Propaganda

A Butterfly Flaps Its Wings: From the Powell Memo to the Eastman Memo and January 6th

Published on by Brynne VanHettinga

Part 10 of a 10-part Series:

What Are We To Do?

What prepares men for totalitarian domination in the non-totalitarian world is the fact that loneliness, once a borderline experience usually suffered in certain marginal social conditions like old age, has become an everyday experience.”

Hannah Arendt

We might ask ourselves whether America is a pathocracy—or might have been a pathocracy on January 6th? I believe we can safely say that America has never been a full pathocracy like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, but has, at various points, demonstrated elements of pathocratic tendencies. Leaving aside the sordid issue of slavery, historical examples are the forced migration of Native Americans and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. More recently, we had official Dept. of Justice documents supporting the torture of detainees in Guantanamo (2003) and the inhumane treatment of migrants at the U.S. border, particularly children. At the local level, I have completely lost count of the number of unarmed Black people killed by police. 

As much as Americans convince themselves of their own exceptionalism, we are nonetheless subject to the same dark side of human nature as everyone else. However, we have avoided becoming a full-blown pathocracy because most of the aforementioned atrocities were eventually subject to popular backlash, investigations, and (sometimes) accountability. The January 6th coup attempt itself was prevented because there were honorable persons still occupying positions of power. Regardless of our own opinions of these individuals, the coup was unsuccessful because former Vice President Pence refused to do anything other than his duty to count the Electoral votes. Election officials in Georgia, Arizona and other states refused to submit to Trump’s threats and certified a valid election. Republican-appointed judges (some appointed by Trump himself) upheld the rule of law. If any one of these individuals had been dishonorable, we would likely not be living in the free United States of America anymore. Fortunately, legislators and other pro-democracy groups are working on “fixes” to our antiquated electoral system to prevent another January 6th-like coup attempt from happening again. 

Although America has not succumbed to a full-blown pathocracy, we seem to be at an unusually high point in a “hysteroidal cycle” (to use Lobaszewsky’s term). A sizeable minority of the population continues to subscribe to the Big Lie that Trump used to perpetuate his coup attempt, and a lot of media (right wing outlets and social media) continue to feed it. Even the right-wing oligarchs who stoked and fed the anger that ultimately resulted in January 6th admit they may have created a monster they can no longer control. Shortly after the 2020 election, Charles Koch admits to “screwing up” —and this was before January 6th 

A significant percentage of the US population subscribes to either (or both) Q-Anon and election denial, which represents a disconnection from the reality that most of the rest of us live in. Cult deprogrammers have been overwhelmed with requests for help from family members concerned about one of their own who has gone down the rabbit hole. Most of us simply do not have the skills and training to deal with this level of delusion. Logic, along with arguments about facts and evidence will not work. Rather, the strategy is to help these folks re-learn to think for themselves and connect the dots using a form of “reverse engineering” of the same tactics that led them into the cult. These folks must be able to see a way back to their old lives, which will never happen if they are confronted with shame and humiliation.

 

In order to heal and recover from a pathocracy, Lobaszewsky advises us to build a society based on an equitable distribution of resources; to promote education, particularly education about the human capacity for evil; and to encourage the formation of social bonds across diverse groups. Ironically, Lobaszewsky urges us to refrain from “moralizing,” but rather view evil from the dispassionate position that it will always be with us and the best we can do is to understand and manage it.  

In essence, we will have to build solidarity out of the post-January 6th remains of a tattered social fabric and a dis-United States of America. It is an understatement to say that this will be hard to do. When doing his own research into the nature of macrosocial evil, Lobaszewsky reported having to suppress his own revulsion and “moralizing impulses” to maintain scientific objectivity. He admits that his training in psychiatry (which most of us don’t have) helped him with this. How can we re-connect people back to reality and the fundamentals of prosocial thinking—especially if they hate us? If we only return the hate, then the dark side will have prevailed.

