: Constitutional Threats
In chapter 6, What's New? What's Next? Threats to the American Constitutional Order, Jennifer Hochschild (Professor of Government, Harvard) gives her view of America's current situation. The chapter is in the 2018 book, Constitutional Democracy in Crisis?, edited by Mark A. Graber, et al. The point of the book is to see how various experts diagnose America's current state of political affairs in light of history, not to offer solutions to problems. The editors write: "We do not, however, spend much energy offering cures, believing at this stage diagnosis is far more important, and not having any ready-made cures to offer."
How the right sees it: Hochschild starts out by listing reasons to think that America's situation under President Trump is very good to excellent. She quotes Nicholas Kristof: "2017 was probably the very best year in the long history of humanity." She lists areas of social progress to illustrate a basis for Kristof's optimism, e.g., decreasing gender pay gap, legalized same-sex marriage and decreased unemployment among essentially all groups and ages.
She describes the deep fears of the right like this: "If western governments can't, or won't, discharge the basic duties of providing physical safety and domestic tranquility, the question becomes whether democracies' citizens will come to regard the attributes that define their societies, such as pluralism, tolerance and civil liberties, as unaffordable luxuries. . . . . Tea Party protesters showed that 'corruption had eaten deeply into constitutional foundations, and that government was slipping beyond control of the governed'. . . . . To these analysts, a Trump presidency is a last-ditch heroic effort to save the republic, not evidence that America died on November 8, 2016."
Data discussed previously pointed to white insecurity and fears arising from social and demographic changes as the most important factor in Trump's election. The vision of America the right sees differs radically from how the left generally sees the situation.
Hochschild identifies two core factors that constitute constitutional rot and could lead to constitutional crisis. The first is the urban-rural divide and the second is hostility toward and degradation of liberalism, which she defines as a cluster of rights, norms and values.
The urban-rural divide: The urban-rural divide is described as about democracy and whether it still enables the two sides to engage to find common interests and resolve problems. She sees the right as being right about threat to the constitutional order, but for the wrong reasons. Her explanation is that "the core problem with democracy is Brexit-like: social and economic opportunities, societal institutions, individual behaviors and political attitudes are all lining up to reinforce one another such that" urban and rural areas are literally and metaphorically moving farther apart. She argues that the differences can harden into belief that one side's win necessarily means the other's loss. America's geographically based electoral order is, according to Hochschild, "poorly equipped to manage" this kind of social division.
Hochschild dives very deep into the data about Trump supporters and finds this: "They are disproportionately conservative religiously and culturally, mistrustful of elites, hostile to intellectuals, reliant on nonmainstream media, economically insecure, and fearful of downward mobility. . . . . Counties with many Trump supporters are disproportionately unhealthy, a pattern that both describes and causes growing economic and behavioral divides. . . . .'death predicts whether people vote for Donald Trump.' . . . . Affective [emotion-driven] polarization has permeated judgments about interpersonal relations, and exceeds polarization based on other prominent social cleavages. . . . . Americans not only mistrust one another, but also deeply mistrust the American national government."
Hostility and degradation challenge liberal governance: Hochschild argues that Trump is challenging liberal norms, practices and institutions. Trump attacks both people or groups of people and organizations and institutions needed for liberal politics. His attacks are grounded in dark free speech,[1] or as Hochschild puts it, "lying, ignoring unpalatable truths, and propounding obviously double standards."[2] The point is to foment unwarranted emotions including unwarranted disrespect, intolerance, distrust, cynicism and disgust.
Destruction of political norms is a major concern and imposes a constitutional risk that is hard or impossible to evaluate with any precision.
Footnotes:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, confuse and demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide corruption, and inconvenient truths and facts, and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism.
2. Regarding hypocrisy, or Hochschild's "obviously double standard", the most recent outrageous example from congressional republicans comes from Mitch McConnell. He recently said that while he completely refused to consider Obama's Supreme Court nominee in an election year (2016), he would not hesitate to consider and consent to a Trump nominee in 2020, commenting: "We'd fill it," referring to the nomination. This blatant hypocrisy is highly polarizing, to say the least. Nonetheless, McConnell is completely nonchalant about it. That shows his utter contempt for political norms and political opposition, both of which are forms of constitutional rot.
