I’m back from my 4-month blogging sabbatical. Today I plan to talk about what’s wrong with our politics and why so many people are tuning it out. Also a new piece by political psychologist Karen Stenner, some lessons from the past five years, and an invitation to a journey.
I also have a few announcements. I have completed the work on my next book, Rebels, Robbers, and Radicals: The Story of the Bill of Rights, to be published in May of 2025. You can read about it here. And the New York Public Library named my most recent book, Firehose of Falsehood, one of the best new graphic books for adults.
* * *
I. A Few Words About the Election
I believe Trump will lose, and my reason is a simple one: He lost in 2020, and, given the events of January 6 and his increasingly dark rhetoric, I cannot see how he could have improved his position with voters. While the criminal indictments and events of January 6 have not shaken his core support — and in fact, may have caused many of his fans to love him even more — he lost the Liz Cheneys of the world. Losing voters without gaining new ones is not the way to turn a previous loss into a win.
Therefore — with the obvious disclaimer that I do not own a working crystal ball — I expect Trump to lose.
At the same time, Trump has unleashed a movement that is best understood as a backlash against the rapid changes of the past 60 years. Trump taught the right wing how to do the Viktor Orbán / Vladimir Putin act in America. When Trump is no longer commanding the spotlight, I expect new Trump-like figures to arise in the United States who do the Trump act better without the baggage.
The question is how to deal with that.
Part II: Lessons from the Past Five Years
In September, I visited Chile for the Chilean Independence festivities and a reunion for my husband and his siblings. I learned, among other things, that an 84-year-old in-law, who is one of the sweetest people I know, admired Augusto Pinochet. She is also a fan of Donald Trump. She worked all of her life as a baker and never had much money.
I didn’t talk to her about politics, but I spoke to others who know her beliefs. I asked, “Does she know that Pinochet pulled off a military coup? Does she know he killed the legitimately elected president and installed himself as a brutal dictator?”
The answer: “Yes, she knows all of that, but she says he saved Chile from communism.”
In a nutshell, here is what happened in Chile. In 1970, Salvador Allende, a member of the Popular Socialist Party, was elected president. After he was inaugurated, he set to work restructuring Chilean society along socialist lines. Among other things, his government purchased important privately owned mining and manufacturing sectors and took over large agricultural estates for use by peasant cooperatives. In an attempt to redistribute incomes, his government authorized large wage increases and froze prices.
He also expropriated U.S.-owned copper companies in Chile without compensating Americans, which was a terrible idea. Foreign investors lost confidence in Chile. The Chilean economy took a dive. The Nixon administration was furious.
On Sept. 11, 1973, with help from the United States, Pinochet, a career military officer, planned and carried out a coup de etat. Pinochet entered Santiago with tanks and Hawker Hunter planes. His army destroyed the La Moneda presidential place, murdered Allende, and installed Pinochet as the head of state. Pinochet held on to power for two decades during which time he arrested about 28,000 people who opposed his government. He had many of them tortured and about 3,200 of them killed.
This is the card my husband had to carry to prove he voted for Pinochet:
Pinochet also established a market economy and revived the Chilean economy. Eventually, Pinochet was ousted when a large enough coalition formed to oppose him. He was forced from office, but (for a variety of complicated reasons) was never brought to trial for his human rights abuses. He also retained much support among Chileans who, like my 84-year-old in-law, view him as Chile’s savior.
I struggled to reconcile the gentle and loving disposition of my in-law with her support for Pinochet and Trump, which brings me to Karen Stenner’s most recent essay.
Disinformation and the Death of Democracy
You can read Stenner’s essay here. If you hit a paywall, click here for a PDF.
A few things to notice in Stenner’s essay.
- The authoritarian personality is different from the conservative personality. Stenner describes the authoritarian personality like this:
. . . a universal, mostly heritable predisposition rooted in a closed personality and cognitive inflexibility, which reduce one’s willingness and ability, respectively, to deal with complexity. This naturally includes racial/ethnic diversity and what those with authoritarian tendencies see as dissident beliefs and “deviant” behaviors.
- People with authoritarian leanings can be good citizens. They are not inherently evil. But when they are riled, they may approve of cruelty and even become cruel themselves.
- A person cannot be “educated” out of their authoritarian leanings or intimidated out of being authoritarian. They are born that way.
- In other words, being authoritarian is just another way of being human.
