China’s digital dictatorship update: When propaganda backfires -- it could kill us all

The New York Times writes on a Chinese public backlash against the dictators for not invading Taiwan in the wake of Pelosi’s recent trip to Taiwan. The Chinese people were really angry that the People’s Liberation Army (actually the People’s Oppression Army) did not invade to avenge the terrible insult and severe threat that they were told by Chinese propaganda Pelosi’s visit constituted. Many Chinese were fixin’ to go to war, and instead they got blithering rhetoric and a few missiles lobbed around in the ocean. 

The NYT writes:

It doesn’t often happen that ordinary Chinese say publicly that they’re disappointed with their government. That they’re ashamed of their government. That they want to renounce their Communist Party memberships. And that they think the People’s Liberation Army is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

No military action in the Taiwan Strait, as they felt they had been led to expect. No shoot-down, no missile attack, no fighter jet flying next to Ms. Pelosi’s plane. Just some denunciations and announcements of military exercises.

Many people complained that they felt let down and lied to by the government. “Don’t put on a show of power if you don’t have the power,” wrote a Weibo user with the handle @shanshanmeiyoulaichi2hao shortly after the flight’s landing. “What a loss of face!”

Some users compared the People’s Liberation Army to the Chinese men’s soccer team, a laughingstock in the country because it has qualified for the World Cup only once. They sneered at the announcement that the P.L.A. would conduct military exercises near Taiwan. “Save some gas,” said one WeChat user. “It’s very expensive now,” responded another.

On WeChat, the comments section for a short video about a military exercise became a board for dissatisfied people to whine. Among thousands of comments, a few Communist Party members said they would like to quit out of shame. A military veteran said he would probably never mention his army experience again. “Too angry to fall asleep,” commented a user with the handle @xiongai.

Many users seemed especially disappointed with the foreign ministry. “When China said ‘strongly condemn’ and ‘solemnly declare,’ it was only for the purpose of amusing ordinary folks like us,” wrote a Weibo user with the handle @shizhendemaolulu, referring to the language that foreign ministry spokespeople used about Ms. Pelosi’s visit.

“So tough when it comes to domestic governance and so cowardly in foreign affairs,” the user wrote. “Utterly disappointed!”  

“Nationalism is becoming a core pillar of both the party’s and Xi’s personal political legitimacy,” Kevin Rudd, the chief executive of the Asia Society and a former prime minister of Australia, wrote in his book “The Avoidable War: The Dangers of a Catastrophic Conflict Between the U.S. and Xi Jinping’s China.”

The broader point: Propaganda can be lethal and catastrophic

So there you have it propaganda fans. Aggressive, jingoistic Chinese Government propaganda leads some, maybe tens of millions of Chinese citizens, to be enthusiastic about starting World War 3 over a visit by a US politician to a disputed territory. Those people probably have no idea of what the aftermath of a nuclear war with the US would look like. They are clueless in their propaganda fantasy.

Recall the American Committee on Public Information? It was a massive US government propaganda effort to whip up public support for entering into World War 1. It worked. Americans flipped from ambivalence and opposition to support. Americans who opposed US entry into WW1 were vilified as traitors. So, they went to war and got slaughtered, but in the end the world was not safe for democracy. And its still isn’t in 2022, even in America.

Wikipedia writes:

The Committee on Public Information (1917–1919), also known as the CPI or the Creel Committee, was an independent agency of the government of the United States under the Wilson administration created to influence public opinion to support the US in World War I, in particular, the US home front.

In just over 26 months (from April 14, 1917, to June 30, 1919) it used every medium available to create enthusiasm for the war effort and to enlist public support against the foreign and perceived domestic attempts to stop America's participation in the war. It is a notable example of propaganda in the United States.