B&B orig: 5/29/19
How the right sees it: Hochschild starts out by listing reasons to think that America's situation under President Trump is very good to excellent. She quotes Nicholas Kristof: "2017 was probably the very best year in the long history of humanity." She lists areas of social progress to illustrate a basis for Kristof's optimism, e.g., decreasing gender pay gap, legalized same-sex marriage and decreased unemployment among essentially all groups and ages.
She describes the deep fears of the right like this: "If western governments can't, or won't, discharge the basic duties of providing physical safety and domestic tranquility, the question becomes whether democracies' citizens will come to regard the attributes that define their societies, such as pluralism, tolerance and civil liberties, as unaffordable luxuries. . . . . Tea Party protesters showed that 'corruption had eaten deeply into constitutional foundations, and that government was slipping beyond control of the governed'. . . . . To these analysts, a Trump presidency is a last-ditch heroic effort to save the republic, not evidence that America died on November 8, 2016."
Data discussed previously pointed to white insecurity and fears arising from social and demographic changes as the most important factor in Trump's election. The vision of America the right sees differs radically from how the left generally sees the situation.
Hochschild identifies two core factors that constitute constitutional rot and could lead to constitutional crisis. The first is the urban-rural divide and the second is hostility toward and degradation of liberalism, which she defines as a cluster of rights, norms and values.
The urban-rural divide: The urban-rural divide is described as about democracy and whether it still enables the two sides to engage to find common interests and resolve problems. She sees the right as being right about threat to the constitutional order, but for the wrong reasons. Her explanation is that "the core problem with democracy is Brexit-like: social and economic opportunities, societal institutions, individual behaviors and political attitudes are all lining up to reinforce one another such that" urban and rural areas are literally and metaphorically moving farther apart. She argues that the differences can harden into belief that one side's win necessarily means the other's loss. America's geographically based electoral order is, according to Hochschild, "poorly equipped to manage" this kind of social division.
Hochschild dives very deep into the data about Trump supporters and finds this: "They are disproportionately conservative religiously and culturally, mistrustful of elites, hostile to intellectuals, reliant on nonmainstream media, economically insecure, and fearful of downward mobility. . . . . Counties with many Trump supporters are disproportionately unhealthy, a pattern that both describes and causes growing economic and behavioral divides. . . . .'death predicts whether people vote for Donald Trump.' . . . . Affective [emotion-driven] polarization has permeated judgments about interpersonal relations, and exceeds polarization based on other prominent social cleavages. . . . . Americans not only mistrust one another, but also deeply mistrust the American national government."
Hostility and degradation challenge liberal governance: Hochschild argues that Trump is challenging liberal norms, practices and institutions. Trump attacks both people or groups of people and organizations and institutions needed for liberal politics. His attacks are grounded in dark free speech,[1] or as Hochschild puts it, "lying, ignoring unpalatable truths, and propounding obviously double standards."[2] The point is to foment unwarranted emotions including unwarranted disrespect, intolerance, distrust, cynicism and disgust.
Destruction of political norms is a major concern and imposes a constitutional risk that is hard or impossible to evaluate with any precision.
Footnotes:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, confuse and demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide corruption, and inconvenient truths and facts, and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism.
2. Regarding hypocrisy, or Hochschild's "obviously double standard", the most recent outrageous example from congressional republicans comes from Mitch McConnell. He recently said that while he completely refused to consider Obama's Supreme Court nominee in an election year (2016), he would not hesitate to consider and consent to a Trump nominee in 2020, commenting: "We'd fill it," referring to the nomination. This blatant hypocrisy is highly polarizing, to say the least. Nonetheless, McConnell is completely nonchalant about it. That shows his utter contempt for political norms and political opposition, both of which are forms of constitutional rot.
