September 19, 2024
This conversation may reflect the link creator’s personalized data, which isn’t shared and can meaningfully change how the model responds.
Can fascism be contagious?
Fascism, as an ideology and political movement, can indeed exhibit contagious-like qualities, but this isn't literal contagion in the biological sense. Rather, fascism spreads through psychological, social, and cultural mechanisms that allow its ideas to propagate, often taking advantage of societal conditions like fear, uncertainty, economic instability, or perceived threats to identity.
Here are some factors that contribute to the "contagion" of fascism:
Group Psychology: Fascism often appeals to collective identity, offering people a sense of belonging and superiority. When individuals see others around them adopting fascist beliefs or joining such movements, it can create a bandwagon effect. The sense of community, unity, and purpose draws more people in.
Fear and Insecurity: In times of crisis, when individuals feel threatened or insecure (economically, politically, or culturally), fascism presents simple, forceful answers, often scapegoating particular groups. This plays on primal fears and can spread rapidly in such environments.
Charismatic Leadership: Fascist movements often feature charismatic leaders who captivate and manipulate public emotions. Their strong, authoritative personas appeal to those seeking decisive action or order, influencing others to follow them.
Mass Media: Fascist ideologies can spread through media by saturating communication channels with their messages. The repetition of authoritarian ideas normalizes them, especially if the media climate is dominated by fearmongering or disinformation. This contributes to what might feel like ideological contagion.
Social Media Amplification: In the modern world, social media can serve as a tool for the rapid spread of extremist ideas. Algorithms that prioritize provocative content allow fascist ideologies to reach large audiences quickly, making it easier for such movements to gain momentum.
Cultural Fractures: When societies are deeply divided along lines of class, race, or nationality, fascism can spread more easily. In these cases, it acts like a unifying force for one group against a perceived enemy, whether that's immigrants, ethnic minorities, or political opponents.
Historical Precedent and Imitation: Fascist movements often borrow symbols, rhetoric, and tactics from earlier fascist regimes (like Mussolini’s Italy or Hitler’s Germany). These examples can inspire similar movements elsewhere, as the historical narrative gets repurposed to suit modern circumstances.
Authoritarian Drift: When democratic institutions are weak or vulnerable, fascist movements can exploit legal loopholes, corruption, or ineffective governance. Once such movements gain a foothold, they can dismantle opposition and further entrench their ideology, making it seem "contagious" as it becomes harder to resist.
While not "contagious" in a biological sense, fascism spreads through fear, disinformation, and exploitation of social and economic weaknesses. Understanding these mechanisms is critical for countering its influence.
What is it that is actually contagious?
What is actually contagious in the spread of fascism—or any ideological movement—are psychological, social, and cultural factors that facilitate the adoption of its beliefs and behaviors. These factors can be understood as emotional, cognitive, and social "contagions" that spread from person to person or group to group.
Here’s a breakdown of what is contagious in this context:
Fear: One of the most contagious emotions is fear, especially when it is amplified by external events such as economic crises, political instability, or violence. Fascism often takes advantage of collective fear by offering simplistic explanations (e.g., blaming scapegoats) and promises of security. When one group becomes fearful, it spreads to others through media, conversation, and social interactions.
Anxiety about the Future: Economic downturns, social upheavals, and threats to cultural identity create a fertile ground for anxiety. When people feel their future is uncertain, they are more likely to latch onto authoritarian promises of stability and control, which can spread quickly among those who share similar anxieties.
Scapegoating and Us-vs-Them Thinking: Fascism often thrives on creating clear in-group/out-group distinctions, blaming certain groups (e.g., minorities, immigrants, political opponents) for society’s ills. This framing of “us versus them” simplifies complex problems and is emotionally contagious. People, when exposed to these ideas, may adopt them quickly as they seek to identify and oppose a perceived enemy.
Emotional Resonance: Messages of nationalism, purity, strength, and unity often have a strong emotional appeal. The rhetoric used by fascist leaders can stir feelings of pride or rage, and such emotions are highly contagious in social settings where people reinforce each other's feelings.
Peer Pressure and Conformity: Humans are social creatures and tend to conform to the attitudes and behaviors of the groups they belong to. If someone’s family, friends, or community begins to embrace fascist ideas, there is a strong pressure to conform. This social pressure spreads the ideology further, as individuals do not want to feel alienated from their peers.
Bandwagon Effect: The more people see others joining a movement or adopting certain views, the more likely they are to adopt those views themselves, even without fully understanding or agreeing with them. This is particularly powerful in populist movements, where the sense of “everyone is doing it” encourages participation.
Disinformation: Fascist movements often rely on the spread of false or misleading information to create a sense of crisis or enemy. The repetition of lies or distorted facts (such as conspiracy theories) creates a cognitive contagion, where people begin to accept these narratives as truth without critically analyzing them. Social media and biased media sources are particularly effective at spreading such misinformation.
Echo Chambers: In today's media landscape, people often surround themselves with information that confirms their biases. These echo chambers reinforce fascist ideas and spread them more rapidly, as individuals only hear one side of the story.
Obedience to Authority: Some psychological traits, such as a tendency to respect and follow strong, authoritarian figures, are conducive to the spread of fascism. When people see others rallying around a powerful, charismatic leader, they may be drawn in by the leader's apparent confidence and decisiveness.
Deference to Tradition and Order: Fascism often promotes a return to traditional values and a strict social order, which appeals to those who feel overwhelmed by the chaos of modern life. This appeal to authority and order can spread quickly, especially in times of social disarray.
Ritualistic Behavior: Fascist movements often create a sense of unity and belonging through symbols, marches, slogans, and rituals. Participation in these rituals reinforces group identity and makes the ideology more emotionally compelling. People who engage in such behavior feel part of something larger than themselves, which is a powerful social force.
Symbolic Power: Symbols such as flags, uniforms, and emblems can carry significant emotional weight and serve as rallying points. The display of these symbols can spread loyalty to the fascist cause by appealing to a shared national or ideological identity.
Grievance Culture: Fascism often harnesses personal or collective grievances—whether real or perceived. When people feel wronged or humiliated (by losing jobs, status, or political power), they are more likely to adopt fascist ideologies that promise to restore their dignity and reassert dominance. This sense of grievance can be contagious as people identify common sources of their anger.
Rage at the “Other”: Alongside fear, rage is another highly contagious emotion. Fascism often channels this rage toward marginalized or targeted groups, encouraging participants to vent their anger through political or social violence. When rage is normalized within a group, it spreads, encouraging others to act out or condone violence.
Cognitive Shortcuts: Fascism thrives on oversimplified explanations for complex societal problems. When critical thinking is not encouraged, individuals are more likely to adopt easy answers that confirm their biases. This lack of critical engagement with political issues can spread, especially when people are inundated with propaganda or disinformation.
Anti-Intellectualism: Fascist movements often dismiss intellectualism and complexity, portraying themselves as anti-elitist or anti-technocratic. This resonates with people who feel alienated by academic or bureaucratic systems, spreading a form of intellectual laziness or resistance to critical analysis.
In essence, it’s the emotional, cognitive, and social elements—fear, groupthink, misinformation, charismatic leadership, and oversimplified narratives—that are contagious. These factors create environments where fascism can thrive, as individuals become increasingly swayed by the behaviors and beliefs of those around them. Understanding these contagious dynamics is essential to effectively resisting the spread of fascism.
What are the psychological mechanisms that make such contagions possible?
The psychological mechanisms that make such contagions possible are deeply rooted in human cognition, emotion, and social behavior. These mechanisms allow ideas, emotions, and behaviors—such as those associated with fascism or other ideologies—to spread quickly within and between groups. Here are some key psychological mechanisms that facilitate this:
Normative Influence: Humans have a strong desire to fit in and be accepted by their social group. This leads to normative influence, where individuals adopt the behaviors, beliefs, or attitudes of those around them to gain social approval or avoid rejection. When fascist ideas become prevalent in a group, people may conform to those ideas, even if they privately disagree, simply to avoid being ostracized.
Informational Influence: People look to others for cues about what to believe, especially in uncertain or ambiguous situations. If fascist ideas are presented as being widely accepted, people may assume that those beliefs are valid or correct, leading them to adopt these views without critically assessing them.
Social Identity Theory: This theory posits that people derive a sense of self-esteem and identity from the groups they belong to. Fascism often emphasizes a strong in-group (e.g., the nation, race, or political party) and contrasts it with an out-group (e.g., immigrants, minorities, or political opponents). This polarization can lead individuals to adopt the beliefs of their in-group and reject those of the out-group, reinforcing fascist ideologies within the group.
Out-Group Homogeneity Effect: This is the tendency to see members of the out-group as more similar to each other than members of the in-group. Fascist propaganda often dehumanizes or stereotypes out-groups, making them easier to target for blame and violence. Once these ideas take root, they can spread rapidly as individuals reinforce each other’s prejudices.
Fear and Anger Spread Easily: Emotions, especially negative ones like fear and anger, can be highly contagious. When people witness others expressing these emotions, they are likely to feel the same way. Fascist movements often spread fear (e.g., fear of societal collapse, immigration, or crime) and anger (e.g., at political elites or marginalized groups) through speeches, media, and social networks. These emotions can spread quickly, particularly in times of crisis, amplifying the appeal of fascist ideas.
Mimicry: Humans naturally mimic the emotions and behaviors of those around them, a phenomenon known as emotional contagion. When individuals see others expressing anger, fear, or outrage, they may unconsciously mirror those emotions, contributing to the spread of fascist rhetoric and violence.
Deference to Authority: The classic experiments by Stanley Milgram on obedience to authority showed that people are often willing to follow orders, even if those orders involve harming others, as long as they come from a legitimate authority figure. Fascist leaders often present themselves as authoritative figures who can restore order and protect the group, leading people to follow them without questioning the morality of their actions.
Charismatic Leadership: Fascist leaders often exhibit charisma, which draws people to them and makes their followers more willing to adopt their ideas. Charismatic leaders evoke strong emotional responses, such as admiration or fear, which can override rational thinking and lead to blind obedience.
Cognitive Dissonance: When people hold conflicting beliefs or behaviors, they experience discomfort known as cognitive dissonance. To reduce this discomfort, they often change their beliefs to align with their actions. For example, if someone participates in a fascist rally, they may initially feel uneasy about the ideology but later justify their participation by adopting fascist beliefs to resolve the dissonance. This internal justification can lead to further spread of the ideology.
Rationalization: People tend to justify their actions and beliefs to maintain a positive self-image. Once someone becomes involved in a fascist movement, they may rationalize harmful behaviors (e.g., violence against out-groups) as necessary or justified, which further solidifies their commitment to the ideology and encourages its spread.
Simplification of Complex Problems: Fascism often offers simple, emotionally charged solutions to complex societal issues (e.g., blaming a particular group for economic problems). Humans are prone to cognitive shortcuts, known as heuristics, that allow them to make quick judgments. These shortcuts can lead to the acceptance of fascist ideas because they appear to provide straightforward answers in a confusing world.