We can begin by recognizing that many (but not all) of those who stormed the Capitol on January 6th are both perpetrators and victims. I personally will probably never find it within myself to forgive the people who planned the coup and knew the “Big Lie” for what it was but continued to push it anyway. Easier to forgive are the folks who simply voted for Trump—perhaps they did not follow politics closely or habitually voted Republican no matter who the candidate was. A little harder (but not impossible) to forgive are those who continued to support Trump even in the face of overwhelming evidence of corruption. Here, the issue of blameworthiness depends on how much of the delusion is the result of willful ignorance (I have to believe Trump is right because he gives me permission to hate the people I don’t like). 

The hardest thing we will have to confront is the huge propaganda machine that continues to poison individual minds and our body politic to this day. The oligarchs are still pumping it out, but now they have been joined by hostile foreign governments, who now have all the evidence they need that America can be destroyed by disinformation. Disinformation that taps into the darkest recesses of the human limbic brain. Disinformation that makes the media oligarchs richer. Disinformation that keeps the rest of us divided, not just on values, but on the very definition of reality. America can be brought to its knees without firing a single missile or sending a single soldier, because Americans can be made to do it to themselves and each other.

Holding those responsible for January 6th accountable to the law and fixing the loopholes in our electoral system is a good start—but it is only a start. The dark side of human nature (what some religions term “original sin”) is probably something we will never be able to fix. But we can come up with ways to contain it. We certainly should be able to find ways to structure society where we don’t reward it. Perhaps we could require some sort of character test (complete with documented history) for every candidate for public office above a certain level. Perhaps we could articulate limits to the First Amendment, permitting (well-defined and narrowly tailored) restrictions on speech that is both false and provably harmful to public health. 

We stand at a crucial juncture in humanity’s history. I do not know what the result will be. But somewhere, a butterfly flaps its wings.

A Butterfly Flaps Its Wings: From the Powell Memo to the Eastman Memo and January 6th

Published on by Brynne VanHettinga

Part 5 of a 10-part Series:

Big Money and the Corporatocracy Captures the Media

Indeed, whether such extreme inequality is or is not sustainable depends not only on the effectiveness of the repressive apparatus but also, and perhaps primarily, on the apparatus of justification.”

Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, (2014)

Gaining a stranglehold on elected representatives, the legislative process, and appointed officials and judges was still not enough. In a democratic system, there is always the danger that the people will tire of working harder for less year after year or otherwise rebel against obscene levels of inequality. Therefore, the elites had to capture the apparatus of intellectual discourse and cultural transmission; i.e., educational institutions and popular media. 

The war on American workers has been going on since the middle 1800s. In the early days, striking workers would sometimes receive sympathetic attention in the press.  The machinery of the U.S. Congress finally responded to the plight of workers when it passed the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. What followed was growth in the American middle class that made it the envy of the world. Although nearly undiscernible at the time, this phenomenon was already starting to wane—guess when?—the middle to late 1970s—as the Powell memo was put into operation.

The full operation of the Powell memo did not become readily measurable until the Reagan Presidency. Reagan launched the first major salvo against labor when he broke the PATCO strike in August 1981. Throughout the 1980s, media coverage of unions grew increasingly negative. The 1980s were also a period where the media and popular culture was promoting a “greed is good” ethos. But, ironically, it was auto workers and teachers—who only wanted to have enough resources to do their jobs and be paid enough to support their families–who were portrayed as greedy (in the bad sense).

Although it had been noted in obscure academic publications and occasional news articles, only around the turn of the 21st century did serious and sustained media attention become focused on the yawning gap of income and wealth inequality. Mainstream economists began to challenge the prevailing “trickle-down” theory of supply side economists, or the notion that allowing a few fat cats to become obscenely wealthy would somehow (??) inure to the benefit of the rest of us. In 1996, the economist Ravi Batra accused his mainstream colleagues of “napping in their ivory towers” for totally missing the “wage blight” that had been afflicting American workers since 1982. Others finally began making a connection between the decline of labor rights and power and increasing inequality.