B&B orig: 5/29/19
Social Anger Control: The Inuit Example
NPR broadcast a segment on how the Inuit tribe instills an ability of its people to control overt expression of their emotions. They can't suppress emotional reactions, but they do suppress overt expressions of their emotions to an amazing extent. This is important because it shows that at least one human society has mastered the art of emotion control in social settings.
In the 1960s, anthropologist Jean Briggs lived among the Inuit people for 17 months. She coaxed an Inuit family to "adopt" her and "try to keep her alive." NPR writes,
Inuit emotion control socialization begins with young children.
The Inuit emotion control tradition is being eroded by modernity. Colonization over the past century is damaging the emotion control tradition. The Inuit community is working to keep the parenting approach intact but external pressures may bring it to an end.
This shows that it is possible to control overt expression of negative emotions, but not necessarily the formation of emotions. Emotional reactions are unconscious and automatic, so the best a human can do is to try to control overt expression of an emotional response and subsequent conscious feelings (qualia).
Is this an important lesson? Given the emotion-poisoned state of politics, one can argue that it is very important to be aware that this is at least possible. Whether it is possible to establish this as a social norm or self-reinforcing social institution in harsh, emotion-driven American or Western culture generally is an open question.
B&B orig: 5/30/19
In the 1960s, anthropologist Jean Briggs lived among the Inuit people for 17 months. She coaxed an Inuit family to "adopt" her and "try to keep her alive." NPR writes,
Briggs quickly realized something remarkable was going on in these families: The adults had an extraordinary ability to control their anger.
"They never acted in anger toward me, although they were angry with me an awful lot," Briggs told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. in an interview.
Even just showing a smidgen of frustration or irritation was considered weak and childlike, Briggs observed.
By contrast, Briggs seemed like a wild child, even though she was trying very hard to control her anger. "My ways were so much cruder, less considerate and more impulsive," she told the CBC. "[I was] often impulsive in an antisocial sort of way. I would sulk or I would snap or I would do something that they never did."
Inuit emotion control socialization begins with young children.
Across the board, all the moms mention one golden rule: Don't shout or yell at small children.
Traditional Inuit parenting is incredibly nurturing and tender. If you took all the parenting styles around the world and ranked them by their gentleness, the Inuit approach would likely rank near the top. (They even have a special kiss for babies, where you put your nose against the cheek and sniff the skin.)
The culture views scolding — or even speaking to children in an angry voice — as inappropriate, says Lisa Ipeelie, a radio producer and mom who grew up with 12 siblings. "When they're little, it doesn't help to raise your voice," she says. "It will just make your own heart rate go up."
Even if the child hits you or bites you, there's no raising your voice?
"No," Ipeelie says with a giggle that seems to emphasize how silly my question is. "With little kids, you often think they're pushing your buttons, but that's not what's going on. They're upset about something, and you have to figure out what it is."
Traditionally, the Inuit saw yelling at a small child as demeaning. It's as if the adult is having a tantrum; it's basically stooping to the level of the child, Briggs documented.
The Inuit emotion control tradition is being eroded by modernity. Colonization over the past century is damaging the emotion control tradition. The Inuit community is working to keep the parenting approach intact but external pressures may bring it to an end.
This shows that it is possible to control overt expression of negative emotions, but not necessarily the formation of emotions. Emotional reactions are unconscious and automatic, so the best a human can do is to try to control overt expression of an emotional response and subsequent conscious feelings (qualia).
Is this an important lesson? Given the emotion-poisoned state of politics, one can argue that it is very important to be aware that this is at least possible. Whether it is possible to establish this as a social norm or self-reinforcing social institution in harsh, emotion-driven American or Western culture generally is an open question.
B&B orig: 5/30/19
Mueller's Comments: Some Personal Reactions
Robert Mueller's comments yesterday did not say anything that was not already said in his report. I thought everyone except Trump supporters[1] knew that, but that was mistaken. Regardless, those redundant comments seem to have made some difference. Or at least the media reacted that way.
The first lesson, months of exposure to the written word (the Mueller report) is far less impressive or persuasive than about 10 minutes of an author standing in front of a camera and simply repeating what he wrote and made crystal clear right from the get go. That reinforces a belief that Trump's 2016 win was heavily dependent on the massive amount of uncritical but entertaining free airtime the mainstream gave him during the election.