Availability Heuristic: This refers to the tendency to judge the likelihood or importance of an event based on how easily examples come to mind. Fascist propaganda often repeats certain messages (e.g., crime by immigrants) so frequently that people begin to believe these events are more common or threatening than they actually are. This repetition makes the fascist narrative more accessible and persuasive, further spreading the ideology.
Seeking Consistent Information: Once someone leans toward fascist beliefs, confirmation bias leads them to seek out information that supports those beliefs while ignoring or rejecting information that contradicts them. In the digital age, algorithms on social media platforms exacerbate this by feeding individuals more of the content they already agree with, creating echo chambers that reinforce fascist ideas.
Selective Exposure: People are more likely to expose themselves to media and opinions that align with their preexisting beliefs. Fascist movements often thrive in environments where individuals consume partisan media or interact only with like-minded people, reinforcing their beliefs and spreading them to others.
Loss of Individual Accountability: When individuals are part of a large group, especially in emotionally charged environments like rallies or protests, they can experience deindividuation. This is a psychological state where people lose their sense of individuality and responsibility, leading them to behave in ways they wouldn’t normally. Fascist movements often exploit this mechanism by encouraging group violence or mass participation in aggressive actions, making it easier for fascist behaviors to spread.
Anonymity in Crowds: In large groups, people feel anonymous and less accountable for their actions. This can lead to mob behavior, where individuals engage in violent or extreme behaviors they would avoid on their own. This mob mentality can quickly spread fascist ideas and actions, as people feel emboldened by the collective anonymity.
Framing Effects: The way information is presented (or framed) can heavily influence how people interpret it. Fascist movements often use emotional and moral framing to present their ideology as a defense of the nation, culture, or morality. By controlling the narrative, they can make their ideas more palatable and easier to accept. People are more likely to adopt beliefs that are framed in terms of protecting their way of life or combating an external threat.
Moral Panic: Fascism often stirs up moral panic by exaggerating or fabricating threats from out-groups (e.g., racial minorities, immigrants). This framing plays on people's sense of moral duty to protect their community, which can cause individuals to adopt fascist ideologies in response to perceived threats.
Observational Learning: People learn behaviors and norms by observing others, especially authority figures or those who seem to be rewarded for certain behaviors. When fascist leaders or groups act violently or express hate, and there are no consequences or even positive reinforcement (such as gaining political power), others may learn to emulate those behaviors, spreading fascist practices.
Vicarious Reinforcement: Seeing others receive rewards (such as social approval or political success) for fascist behaviors encourages people to imitate those behaviors. If joining a fascist movement leads to feelings of empowerment, belonging, or increased social status, others are more likely to follow suit.
The psychological mechanisms that make ideological contagion possible are grounded in deep social and cognitive processes. Factors like conformity, emotional contagion, fear-based thinking, and cognitive biases allow fascist ideas to spread rapidly within a society, especially during times of crisis. Understanding these mechanisms can help in developing strategies to resist the appeal of such ideologies and promote more critical, empathetic, and reflective social dynamics.
Can self-deception be contagious?
Yes, self-deception can be contagious in a psychological and social sense. While self-deception is typically seen as an individual cognitive process, where a person denies or distorts reality to protect their self-esteem or avoid discomfort, it can spread among groups through mechanisms that resemble emotional and cognitive contagion. Here’s how self-deception can become socially contagious:
Groupthink: In group settings, especially when there is a strong desire for consensus, individuals may engage in self-deception to align their beliefs with the group's dominant narrative, even if it contradicts their private thoughts or the facts. This collective form of self-deception happens because dissenting voices are discouraged or because people want to maintain social harmony. As more members of the group deceive themselves, it becomes easier for others to fall into the same trap.
Mutual Reinforcement: Once self-deceptive ideas are accepted within a group, they become mutually reinforcing. Group members validate each other’s distorted beliefs, making it harder for individuals to recognize or admit the truth. This feedback loop can quickly spread self-deception through social networks, as the group's shared reality becomes more distorted.
Reinforcement of Beliefs: Self-deception often involves confirmation bias, where individuals selectively seek out and believe information that aligns with their desires or preconceptions while ignoring contradictory evidence. In social settings, this bias can be contagious as people selectively share information that supports their shared self-deceptions. Others adopt these views, and the shared misperceptions are amplified.
Echo Chambers: In both face-to-face and online communities, echo chambers can emerge where individuals are exposed only to information that reinforces their self-deceptive beliefs. These communities effectively spread self-deception by continually reinforcing the same biases and falsehoods.
Social Conformity to Self-Deception: If influential members of a group engage in self-deception, others may feel social pressure to adopt the same distorted views, even if they have doubts. The desire to belong and avoid conflict can lead individuals to deceive themselves to fit in with the group. This conformity spreads self-deception as more people accept the group's distorted reality.
Avoidance of Cognitive Dissonance: When a group's beliefs conflict with reality, individuals may experience cognitive dissonance—the mental discomfort of holding contradictory thoughts. To reduce this discomfort, individuals may deceive themselves into accepting the group's beliefs, even if they are clearly false. As more people adopt these beliefs, the self-deception spreads through the group.
Justifying Harmful Actions: In situations where a group engages in harmful or unethical actions, self-deception can serve as a defense mechanism to justify these actions. For example, fascist or authoritarian movements often rely on self-deception to rationalize violence or oppression as necessary for the "greater good." Once one person or group member adopts this justification, it can spread as others use the same self-deceptive reasoning to avoid confronting the immorality of their actions.
Ideological Commitment: When people are deeply committed to an ideology or belief system, they may deceive themselves into believing things that are not true, especially when faced with evidence that contradicts their worldview. This ideological self-deception can spread as individuals share distorted narratives that protect the integrity of the group's shared belief system.
Denial as an Emotional Defense: Self-deception often involves denial—rejecting uncomfortable truths to avoid emotional distress. This denial can be contagious when groups collectively avoid confronting painful realities, such as systemic injustice, climate change, or political corruption. If one person models denial as a coping mechanism, others may adopt it, spreading self-deception as a way to cope with the emotional burden of the truth.
Shared Defense Mechanisms: Just as individuals use self-deception to protect their self-esteem or sense of security, groups can use collective self-deception to protect their identity or worldview. This emotional defense becomes contagious when group members reinforce each other’s denial or avoidance of uncomfortable facts.
Leaders’ Role in Spreading Self-Deception: When a leader engages in self-deception—perhaps by denying obvious facts, misrepresenting reality, or constructing a false narrative—their followers are more likely to adopt those same distorted views. This is particularly true in hierarchical settings, where people defer to authority figures. If a leader is successful in convincing themselves of a falsehood, that falsehood can spread through the group or society as followers mirror their leader's beliefs.
Charismatic Manipulation: Charismatic leaders can make their own self-deceptions appear compelling to others. By confidently projecting a distorted view of reality, such leaders influence followers to adopt the same beliefs, often without critical reflection. This dynamic can make self-deception a collective phenomenon, as followers mirror the self-deception of their leaders.
Learning Self-Deception from Others: People learn not only behaviors but also cognitive strategies from others. If individuals observe that self-deception (e.g., denying uncomfortable truths or reframing inconvenient facts) helps others avoid social conflict, emotional distress, or cognitive dissonance, they may adopt the same self-deceptive strategies. This kind of observational learning spreads self-deception across social groups.
Myth Creation: Groups often create shared narratives or myths that reinforce their identity and purpose. These narratives can involve significant self-deception if they ignore or distort historical facts or present an idealized version of reality. As these myths are shared and retold within the group, the self-deception becomes part of the collective consciousness, making it easier for individuals to adopt it without questioning.
The Power of Repeated Lies: Repeated exposure to a lie can lead to its acceptance, a phenomenon known as the "illusory truth effect." If a group repeatedly tells itself a particular narrative, even if it's rooted in self-deception, it becomes harder for individuals to distinguish truth from falsehood, and the self-deception spreads.
Polarization of Views: In highly polarized environments, individuals often reject information that challenges their worldview and adopt self-deceptive beliefs that align with their political or ideological identity. This is especially pronounced in polarized political climates, where people are socially rewarded for holding extreme or false beliefs that conform to their group’s ideology. This form of self-deception spreads as people retreat further into ideological echo chambers.
Social Media Amplification: Self-deception can spread rapidly in the digital age due to social media algorithms that promote content aligned with users' existing beliefs. This leads to echo chambers where people encounter only reinforcing messages that validate their self-deceptions, making it easier for false narratives to spread virally.
Self-deception can indeed be contagious because it is often reinforced by social, emotional, and cognitive mechanisms that operate within groups. Groupthink, social conformity, emotional contagion, and ideological commitment create environments where self-deception is shared, reinforced, and normalized. As individuals in a group validate each other’s distorted views, the boundaries between individual and collective self-deception blur, allowing it to spread throughout social networks, communities, or even entire societies.
Can a large group of people share a whole set of self-deceptions?
Yes, a large group of people can indeed share a whole set of self-deceptions, a phenomenon often referred to as collective self-deception. This occurs when a group, society, or even a nation adopts and reinforces a shared set of distorted beliefs or denial of reality. These collective self-deceptions serve to protect the group’s identity, values, or worldview, often at the expense of truth and rationality.
Several psychological and social mechanisms enable large groups to share a set of self-deceptions:
Cultural Myths: Societies often build and sustain myths—idealized or fictional versions of their past, identity, or purpose. These myths can become deeply embedded in the collective consciousness, making it difficult for individuals within the group to critically assess or challenge them. A group may, for instance, believe in an exaggerated national greatness or superiority while ignoring historical injustices or failures.
Historical Revisionism: When a society collectively rewrites or distorts historical facts to serve its current identity or goals, this can result in shared self-deception. This is often seen in totalitarian regimes or nationalist movements that manipulate history to support ideological aims, encouraging entire populations to accept distorted versions of their nation’s past.
Groupthink: Groupthink is a well-documented phenomenon where the desire for group harmony and consensus leads to poor decision-making, often through self-deception. In such cases, the group collectively suppresses dissenting views or contradictory information in order to maintain unity, even if the group's shared beliefs are demonstrably false or harmful. This reinforces a collective self-deception that is difficult for individuals to break away from.
Suppression of Criticism: In many groups, criticism of the shared self-deceptions is discouraged or punished. Individuals who raise objections may be ostracized, labeled as disloyal, or accused of undermining the group. This social pressure further enforces the shared delusions, making them more entrenched.
Media Reinforcement: In modern societies, media—especially social media—can amplify self-deception by creating echo chambers. These environments isolate individuals from contrary views and present only information that reinforces the group's shared beliefs, even if those beliefs are false. In this way, large groups can maintain a set of self-deceptions as media channels filter reality through the lens of collective biases.
Algorithmic Amplification: Online platforms often employ algorithms that prioritize content that aligns with users' pre-existing views, making it easier for self-deceptive beliefs to spread and be reinforced across a large group. This leads to a feedback loop where false narratives gain traction and alternative views are marginalized.