- There is a distinction between people with authoritarian personalities — those who can be easily riled and who will tolerate cruelty when riled — and the manipulators who rile them.
- About 39% of people who identify as Republicans are highly authoritarian (can become cruel when riled).
- About 22% of people who identify as Democrats are also highly authoritarian. (I highlighted this so you don’t miss it.)
- The Harris Campaign is successfully deactivating the fears of some who previously supported Trump and bringing in voters who would not ordinarily vote Democratic.
Elsewhere Stenner refers to those with authoritarian dispositions as “simple-minded avoiders of complexity.”
Democracy requires coalition building. It requires compromise and give and take. “My way or the highway” is autocracy. Purists find themselves in a small minority because not enough people will conform to their ideas of perfection.
In other words, insist on purism if you want to lose elections.
Also, in a stable democracy, change is slow. This is a good thing. A government that allows for rapid changes is in greater danger of being destabilized.
One of my Chilean relatives told me he is conservative. He doesn’t like Trump because he thinks Trump is too “extreme” but he thinks if he were American, he’d be a Republican. I asked questions and learned that he is terrified of a left-wing government led by another Allende coming to power and overturning everything and upsetting everyone. After I listened to him speak, I concluded that he is what Stenner calls a traditional conservative because his fear is too much rapid change.
I found common ground with him when I said, “Both extremes are dangerous.” He agreed and visibly relaxed. He told me about a new Chilean tax that he thought was unfair because it fell more heavily on poor people. I told him that in America, it is the Republicans who let taxes fall on poor people while letting rich people get away without paying their fair share. Thanks to the Internet and Google Translate, I was able to prove this by looking up some congressional votes.
By the end of the conversation, I said, “If you were American, you’d be a Democrat.” He agreed. He was both (1) afraid of rapid change and (2) disliked taxes that fall too heavily on the poor. In other words, as Stenner implies, we have to stop putting people into boxes and judging them based on the box we put them in.
The way to deal with the threat of right-wing autocracy is to build a large anti-autocratic coalition, which means finding common ground with as many people as possible.
Rejecting complexity, which includes racial diversity, explains much of what we see on the right side of the political spectrum. Rejecting diversity, which also means rejecting people who don’t conform to rigid standards of acceptable behavior, explains much of what we see on the left.
At its best, liberal culture is open, joyous, and inclusive. At its worst, it is scoldy and judgmental.
Because I entirely moved in left-wing circles on social media, most of the insults I’ve received and names I have been called come from people on the left side of the political spectrum. I have been called a Garland apologist and a fascist enabler. I have been called a ‘centrist’ and told that the entire Democratic party is a “center-right” party. This is said sneeringly as if the worst possible thing to say about someone is that they are right of center.
Aside: I respond to the “Democrats are center-right” sneers by showing this diagram, which (to me, anyway) has additional credibility because it was quoted by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker and Berkeley political scientist Paul Pierson in their book, Let Them Eat Tweets:
The Rise of Partisan Misinformation-Rage Machines
Much of the information I am about to present comes from communications and political science professor Dannagal Goldwaite Young’s book, Wrong: How Media, Politics, and Identity Drive our Appetite for Misinformation.
From the 1940s until the 1980s, there were only a handful of mass-market media outlets so, as Young explains, “media producers sought to appeal to as wide a swath of the American public as possible,” typically by offering viewers what NBC vice president Paul Klein called ‘the least objectionable programming.” This made mass market news a poor vehicle for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.
People before the 1980s generally got their news once or twice daily – an evening or morning newspaper and the evening news. The evening news consisted of an anchor speaking to the camera. There were no glitzy sets. Most people listened for a half hour or read their daily paper, absorbed that day’s news, digested the facts, and then went on with their lives.
Then, in the 1980s and 1990s, mass media began fragmenting. Networks created different content for different people, which exacerbated polarization. Fox News, MSNBC, and Comedy Central—networks that targeted audiences with specific identities and beliefs—were all created in 1996, during this time of fracturing. Like Fox viewers, MSNBC viewers tend to be older. The average age of Fox viewers is 68 and the average age of MSNBC viewers is 71. Those with time to watch all-day news programming are often retired.
In 2015, MSNBC had 132,000 prime-time viewers. Then Trump happened and MSNBC experienced a bonanza. By 2020, MSNBC had a whopping 2.2 million viewers.