What exploded in the mainstream cable news world, but probably not including Fox, was a raging debate over whether to impeach or not to impeach. The not to impeach argument is, more or less, that impeaching (1) would cost democrats votes in the 2020 elections, and (2) would be futile because Senate republicans would not vote to convict Trump of almost any crime and certainly not obstruction of justice. The argument to impeach is, more or less, that the constitution requires impeachment proceedings when there is sufficient evidence and failure to impeach severely damages the constitutional order by (1) letting impeachable behavior go unpunished, and (2) setting the precedent that a sitting president really is above the law.
Lesson two is sobering and frightening: That this debate is even happening still (or again) months after the written report was released shows how fragile a constitutional democracy is and how ill-defined the rule of law is. Mueller's comments strongly implied that were it not for an idiotic, legally indefensible DoJ guideline (my assessment of the guideline, not Mueller's), the DoJ cannot indict a sitting president, Mueller would have indicted Trump for obstruction of justice.
The evidence of obstruction is about as clear as it can get, as pointed out in an earlier discussion here. The evidence included this:
The original report made that crystal clear. It just didn't lay the evidence out in a nice little chart. Despite the original unambiguous clarity, Mueller's comments seem to have made that very clear point even more clear. That leads to lesson three which is, see lesson one.
In his comments, Mueller asserted something to the effect that the rule of law must be vindicated. In the sense of constitutional law, that makes sense. The constitution says that if a DoJ guideline, dumb as it is, says a sitting president can't be indicted, then all that is left is impeachment. But by definition, impeachment is a political process, not a legal process like indictment. And given the bitterly partisan and tribal state of affairs in congress, there is very little or no chance that the rule of law will be vindicated. By now if not all along, Mueller understands this perfectly.
That leads to lesson four, a variant of lesson two, which is that the rule of law is not just tenuous, but it is also is amazingly subjective. Scholars have noted this subjectivity before and raised the question of whether the rule of law itself is so subjective or meaningless as to constitute an essentially contested concept, as discussed before.
Will the democrats start impeachment proceedings? Who knows? The political calculation might outweigh the constitutional imperative. Would the democrats lose votes in 2020 if they do impeach and the Senate then acquits Trump? Who knows? One thing that seems fairly certain, democrats aren't getting any Trump supporter votes no matter what they say or do, including saying they love Trump more than anything and support him. What votes are out there to be lost?
Footnote:
1. If Trump online supporters are basically like all Trump supporters, they were mostly or completely unaware of the evidence in Mueller's report showing (1) Trump's obstruction of justice, and (2) the seriousness of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. The first thing they heard was William Barr come out with his non-summary summary of the Mueller report and say no collusion, no obstruction and no Russian interference. The 2nd thing they heard was Trump Tweeting, TOTAL EXONERATION!, NO COLLUSION!! WITCH HUNT!!!!, REVENGE!!!!! That is another example of the awesome power of lesson one reinforced by some lies packed into emotion-provoking Tweets. Lies-based beliefs that support what a person wants to believe can be almost impossible to change. Facts and logic alone won't do the trick.
The first lesson, months of exposure to the written word (the Mueller report) is far less impressive or persuasive than about 10 minutes of an author standing in front of a camera and simply repeating what he wrote and made crystal clear right from the get go. That reinforces a belief that Trump's 2016 win was heavily dependent on the massive amount of uncritical but entertaining free airtime the mainstream gave him during the election.
What exploded in the mainstream cable news world, but probably not including Fox, was a raging debate over whether to impeach or not to impeach. The not to impeach argument is, more or less, that impeaching (1) would cost democrats votes in the 2020 elections, and (2) would be futile because Senate republicans would not vote to convict Trump of almost any crime and certainly not obstruction of justice. The argument to impeach is, more or less, that the constitution requires impeachment proceedings when there is sufficient evidence and failure to impeach severely damages the constitutional order by (1) letting impeachable behavior go unpunished, and (2) setting the precedent that a sitting president really is above the law.