Ideological Uniformity: When a group shares a strong ideological commitment, it becomes more susceptible to collective self-deception. Ideologies offer coherent, often oversimplified, explanations for complex realities. When a group embraces an ideology that requires ignoring or distorting certain truths, those distortions can become embedded in the group’s collective understanding of reality.
Emotional Investment: People often become emotionally attached to their group’s beliefs, making it difficult for them to accept facts or truths that contradict those beliefs. The stronger the emotional attachment, the more likely individuals are to engage in collective self-deception to protect their sense of identity and belonging.
Nationalist Movements: Nationalism frequently leads to collective self-deception, where entire populations embrace a glorified or sanitized version of their national identity. Nationalist leaders may promote myths of national purity, victimhood, or exceptionalism, which are readily adopted by the population because they appeal to collective pride or fear. This can lead to widespread denial of atrocities, exploitation, or failures.
Collective Identity: Groups can collectively deceive themselves about their identity, such as believing in racial, cultural, or moral superiority. This can lead to systemic forms of discrimination and injustice, as the group ignores or denies evidence that contradicts its self-image. Such shared self-deceptions may serve as justifications for aggressive or oppressive behavior toward out-groups.
Simplifying Complex Problems: Large groups often adopt simplistic, self-deceptive explanations for complex social, political, or economic problems. For example, a nation may blame a particular minority group or external enemy for its problems (scapegoating), ignoring more nuanced or systemic causes. These explanations are emotionally satisfying and protect the group from confronting uncomfortable truths.
Externalizing Blame: Scapegoating allows groups to externalize blame for failures or hardships, fostering a collective self-deception that absolves the group of responsibility. This is especially common in times of crisis, where self-deceptive narratives (such as blaming immigrants for economic downturns) can spread rapidly across large populations.
Manipulation by Leaders: Charismatic leaders can cultivate and spread collective self-deception through propaganda and rhetoric. These leaders often present themselves as protectors of the group's identity, offering emotionally charged narratives that frame the group as virtuous and others as dangerous or inferior. The leader’s ability to manipulate emotions and present a distorted version of reality can lead entire populations to share in the same self-deceptions.
Totalitarian Propaganda: In extreme cases, totalitarian regimes use propaganda to create an alternate reality that is shared by large groups or even entire nations. The state controls information, censoring dissenting views and promoting self-deceptive narratives that sustain its power. Over time, these narratives become accepted as reality by the population.
Climate Change Denial: A prominent contemporary example of collective self-deception is the denial of climate change by segments of the global population. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, some groups or political movements refuse to accept the reality of climate change due to ideological, economic, or emotional reasons. This denial is often reinforced by media outlets and leaders who share or promote the same self-deception.
Systemic Injustices: Large groups can engage in self-deception by denying or minimizing systemic injustices, such as racism, sexism, or economic inequality. This allows the group to maintain the status quo and avoid confronting uncomfortable realities about its own complicity in perpetuating these injustices. Over time, this denial becomes part of the group's collective worldview.
Justifying Immoral Acts: Groups often engage in collective self-deception to justify immoral or unethical actions. This is common in situations of war, colonialism, or exploitation, where a group deceives itself into believing that its actions are justified or necessary, even when they cause harm to others. For example, during wars, entire societies may collectively believe that their cause is just while denying or minimizing the suffering of others.
Moral Superiority: Groups may convince themselves that they are morally superior to others, even while engaging in behavior that contradicts that belief. This self-deception serves to protect the group’s identity and sense of righteousness, allowing harmful behaviors to continue without accountability.
Ritualistic Reinforcement: Groups often use rituals, ceremonies, and symbols to reinforce collective self-deception. For example, nationalistic rituals such as flag ceremonies, anthems, and parades can foster a sense of unity and pride, but they can also mask or distort uncomfortable truths about a nation’s history or present. These symbols become emotionally powerful tools that reinforce the group's shared self-deceptions.
Symbolic Power: Shared symbols and rituals can serve as focal points for collective self-deception, allowing groups to create a unified narrative that overlooks or distorts inconvenient facts. The emotional resonance of these symbols makes them effective tools for reinforcing self-deceptive beliefs across large populations.
Large groups of people can indeed share a whole set of self-deceptions, reinforced through mechanisms like groupthink, cultural myths, echo chambers, charismatic leadership, and social conformity. These collective self-deceptions often serve to protect the group's identity, justify its actions, or maintain social and political cohesion, even at the expense of truth and rationality. The shared nature of these beliefs makes them particularly difficult to challenge, as they become embedded in the group’s collective consciousness and are mutually reinforced by social, cultural, and psychological mechanisms.
Can a "clowning" pathological liar be charismatic?
Yes, a "clowning" pathological liar can indeed be charismatic. Charisma is a complex and multifaceted quality that doesn’t always align with truthfulness, rationality, or seriousness. People with charismatic traits can capture attention, inspire devotion, and command influence even when they engage in behavior that might otherwise be considered dishonest or absurd, including lying and clowning.
Here’s how a "clowning" pathological liar can still exhibit charisma:
Humor and Theatrics: Clowning behavior—exaggeration, jokes, and theatrics—can make a pathological liar entertaining to watch. People are often drawn to those who can make them laugh or keep them entertained, even if the substance of what they’re saying is false. This kind of performative charisma allows the liar to sidestep the need for truthfulness, as the audience may become more focused on the entertainment value than on factual accuracy.
Confidence in Absurdity: Pathological liars who "clown" often project supreme confidence, even when saying or doing ridiculous things. This kind of over-the-top behavior can be appealing because it breaks social norms in an amusing way. Confidence, even in absurdity, can be interpreted as strength or authenticity by some, leading to a kind of paradoxical charisma.
Charm and Emotional Appeal: A pathological liar can be very charming, using their lies to manipulate emotions. By telling people what they want to hear or playing to their fears, hopes, or desires, the liar creates an emotional connection. The audience may be willing to overlook the obvious falsehoods because they feel emotionally engaged, and this connection fosters the liar’s charisma.
Exploiting Empathy: Some pathological liars play the victim or exaggerate their own hardships, which can generate empathy and support from others. This kind of emotional manipulation, combined with clowning behavior that softens the deception, can enhance the liar's ability to win over people.
Rebellious Appeal: Clowning liars often break social conventions, and this defiance can be appealing to people who are disillusioned with mainstream norms or authorities. They may be seen as rebellious or as outsiders who are unafraid to say or do what others won’t. This nonconformity can give the liar a kind of "folk hero" status, making them seem charismatic, especially to those who are skeptical of traditional institutions or norms.
Subversion of Seriousness: The "clowning" liar may subvert the seriousness of political or social discourse, providing a form of relief or entertainment. In doing so, they position themselves as an antidote to conventional, often more rigid or uncharismatic leaders. This contrast makes them stand out and can contribute to their charismatic appeal.
Confidence and Dominance: Even when telling obvious lies or clowning around, a pathological liar can project a sense of power and control. The ability to deceive others with impunity, while maintaining a following, can create the impression that the liar is somehow "above" normal standards of truth and morality. This power dynamic can make the liar seem like a dominant figure, which many people find charismatic.
Manipulation of Perception: Pathological liars can be skillful in controlling how they are perceived. By continually shifting the narrative, deflecting criticism, and making bold, outrageous statements, they can keep people focused on their persona rather than their lies. This ability to manipulate perception can contribute to their charisma because they create a spectacle that captivates attention.
Confirmation Bias: People are often willing to believe lies that align with their existing beliefs or desires. A pathological liar who tells the right lies—those that confirm what people want to believe—can appear charismatic because the audience is eager to accept the deception. The clowning behavior can serve to make the lies more palatable, turning deception into something entertaining rather than offensive.
Overlooking Inconsistencies: In charismatic figures, people are often willing to overlook contradictions or falsehoods, especially if those lies are wrapped in humor, charm, or entertaining spectacle. The clowning behavior creates a buffer where the liar’s inconsistencies seem less important than their ability to amuse or captivate the audience.
Larger-than-Life Image: A pathological liar who clowns may deliberately cultivate a larger-than-life persona. They often present themselves as more than just a person—they become a kind of symbol or character that people invest in emotionally. This persona can be highly charismatic, as it gives the liar a sense of mystery, unpredictability, and excitement.
Escapism and Fantasy: Clowning liars often provide a kind of escapism by constructing fantastical or exaggerated realities. People may find themselves drawn to these narratives as a way to escape the complexities or disappointments of real life. The more the liar can pull people into their constructed reality, the more charisma they seem to have.
Amplifying the Audience’s Desires: A charismatic pathological liar often tells lies that align with the desires, frustrations, or anger of their audience. In doing so, they act as a mirror to the audience’s wants, creating a bond. This bond can be strengthened when the lies are delivered with humor or exaggeration, which helps the audience to laugh along and feel more connected.
Using Lies as a Tool of Power: A liar who manipulates others effectively can create a sense of awe or admiration in their audience. Even when people recognize the dishonesty, they may still be impressed by the liar’s audacity and ability to "get away with it." The clownish presentation can make the liar seem clever or cunning rather than deceitful.
Building a Loyal Base: Charismatic pathological liars often build loyal followings because their lies resonate with specific segments of the population. Their clowning behavior makes them memorable and engaging, while their lies—crafted to play on emotional or ideological preferences—create a sense of loyalty among their followers.
Charismatic Polarization: A clowning pathological liar can polarize people, creating passionate supporters who see the liar as a truth-teller "hidden" behind the humor, and detractors who view them as absurd or dangerous. The polarization itself can make the liar appear more charismatic, as they seem to embody a struggle between those who "get" the joke or message and those who don’t.
A "clowning" pathological liar can certainly be charismatic by using humor, emotional manipulation, confidence, and spectacle to engage people. While their behavior might appear absurd or dishonest, their ability to entertain, defy norms, and project a larger-than-life persona can make them captivating to many. This charisma is less about truth or rationality and more about the emotional connection, entertainment value, and rebellious appeal they offer to their audience.
Will a narcissistic psychopath with blind faiths make a powerfully charismatic political leader?
A narcissistic psychopath with blind faiths can indeed possess certain traits that make them powerfully charismatic as a political leader, but the long-term effects of their leadership are often destructive. Here's a breakdown of why such an individual could initially be charismatic and successful, but also why their leadership is inherently dangerous:
Projecting Unwavering Confidence: Narcissistic psychopaths often exude immense self-confidence and grandiosity, traits that can be highly attractive to certain followers. Their unwavering belief in their own superiority can come across as strength and leadership, even if it’s detached from reality. People are often drawn to leaders who project certainty and purpose, especially in times of uncertainty or crisis.
Bold, Unapologetic Behavior: These individuals are unafraid to make bold moves or claim power because they genuinely believe they are entitled to it. This confidence can create the perception of charisma, as they seem to act without fear or hesitation, qualities that followers often interpret as leadership prowess.
Charm as a Tool for Manipulation: Narcissistic psychopaths often have a superficial charm, which they use to manipulate others into supporting them. They can be very persuasive, telling people exactly what they want to hear in order to gain their trust and loyalty. This manipulative charm can create a sense of personal connection between the leader and the followers, making the leader appear more charismatic and relatable.