People who had never paid much attention to politics were now glued to their screens to see what Trump would do next. A 24-hour news cycle and Trump’s around-the-clock outrageousness created the perfect environment for more people to tune in. Each time Trump did something outrageous, his supporters cheered and his enemies raged.
Overnight, MSNBC cable news hosts became left-wing heroes. Social media influencers were born and quickly amassed large followings. New media outlets were created to feed the sudden appetite for news.
Cable news shows and certain social media influencers use the same formula for hooking and keeping viewers. The formula works like this:
- First, they confirm the biases of their audience. This creates trust. Cognitive bias is a real thing and it affects us all. When people have their biases confirmed, they experience a pleasurable sensation, which is why watching MSNBC talk shows feels satisfying for people on the left, and watching Fox feels satisfying for people on the right.
- After establishing trust by confirming their audience’s biases, the next step is to generate fear and rage. As Facebook whistleblower Francis Haugen explained “angry, polarizing, divisive content” generates more engagement.
- This creates an “us vs. them” environment. We are good. On the other side are vile human beings who deserve our scorn. Occasionally during my social media sabbatical, I scrolled through my Twitter feed. Reading my feed, you’d think that anyone who supported Trump was a sick, demented human. (I could not reconcile this with my sweet 84-year-old in-law).
- Social media echo chambers makes it worse by creating the feeling of being part of a large group of like-minded people. This kicks in groupthink. As a result, people who might not be inclined toward rage and loathing of the other side, or who might not be inclined to accept conspiracy theories, find themselves pulled into the group.
Notice that Step #2 causes those with authoritarian leanings to advocate for (or tolerate) non-democratic or even cruel tactics. I also believe that, given group dynamics, people without authoritarian leanings get pulled in, or at least confused by the responses they see all around them.
Step #4 confuses people who are not inclined toward authoritarianism but don’t know what to make of what they are hearing. While much good can happen on social media, it is also a conduit for bad information.
How did the overnight-success social media influencers on Twitter learn the formula? Easy. Twitter allowed each user to see the stats of which of their posts generated the most engagement. Very quickly people can learn that when they confirm the biases of their audience, they win trust and gain followers. They also learn that when they arouse fear or rage in their audience, they get more engagement.
This 24-hour news bonanza created a need for more TV lawyers, who, by virtue of the fact that they were lawyers, were presented as experts in all things. (As a lawyer, I initially found that hilarious and kept asking, what happened to all those lawyer jokes? How did lawyers suddenly become the all-knowing heroes? Then I realized that what happening wasn’t funny.)
Story: A friend of mine and former colleague often appears on television to talk about that day’s legal news. One day he called me because he had no idea what to say. I gave him some ideas. He thanked me. I said, “I could never do that. I couldn’t appear on TV and talk off the top of my head.” He said, “It’s easy. It doesn’t matter what I say. I can say, ‘This is good’ or ‘this is bad,’ and it won’t matter.”
What mattered was the way he spoke, not what he said. When news becomes entertainment, what matters is the quality of the performance. The measure of a show’s success isn’t the level of factual accuracy. The measure of success is whether people are kept glued to their screens, and fear hooks people.
Here is a sampling of common cries coming from groups of Trump critics who viewed themselves as Democrats, liberal, left-leaning, or simply pro-democracy:
- I get that Merrick Garland (the U.S. Attorney General) wants to stick to the rule book, but you can’t go by the book when the book is burning.
- We need to suspend notions of what is normal during this chapter in our nation’s history.
- Democrats are bringing a knife to a gunfight.
- They all need to be thrown in jail.
Left-wing media personalities put forward the conspiracy theory that Garland was responsible for the continued threat from the far right because he initially “refused” to indict Trump and then “dragged his feet” because he was corrupt or compromised. (For a definition of conspiracy theories, see this post.)
The people who come to me with questions usually seemed uncomfortable with what they are hearing and want help separating the nonsense from the truth. I wanted to help. To address DOJ /Merrick Garland misinformation and conspiracy theories, I wrote this FAQ page. I spent dozens of hours writing FAQ pages like this one to explain why the criminal justice system (and prison system) cannot “save” democracy, and the inherent contradiction in abandoning democratic norms to save democracy.
The way to save democracy is with more democracy. If you don’t believe me, read about how Pinochet was eventually removed from power when a large enough coalition formed to oppose him.
The advantage of being a TV lawyer or a social media/cable news commentator is they don’t have to worry about being wrong. When they are wrong, they simply pivot to confirming the biases of their audiences and they remain adored. I have seen people do this in real time.
