Saturday, February 20, 2021

Book Review: A Lot Of People Are Saying



The 2019 book, Book Review: A Lot Of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy, is an explanation of the rise of a new kind of conspiracy thinking that falls short of being conspiracy theory. The book is short (176 pages, paperback version) and easy to read. The authors are Russell Muirhead, Professor of Democracy and Politics, Dartmouth College, and Nancy L. Rosenblum, Professor of Ethics in Politics and Government, Harvard University.

The book was published before the 1/6 coup attempt and how the now fascist GOP responded to it so far. The authors were thus not influenced by those watershed events in American politics. Those anti-democratic events directly negate a few of the assertions the book's arguments are based on. Nonetheless, the overall analysis and arguments that Muirhead and Rosenblum make remain mostly untouched. This book offers a reasoned vision of what is happening right now and just how damaging and dangerous this species of dark free speech is.


What is new conspiracism?
Classical conspiracy theory, which can be true or false, attempts to make sense of political events by positing evidence, reasoning and a theory that explains the events. There is some proportionality between evidence and the explanation. There is an honest attempt to find evidence to fit the theory or to make evidence fit a theory. Conspiracy theories (i) are typically attached to an ideology or political theory, and (ii) provide an explanation. Sometimes the investigation is flawed by external factors such as partisanship, confirmation bias and/or motivated reasoning, but at least there is an attempt to offer explanations that better fit the facts. Classical conspiracy theories include ones to explain the 9/11 attacks. The drafting and content of the Declaration of Independence arose from a conspiracy theory among Americans about the evil, tyrannical intentions of the British government toward America. 
“The incendiary purpose of the conspiracy theory in the Declaration remains. On July 4, 2017, National Public Radio issued one hundred tweets that together contained the full text. Twitter followers identified as Donald Trump supporters were confused. They read the Tweets as inciting violence against the administration. ‘So NPR is calling for revolution. Interesting way to condone violence while trying to sound patriotic.’  ‘Your implications are clear.’ ‘Glad you are being defunded. You never had been balanced on your show.’ And the omnipresent charge: ‘Fake news.’”
By contrast, new conspiracism dispenses with an explanation and a political theory. Bare assertions are legitimized by online repetition and affirmation or ‘likes’. That is the thin oxygen that gives new conspiracism its life and power. 
“Yet the new conspiracism discards this defining purpose [of explaining an event]. Not only does the new conspiracism fail to offer explanations, there is often nothing to explain. .... The typical form of the new conspiracism is bare assertion .... Another example of sheer allegation is ‘birtherism’. .... Today, ‘fake’ is the most familiar example of bare assertion: fake news, fake FBI reports .... Fakeness is not a matter of error, after all, but of malignant intent. .... In addition to shedding explanation, the new conspiracism sheds political theory. It does not offer an account of what is threatened. It does not offer an account of the constructive political change that should follow from exposing the danger. .... The new conspiracism is not defending ultimate values; often the stakes are low, of the moment, and no values are articulated at all.”
Bare assertions typically come by way of one or both of two rhetorical tactics, the ominous question and innuendo. The ominous question, e.g., did the authorities test for this or do that in their investigation of the allegedly mysterious death of Antonin Scalia in Texas: “‘My gut tells me there is something fishy going on in Texas.’ No specific accusations are made, and no falsifiable assertions are ventured. The ‘just asking questions’ tactic substitutes for argument, evidence and explanation.” 

In the 2016 election, the ex-president used innuendo against Ted Cruz by repeating a National Enquirer article that suggested without evidence that there was a connection between Cruz’s father and Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK’s assassin. The ex-president said “Even if it isn’t totally true, there’s something there.” 

New conspiracism is often mixed with classical conspiracy theory, making it more difficult to understand and deal with. In that regard, it constitutes some of the very best dark free speech that mixes some facts and/or truths with lies and/or motivated reasoning. 


A lot of people are saying
New conspiracism relied heavily on repetition, forwarding and liking Tweets and public affirmation such as ‘a lot of people are saying’.
“What Trump, for instance, wants is not the architecture of an organized political party or even an organized movement but a throng that assents to his account of reality. ‘You know what’s important’, he said about his fantasy of illegal Clinton votes, ‘millions of people agree with me when I say that.’ Affirmation of his reality is the key act .... This helps us understand just how the internet is vital for the new conspiracists and how their use of it is different from classical conspiracists’. .... Repetition is the new conspiracist’s oxygen, and it sometimes seems, its whole purpose.”

The goal of new conspiracism: delegitimation
The authors argue that delegitimation of democracy, government officials, the press and other democratic institutions is the main goal. By constantly asserting false realities and crackpot motivated reasoning, the new conspiracists disorient people and imposes a constant burden on them to keep rejecting the attacks. This is not the same as reasonable mistrust, which is healthy for a democracy.  
“Where mistrust is a necessary element of democratic accountability and widespread mistrust is a sign of democratic failing, delegitimation is an active assault on democracy. Delegitimation exists when a political opposition that is mistrusted is come to be seen as a public enemy, for example. We are learning what delegitimation looks like. Authorities are cast as hostile elements .... Officials are ‘so-called’ officials .... They are demeaned and undermined, threatened, and declared criminal or traitorous.”


How to fight against it
The authors here are like some or most others who have written on the topic of political dark free speech. People and politicians have to constantly speak truth to the lies and nonsense. Politicians have to be more transparent to reduce the size of targets for conspiracism. Politicians have to be more assertive about “enacting democracy,” which they define as both acknowledging concerns there may be in conspiracism but firmly pointing out that the beliefs are false and democratic government is not out to enslave the American people. They admit that some republican politicians (1) acknowledge the public concerns, but fail to defend democracy, or (2) say nothing at all. Both of which are inherently anti-democratic. 

Interestingly, the authors concede that closed minds cannot be reached. Instead, open minds are the target for the difficult task of trying relegitimize and repair what has been delegitimized and damaged.

The weakness that runs through this book has to be made clear. The 1/6 coup attempt and how the GOP responded thereafter directly contradicts some of what the authors were thinking and arguing. They did not foresee in 2019 what happened on Jan. 6, 2021. In my mind, the 1/6 coup attempt changed the new conspiracism the authors articulated to a newer and more virulent form. That virus mutated on 1/6 and it got a lot nastier than the original strain. We really need a new and better vaccine.

No comments:

Post a Comment