The President's New Media Strategy?

“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. . . . . 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.” Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

The President hosted conservative provocateurs yesterday at the White House for a 'free speech' summit. One source writes that he "welcomed prominent conservative social media provocateurs to the White House and said that along with himself, they are being treated unfairly by big tech firms, which he says suppress conservative voices." The president was quoted as saying "We're not going to be silenced . . . . Big tech must not censor the voices. The crap you think of is unbelievable. I mean it's genius — but it's bad" as he complained about fluctuations in the number of his Twitter followers and praised the liars who support him.

Another source comments:

President Trump used a White House conference Thursday to applaud far-right social media provocateurs even as he conceded that some of them are extreme in their views. Trump, who has weaponized social media to eviscerate opponents and promote himself, led a "social media summit" of like-minded critics of Big Tech, excluding representatives from the very platforms he exploits, the AP reports. The president used the event to air grievances over his treatment by Big Tech, but also to praise some of the most caustic voices on the right, who help energize Trump's political base. "Some of you guys are out there," he told them. "I mean it's genius, but it's bad."

Trump praised James O'Keefe, whose Project Veritas organization once tried to plant a false story in the Washington Post. In May 2010, O'Keefe and three others pleaded guilty in federal court to a misdemeanor in a scheme in which they posed as telephone repairmen in Sen. Mary Landrieu's New Orleans office. "He's not controversial, he's truthful," Trump insisted of O'Keefe. Trump told the friendly crowd, "You're bypassing the very, very corrupt media." The meeting represented an escalation of Trump's battle with Facebook, Google and Twitter. The president has claimed, without evidence, that the companies are "against me" and even suggested US regulators should sue them on grounds of anti-conservative bias. He announced Thursday that he is directing his administration to explore "all regulatory and legislative solutions to protect free speech and the free-speech rights of all Americans." (emphasis added)

This may turn out to be another step toward the deeply corrupt, lies-based tyranny the president is intent on building in the US. Going forward, the president may simply stop talking to all responsible media sources that try to report truth. Instead he may opt to rely on friendly propaganda sites to communicate his dark free speech[1] to the American people. It may be the case that the professional MSM is often or usually unreasonably biased, fails to be honest (comprehensive) enough and/or plagued by other factors that impair its professionalism or the veracity of its content.

That said, our imperfect MSM is far better than the kind of obviously dark free speech-based sources that our dark free speech-driven president apparently wants to deal with. Or is that point debatable?

Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or otherwise protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide corruption (~ lies and deceit of omission), 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: 7/12/19

Different Points of View, Different Realities

In 2014, the US Geological Survey drew up this map showing how land accrued to the American nation over time. It shows the process from the official American history point of view.

Claudio Saunt, the associate director of the Institute of Native American Studies at the University of Georgia produced this 1½ minute video showing land acquisition from the Native American point of view.



The two versions of history look different. Different points of view can create different realities. Are both realities correct but arguably incomplete, is one false and the other true, or is one just more accurate than the other?

What about fact, truth and logic?: Does the same apply to fact, truth and logic in politics, if not everything else? Objectively true facts do not change with point of view, but truths can. If truths can vary with point of view, then that can affect logic and beliefs based thereon.

This is a factor that arguably can make at least some political disagreements unresolvable because people do not know about different points of view.

By relying on only one point of view when there are two or more legitimate points of view, the speaker is arguably lying or BSing, depending on the speaker's knowledge and intent. If that is true, honest speech requires at least that context. People need to know about relevant, significant differing points of view to assess the veracity of what is presented.

That kind of honest context is rare to non-existent in partisan political speech. Arguably, it is not nearly common enough in news reporting. Maybe it is not common enough here at Dissident Politics.

B&B orig: 7/14/19

Pure Opinion vs. Fact- and Logic-Based Analysis

A couple of days ago, a commenter criticized part of a B&B discussion and I responded. It went like this.

Criticism: There is nothing true in the following paragraph you wrote. It is simply an emotional appeal based on opinion.

This may turn out to be another step toward the deeply corrupt, lies-based tyranny the president is intent on building in the US. Going forward, the president may simply stop talking to all responsible media sources that try to report truth. Instead he may opt to rely on friendly propaganda sites to communicate his dark free speech[1] to the American people. It may be the case that the professional MSM is often or usually unreasonably biased, fails to be honest (comprehensive) enough and/or plagued by other factors that impair its professionalism or the veracity of its content.

My response: That includes reasonable opinion based on fact. That is a legitimate basis for public discourse.

