Are Regular Americans So Different From ISIS Recruits?

Like many of us I have been following the aftermath of the shootings in San Bernardino, which merges with the aftermath of the shootings in Paris and in Chattanooga and Fort Hood. Americans seem baffled at the way ISIS and other Islamic militants are able to radicalize people at a distance by using the Internet and social media: turning them against their governments, making them believe crazy conspiracy theories, convincing them to donate money and, in the most extreme cases, commit violence. How can people be so gullible, so vulnerable? How can they adopt such extreme views?

But we shouldn’t be so surprised, since in the past few decades the same thing has been happening to millions of our fellow Americans. Mostly on the right, but on all parts of the political spectrum, people have become radicalized through a steady dose of cable TV, talk radio, social media, and targeted advertising. Just as ISIS looks for vulnerable recruits, people who are socially isolated or spiritually adrift or struggling to make it in modern society, so those who seek to profit here at home have become expert at fine-tuning their propaganda. Two of the most common targets are working class white men who have been losing jobs and dignity and hope and are looking for someone to blame, and evangelical Christians—especially older evangelicals—who think the broader culture is turning against them. Millions have apparently been willing to believe insane theories (the President of the US is a secret Muslim, global warming is a scientific hoax, the government wants to take away your guns enroute to a UN-backed New World Order) that seem to explain why their lives or the country as a whole aren’t going the way they’d hoped.

Clever manipulators—prominent among them media figures like Glen Beck whose business model centers around mesmerizing listeners with scary, they’re-coming-to-get-you stories–are able to weave these crazy ideas into a seemingly coherent narrative, an entire alternative reality, just as delusional in its way as ISIS’s plans to restore the Caliphate. These messages are backed up by a gaggle of seemingly objective experts and scholars, supported by a network of think tanks, foundations, and institutes embedded in well-known universities—many of them funded by a handful of wealthy donors. (One of the most influential of these is just up the road from where I live, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a prolific producer of libertarian ideas heavily funded by the Koch Brothers).

On the left I don’t think the pathways to radicalization are as centrally-managed, but it is undeniable that the majority of American colleges and universities have a largely unquestioned liberal slant and contain pockets of extremism where it is easy for young students to go through an intellectual Looking Glass. Fringe ideas and half-truths about corporate malfeasance and dark government plots to infringe civil liberties move easily from the seminar table to the streets.  We should remember that the playbook for politicized recruitment was written in the 19th and early 20th century by Marxist-Leninists who made special efforts to enlist young, educated idealists; it has been copied across the political spectrum but remains alive on the left. Having an advanced degree often just means you are cleverer at justifying your particular delusion.

How far do common opinions differ from reality? As polarization has grown in the US, we have become more prone to demonizing the opposition. The Washington Post had a story the other day (What a divided America hears when Obama speaks Feb 14, 2016) that included a survey about how Republicans and Democrats view the opposite party, which shows a tremendous factual misunderstanding. Not surprisingly the gap between fact and reality characterizes both sides but is wider on the right. Democrats who think that Republicans are largely old, rich, southern fundamentalist Christians face off against Republicans, who think Democrats are largely black, gay, atheist union members. And in both parties large numbers agree with the stereotype held by the other side!

These delusions have real-world consequences. Passionate haters are more likely to donate money to a multitude of causes, go to protests, vote, pressure elected officials to take radical stands–and resort to violence. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, lived in an earlier version of this alternate universe, and the Oregon occupiers are an example today. There is good reason to think that activists on both sides of the political spectrum deliberately inflame political debate with these sorts of falsehoods and conspiracy theories to increase donations and get out the vote.

Thinking about what is happening in our own country should make us less judgmental about radicalization of Muslims, and give us an intuitive understanding to help us recognize and counter it in other communities. And I think it should occasion some soul-searching, because non-Muslim Americans are not immune to similar strategies of manipulation and radicalization.

Involving Voters to Fight Money in Politics

 

I have been reading “Dark Money,” the very good new book by Jane Mayer that details how the Koch Brothers and other wealthy conservatives have put together an effective coordinated national network to influence elections. The Kochtopus plans to spend $900 million this election cycle, more than the Republican or Democratic parties.  It’s not just the amount that matters–when you read the story of the 2010 elections, for instance, it’s striking how even small amounts of money, strategically targeted, often made the difference in a close House race or, even more, at the State level.

So far it seems to me that the movement to fight political corruption has focused entirely on the supply side, not the demand side.  It’s been about changing laws regulating how much can be given to candidates or spent on political advertising, and increasing transparency so the public knows what individuals or organizations are providing support. You do this by putting together new laws, getting people elected who back them, and by creating a mass movement to protest and vote for these candidates and put pressure on elected officials.

This is a hard sell because it asks people to act indirectly; hardly anyone is immediately affected by campaign finance rules. It’s complicated and wonky and requires collective action. Is there anything you can ask citizens to do immediately, themselves, to change this dynamic? I think there might be and I wish very much that some of the organizations dedicated to this issue would explore it.