Emotional Manipulation: They are adept at manipulating emotions, using both fear and hope to mobilize support. By exploiting people's vulnerabilities—such as economic anxiety or cultural fears—they can rally large groups of followers and appear as the only one capable of solving their problems.
Blind Faith in Ideologies: A narcissistic psychopath with blind faiths can present their beliefs as visionary or revolutionary. Their absolute conviction in their own ideas (no matter how irrational or extreme) can inspire followers who are looking for certainty and direction. This kind of fanaticism, when combined with political skill, can make them appear as a "savior" or a transformative figure.
Simplistic Solutions to Complex Problems: These leaders often present simplistic, black-and-white solutions to complex problems, which appeals to people who are frustrated with the slow, messy realities of democratic governance. The blind faith in their solutions, no matter how unrealistic, can appear charismatic because it contrasts with the caution and compromise typical of other political leaders.
Absence of Moral Constraints: Psychopathic traits include a lack of empathy and remorse, which can lead to ruthless decision-making. While some followers might admire their willingness to take extreme actions that others shy away from, this trait can lead to harmful policies, oppression, or even violence.
Charismatic Authoritarianism: Because they are unbound by moral or ethical concerns, they can be willing to subvert democratic norms and institutions in their pursuit of power. This ability to "do whatever it takes" can make them appear charismatic to those who crave decisive, authoritarian leadership, but it often results in authoritarian rule, corruption, and human rights abuses.
Rigid Ideological Commitment: Blind faith, whether in a religious, nationalistic, or personal ideology, can make a narcissistic psychopath appear extremely charismatic to followers who share that faith. However, this rigid commitment often leads to extreme policies that don’t account for reality or practical consequences. Over time, this creates instability and disillusionment among the population, even if the leader's charisma initially wins over large groups.
Exploiting Followers’ Faith: They often exploit their followers’ blind faith for personal gain, promising salvation or utopia while consolidating power. They manipulate the belief systems of their followers, whether political, religious, or cultural, to create a cult-like following where their authority is unquestioned.
Creating an "Us vs. Them" Dynamic: Narcissistic psychopaths often thrive on creating division, pitting their followers (the in-group) against perceived enemies (the out-group). This polarizing rhetoric can be very charismatic to their base, as it provides them with a clear sense of identity and purpose. However, it also leads to deep societal fractures and conflict, which can spiral out of control.
Blame Shifting and Scapegoating: When their policies inevitably fail or lead to negative outcomes, they are adept at shifting blame onto scapegoats, often targeting minorities, political opponents, or external enemies. This tactic can temporarily preserve their charisma among their followers by deflecting responsibility, but it also leads to increased societal unrest and tension.
Undermining Checks and Balances: Narcissistic psychopaths often see democratic institutions, such as courts, the press, or legislatures, as obstacles to their personal power. As charismatic leaders, they can successfully erode these institutions by presenting themselves as above the law or by delegitimizing those who oppose them. Over time, this leads to authoritarianism, corruption, and the loss of personal freedoms.
Cult of Personality: Such leaders often cultivate a cult of personality, where their image becomes central to the political system. Their blind faith in their own greatness, combined with the manipulative charm they use on followers, can create an environment where rational debate and political opposition are suppressed in favor of loyalty to the leader.
Short-Term Gains, Long-Term Chaos: While a narcissistic psychopath with charisma may achieve short-term political victories or popularity, their lack of concern for the long-term consequences of their actions often leads to instability. Their decisions are driven by self-interest and immediate gratification, rather than careful planning or sustainable governance, leading to economic downturns, civil unrest, or even war.
Alienation of Allies and the Public: Over time, the leader’s unpredictability, dishonesty, and lack of empathy may alienate even their most loyal supporters. Their inability to maintain relationships based on trust or mutual respect leads to isolation, both domestically and internationally.
Normalization of Lies and Corruption: Narcissistic psychopaths normalize dishonesty and corruption in their governance. Their pathological lying and lack of moral scruples can trickle down into the political system, leading to widespread corruption and a breakdown of ethical standards. While some followers may continue to view the leader as charismatic, others will become disillusioned as the gap between rhetoric and reality becomes too great to ignore.
Destruction of Social Trust: Their tendency to manipulate and deceive erodes social trust, both in government and among citizens. As lies and false promises accumulate, people may lose faith in institutions and even in each other, creating a fractured and distrustful society.
A narcissistic psychopath with blind faiths can indeed be powerfully charismatic as a political leader, especially in the short term. Their confidence, manipulative charm, and fanatical belief in their own vision can attract a large following, particularly in times of uncertainty or crisis. However, their leadership is inherently dangerous. Over time, their lack of empathy, dishonesty, and willingness to subvert democratic norms and institutions lead to societal harm, instability, and the erosion of personal freedoms. Their charisma may endure among certain segments of their base, but the broader impact of their rule is typically destructive and divisive.
How can we neutralize such charisma in a hurry?
Neutralizing the charisma of a narcissistic psychopath in a hurry, particularly when they hold significant political power, is a complex and urgent task. The key is to undermine the appeal of their charisma by exposing the gap between their rhetoric and reality, empowering alternative leaders, and counteracting their emotional manipulation with truth and reason. Here are strategies that can be used to quickly diminish the influence of such a leader:
Fact-Checking in Real Time: A narcissistic psychopath thrives on deception and exaggeration. Rapid, public, and highly visible fact-checking can neutralize their charisma by revealing the extent of their dishonesty. This needs to happen in real time, so that followers can see the contradictions as they unfold, rather than passively absorbing the leader’s narrative. Digital tools, media outlets, and social media platforms can be used to spread these fact-checks widely and quickly.
Highlight Inconsistencies: Exposing contradictions in their words and actions is particularly effective. Point out how their claims don’t match up with their past statements or actual results. This can create cognitive dissonance in their followers, forcing them to confront the leader’s inconsistencies. Publicizing these contradictions through trusted voices and media can quickly erode their perceived credibility.
Mockery and Satire: Charisma often depends on the leader being perceived as larger than life. Satire, ridicule, and humor can puncture this image by turning them into a subject of mockery rather than admiration. Historically, satire has been a powerful tool in deflating authoritarian figures because it exposes their flaws in a way that resonates emotionally with the public.
Revealing Vulnerabilities: Psychopathic narcissists often hide their vulnerabilities behind a facade of strength. If their personal failings or moments of weakness can be exposed—whether through investigative journalism or leaks—it can break the illusion of their invincibility. This could include revealing legal troubles, personal scandals, or private behaviors that contrast with their public persona.
Appeal to Rationality and Facts: While emotional appeals are often central to the charisma of a narcissistic psychopath, counteracting this manipulation with clear, rational, and fact-based messaging can be effective for neutralizing their hold on people. Providing clear, simple, fact-based arguments that debunk their claims can help restore a sense of reality to their followers. This can be amplified through educational campaigns or by enlisting experts who have authority in the public’s eyes.
Reframe the Narrative: Narcissistic leaders thrive on creating fear and division. Countering this by reframing the narrative in terms of unity, hope, and collective strength can weaken their hold. Offer alternative stories that give people hope for the future, emphasizing inclusivity and cooperation rather than division. Focus on positive solutions to the problems the leader manipulates for their own gain.
Promote Credible Alternatives: Charismatic psychopaths often dominate the political stage by presenting themselves as the only solution. Elevating alternative leaders who are credible, trustworthy, and charismatic in their own right is crucial. These leaders need to be presented as viable and immediate alternatives, with clear, compelling plans that contrast with the narcissist’s hollow rhetoric.
Empower Local and Grassroots Leaders: Charismatic narcissists often thrive on centralized, top-down control. To counter this, empower local, grassroots leaders who can connect more personally with the community. These leaders can build trust and loyalty on a smaller scale, slowly eroding the influence of the central figure. Mobilizing people at the local level to support these leaders can shift the balance of power.
Limit Media Exposure: Narcissistic leaders rely heavily on media attention to project their charisma. Reducing their media presence—by limiting their access to platforms or reducing the attention they receive—can weaken their influence. Media outlets should be encouraged to avoid amplifying their false claims or sensationalist statements and focus instead on fact-based reporting and alternative voices.
Disrupt Their Social Media Networks: In the digital age, social media plays a significant role in amplifying a leader’s charisma. By disrupting the online networks that spread their messaging—through counter-messaging, platform regulations, or reducing their digital reach—one can limit the scope of their influence. Engaging tech companies to remove harmful or misleading content can be an effective short-term tactic.
Show Immediate Harm: Focus public attention on the real-world, immediate consequences of their policies or actions. By highlighting how their leadership is harming people—whether through economic instability, increased inequality, or violence—you can weaken the emotional appeal of their rhetoric. Personal stories of individuals or communities who have suffered under their rule can humanize the consequences and mobilize public outrage.
Link Their Actions to Instability: Emphasize how their leadership is leading to long-term instability—political, social, or economic. By framing their actions as dangerous not only in the short term but also for the future of the country, people may begin to see their leadership as a threat to their own well-being and security.
Rapid Organization of Protests and Movements: Charismatic narcissists are often vulnerable to public pressure, especially when it manifests in large, organized opposition movements. Organizing mass protests, demonstrations, or boycotts can create an overwhelming visual display of opposition, which can undermine their perceived popularity and legitimacy. If opposition movements can show strength in numbers, it can rapidly erode the leader’s influence.
Engage Influential Figures: Enlisting the help of respected public figures—celebrities, intellectuals, religious leaders—who can publicly oppose the narcissistic leader’s agenda can quickly sway public opinion. When such figures use their platforms to promote an alternative vision, it can weaken the leader’s charisma, especially among undecided or more moderate followers.
Expose Manipulation of Faith and Beliefs: If the leader’s charisma is tied to blind faith (whether in religious, nationalist, or ideological terms), it’s important to expose how they exploit these beliefs for personal gain. Show how they manipulate the faith or beliefs of their followers to justify actions that are contrary to the very values they claim to uphold. This can be especially powerful if religious or ideological leaders themselves speak out against the manipulation.
Undermine Their Moral Authority: If the leader presents themselves as a moral or ethical figure, find credible voices within that same moral framework to expose their hypocrisy. For instance, religious leaders or respected figures within a nationalist movement could denounce the leader's behavior as contrary to the principles they claim to champion.
Pursue Legal Action: If the leader has engaged in illegal activities, bringing swift legal action against them can undermine their public standing. Even the initiation of investigations or legal challenges can cast doubt on their integrity and reduce their charisma. People are less likely to see them as invincible if they are facing legal consequences.
Strengthen Institutional Safeguards: Strengthening democratic institutions, such as the judiciary, legislature, and media, is crucial to neutralizing the power of charismatic narcissists. Reinforcing these checks and balances, and publicizing them, can help demonstrate that the leader is not above the law or institutional norms.