Facts:
1. Trump is corrupt because, for example, (i) he sees nothing wrong with continuing to profit from his businesses, (ii) he has a public track record of corrupt business practices, and (iii) he continues to refuse to show his tax returns
2. Trump has been very clear in public that he likes dictators and dictatorship, and he would like to have their kind of power for life
3. Trump has openly and repeatedly complained that the US press is the enemy of the people and he hates them and he would shut the press down if he could
4. He has an unmatched track record of lying, deceiving withholding facts and information and bullstiting the American people compared to all recent US presidents, and probably to all US presidents ever
5. He has an unmatched track record of contempt for the rule of law as evidenced by his refusal to comply with congressional oversight 6. He has an undeniable track record of surrounding himself with criminals and liars
7. He hosted propagandists at the White House and praised them, even though they spew lies and deceit
8. The professional MSM has a much better public track record of telling the truth than the lying propagandists that Trump invited to the White House

The opinions, e.g., the president is working toward a deeply corrupt, lies-based tyranny flows directly from the underlying facts. There is no leap of logic that is not firmly grounded in fact. Given the facts, it is perfectly reasonable to think that Trump might simply stop talking to White House press corps MSM sources and try to put lying propagandists the White House press corps and speak only to them.

So, what's the flaw(s) in any of that? Is Trump honest and not a chronic liar? Does he hate dictatorship? Did he not invite lying propagandists to the White House and praise them? Are some or all of the asserted facts not true? Are the opinions unwarranted in view of the facts or based on flawed logic? Is this just pure (100%) emotional appeal based on no facts or reality whatever, or is there some reasonable degree of fact- and/or logic-based content in it?

The concern: Are the eight things above that are called facts not really facts, and at best are only debatable truths? How much evidence does it take to elevate an opinion from just an opinion to a matter of debatable truth or even not debatable fact? Am I just irrationally rationalizing this? Is the criticized paragraph nothing more than pure personal opinion with an insufficient link to reality for the eight asserted "facts" to amount to truth and/or fact?

In other words, am I unreasonably self-deluded or reality-detached here? And elsewhere?

B&B orig: 7/15/19

Race-Based Politics?

A New York Times article alleges that the President's recent remarks are racist and have hit a new low. Is that mostly true or is it just the biased corporate media spewing hateful propaganda?

WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Sunday that a group of four minority congresswomen feuding with Speaker Nancy Pelosi should “go back” to the countries they came from rather than “loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States” how to run the government.

Wrapped inside that insult, which was widely established as a racist trope, was a factually inaccurate claim: Only one of the lawmakers was born outside the country.

Even though Mr. Trump has repeatedly refused to back down from stoking racial divisions, his willingness to deploy a lowest-rung slur — one commonly and crudely used to single out the perceived foreignness of nonwhite, non-Christian people — was largely regarded as beyond the pale.

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, “now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run.”

Mr. Trump added: “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.”

{In saying “go back,” President Trump fanned the flames of a racial fire, our correspondent says in an analysis.[1]}

Delivered on the day he had promised widespread immigration raids, Mr. Trump’s comments signaled a new low in how far he will go to affect public discourse surrounding the issue. And if his string of tweets wa

s meant to further widen Democratic divisions in an intraparty fight, the strategy appeared quickly to backfire: House Democrats, including Ms. Pelosi, rallied around the women, declaring in blunt terms that Mr. Trump’s words echoed other xenophobic comments he has made about nonwhite immigrants.

{When it comes to race, Mr. Trump plays with fire like no other president in a century.[1]}

As the president’s remarks reverberated around Twitter, a chorus of Americans took to social media to say that they had heard some version of Mr. Trump’s words throughout their lives, beginning with childhood taunts on the playground. Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey and a presidential candidate, joined scores of people who said it was jarring to hear the phrase from the president.

Ms. Pelosi may have offered the bluntest take on Mr. Trump’s comments when she said his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” “has always been about making America white again.”

But only one of the women, Ms. Omar, who is from Somalia, was born outside the United States. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx to parents of Puerto Rican descent. Ms. Pressley, who is black, was born in Cincinnati and raised in Chicago. And Ms. Tlaib was born in Detroit to Palestinian immigrants.

“These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough,” Mr. Trump said. “I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

Representative Joaquin Castro, Democrat of Texas and the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, called Mr. Trump a “bigot.” Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, who left the Republican Party this month over differences with Mr. Trump and is the child of Syrian and Palestinian immigrants, declared the comments “racist and disgusting.”

All four lawmakers in “the squad” eventually weighed in and responded to the president. “You are stoking white nationalism,” Ms. Omar said, because “you are angry that people like us are serving in Congress and fighting against your hate-filled agenda.”

Truth, propaganda or both?: Is the NYT presenting a basically honest picture, is it mostly propaganda or is it a roughly equal mix of truth and lies-propaganda? Is it something else, and if so, what?

Some research indicates that the most important source of support for the president in the 2016 election arose from unease among white voters at an impending demographic change from majority white to majority minority, coupled with unease over globalization and a perception that America was losing power and influence.[2] Economic concerns were second. If that data is correct, Trump's remarks can arguably be seen as playing the race card and maybe even racist.