Wilson established the first modern propaganda office, the Committee on Public Information (CPI), headed by George Creel. Creel set out to systematically reach every person in the United States multiple times with patriotic information about how the individual could contribute to the war effort. It also worked with the post office to censor seditious counter-propaganda. Creel set up divisions in his new agency to produce and distribute innumerable copies of pamphlets, newspaper releases, magazine advertisements, films, school campaigns, and the speeches of the Four Minute Men. CPI created colorful posters that appeared in every store window, catching the attention of the passersby for a few seconds. Movie theaters were widely attended, and the CPI trained thousands of volunteer speakers to make patriotic appeals during the four-minute breaks needed to change reels. They also spoke at churches, lodges, fraternal organizations, labor unions, and even logging camps. .... Creel boasted that in 18 months his 75,000 volunteers delivered over 7.5 million four minute orations to over 300 million listeners, in a nation of 103 million people. 

Propaganda’s intent:

Is a mushroom a vegetable?

How states would vote on abortion

The New York Times published a map that estimates how voters would vote on abortion if they had the chance to do so in a referendum like the one Kansas just had. Voters in seven states (in tan below) are estimated to be willing to vote against abortion rights in margins that range from 52% to 56%. The NYT estimated that at least 40 states would vote to retain abortion rights.

The upshot? Where Republicans control the legislature but public sentiment favors keeping abortion rights, voters will not be given a chance to vote on it. To pretend that the Republican Party is democratic and not authoritarian Christofascist, it might risk a vote in the three most anti-abortion states, LA, MS and AL. The Republicans would not dare to risk a vote in close states like UT, TX, SC, WV, ID or TN. 

That is how radical right Republicans play political and propaganda hardball. They play for keeps, no matter how many lives they destroy or kill. Republican Party cynical callousness and mendacity in politics and propaganda is no different than that used by the the carbon energy sector or the cigarette industry.

Why Republican elites embrace Viktor Orban

Hungarian President Viktor Orban is a key speaker opening the Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas today. A 5 minute interview broadcast by NPR on Here & Now discussed why Trump Republicans openly embrace Orban. The interview was with Kim Lane Scheppele, professor of sociology and international affairs at Princeton University (her curriculum vitae is here). Schepple is an expert on Orban.

This is the best description I have encountered that explains why radical right Republican elites and fascist propaganda sources like Faux News (especially Tucker Carlson) are so powerfully drawn to and inspired by Orban. They find his messaging and tactics to be superb. 

What Schepple describes is terrifying in its clarity and simplicity.

In the 5 minute interview, Scheppele describes the rise of Orban and how he killed democracy in Hungary. Experts no longer consider Hungary to be a democracy. The actions he took to gain power and then kill democracy is what Republican Party leaders admire and are trying to emulate in America right now. The parallels are close and undeniable.

The key points:

• Orban gained power in 2010 based on nationalist and racist demagoguery and dog whistle culture war. People open to this kind of message flocked to him and put him in power. His demagoguery created a false narrative of White victimization and dire threat of Whites by non-White people and globalization.  
• Once in power Orban changed election rules to destroy free and fair elections. Elections after he came to power were heavily rigged. He has now been elected in three consecutive, heavily-rigged elections after gaining power in 2010. Those faux elections are the basis for his claim to legitimacy.
• At the same time he destroyed elections, Orban neutered other aspects of Hungarian democracy. He got rid of professional public servants loyal to the rule of law and the people of Hungary. He replaced them with people loyal to him. 
• Republicans see what Orban has done as a proof of concept in how to overthrow a democracy. The Orban overthrow model is shockingly simple: 

(1) start with culture wars to whip up a loyal base of public support, 

(2) once in power, manipulate the rules of democracy and government functions to cement minority rule, and 

(3) “win” rigged elections to stay in power.

Scheppele asserts that once a Republican is back in the White House, the Republican Party plan is to purge federal civil servants deemed not loyal enough. They are to be replaced with with people loyal to the president and Republican Party elites. She claims that Steven Bannon is now training Republicans to prepare for the purge when the day comes. 

Qs: 

1. Does any of the above sound familiar, or is Schepple full of hyperbole?

2. If one told these things to a rank and file T**** supporter, would they most likely believe it, mostly reject it, or mostly have some other reaction(s)?