Avoid the "Rally Around the Flag" Effect: Narcissistic psychopaths often use crises (real or manufactured) to consolidate power by framing themselves as the only one capable of handling the situation. By providing alternative solutions and showing competent leadership from other figures during crises, you can reduce their ability to use fear as a tool of charisma.
Dispel the Illusion of Control: Expose how the leader’s actions are making the crisis worse rather than solving it. If their leadership exacerbates existing problems or creates new ones, publicizing this can shift public perception away from them as a "strongman" figure and toward them as a source of instability.
Neutralizing the charisma of a narcissistic psychopath requires a multi-pronged approach that undermines their perceived invincibility, exposes their lies and contradictions, and provides credible alternatives. By rapidly mobilizing opposition, cutting off their media influence, highlighting the real-world consequences of their leadership, and promoting alternative, positive narratives, their charismatic grip on the public can be weakened. The goal is to disrupt their ability to manipulate emotions, project authority, and sustain their image as an indispensable leader, while empowering voices that offer hope and stability.
Should fascist contagions be treated like pandemics?
Treating fascist contagions like pandemics is a useful analogy, as both involve rapid spread, susceptibility to environmental factors, and a need for coordinated responses to prevent their escalation. While fascism isn’t a literal virus, the mechanisms by which it spreads—fear, propaganda, groupthink, and emotional manipulation—can behave similarly to a viral contagion. Adopting a pandemic-style approach to countering fascism might help in containing and neutralizing its influence. Here's how this analogy can be applied:
Identify Early Warning Signs: Just as in pandemics, early detection is key. Monitoring for signs of fascist rhetoric, group mobilization, or the spread of hateful ideologies can allow societies to respond before they reach critical levels. Warning signs could include rising nationalist extremism, the scapegoating of marginalized groups, or the glorification of authoritarian figures.
Track and Monitor Spread: As with a pandemic, understanding how fascism spreads is crucial. Social media, political movements, and disinformation campaigns can act as "vectors" for spreading fascist ideas. By monitoring these channels and tracking the growth of extremist networks, societies can understand where and how the contagion is spreading and tailor their responses accordingly.
Public Education Campaigns: Just as public health campaigns are critical in pandemics, educating people about the dangers of fascism and its warning signs is a crucial preventive measure. These campaigns should focus on fostering critical thinking, media literacy, and an understanding of history, so that individuals are less susceptible to propaganda and fear-mongering. Building resilience through knowledge can "inoculate" people against fascist ideas before they take root.
Strengthen Democratic Values: Just as vaccinations prepare the immune system to fight off diseases, strengthening democratic values and norms acts as a societal immune system against fascism. Civic education, the promotion of pluralism, and the celebration of diversity help build a culture that is resistant to authoritarianism and intolerance.
Isolate Harmful Movements: In a pandemic, isolating infected individuals can prevent further spread. Similarly, isolating and marginalizing extremist groups—through de-platforming, sanctions, or social stigmatization—can limit their ability to recruit and spread fascist ideas. This doesn’t mean suppressing free speech, but it does involve cutting off the amplification of harmful rhetoric, such as limiting their access to major media platforms or public forums.
Disrupt Extremist Networks: Quarantining can also involve breaking up networks of extremists by disrupting their communication channels and cutting off funding or organizational support. Law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and civil society can work together to undermine the infrastructure that allows these groups to spread their ideology.
Address Root Causes (Reduce Susceptibility): Pandemics spread more easily in vulnerable populations, and similarly, fascism often spreads in societies experiencing economic, political, or social instability. To reduce susceptibility to fascist contagion, it’s essential to address underlying issues such as economic inequality, unemployment, lack of social mobility, and political disenfranchisement. Fascism thrives on feelings of fear, resentment, and helplessness, so improving social conditions can act as a form of "herd immunity."
Support Social Cohesion: Building a strong sense of community and social trust can counteract the divisive tactics used by fascist movements. Efforts to bridge divides between different social, racial, and political groups can weaken fascist narratives that rely on fear of the "other." Like public health interventions that aim to protect collective well-being, fostering social cohesion protects society from the divisive strategies used by fascists.
Rapid Response to Disinformation: In pandemics, misinformation can hinder public health responses (e.g., vaccine skepticism), and the same is true for fascism. Fascist ideologies often spread through disinformation and conspiracy theories, so a rapid, coordinated response to debunk falsehoods is critical. Media outlets, governments, and civil society need to actively counter fascist propaganda with fact-based narratives and promote critical thinking.
Amplify Positive Messages: Just as public health campaigns use clear, consistent messaging to guide the public, countering fascism requires promoting messages of inclusion, democracy, and tolerance. Amplifying positive alternatives can help neutralize the emotional appeal of fascist rhetoric, especially when those alternatives emphasize shared values and community resilience.
Global Cooperation: Pandemics often require international cooperation, and fascist movements, too, can transcend national borders. Fascism today often spreads globally through the internet, with extremist groups in one country influencing those in others. International cooperation is essential to countering these networks, from sharing intelligence on extremist groups to developing coordinated strategies for de-radicalization.
Prevent Cross-Border Contagion: Just as diseases can spread across borders, fascist ideologies can migrate between countries. International organizations, NGOs, and governments need to collaborate to prevent the spread of extremist movements, including efforts to regulate online spaces and combat cross-border financing of extremist groups.
De-Radicalization Programs: Just as medical treatment is crucial for those infected in a pandemic, treatment in the form of de-radicalization and rehabilitation programs is essential for individuals drawn into fascist ideologies. These programs should focus on helping people break free from extremist beliefs by addressing the psychological, social, and economic factors that led them to embrace fascism.
Reintegration Into Society: Like rehabilitating patients after a pandemic, it’s crucial to help former extremists reintegrate into society. Providing alternative pathways—such as employment, education, and social services—can reduce the likelihood that individuals will return to extremist ideologies.
Strengthening Democratic Institutions: In pandemics, the resilience of health institutions is key to recovery. Similarly, strong democratic institutions—judicial systems, free press, independent legislatures—are vital for resisting and recovering from fascist contagions. Ensuring that these institutions are transparent, accountable, and robust helps limit the appeal of fascism, which often capitalizes on perceptions of institutional weakness or corruption.
Fortify Civil Society: Civil society organizations—human rights groups, watchdogs, grassroots movements—play a critical role in defending democratic norms and values. Strengthening civil society through funding, public support, and legal protections ensures that there are organized, resilient groups to resist fascist movements.
Mass Public Responses: In pandemics, rapid response from public health officials is crucial. In the case of fascist contagions, rapid mobilization of the public is essential to counter the spread of hate and authoritarianism. Mass demonstrations, organized opposition, and public condemnations by influential leaders can act as a form of "social immunity" against fascist ideas, showing that they are not widely accepted and helping to deter their growth.
Cultural Countermeasures: Art, music, and media that celebrate diversity, tolerance, and democracy can act as cultural antibodies against fascism. These cultural responses provide alternative narratives that resonate emotionally and intellectually with the public, countering the simplistic and divisive messages of fascism.
Hold Extremists Accountable: Just as pandemics require accountability for those who hinder public health efforts, fascist movements must face legal and political consequences. Prosecuting hate crimes, incitement to violence, and other extremist actions can help deter further spread. Ensuring that justice is served for actions taken by fascist groups reinforces the rule of law and demonstrates that extremist behavior will not be tolerated.
Treating fascist contagions like pandemics makes sense because both involve the rapid spread of harmful forces that, if left unchecked, can cause widespread damage. Adopting a pandemic-style response—focused on early detection, education, isolation of extremist groups, social interventions, and international cooperation—can help neutralize fascism before it takes root. Just as with pandemics, this requires coordinated, large-scale efforts from governments, civil society, and the international community to ensure that fascist ideologies do not spread unchecked.
How do we isolate the contagious leaders?
Isolating contagious leaders, especially those with charismatic influence and extremist ideologies such as fascism, requires a multifaceted approach that limits their ability to spread their ideas while respecting democratic principles like free speech. Isolation in this context means cutting off the leader’s reach and reducing their influence over their followers or the general public, not physical isolation. Here’s how this can be done:
Remove Their Platform: Contagious leaders often rely on media platforms to amplify their message. De-platforming involves removing or restricting their access to these platforms. Social media companies, TV networks, or other media outlets can play a significant role in this by enforcing policies that limit the spread of hate speech, misinformation, or incitement to violence. When a leader loses access to mass communication channels, it becomes much harder for them to reach new audiences.
Reduce Media Amplification: Media outlets should avoid sensationalizing or amplifying the leader’s rhetoric, even if it drives ratings. Instead of giving a platform to their statements, media should focus on analyzing and debunking their claims without directly amplifying their message. By denying them constant media attention, their influence can wane.
Public Accountability: One effective way to isolate a leader is to consistently expose the negative consequences of their actions and rhetoric. This includes investigative journalism, public reports, and legal investigations that reveal how their policies, statements, or actions are harmful to society. When followers see the tangible damage caused by a leader’s decisions—whether economic, social, or violent—it can weaken their loyalty and reduce the leader’s influence.
Reveal Hypocrisy: Leaders who thrive on extreme ideologies often project an image of moral or ideological purity. Highlighting their personal or political hypocrisy (e.g., corruption, personal scandals, or contradictions in their own rhetoric) can create disillusionment among their followers. Once their image is tarnished, it becomes harder for them to maintain their influence.
Cut Off Financial Support: Leaders rely on financial backing to maintain their movements and continue their influence. By targeting the financial networks that support them—whether through legal means, sanctions, or public pressure on donors and corporate sponsors—their operations can be severely limited. Public campaigns to expose and pressure those financially supporting the leader can isolate them by shrinking their resources.
Dismantle Their Organizational Structures: If a leader relies on formal or informal networks of supporters, disrupting these networks can weaken their influence. This can involve law enforcement action against illegal activities within those networks, or social and political efforts to cut off the leader from key allies. By isolating them from their base of support, their capacity to mobilize followers is significantly reduced.
Promote Strong Counter-Leaders: One way to isolate a charismatic leader is to offer credible alternatives who can command attention and respect. Promoting figures with integrity, vision, and appeal to the same demographic that the leader targets can weaken their influence. These counter-leaders should present positive, constructive messages that contrast with the negativity or divisiveness of the contagious leader.
Provide Alternative Narratives: Alongside promoting alternative leaders, it’s crucial to offer narratives that directly counter the leader’s messaging. This involves creating positive, hopeful, and inclusive stories that resonate with people who might otherwise be drawn to the leader’s more extreme vision. Shifting the public discourse toward these positive alternatives can reduce the leader’s appeal.
Pursue Legal Action: Contagious leaders often engage in illegal or unethical behavior, such as inciting violence, engaging in corruption, or violating laws related to hate speech or disinformation. Holding them accountable through the legal system can isolate them by undermining their credibility and showing that they are not above the law. Legal accountability forces leaders to spend time and resources defending themselves, reducing their capacity to maintain influence.
Impose Sanctions or Restrictions: In some cases, it may be appropriate to impose legal restrictions on a leader’s ability to operate. This could include limiting their ability to hold public office, restricting their access to certain platforms if they engage in hate speech, or even criminal penalties if they violate the law. Such measures signal that their actions have consequences, isolating them from mainstream acceptance.