For more on the problems with TV lawyers, see Peter Arenella’s scathing assessment of TV punditry. Arenella was one of the first TV pundits so he knows what he’s talking about.
Given the nature of media bubbles in a fragmented media environment, these “influencers,” while touting large numbers of followers, essentially preach to their own choirs. A million is a large choir, but it’s a tiny percentage of the 244 million eligible voters in the United States. When the choir consists of a million people in a rage-filled misinformation media bubble, it can become dangerous.
As I came to understand what I called the left-wing misinformation-outrage cycle and saw some of the misinformation spilling into mainstream media, I wrote this series. I discovered that trying to tamp down rage and misinformation is a fool’s game. The formula is too effective. Trying to tamp down what I call rage-inducing simplifications is like trying to put out forest fires with a squirt gun. It is like playing whack-a-mole. Deal with one bit of misinformation and two more pop up.
It is also hard to be on the “wrong” side. I drew vitriol from many of my Democratic readers when I had the unmitigated temerity to criticize something Rachel Maddow said. How dare I criticize the queen? How dare I question the accepted narrative? (The comments were so vitriolic that I disabled the comments function.)
During my social media and blogging sabbatical, several social media users tagged me, pointed to Trump having meetings with Putin, and asked me whether Trump can be immediately arrested for violating the Logan Act, or whether we have to wait through tiresome and lengthy procedures. I looked at a few social media sites, and sure enough, the usual rabble-rousers were enraging people with bad information about the Logan Act. Merrick Garland was again being called a fascist enabler for not hauling the lawbreaker off to prison. I’ll spare you the stomach-churning screenshots.
I was tempted to offer an explainer about the Logan Act, but I stopped myself. I’m done playing social media misinformation whack-a-mole. I then saw that Steve Vladeck (who I have co-authored with and trust to be accurate) tried to correct some of the misinformation about the Logan Act.
Why These Partisan Rage Machines Are So Dangerous
The result of opposing rage machines is lots of hyperpartisan yelling with both sides dunking on each other. Because the loudest and shrillest voices have redefined what it means to talk about politics, most Americans actively avoid political discussions. This has led to a new divide.
Yanna Krupnikov, a professor of political science and communication, and political scientist John Ryan tell us that, instead of being divided into right v. left, we are now divided between a relatively small group of hyperpartisans who are glued to their screens and engage in hyperpartisan yelling, and most Americans, who respond to the angry yelling by tuning all out.
The very fact that these opposing rage machines are driving the majority of people away from political discussions is a problem. Democracy requires people coming together to discuss issues, and this can’t happen if misinformed shouters and tough-talking-chest-beaters dominate the conversation.
III. An Invitation to a Journey
During my sabbatical, I did a lot of thinking. Me = 🤔 Among other things, I wondered: If a destructive rage machine rages, but most people pay no attention to it, does it do less harm?
Instead of playing misinformation whack-a-mole, I decided to embark on a philosophical journey to gain perspective and perhaps some wisdom as well.
I hope you’ll join me. I will start at the beginning, with the ancient Greeks. Socrates has been called the founder of modern political science. The word “democracy,” in fact, is from ancient Greek. dêmos means people and kratía means to rule. The ancient Greeks asked the important questions, many of which remain unanswered, such as:
- What is the source of governmental authority? What makes it legitimate?
- When is lawbreaking or defying governmental authority morally acceptable? (If you’re having trouble with this one, consider the abolitionists who defied enslavement laws.)
- How far can a democratic society control speech (and outlaw lies and disinformation) and remain a democratic society?
- What greater good (if any) is served by government-inflicted punishment?
This question also remains unanswered:
- Is it possible to have a stable democracy in a large multi-racial and multi-cultural country?
Someone (I have forgotten who) said that the most beautiful lines of poetry in the English language are these:
If with me you’ll fondly stray,
over the hills and far away
If with me you’ll fondly stray, I will lead you on a journey through Western political philosophy. I promise it will be thrilling.🤓
On the first Sunday of each month, I will publish a new installment. My next blog post will be on Sunday, December 1. I’ll start with Plato. As Alfred North Whitehead famously said, “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.”
See you on December 1 for a series of footnotes to Plato.
* * *
I have disabled my comments. Because this is my own website and not a social media site, I feel I must monitor the comments, and monitoring them became too time-consuming. Instead, I have added share buttons for discussion elsewhere.