Trump and his most or all of his supporters will reject that, probably arguing that the target of his comments are ingrates who attack and undermine America, none of which has anything to do with race. Is it racist to tell members of congress, or any American citizen, to go back to where they came from? Are members of congress allowed to criticize American policy and advocate for change?

Is this mostly liberal biased corporate media making an issue out of essentially nothing. Or, is it something more troubling than just crude politics in our new era of crudeness? Can one argue that Trump is dismantling another social norm that used to keep most people from making racist comments in public, or is there nothing racist at all in what Trump said?

Are there better arguments one can make in Trump's defense? If so, what are they?

Footnotes:
1.

WASHINGTON — President Trump woke up on Sunday morning, gazed out at the nation he leads, saw the dry kindling of race relations and decided to throw a match on it. It was not the first time, nor is it likely to be the last. He has a pretty large carton of matches and a ready supply of kerosene.

His Twitter harangue goading Democratic congresswomen of color to “go back” to the country they came from, even though most of them were actually born in the United States, shocked many. But it should have surprised few who have watched the way he has governed a multicultural, multiracial country the last two and a half years.

When it comes to race, Mr. Trump plays with fire like no other president in a century. While others who occupied the White House at times skirted close to or even over the line, finding ways to appeal to the resentments of white Americans with subtle and not-so-subtle appeals, none of them in modern times fanned the flames as overtly, relentlessly and even eagerly as Mr. Trump.

2. “This study evaluates the “left behind” thesis as well as dominant group status threat as an alternative narrative explaining Trump’s popular appeal and ultimate election to the presidency. Evidence points overwhelmingly to perceived status threat among high-status groups as the key motivation underlying Trump support. White Americans’ declining numerical dominance in the United States together with the rising status of African Americans and American insecurity about whether the United States is still the dominant global economic superpower combined to prompt a classic defensive reaction among members of dominant groups.”

B&B orig: 7/15/19

How to Talk to Religious Climate Science Deniers

An evangelical Christian climate scientist, Katharine Hayhoe, appears to maybe have figured a way to speak to some Christian climate science deniers. Hayhoe is a director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. Her schedule is booked for months with appearances in classrooms, churches, TV studios and conservative colleges, where she has been accused of “spreading Satan’s lies.” The Washington Post writes:

And on a Monday morning last month, the prophet performed a miracle: She got a ballroom of climate activists to applaud fossil fuels.

“What was life like before the Industrial Revolution?” Hayhoe asked during a keynote address at the Citizens’ Climate Lobby conference in Washington, D.C. “It was short. It was brutal.”

“So I realized that I am truly and profoundly grateful for the benefits and the blessings that fossil fuels have brought us.”

And then her audience of 1,500 began to clap. They were clapping for fossil fuels because it was cathartic to acknowledge that, for all the damage done, coal and gas and oil had been gifts to mankind. And they were clapping for Hayhoe, whose tribute to energy was part of a story she told about establishing a rapport with employees of an oil-and-gas company in Texas. Her skills of communication do seem miraculous by the standards of modern climate politics: She can convert nonbelievers — or, to put it in her terms, make people realize that they’ve believed in the importance of this issue all along. She knows how to speak to oilmen, to Christians, to farmers and ranchers, having lived for years in Lubbock, Tex., with her pastor husband. She is a scientist who thinks that we’ve talked enough about science, that we need to talk more about matters of the heart.

For her, that means talking about faith.

“We humans have been given responsibility for every living thing on this planet, which includes each other,” Hayhoe said at the conference. “We are called to tend the garden and be good stewards of the gifts that God has given us.”

You might say that the climate problem, while understood through science, can be solved only through faith.

Faith in one another.

Faith in our ability to do something bold, together.

“I’m not an evangelist,” she continued. She sees herself more like Cassandra, who predicted the fall of Troy but was not believed, or Jeremiah, whose omens were inspired by selfish kings and cultish priests in ancient Jerusalem.

“We are warning people of the consequences of their choices, and that’s what prophets did,” she said, over plates of samosas and grape leaves, and “you get the same thing that prophets have gotten throughout history.”

“A prophet is not valued in their hometown,” said her lunch date, Jessica Moerman, paraphrasing the Gospels. Moerman, 33, is a fellow member of a tiny club: Christian climate scientists married to evangelical pastors.

“No, they’re not,” Hayhoe said, laughing. She gets a steady stream of hate on social media and the occasional death threat. But she reminds herself that hate comes from anger, and anger comes from fear — and fear does not come from God, according to the Apostle Paul in his letter to Timothy.

We speak of climate change in terms of belief, as if the science is actually a faith. And we think of scientists as godless clinicians, as if the principles of inquiry nullify the utility of prayer. In the United States, nearly 40 percent of university scientists have a religious affiliation, according to new research by Rice University professor of sociology Elaine Howard Ecklund; for scientists working outside of universities, that percentage jumps to 77. And many agnostic or atheist scientists still see themselves as spiritual, according to Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle, assistant professor of sociology at West Virginia University.