Appeal to Their Followers’ Interests: Leaders often rely on a loyal base of followers who feel that the leader represents their interests. Isolating the leader requires efforts to engage with these followers directly, offering them alternative solutions to their grievances and concerns. This involves addressing the economic, social, or political issues that make followers vulnerable to extremist ideologies. By offering real solutions and respecting their concerns, the base can be pulled away from the leader.
Create Internal Division: Many charismatic leaders build coalitions of different groups with varying interests. By highlighting and exploiting divisions within these coalitions, the leader can be isolated from key segments of their support. For example, if different factions within the leader’s movement start competing for power or attention, emphasizing these conflicts can weaken the cohesion of the movement.
Debunk False Claims: Leaders with contagious influence often rely on misinformation or oversimplified narratives. Systematically debunking these falsehoods through fact-checking, expert analysis, and public awareness campaigns can reduce the leader’s credibility. This works particularly well if influential or respected figures within the leader’s demographic or ideological base do the debunking.
Discredit Extremist Ideology: When the leader is associated with an extremist ideology (such as fascism), isolating them requires discrediting that ideology itself. This can involve historical education, public discourse on the dangers of fascism, and media that illustrate the long-term harm caused by such ideologies. By making the ideology itself less attractive, the leader who embodies it becomes less influential.
Prevent the Use of Crises for Consolidation: Leaders often use crises, real or manufactured, to consolidate power by presenting themselves as indispensable during times of turmoil. Efforts to isolate the leader should include preventing them from using crises to their advantage. This involves ensuring that responsible, credible leaders are in place to manage crises effectively, leaving no room for the leader to exploit the situation.
Expose Their Role in Creating Chaos: If the leader is causing or exacerbating chaos (e.g., through disinformation, inciting violence, or creating political instability), publicly expose their role in these events. Framing the leader as the source of instability can diminish their appeal as a "strong leader" and isolate them as the cause of ongoing social or political harm.
Isolate Them Internationally: If the leader has international ambitions or influence, global cooperation can help isolate them on the world stage. This includes diplomatic pressure, sanctions, or even symbolic gestures like denying them invitations to international forums. When a leader is isolated globally, it sends a strong message to their domestic audience that their ideas or actions are not acceptable.
Coordinate with Other Nations: Extremist leaders who rise to power domestically often seek allies abroad. Countering this requires international coordination to prevent them from building support networks in other countries. By isolating them diplomatically and economically, the leader loses access to external resources and validation.
Undermine Their Persona: Contagious leaders rely heavily on their charismatic persona. Disrupting this persona involves consistently showing the leader as fallible, hypocritical, or incompetent. This could involve revealing personal scandals, highlighting their inability to deliver on promises, or showing their human flaws. Once the leader’s aura of invincibility or greatness is punctured, their charisma diminishes.
Use Humor and Satire: Humor can be a powerful weapon against charismatic leaders. Satirical depictions that mock the leader’s exaggerated self-image or poke fun at their ideological inconsistencies can reduce their appeal. Humor makes it harder for the leader to be taken seriously, which in turn weakens their influence.
Isolating a contagious political leader requires a comprehensive strategy that combines limiting their access to platforms, exposing their harmful actions, disrupting their networks, and offering credible alternatives. The goal is to reduce their influence and ability to spread harmful ideologies while simultaneously engaging and providing solutions for the grievances that draw people to them. By strategically cutting off their sources of power, communication, and legitimacy, their capacity to cause widespread harm can be significantly reduced.
What if the media oligarchs are not cooperating and some of them are actually helping the charismatic psychopath?
If media oligarchs are not cooperating and some are actively helping a charismatic psychopath maintain their influence, the challenge becomes even more complex. However, there are strategies that can be employed to counter the influence of such leaders even when powerful media interests are aligned with them. These approaches focus on limiting the power of media oligarchs, creating alternative communication channels, and mobilizing public resistance.
Support Independent Journalism: Independent media outlets, free from the control of oligarchs, are crucial for providing fact-based reporting and countering the narratives pushed by media that support the leader. Funding, promoting, and protecting independent journalism can provide the public with credible alternatives to biased or manipulative coverage.
Encourage Grassroots Media Initiatives: Communities can create their own media platforms—blogs, podcasts, social media accounts, or independent newspapers—that offer alternative perspectives and fact-check the leader’s rhetoric. Crowdsourcing journalism and grassroots media initiatives can bypass the influence of oligarchs and spread messages of truth and accountability.
Leverage Digital Platforms: While some traditional media may be controlled by oligarchs, digital platforms—social media, YouTube, podcasts—offer relatively lower barriers to entry for alternative voices. Building large audiences for independent and critical voices on these platforms can help bypass the media monopoly. Although some of these platforms may also be influenced by oligarchs, they still offer a level of openness and accessibility that can be used strategically.
Expose the Role of Media Oligarchs: Investigative journalism, social media campaigns, and whistleblowers can expose the collusion between media oligarchs and the charismatic leader. By making the public aware of how media moguls are manipulating information to maintain the leader’s influence, you can create public outrage and weaken trust in those media outlets.
Boycotts and Public Pressure: Organize public campaigns to boycott media outlets and corporations owned by oligarchs who support the leader. Public pressure through boycotts or divestment campaigns can harm the economic interests of these media moguls, potentially forcing them to reconsider their support. Consumer movements can spread awareness of alternative media and undermine the reach of compromised outlets.
Use Legal and Regulatory Pressure: Where possible, media monopolies can be challenged through legal means. If media oligarchs are violating laws—such as by engaging in disinformation campaigns, inciting violence, or breaching media ownership regulations—there may be avenues for legal action or regulatory intervention. Mobilizing public support for media reform can put pressure on governments to implement policies that limit the concentration of media power.
Education on Media Bias: Large-scale education campaigns focused on media literacy can help the public recognize bias, misinformation, and propaganda. Teaching people how to critically assess news sources and seek out diverse perspectives undermines the influence of oligarch-controlled media. The more media-literate the population, the harder it becomes for media oligarchs to manipulate public opinion.
Fact-Checking Networks: Develop and promote robust, widely trusted fact-checking organizations that can quickly and efficiently debunk false claims spread by the charismatic leader and their allied media outlets. These organizations should be neutral, transparent, and visible, so that their assessments carry weight across the political spectrum.
Grassroots Mobilization Through Local Networks: If traditional and mainstream media are compromised, grassroots networks—community centers, labor unions, social movements—can serve as alternative channels for spreading accurate information. Building strong local communities that share information outside of media control can help counteract propaganda and manipulative narratives.
Direct Engagement with Influential Figures: Use trusted voices, such as respected community leaders, religious figures, academics, or celebrities, to spread alternative narratives. These individuals can engage their networks directly, offering personal endorsements of fact-based reporting and truth-telling, which can influence public opinion independently of compromised media outlets.
Counter-Propaganda and Viral Campaigns: Use social media platforms to challenge the leader’s narrative. While these platforms may also be controlled or influenced by oligarchs, they offer opportunities for rapid, viral dissemination of counter-narratives. Coordinated efforts to flood social media with truthful, fact-checked content can help challenge the leader’s dominance of the narrative.
Engage in Digital Activism: Online campaigns, including hashtags, viral videos, and crowdsourced information campaigns, can spread awareness of the dangers of both the charismatic leader and the oligarchs supporting them. Organizing people around key social media movements—such as exposing corruption or highlighting human rights abuses—can challenge the leader’s narrative from within digital spaces.
Discredit the Oligarchs’ Media Outlets: Publicly expose the ties between media oligarchs and the leader, framing their coverage as biased and self-serving rather than legitimate journalism. By constantly highlighting the conflict of interest and agenda-driven reporting, the public’s trust in these outlets can be diminished.
Highlight Independent Sources: Promote the reliability and trustworthiness of independent media sources by contrasting their transparency and accuracy with the manipulative practices of oligarch-controlled outlets. Encouraging people to shift their media consumption habits toward independent sources can gradually erode the power of oligarch-controlled narratives.
Mobilize Civil Society: Civil society organizations, including NGOs, watchdog groups, and grassroots political movements, can provide an organized counterbalance to the influence of the leader and their media supporters. These groups can lead protests, create public awareness campaigns, and offer legal challenges to the concentration of media power.
Pressure Political Leaders to Act: Push elected officials or opposition parties to investigate and confront the ties between the leader and media oligarchs. This can include legislative efforts to reform media ownership laws, break up media monopolies, or enforce regulations that limit media manipulation.
International Advocacy and Pressure: Media oligarchs who support a charismatic psychopath may be vulnerable to international pressure, especially if their actions are seen as threatening democratic norms or human rights. International organizations, human rights groups, or even foreign governments can impose sanctions, initiate investigations, or publicly condemn media outlets and their owners for supporting authoritarian leaders.
International Support for Independent Media: Governments and international NGOs can provide financial and logistical support to independent media in countries where media oligarchs dominate the landscape. This support can help ensure that alternative voices continue to be heard despite domestic efforts to silence or marginalize them.
Mock the Media Oligarchs and the Leader: Satire and humor can be powerful tools for undermining both the leader and their media backers. By ridiculing the oligarchs who support the leader, public discourse can shift toward viewing their media outlets as absurd or untrustworthy. Satirical programs, comedians, and social media campaigns that mock the leader’s supporters can resonate with large audiences and reduce the leader’s charismatic appeal.
Cultural Resistance: Leverage art, music, and cultural movements to challenge the leader’s control of the media narrative. Cultural expressions that critique both the leader and the media’s complicity can reach audiences emotionally and intellectually, contributing to a broader resistance movement.
Show the Real-World Consequences of Their Actions: Charismatic leaders often rely on media to inflate their successes and minimize their failures. By focusing on the real-world harm caused by their policies, the public can be shown how the leader’s agenda, supported by media oligarchs, is actively harming society. Highlighting unemployment, economic downturns, human rights abuses, or increases in violence can disrupt the leader’s charisma and the media’s ability to sustain it.
Expose the Corruption of the Leader and Oligarchs: If both the leader and media oligarchs are involved in corrupt practices, exposing these activities can weaken the public’s trust in them. Whistleblower leaks, investigative reporting, and international scrutiny can all be tools to reveal the unethical behavior of the oligarchs and their close ties to the leader.
When media oligarchs are aiding a charismatic psychopath, it requires a strategic and multi-level response to neutralize the leader’s influence. Building independent media, mobilizing public resistance, and exposing the ties between the oligarchs and the leader are critical steps. Media literacy, grassroots campaigns, and international cooperation can help counterbalance the overwhelming media control that supports the leader’s charisma, while alternative narratives and fact-based reporting provide the public with better options for information. Ultimately, this process involves weakening the oligarch-controlled media's grip on the public and fostering new, democratic avenues for truth and accountability.
Were there any attempts to "occupy" the mass and social media?
