“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
Monday, June 3, 2019
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)