Lesson two is sobering and frightening: That this debate is even happening still (or again) months after the written report was released shows how fragile a constitutional democracy is and how ill-defined the rule of law is. Mueller's comments strongly implied that were it not for an idiotic, legally indefensible DoJ guideline (my assessment of the guideline, not Mueller's), the DoJ cannot indict a sitting president, Mueller would have indicted Trump for obstruction of justice.
The evidence of obstruction is about as clear as it can get, as pointed out in an earlier discussion here. The evidence included this:
The original report made that crystal clear. It just didn't lay the evidence out in a nice little chart. Despite the original unambiguous clarity, Mueller's comments seem to have made that very clear point even more clear. That leads to lesson three which is, see lesson one.
In his comments, Mueller asserted something to the effect that the rule of law must be vindicated. In the sense of constitutional law, that makes sense. The constitution says that if a DoJ guideline, dumb as it is, says a sitting president can't be indicted, then all that is left is impeachment. But by definition, impeachment is a political process, not a legal process like indictment. And given the bitterly partisan and tribal state of affairs in congress, there is very little or no chance that the rule of law will be vindicated. By now if not all along, Mueller understands this perfectly.
That leads to lesson four, a variant of lesson two, which is that the rule of law is not just tenuous, but it is also is amazingly subjective. Scholars have noted this subjectivity before and raised the question of whether the rule of law itself is so subjective or meaningless as to constitute an essentially contested concept, as discussed before.
Will the democrats start impeachment proceedings? Who knows? The political calculation might outweigh the constitutional imperative. Would the democrats lose votes in 2020 if they do impeach and the Senate then acquits Trump? Who knows? One thing that seems fairly certain, democrats aren't getting any Trump supporter votes no matter what they say or do, including saying they love Trump more than anything and support him. What votes are out there to be lost?
Footnote:
1. If Trump online supporters are basically like all Trump supporters, they were mostly or completely unaware of the evidence in Mueller's report showing (1) Trump's obstruction of justice, and (2) the seriousness of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. The first thing they heard was William Barr come out with his non-summary summary of the Mueller report and say no collusion, no obstruction and no Russian interference. The 2nd thing they heard was Trump Tweeting, TOTAL EXONERATION!, NO COLLUSION!! WITCH HUNT!!!!, REVENGE!!!!! That is another example of the awesome power of lesson one reinforced by some lies packed into emotion-provoking Tweets. Lies-based beliefs that support what a person wants to believe can be almost impossible to change. Facts and logic alone won't do the trick.
Finland's Defense Against the Dark Arts
CNN reports that Finland, a country under relentless Russian propaganda dark free speech attacks,[1] is learning to defend itself. The dark arts self-defense program the Finnish government has developed is being taught to school children and adults.
CNN writes:
This ain't Finland: Not surprisingly, America is a completely different kettle of multicultural fish. Americans generally do not believe they are susceptible to dark free speech. Political partisans generally do believe the political opposition definitely is susceptible. Most on each side firmly believe the other is deluded, deceived and/or just plain lying.
In commenting on the CNN report, Steven Novella at Neurologica makes this sobering point:
What Novella describes is an attitude that is common on America's political right. It accords with a belief by some social scientists, e.g., Johnathan Haidt, that most conservatives very highly value respect authority. Apparently, that conservative moral foundation or core value is so powerful that it can and does lead some people to believe that critical thinking skills are subversive.
If nothing else, the human mind with its moral-emotional functioning is a strange, fascination beast, to say the least. The question is whether the beast can control itself enough to maintain modern civilization and long-term human well-being. That is an open question. If past performance is an indicator of future returns, prospects don't look so good at the moment. What could change that bad prognosis is getting serious about building defenses against the dark arts, even if the risk of failure is high.
Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, confuse and demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide corruption, and inconvenient truths and facts, and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism.
B&B orig: 5/31/19
CNN writes:
The initiative is just one layer of a multi-pronged, cross-sector approach the country is taking to prepare citizens of all ages for the complex digital landscape of today – and tomorrow. The Nordic country, which shares an 832-mile border with Russia, is acutely aware of what’s at stake if it doesn’t.