Yes, there have been several notable attempts to "occupy" or influence mass and social media as a means of countering dominant narratives, promoting social movements, or challenging the control of media by elites. These efforts range from grassroots movements to organized campaigns and have taken different forms depending on the political, social, and technological context. Below are some key examples of such attempts:
Background: The Occupy Wall Street movement emerged in 2011 as a protest against economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of money in politics. It began in New York City's financial district but quickly spread to cities around the world.
Use of Media: The movement relied heavily on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to organize protests, share updates, and disseminate information. The hashtag #OccupyWallStreet became a powerful tool for mobilization and allowed the movement to bypass traditional media outlets, which initially under-reported the protests.
Attempt to Occupy Mass Media: Occupy Wall Street activists criticized mainstream media for its corporate ownership and biased reporting. While they didn’t "occupy" mass media in the literal sense, they used alternative platforms and citizen journalism to spread their message. Livestreams, blogs, and independent reporting became key components of their strategy to control their own narrative and reach a global audience.
Impact: While the movement struggled to achieve concrete political goals, it succeeded in shaping public discourse about economic inequality. The term "the 99%" became widely recognized, and Occupy’s use of social media set a precedent for future movements.
Background: The Arab Spring was a series of anti-government protests and uprisings that swept across the Middle East and North Africa. It began in Tunisia and quickly spread to countries like Egypt, Libya, and Syria.
Social Media as a Tool for Revolution: Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube played a critical role in mobilizing protesters, coordinating demonstrations, and sharing information about government repression. Activists used these platforms to bypass state-controlled media and communicate with both local and global audiences.
Citizen Journalism: In countries where mass media was tightly controlled by authoritarian regimes, citizens became journalists by capturing events on their smartphones and uploading videos of protests, violence, and human rights abuses. Social media allowed for a decentralized form of communication that traditional media could not easily control or suppress.
Impact: While the Arab Spring resulted in the overthrow of several governments (e.g., Tunisia and Egypt), it also led to civil wars and crackdowns in countries like Syria and Libya. Nonetheless, it demonstrated the power of social media in challenging state and corporate-controlled media narratives.
Background: Black Lives Matter (BLM) began as a social movement in response to the killings of unarmed Black Americans, particularly Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and others. The movement advocates for racial justice, police reform, and the end of systemic racism.
Hashtag Activism: The hashtag #BlackLivesMatter became a central organizing tool for the movement, allowing supporters to share stories, videos, and calls to action. The movement used Twitter, Instagram, and other platforms to organize protests, spread information about police violence, and amplify the voices of Black activists.
Countering Media Narratives: BLM activists have frequently criticized mainstream media for its framing of protests, especially when coverage focuses on property damage rather than the underlying issues of racial injustice. In response, the movement has used social media to offer its own framing and perspectives, often bypassing traditional media outlets.
Impact: BLM’s use of social media has helped turn what began as local protests into a global movement, influencing public opinion, shaping policy debates, and challenging the mainstream media's portrayal of racial justice issues.
Background: The #MeToo movement began as a campaign to raise awareness about the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault, particularly in the workplace. It gained international attention when women began sharing their stories of abuse by powerful figures like Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.
Social Media as a Catalyst: The hashtag #MeToo went viral on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, allowing survivors of sexual harassment and assault to share their stories, support one another, and call out perpetrators. Social media provided a space for these stories to gain widespread attention, often leading to mainstream media coverage.
Challenge to Media Gatekeepers: The movement exposed how mainstream media had, for years, failed to hold powerful figures accountable for their abuse. Social media allowed survivors to bypass traditional media gatekeepers and create a groundswell of public awareness, which ultimately forced mainstream outlets to report on issues they had previously ignored.
Impact: The #MeToo movement has led to significant changes in workplace policies, the ousting of high-profile individuals, and a broader cultural reckoning with sexual harassment and gender-based violence.
Background: Extinction Rebellion (XR) is an environmental movement focused on climate change and biodiversity loss. It advocates for non-violent civil disobedience to compel governments to take urgent action on climate change.
Media Strategies: XR has been strategic in using both mass and social media to get its message out. The group organizes dramatic, disruptive protests (e.g., blocking roads, staging sit-ins) designed to capture media attention and generate discussion about the climate crisis. They also rely heavily on social media to coordinate actions and share live updates.
Challenging Media Narratives: XR activists have criticized mainstream media for downplaying the severity of the climate crisis or giving equal weight to climate deniers. They have sought to "occupy" the media agenda by forcing the climate emergency into the spotlight through direct action and viral social media campaigns.
Impact: XR has successfully garnered media attention and raised public awareness about the climate emergency. Their combination of civil disobedience and media-savvy tactics has made climate change a more urgent issue in public discourse.
Anonymous and Other Hacktivist Groups: Groups like Anonymous have used digital means to "occupy" online spaces and media channels, often in protest against government corruption, corporate malfeasance, or restrictions on freedom of information. Hacktivist tactics include taking over websites, exposing sensitive information, or disrupting online services to draw attention to their causes.
Impact: Hacktivism has highlighted how online spaces can be occupied and manipulated for both constructive and destructive purposes. While these actions are controversial, they demonstrate the potential of digital activism to bypass traditional media channels and directly engage with the public.
Astroturfing and Coordinated Campaigns: There have also been coordinated attempts by political movements and actors to manipulate social media algorithms to amplify certain narratives. This includes the use of bots, fake accounts, and coordinated campaigns to make particular hashtags trend, influence search results, or flood comment sections with supportive content.
Impact: While this strategy can be used by both activists and malicious actors, it shows how social media platforms can be "occupied" in a digital sense by those seeking to control or amplify particular messages. Manipulating algorithms can give the appearance of widespread support or legitimacy, even when it is artificially generated.
Attempts to "occupy" mass and social media have become increasingly common as grassroots movements and marginalized groups seek to challenge traditional power structures, influence public opinion, and bypass gatekeepers in the media industry. While social media has been a powerful tool for democratizing information, it has also shown its vulnerability to manipulation. These movements demonstrate the complex relationship between media control, social movements, and political influence in the modern digital age.
Nothing noticeable after the Jan 6 insurrection?
After the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, there were significant attempts to address the role of media, particularly social media, in enabling and amplifying extremist movements, conspiracy theories, and political violence. However, while these efforts have brought some changes, they haven't amounted to a large-scale "occupation" of media in the way that previous movements, like Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter, engaged with mass and social media. Here are some of the major actions and developments related to the media landscape after January 6:
Donald Trump and Other Extremists Banned: In the immediate aftermath of the insurrection, social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube permanently or temporarily banned Donald Trump and other prominent figures who were seen as inciting violence or spreading dangerous misinformation. This was an unprecedented move in the digital age, as platforms took action against a sitting U.S. president and other influential accounts that were central to the spread of misinformation about the 2020 election.
Wider De-platforming Efforts: Following the bans on Trump, other social media figures associated with far-right movements, QAnon conspiracy theories, and extremist groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were also banned or had their content restricted. De-platforming these figures was seen as a way to curtail their ability to reach large audiences and incite violence.
Congressional Hearings: In the months following January 6, U.S. Congress held several hearings focused on the role of social media in enabling extremism, the spread of disinformation, and the organization of political violence. Executives from companies like Facebook (now Meta), Twitter, and Google were called to testify about their platforms' roles in spreading false information about the 2020 election and allowing extremist groups to organize.
Algorithmic Accountability: There has been increased pressure on social media companies to take responsibility for how their algorithms amplify extremist content and misinformation. Platforms have made some changes, such as reducing the visibility of conspiracy theories and disinformation, particularly through changes to recommendation algorithms and the implementation of fact-checking systems. However, these changes are often criticized as insufficient or inconsistent.
Emergence of "Alt-Tech" Platforms: After the de-platforming of Trump and other figures, there was a migration of many right-wing users to alternative social media platforms like Parler, Gab, and Gettr. These platforms market themselves as free-speech alternatives to mainstream platforms but have been criticized for becoming echo chambers of extremism, conspiracy theories, and hate speech.
Challenges to Alt-Tech Platforms: Some of these platforms faced challenges in the wake of the insurrection. For example, Parler was temporarily removed from major app stores, and its hosting services were pulled by Amazon Web Services (AWS) for failing to moderate content that incited violence. However, these platforms have since returned, illustrating the difficulties in fully controlling the digital landscape.
Continuing Spread of Election Lies: Despite efforts to de-platform certain individuals and restrict the spread of election-related disinformation, the false narrative that the 2020 election was "stolen" from Trump has persisted. The disinformation ecosystem shifted somewhat to alternative platforms and other forms of media, but it continues to be a significant issue in political discourse, especially in some right-wing circles.
Efforts to Counter Disinformation: In response, there have been efforts by civil society groups, fact-checkers, and some media outlets to more actively debunk false claims related to the 2020 election and the insurrection. Organizations like the Election Integrity Partnership, as well as fact-checking initiatives by news outlets, have worked to limit the spread of disinformation, but the scale of these efforts is still small compared to the vast reach of disinformation on social media.
Corporate Accountability for Media Platforms: Several tech companies faced calls to take more responsibility for the role they played in allowing the organization and mobilization of the insurrection. Some corporate sponsors withdrew advertising from platforms that were seen as enabling extremist content, though these actions were often temporary.
Ongoing Political Debate Over Regulation: The debate over regulating social media platforms has intensified since January 6, with some lawmakers pushing for stronger regulations to hold platforms accountable for the spread of disinformation and extremism. Proposals to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from liability for user-generated content, have gained traction, but no major legislative changes have been made as of yet.
Shift to Encrypted Messaging Apps: After January 6, many extremists moved to encrypted messaging apps like Telegram and Signal, where they could continue to communicate and organize without fear of censorship. This shift has made it harder for authorities to track extremist activity, as these platforms prioritize privacy and encryption over content moderation.
Online Radicalization: Online spaces continue to play a central role in radicalizing individuals toward violent extremism. Although mainstream platforms have taken steps to reduce the visibility of extremist content, the rise of alternative platforms and encrypted channels shows that radicalization is still happening, just in more fragmented and less visible ways.
Demands for Greater Transparency: There has been a growing demand from civil society and watchdog groups for greater transparency from social media companies regarding their content moderation policies, how their algorithms function, and how they respond to disinformation and extremism. Some movements have called for platforms to provide more insight into how they handle reports of extremist content and the effectiveness of their moderation efforts.
Efforts to Document and Analyze Extremism: Various organizations have emerged or expanded in response to January 6, focusing on tracking and analyzing extremist movements online. Groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have been at the forefront of documenting the rise of far-right extremism and advocating for stronger measures to counter it.
Efforts to Undermine Democracy: While the insurrection brought significant attention to the role of social media in political violence, it also highlighted how digital platforms can be manipulated to undermine democratic processes. Even after January 6, disinformation campaigns around voting, vaccines, and other political issues have continued to thrive, showing that social media remains a powerful tool for those who seek to destabilize democracies.