Religious people who deny climate science are generally spurred not by theology but by an assumption that climate science is based on political beliefs — namely, liberal ones. Converting nonbelievers on political grounds seems next to impossible.

Her argument that it is futile to argue climate science on political grounds or on the basis of godless science seems to be correct, at least for Christians who deny the science. Maybe her approach to communications will change some minds.

Despite the article's contrary assertion, most science-based people do not act as if the science is a matter of spiritual faith. Nor do most think of scientists as godless clinicians, or that the principles of inquiry nullify the utility of prayer. How science got to be conflated with spiritual belief is, more likely than not, a matter of decades of ruthless special interest, political and religious propaganda.

Maybe Hayhoe can reach some minds that are reachable only through appeal to religious faith. If so, more power to her. If she fails, then at least she tried and she cannot be faulted for that.

B&B orig: 7/16/19

The Irrationality of Drug Prices

“We have no rational signpost for when something is too expensive or fairly priced. ICER has stepped into that void.” Michael Sherman, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care


Source: OECD data

One of the failings of US health care is its high cost but roughly average quality compared to other industrialized countries. Per capita annual spending in the US was about $10,586 for 2018. Spending for Switzerland, the next closest country, was $7,317 for 2018. A major component of the non-competitive, high US costs is in the opaque irrationality of drug prices. Unlike other countries, the US does not have an agency that analyzes cost-benefit for drugs so that policymakers can base policy on data. At present, US drug pricing policy is non-existent. That is based mostly on campaign contributions.

A recent NPR broadcast of a segment produced by WBUR (Boston) on US drug pricing focused on an obscure non-profit organization called the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Poll data shows that about 75% of Americans believe drug prices are unreasonable. ICER asks if that belief is true.

WBUR writes:

A small nonprofit based in Boston has a rising reputation as the nation's “drug price watchdog.” It's also been called “big pharma's biggest threat.”

It might seem dull. And the name — the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review — could make anyone feel drowsy. But this quiet office is actually a powerful player in the increasingly furious fight over American drug prices.

“No matter how well we work with people, this is a contact sport,” Pearson says.

A whiteboard at one desk hints at its role. The writing reads: peanut allergy, heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis and an abbreviation — UPI, for “unsupported price increase.”

These are topics that ICER will be researching — to produce reports that can act like bombshells thrown into the drug price battle. Not that Pearson uses a bombshell style. He and his colleagues coolly calculate whether a drug is cost-effective, whether it's worth its price.

For example, when a powerful new drug to lower high cholesterol came out in 2014 priced at $14,000 a year, ICER calculated that it was only worth about $3,000, putting pressure on the drug's maker to lower the price — which it later did.

Pearson says ICER looks into treatments where the evidence is hard to understand “and where the question about the value to patients and the system is going to be something where our research can help make it more transparent. So that can include treatments for very acute severe conditions like cancer, it can include preventive strategies for things like peanut allergy, and anything in between.”

ICER calculates how much each drug extends a patient's life and improves their life. It uses a complex economic model; in the simplest terms, it considers a drug cost-effective if it costs no more than $150,000 per year of quality life it gives the average patient.

“Ultimately, we want to be able to figure out what a fair price is so that we can get better access and make it affordable and sustainable for the long-term, while making sure that we reward the people who really bring good innovation into our system,” Pearson said.

It's no small task for an independent nonprofit with just about 30 full-time staffers. In other developed countries, a government agency decides on drug prices and value. In the United Kingdom, which has a national health care system, that agency goes by the acronym NICE.

Given America's pay-to-play political system, it is no wonder that US drug prices are often unreasonably high. Not surprisingly, drug companies are mounting the usual corporate defense, i.e., attack the source of the bad information as biased, flawed, etc.: “Some critics dispute whether ICER is truly objective, and question its methodology and goals. “I say, ‘ICER, they make reports for insurance so that insurance can deny you care,’ ” says Terry Wilcox, executive director of Patients Rising, a national advocacy group mainly funded by drug companies. It runs a website called ICERWatch that keeps a critical eye on what ICER does. At PhRMA, the national trade group for drugmakers, senior director of policy and research Lauren Neves says PhRMA supports the type of research on value that ICER does. But it has concerns about how insurers use the ICER reports to deny coverage.”

Patients Rising sounds like a group that pretends to be for patients but is there to defend corporate profits. That is standard corporate propaganda practice.

Is high US drug cost real a failure of the capitalist, for-profit US health care system? Should drugs be priced at whatever the market will bear, regardless of (1) any cost-benefit concern, or (2) whether people are unable to pay?

B&B orig: 7/17/19