What I have in mind is a campaign to educate people about political advertising and encourage them to ignore it. When you look at how money affects elections, it’s clear that the main vector is through television advertising. Advertising is expensive—it costs big money to buy airtime for ads, to pay the consultants and advertisers to prepare the ads, and to pay the pollsters and political advisers to identify the issues and themes to put in the ads. In a fast-moving campaign, ads need to be changed and updated frequently. Money does lots of other things too, but TV advertising is usually by far the most expensive part of a campaign. Therefore, it’s the need to pay for TV that is perhaps the single biggest reason politicians need to raise money; and it’s the effectiveness of these ads that makes them irresistible to politicians and to outside groups seeking to influence the process.

It would seem possible to inoculate many viewers against being manipulated by advertising, especially the kinds of negative and misleading ads that are often the specialty of PACs and issue groups not officially connected to candidates. An educational effort might include a bipartisan appeal from well-known politicians (Al Gore and John McCain?) who could say, here’s how this game works—I should know!—and here’s why you should ignore what you see on TV.  Tell people not to watch, or at a minimum to mute the sound (I see a big MUTE button as the symbol of this effort), because these advertisers are very skilled at getting inside your head and your best defense is to avoid the message altogether. Don’t assume you can’t be manipulated! Explain that ads with the actual candidate explaining his/her position, and clearly paid for by the candidate, are OK; but any other ‘issue’ ad or ad that is paid for by some other organization should be shunned.

A good way to make the case is by comparing political advertising to other types of advertising. Does anyone imagine that advertisements for cars, or beer, or drugs are telling us the truth? Or are they carefully crafted attempts to mislead us by playing on our lust, our fears, our greed? Haven’t you watched Mad Men, we should ask the American people; think of armies of advertising experts sitting around drinking martinis and figuring out how to sell you on a candidate. Explain the advertising tricks that are commonly used. Emphasize that the people making these ads are cynics who have contempt for voters and think they can be manipulated. Make the picture as repulsive as possible.

This could be spread by op-eds, by community meetings, even by TV ads (yes, the irony…), any way to get the basic argument into people’s heads and change their behavior. It could be supplemented with a pledge that individual voters can make, the “I will not be manipulated” or the “I MUTE for political ads” pledge, with buttons and bumper stickers and Facebook pages and Twitter handles. Individuals and families could display this pledge on their cars, in their homes, and online as a sign to politicians that any money they spend on this sort of advertising will be wasted, and a warning to friends and neighbors that passing on rumors or supposed ‘facts’ derived from political advertising will be met with skepticism. It will also make it harder for candidates to try and have it both ways by benefiting from over-the-top attack ads, while trying to seem not responsible.

And a further step: a pledge to vote for the candidate who does the LEAST amount of objectionable advertising. An organized watchdog group could track advertising for particular candidates and publicize how much (how many ads, how many minutes of ads, how much money on ads) is associated with candidates in each race. Those who make the “Less is More” pledge would commit to voting for the candidate who has had the least amount of unsourced advertising, or perhaps the least amount of TV advertising period. I see hundreds of people showing up at rallies with signs saying “Less is More, and I Vote”.

Candidates could make a similar pledge to reject all outside advertising and messaging (recognizing that under current law, they may not be able to stop all of it). A promise not to invade people’s living rooms would be well-received in many primary states and in the battleground states that get saturated with advertising in October and November.

It is probably true that even the best campaign of this sort would only affect a minority of voters. But in many races that’s enough. TV advertising campaigns now may only shift a few thousand votes, and campaigns are often targeted at very specific demographics. If a counter-campaign can cut into their impact and make large amounts of TV advertising a measurable negative for more voters, Big Money will have to worry more and more that their spending will backfire.

 

First Post: America’s Inequality Spiral and the Argument for a Welfare State

America’s Inequality Spiral and the Argument for a Welfare State

We make equality a founding principle, meaning equality of rights–everyone should be treated the same under the law and by major institutions. We also want equality of opportunity so everyone has an equal chance to achieve success, get ahead, realize their potential, etc.. But we generally deny that people are equal in intelligence, talents, character, drive, and skills. Madison in the 10th Federalist asserts people differ in their ability to accumulate wealth and property. So treating people equally and giving them a level playing field will produce unequal results. What then?

It would be contrary to experience and human nature not to expect that high achievers won’t try to tilt the playing field in their favor and in favor of their children, families, and friends.  If they succeed, there is no more equality of opportunity. So some kind of intervention is needed to prevent this. This is what redistribution by the government does–it corrects to some extent for the inequalities that come about in a free society and tries to make sure that there is at least some minimum level of opportunity available to all. It tries to make sure that all the pathways to success, like access to top colleges, are not monopolized by the sons and daughters of the privileged.

We need to make sure this extends also to political choices. The rich and powerful will try to control the political process and influence elected officials; it’s critical to make sure their advantage in resources doesn’t translate into too much of an advantage in influence.

Does pushing back against the privileged class run the risk of discouraging risk-taking or investment by limiting the rewards that come with success? This is really an empirical question; the answer seems to be that you can do a lot of redistribution without blunting ambition, though of course there is SOME level where it becomes counterproductive. But high marginal tax rates in the 50s and 60s didn’t seem to hurt the economy, and lower rates and skyrocketing CEO salaries havn’t seemed to help it.