Election subversion update

In the primaries last Tuesday, Republican election subversion supporters in four states are poised to take control if they win the upcoming general election in November. The New York Times writes:

In 4 Swing States, G.O.P. Election Deniers Could Oversee Voting

With Tuesday’s primary victories in Arizona and Michigan added to those in Nevada and Pennsylvania, Republicans who have disputed the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election and who could affect the outcome of the next one are on a path toward winning decisive control over how elections are run in several battleground states.

Each has spread falsehoods about fraud and illegitimate ballots, endorsing the failed effort to override the 2020 results and keep former President Donald J. Trump in power. Their history of anti-democratic impulses has prompted Democrats, democracy experts and even some fellow Republicans to question whether these officials would oversee fair elections and certify winners they didn’t support.

There is no question that victories by these candidates in November could lead to sweeping changes to how millions of Americans vote. Several have proposed eliminating mail voting, ballot drop boxes and even the use of electronic voting machines, while empowering partisan election observers and expanding their roles.

The 2022 general election will be a test run for election subversion measures by the fascist Republican Party. If their measures do not deliver adequate results, there is will be focused efforts to improve on the Republican version of “election integrity.” That effort will be greatly aided by the Supreme Court decision in the pending Moore v. Harper case, which is due by the end of next June.

What the Republican Party wants is obvious: Elections must have so much integrity that Democrats can never again control state legislatures, major state offices, including governorships, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court.  

Iron-fisted single party rule is the Republican vision of satisfactory election integrity.

Republican belief without evidence = absolute truth

Law school time: Perjury vs. lying to the court

This 3 minute video shows a defendant had made false statements to the court in a defamation lawsuit. Alex Jones lied under oath in a deposition about what was on his cell phone. Jones falsely denied under oath that there was any content related to Sandy Hook on his phone. But no one could know that until his attorney accidentally sent the contents of his cell phone to the attorney hired to sue him for defamation about the Sandy Hook mass school shooting in 2012. Jones lied about the mass shooting many times in his radio broadcasts and in person in public. He finally got sued for defamation for his lies. Jones called Sandy Hook a deep state hoax. He falsely said that the murdered children were crisis actors and still alive.[1] 

In theory, lying to the court while under oath is a crime. In practice, lying or false statements to the court is almost completely ignored (maybe ~99.9999% of the time [~1 in a million]). When lying to the court is discovered, it is usually ignored because evidence standards are hard to meet. Liars always claim they didn't mean what they said or were unaware of what their words meant or didn't know that their statement was false or did not say what they said, or their lie didn't affect the outcome of a civil or criminal lawsuit.  

One source comments on perjury:

Perjury, or lying under oath in court, is often called “the forgotten offense” because it is not only widespread, but rarely prosecuted, especially in America, where it’s been a crime since 1790. According to an article from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, prosecutions for perjury have traditionally been rare, with only 335 criminal cases total from 1966 to 1970.

Most commentators attribute the absence of indictments and convictions for perjury to the highly technical nature of the offense. They point to problems in drafting indictments, in proving materiality of the alleged false testimony and in meeting the stringent evidentiary rules.

But a false statement by itself is not quite perjury—it has to affect the issue at hand, and people are usually not convicted for false statements that don’t influence the court.

That last highlighted bit is a potent shield that protects defendants from liability for lying under oath. The line between a false statement and the crime of perjury is often blurry. The shield in perjury ranks right up there with the power of plausible deniability to protect lawbreakers, especially white collar criminals accused of complex crimes. 

The broader significance for demagogues and elite criminals: 

Difficulty proving perjury + plausible deniability + presumption of innocence

= weak rule of law

The point of this post is not mostly about Jones. His situation exemplifies a far more important and broader point. Lying is common in politics, commerce, religion, society and just about everywhere else. It is very rarely a crime. Sophisticated liars know this. The rarity of penalties for lying constitutes a rationale for lying and feeling no moral qualm about it. 