Finland has faced down Kremlin-backed propaganda campaigns ever since it declared independence from Russia 101 years ago. But in 2014, after Moscow annexed Crimea and backed rebels in eastern Ukraine, it became obvious that the battlefield had shifted: information warfare was moving online.
As the trolling ramped up in 2015, President Sauli Niinisto called on every Finn to take responsibility for the fight against false information. A year later, Finland brought in American experts to advise officials on how to recognize fake news, understand why it goes viral and develop strategies to fight it. The education system was also reformed to emphasize critical thinking.
This ain't Finland: Not surprisingly, America is a completely different kettle of multicultural fish. Americans generally do not believe they are susceptible to dark free speech. Political partisans generally do believe the political opposition definitely is susceptible. Most on each side firmly believe the other is deluded, deceived and/or just plain lying.
In commenting on the CNN report, Steven Novella at Neurologica makes this sobering point:
In 2012 the Texas GOP had this in their platform:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
They literally opposed teaching critical thinking because it might challenge fixed beliefs and authority figures. This attitude is likely not uncommon, just rarely so explicitly stated. What I fear is that any move to teach media literacy in the public schools will be fraught with political manipulation and pushback. It can easily be presented as an attempt to promote one political view over another. The challenge is essentially to teach politics in a politically neutral way. It can be done, but it is tricky. It’s a perilous path that seems to have a high likelihood of failure. But we need to try – we need, in fact, to make it a priority.
What Novella describes is an attitude that is common on America's political right. It accords with a belief by some social scientists, e.g., Johnathan Haidt, that most conservatives very highly value respect authority. Apparently, that conservative moral foundation or core value is so powerful that it can and does lead some people to believe that critical thinking skills are subversive.
If nothing else, the human mind with its moral-emotional functioning is a strange, fascination beast, to say the least. The question is whether the beast can control itself enough to maintain modern civilization and long-term human well-being. That is an open question. If past performance is an indicator of future returns, prospects don't look so good at the moment. What could change that bad prognosis is getting serious about building defenses against the dark arts, even if the risk of failure is high.
Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, confuse and demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide corruption, and inconvenient truths and facts, and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism.
B&B orig: 5/31/19
A Constitutional Crisis Is Near
Constitutional crisis: constitutional crises arise mainly when:
(1) politicians and/or military officials announce they will not obey the constitution, for example by defying a court order, or
(2) when many people refuse to obey the constitution, and there can are street riots or the military mobilizes, or, states or regions try to secede from the nation, which involves situations where publicly articulated disagreements about the constitution lead political actors to engage in extraordinary forms of protest beyond mere legal disagreements and political protests and brute force is used or threatened.
Constitutional rot: constitutional rot occurs when norms that held power in check fall, partisans play constitutional hardball, e.g., the Senate refusing to consider a valid Supreme Court nomination, fair political competition comes under attack and state power becomes less accountable and responsive to the public.
A few days ago a B&B discussion focused on the difference between a constitutional crisis and constitutional rot. It is clear that America has been in constitutional rot at least since the mid-1990s. As of the close of business yesterday, American politics appears to have crossed the line from constitutional rot to a true constitutional crisis.
A few weeks ago, the federal judge handling the Michael Flynn case, Emmet Sullivan, ordered public release of some withheld materials in the Flynn prosecution. That included the transcript of a phone call by Trump lawyer John Dowd to one of Flynn's attorneys. That call showed witness tampering by Dowd, a felony, in an attempt to keep Flynn from cooperating with witnesses. That transcript was released yesterday as ordered.
However, the Washington Post and other sources report that the Justice Department did not publicly file the transcripts of Flynn’s calls with Russian officials, including then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The DoJ also refused to make public redacted portions of the Mueller report that pertains to Flynn. It is reasonable to believe that those transcripts and portions of the Mueller report contain evidence of Flynn illegally conspiring with Russia to advance Russian policy goals, lying under oath or committing other felonies.