In 2017, a pair of researchers at the Vienna University School of Economics and Business analyzed how the media framed issues of economic and social inequality “after decades of benign neglect.” How inequality is presented is “not discussed in economics at all, and hardly mentioned in communication studies.” The authors suggest that economic inequality has only recently been “rediscovered,” likely because it has become so extreme—especially in the U.S. They allege that the “interdependencies between economics and the media” exert an important influence over “the contested sphere of preference shaping,” including political opinions.

The scholarship that has examined this issue has found that business and financial news “tends to be framed by pro-market explanations” and rarely, if ever, “question the overarching economic philosophy of free-market capitalism.” Any one of us can conduct our own informal review and easily discern that most stories are framed around the interests of corporations and employer groups. This bias is “further intensified by the growth of public relations, sponsorship, and other subsidized information flows favoring wealth and powerful interests.” 

  • Coverage of poverty is portrayed as a threat to the community, linking the poor to crime, drug and alcohol addiction, reinforcing the trope that the causes of poverty are due to individual faults rather than structural deficiencies.

  • Welfare “reform” is portrayed as something that reduces dependency and fosters self-reliance. Stories seldom cover the “working poor”—the folks who work sometimes two and three jobs and are still unable to make ends meet—because this would not be consistent with the mythology that the poor are lazy and lacking in work ethic.

  • Taxes on wealth—most of which fall on a very small portion of the population—are portrayed as an issue of general concern affecting all Americans. This is tied into meritocratic notions of “deserts,” that individuals should keep what they earn. The stories hardly ever delve into the fact that the very wealthy “earn” most of their income from things like stock options, carried interest, and capital gains rather than the kinds of “work” that most of the rest of us do.

  • In stories about shareholders challenging executive pay, the shareholders are portrayed as “rebels,” although sometimes the executives are shown dining and drinking in luxury. The authors suggest that this “strong conflict frame” ignores wider themes around capitalist structures, austerity, shareholder agency and inequality.

The authors next examine the causes of this bias/neglect. First is the “hegemonic structure” of media ownership, which has become increasingly concentrated (as have many other industries). This concentration has affected both the elite (mainstream) traditional media like newspapers as well as newer online social media platforms.  Added to this are increasing “commercial pressures,” which result in fewer investments in investigative reporting and more sensationalized stories. The authors suggest that information should be “reconceptualized as a public good and not a commodity.”

The authors then address a more controversial issue, which they term “manufacturing consent.” They cite at least one study of stories about tax reform, which found a definite “pro-rich (or pro-corporate) bias” being promoted by “the propaganda function of institutions such as the mass media and advertising industry.” The authors conclude,

“The one-sidedness of sources already came clear in the studies we analyzed….For our topic of economic inequality and redistributional policies, this would presumptively mean that certain ways of talking about economic inequality… [and efforts to remedy it] are disregarded. Marked as unrealistic or utopian, leaving it—once again—to the market, in its wonderful magic, to do the trick, seeing growing inequality only to be explained by meritocracy…”

On one front, the strategy was to simply keep most people’s noses to the grindstone—where they have neither the inclination nor the energy to look up and ask WHY things are the way they are. On a second front was a complete lack of discourse or public consciousness of what was happening to work, wages, tax loopholes for billionaires, corporate welfare, and connection to political power. The third front involved demonizing government—or any form of collective action where working people could assert themselves. The teaching of civics in American classrooms (especially working class and minority classrooms) has been all but abandoned.

The right-wing media ecosystem was more than a platform for the propaganda of billionaires, but fomented divisiveness and distrust that has destroyed any sense of community or solidarity. The very notion of “we the people” was rebranded as “socialism.”  The system is deliberately designed to keep people tired, irritable, broke, and desperate to find a scapegoat. With the help of psychological and social sciences, messages are tailored to induce ever-increasing wants. Other messages are directed at the survival responses of the limbic system, designed to induce fear and rage.