That is why: 

• Our constantly lying, treasonous ex-president published a book where he proudly proclaimed that he employed “truthful hyperbole” in his business dealings. Because there is no punishment, a businessperson can easily believe that lies are just truthful hyperbole because they do not rise to the level of a punishable effect in a business deal. Lies are legal. Everything legal is sanctioned by society.
• In a recent conversation between Matt Gaetz and Roger Stone, these comments were recorded: “Well, you’re a bullshit artist, not a liar,” Gaetz said. “Correct,” Stone said. “There’s a big difference.”  

What is the difference between bullshit and lies? Usually little or none. But in the minds of Gaetz and Stone, there is a significant difference of some sort. For Gaetz and Stone, bullshit is OK, but lies are less OK to some unknowable degree for some reason(s) that is unclear to me. Maybe it mostly boils down to how people like Gaetz, Stone and the ex-president define lies to favor their own rotten agendas. 

In the case of the ex-president’s business dealings, one can begin to see how difficult it would be to prosecute for tax evasion. He overstates his net worth to get bank loans, but understates the value of his properties to minimize his taxes. It is a win-win for him. 

When one couples lies with plausible deniability and the legal presumption of innocence as tactics in politics or business, one can see how a sophisticated demagogue or a criminal can get away with a hell of a lot of illegal behavior. The courts are simply unable to reach most if it for lack of evidence.

In essence, the rule of law has come to be mostly a protective shield for elite demagogues and criminals, while being a sword for most everyone else. Maybe it always was that way. This points to a basis for sociologist Brooke Harrington’s observation about wealthy people and the law: 

“The lives of the richest people in the world are so different from those of the rest of us, it's almost literally unimaginable. National borders are nothing to them. They might as well not exist. The laws are nothing to them. They might as well not exist.”

Footnote: 

1. In addition to lying about his cell phone, Jones had also testified under oath that his business operations were being deplatformed and he was not getting much revenue. That was another lie. During some of the time he claimed poverty, his businesses were taking in over $800,000/day. When Jones lies, he lays out some real whoppers.

A ray of hope from Kansas

My concerns about deadly threats to democracy, inconvenient truth, the rule of law and civil liberties are well known to everyone here. Lately there have not been many hopeful signs. But one hopeful sign came from Kansas yesterday. Voters there were unwilling to given up a personal right to decide to have an abortion. 

What was hopeful was a couple of things. First, the margin of pro-abortion rights sentiment, 58.8% compared to people who voted to terminate abortion rights, 41.2%.  

That was from a deep red state. That was not too far off of national sentiment of 61% in favor of retaining abortion rights.

Second and more importantly, voter turnout was high, and barriers to voting were also high. To insure a win with the loss of abortion rights, Kansas radical right Republicans put this ballot measure (1) in a primary election, not the general election, (2) in a midterm election, and (3) worded the ballot measure confusingly such that a no vote meant yes to keeping abortion rights and yes meant no. All three of those tactics heavily favored extremist Republicans. 

That is because, (1) independents and Democrats tend to have lower turnouts in primary and midterm elections, and (2) Republican extremists tends to vote heavily in all elections, (3) confusingly worded ballot measures tend to favor the interests who write the measures, and (4) Kansas is a state with closed primary elections, leaving independents there with only ballot measures to vote for, which disincentivizes independent voters. That indicates that at least for important issues where Republicans are taking rights away, there is significant voter sentiment in opposition to loss of rights and people are willing to take action to vote, even if it is inconvenient.

See the confusion inherent in the Republican attack?

Of course, the fascist Republican Party will learn from this. One lesson is to double down on getting rid of voter power in elections. To accomplish the radical right Christian nationalist goal of imposing Christian Sharia law on everyone, elections have to be subverted and neutered. Voters simply cannot have the power to influence policy by direct elections, which is what ballot measures are. The radicals are OK with indirect elections where their influence is diluted by gerrymandering voting districts. They are not OK with raw voter power. The Republican Supreme Court is going to make sure that voter power will be greatly reduced in a decision that will be handed down next year, most likely in June.

The open question is whether voters will oppose Republican Party attacks on democracy, inconvenient truth, the rule of law and civil liberties with the same level of intensity.