The WaPo writes: "Prosecutors provided one item that Sullivan ordered be released: a transcript of a voice mail left by an attorney for Trump, much of which had already appeared in Mueller’s report. It is unclear how the judge will react to the government’s noncompliance with other elements of his order. Late last year, Sullivan postponed Flynn’s sentencing after angrily lambasting the former national security adviser for his actions, saying, 'Arguably, you sold your country out.'"
Refusal to release those materials is an obvious refusal to obey a valid court order. That constitutes a constitutional crisis or something very close to it. How Judge Sullivan reacts to this will probably be known soon and that could dictate what the constitutional situation actually is. The judge could hold prosecutors and maybe also Attorney General William Barr in contempt and have them jailed until they comply.
Suppressed evidence that is coming to light continues to show claims of innocence and exoneration are lies by Trump, Barr and other people with knowledge of the facts who make the same false claims. Trump and everyone involved is lying. One can only hope that Sullivan orders Barr and the involved prosecutors to go to jail. They deserve no less.
Looking back, this day had to come. Trump's contempt for the rule of law and for norms that make our democracy work has been clear from before the 2016 elections. Trump is truly making his run at building some sort of a kleptocratic tyranny-Christian theocracy and suppressing democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties. People who support and enable this evil can not in good faith deny this is happening or that it is evil. There is no excuse to support Trump except if one wants to eliminate liberal democracy and install a corrupt, anti-democratic tyrant.
Orig B&B: 6/1/19
Constitutional rot: constitutional rot occurs when norms that held power in check fall, partisans play constitutional hardball, e.g., the Senate refusing to consider a valid Supreme Court nomination, fair political competition comes under attack and state power becomes less accountable and responsive to the public.
A few days ago a B&B discussion focused on the difference between a constitutional crisis and constitutional rot. It is clear that America has been in constitutional rot at least since the mid-1990s. As of the close of business yesterday, American politics appears to have crossed the line from constitutional rot to a true constitutional crisis.
A few weeks ago, the federal judge handling the Michael Flynn case, Emmet Sullivan, ordered public release of some withheld materials in the Flynn prosecution. That included the transcript of a phone call by Trump lawyer John Dowd to one of Flynn's attorneys. That call showed witness tampering by Dowd, a felony, in an attempt to keep Flynn from cooperating with witnesses. That transcript was released yesterday as ordered.
However, the Washington Post and other sources report that the Justice Department did not publicly file the transcripts of Flynn’s calls with Russian officials, including then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The DoJ also refused to make public redacted portions of the Mueller report that pertains to Flynn. It is reasonable to believe that those transcripts and portions of the Mueller report contain evidence of Flynn illegally conspiring with Russia to advance Russian policy goals, lying under oath or committing other felonies.
The WaPo writes: "Prosecutors provided one item that Sullivan ordered be released: a transcript of a voice mail left by an attorney for Trump, much of which had already appeared in Mueller’s report. It is unclear how the judge will react to the government’s noncompliance with other elements of his order. Late last year, Sullivan postponed Flynn’s sentencing after angrily lambasting the former national security adviser for his actions, saying, 'Arguably, you sold your country out.'"
Refusal to release those materials is an obvious refusal to obey a valid court order. That constitutes a constitutional crisis or something very close to it. How Judge Sullivan reacts to this will probably be known soon and that could dictate what the constitutional situation actually is. The judge could hold prosecutors and maybe also Attorney General William Barr in contempt and have them jailed until they comply.
Suppressed evidence that is coming to light continues to show claims of innocence and exoneration are lies by Trump, Barr and other people with knowledge of the facts who make the same false claims. Trump and everyone involved is lying. One can only hope that Sullivan orders Barr and the involved prosecutors to go to jail. They deserve no less.
Looking back, this day had to come. Trump's contempt for the rule of law and for norms that make our democracy work has been clear from before the 2016 elections. Trump is truly making his run at building some sort of a kleptocratic tyranny-Christian theocracy and suppressing democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties. People who support and enable this evil can not in good faith deny this is happening or that it is evil. There is no excuse to support Trump except if one wants to eliminate liberal democracy and install a corrupt, anti-democratic tyrant.
Orig B&B: 6/1/19