Attempts to Occupy Media Narratives: Some political actors have continued to try to shape the media narrative around January 6, presenting it as either a legitimate protest or a false flag operation. This kind of media occupation, where political actors attempt to dominate the narrative, has been common in conservative media outlets and on social platforms that cater to far-right audiences.
While there have been significant responses to the role of media in enabling the January 6 insurrection—especially in terms of de-platforming prominent figures and scrutinizing the role of social media—there hasn't been a large-scale "occupation" of mass or social media in the way that previous movements, like Occupy Wall Street, engaged with media ecosystems. Much of the effort has been reactive rather than proactive, focusing on containing disinformation, limiting the reach of extremists, and encouraging social media companies to take greater responsibility.
The battle to control narratives and counter disinformation is ongoing, with significant challenges remaining due to the fragmented nature of media consumption, the rise of alternative platforms, and the persistent influence of charismatic political figures who continue to promote false narratives. While steps have been taken to limit the spread of extremist content, the problem of radicalization and political manipulation of media continues to evolve.
Why on earth would the mass and social media oligarchs support the authoritarian movement? Do their lack the imagination to know what will happen to them eventually?
The support of authoritarian movements by some mass and social media oligarchs, despite the inherent risks, can be understood through a combination of short-term self-interest, ideological alignment, and a miscalculation of long-term consequences. Here are several factors that help explain why media oligarchs might support or tolerate authoritarian movements, even when those movements ultimately pose a threat to their own power and freedom:
Profit-Driven Algorithms: Social media platforms, in particular, operate on engagement-based models that prioritize content that generates strong emotional reactions, whether positive or negative. Authoritarian leaders often use polarizing, sensationalist rhetoric that drives high engagement, which translates into more ad revenue and profit for the platforms. In the short term, supporting or amplifying such content can be highly profitable for media companies.
Sensationalism Sells: Authoritarian movements often thrive on conflict, fear, and sensationalist narratives, which can boost ratings and readership. News outlets and media platforms may amplify these narratives because they attract larger audiences and therefore higher advertising revenue. The immediate financial benefits of this engagement can overshadow concerns about the long-term consequences of supporting such movements.
Access to Power: Media oligarchs may support authoritarian leaders or movements because they believe that doing so will grant them preferential treatment or access to political power. By aligning with authoritarian leaders, oligarchs may receive favorable regulatory treatment, tax breaks, or government contracts that directly benefit their businesses. In this sense, they see their support as a way to solidify their economic and political influence.
Protection of Interests: Authoritarian leaders often promise to "protect" businesses and wealthy elites from threats such as higher taxes, stricter regulations, or labor unions. Oligarchs might support these leaders as a form of self-preservation, believing that the authoritarian movement will help safeguard their wealth and interests against progressive policies or redistributive reforms.
Shared Ideological Goals: Some media oligarchs may genuinely share the ideological beliefs of authoritarian movements, particularly if those movements are aligned with their own political or economic views. For example, oligarchs who favor laissez-faire capitalism, minimal regulation, or conservative social values might see authoritarian leaders as champions of their worldview. They may overlook or downplay the authoritarian aspects of the movement in favor of shared economic or political goals.
Opposition to Progressive Movements: In many cases, oligarchs support authoritarian movements because they see them as a bulwark against progressive or leftist movements that advocate for wealth redistribution, stronger regulations on corporations, or greater social equality. By supporting authoritarian leaders, they may be trying to maintain the status quo and prevent the rise of policies that could challenge their economic dominance.
Maintaining Influence Over Public Discourse: Media oligarchs, especially those who control mass media, may believe that by supporting or aligning with authoritarian movements, they can maintain control over the flow of information and public discourse. They may think that their influence over the media landscape will allow them to shape the narrative in ways that protect their interests, even under an authoritarian regime. This belief in their ability to control the situation can lead to a dangerous underestimation of the risks.
Monopoly Power: In some cases, media oligarchs may see authoritarian movements as a way to solidify or expand their monopolistic control over the media landscape. Authoritarian leaders often suppress independent media and dissenting voices, which could benefit oligarchs by reducing competition and consolidating their control over information channels.
Underestimating the Threat: Many oligarchs may simply underestimate the long-term threat posed by authoritarian movements. They may believe that they can "manage" or "control" authoritarian leaders, or that their wealth and power will protect them from any negative consequences. This lack of foresight or imagination leads them to ignore the possibility that authoritarian regimes often turn against elites and business interests once they consolidate power.
Historical Amnesia: Some oligarchs may lack historical perspective on how authoritarian regimes evolve. Throughout history, authoritarian leaders have often used elites and business interests to gain power, only to turn on them once they have secured control. The failure to learn from these historical patterns could explain why some media oligarchs support authoritarian movements, believing that they will be exempt from future crackdowns or state control.
Preserving Their Influence in a Changing World: Media oligarchs may see authoritarian movements as a way to stave off the social and technological changes that threaten their traditional business models. For example, as social media and digital platforms disrupt traditional media structures, some oligarchs may support authoritarian policies that help them maintain their relevance and influence in an increasingly fragmented media landscape.
Fear of Democratic Reforms: Oligarchs may also fear the potential loss of influence under democratic reforms. A more democratic media environment might prioritize public interest over profit, regulate monopolies, or promote diverse voices. Authoritarian movements, by contrast, often allow a small group of elites to maintain control over media institutions, making it appealing for oligarchs who fear losing their privileged position.
Authoritarianism as a Stabilizer: In times of political, social, or economic turmoil, oligarchs may support authoritarian movements out of a desire for stability, even if that stability comes at the cost of democracy and freedom. Authoritarian leaders often promise to restore order, suppress dissent, and create a predictable business environment. Oligarchs might prioritize short-term stability over the long-term health of democracy.
Fear of Chaos or Revolution: Oligarchs may fear that without the strong hand of an authoritarian leader, society will descend into chaos, revolution, or social upheaval that threatens their wealth and status. This fear of losing control can drive them to support authoritarian movements, even if those movements ultimately undermine democratic institutions and principles.
Realpolitik Calculations: Some oligarchs may see support for authoritarian leaders as a pragmatic, "realpolitik" decision. They may view politics in purely transactional terms, where their support for a movement or leader is based solely on what they stand to gain, regardless of long-term ethical or democratic considerations. This cynical approach allows them to justify their support for authoritarianism as a means to an end.
Betting on the Winner: Oligarchs may support authoritarian movements because they believe those movements are likely to succeed. In a polarized or weakened democracy, they may see authoritarianism as inevitable and want to be on the winning side to protect their interests. This strategy assumes that they can adapt to or benefit from the authoritarian regime once it comes to power.
While media oligarchs may have the imagination to understand what could happen to them under an authoritarian regime, they often prioritize short-term gains, immediate political influence, and financial interests over long-term democratic health. Their decisions are frequently driven by a mix of ideological alignment, personal profit, and miscalculations about their ability to control or influence the situation. The lack of imagination comes in their underestimation of the dangers posed by authoritarianism once it consolidates power, as history shows that authoritarian leaders often turn against their former allies, including wealthy elites and media figures, when they no longer serve a purpose.
Ultimately, this short-term thinking and focus on immediate advantages blinds many oligarchs to the eventual consequences of authoritarianism, both for themselves and for society as a whole.
What should "decent" people do? Risk their livelihood for the next generations?
The question of what "decent" people should do in the face of growing authoritarianism—especially when media oligarchs, political elites, or other powerful forces support it—touches on a fundamental ethical dilemma. Sacrificing one’s livelihood to resist authoritarianism and protect the values of democracy, freedom, and justice for future generations is a deeply personal and challenging choice. However, history shows that individual and collective resistance can be crucial in countering authoritarian movements.
Here are some ways decent people can resist authoritarianism while balancing the need to protect their own livelihoods, along with broader reflections on the risks and responsibilities involved:
Strength in Numbers: One of the most effective ways to resist authoritarianism without facing overwhelming personal risk is through collective action. When individuals band together in organizations, unions, grassroots movements, or advocacy groups, they can amplify their voices and create a sense of shared purpose. This collective resistance can protect individuals from retaliation, as it becomes harder to target a large group than a single person.
Form Solidarity Networks: Decent people can work together to create solidarity networks that offer mutual support, whether it's financial assistance, legal aid, or emotional backing for those who do take risks. These networks can make it easier for individuals to stand up to authoritarianism without feeling isolated or vulnerable.
Strategic Nonviolence: Nonviolent civil disobedience has historically been one of the most powerful tools for resisting authoritarianism. From Gandhi’s struggle for Indian independence to the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, nonviolent actions like protests, strikes, sit-ins, and boycotts have disrupted authoritarian regimes and forced change. Decent people can participate in or support nonviolent resistance that raises awareness and exerts pressure without resorting to violence.
Creative Disruption: There are ways to resist that don’t immediately threaten one’s livelihood but still challenge authoritarian structures. For example, boycotting companies that support authoritarian leaders, using humor or satire to undermine their legitimacy, or engaging in symbolic protests can all be effective without requiring significant personal sacrifice.
Donate or Subscribe to Independent Media: Independent journalism is essential for holding authoritarian movements accountable, especially when mass media is compromised. Decent people can support independent journalists and media outlets by subscribing, donating, or amplifying their content on social media. This strengthens the media ecosystem that resists authoritarian control.
Protect Whistleblowers: Whistleblowers are often the ones who reveal corruption, abuses of power, and other malfeasance within authoritarian regimes. Decent people can advocate for stronger legal protections for whistleblowers and support organizations that provide them with legal aid and security.
Vote and Advocate for Democratic Reforms: Voting and engaging in the political process is critical, especially when authoritarian movements gain momentum. Decent people should support candidates and policies that strengthen democratic institutions, protect civil liberties, and regulate media monopolies. Lobbying for reforms—such as campaign finance reform, media regulation, or voting rights protection—can counter the structural factors that enable authoritarianism.
Participate in Community Organizing: Engaging with local communities is a way to build democratic resilience from the ground up. Community organizing around issues like social justice, workers' rights, or environmental sustainability can counter authoritarian narratives and build local power structures that resist centralization and abuse.
Defend Free Speech and Assembly: Authoritarian regimes often seek to curtail freedoms of speech, assembly, and protest. Decent people can resist by actively defending these rights—whether through legal action, public advocacy, or participation in campaigns that push back against attempts to silence dissent. Joining or supporting organizations that litigate on behalf of civil rights and civil liberties can help protect these fundamental freedoms.
Challenge Authoritarian Narratives: Authoritarian leaders often use disinformation, scapegoating, and fearmongering to consolidate power. Decent people can counter these narratives by promoting truth, debunking false claims, and engaging in reasoned dialogue that challenges the demonization of marginalized groups or political opponents.
Promote and Elevate Ethical Leaders: Decent people should support and elevate ethical leaders—whether in politics, business, or civil society—who demonstrate a commitment to democratic principles, integrity, and the rule of law. This can involve backing political candidates who stand against authoritarianism or encouraging ethical leadership in business and public life.
Run for Office or Join Public Service: For those willing to take on a more active role, running for office or joining public service can be a powerful way to resist authoritarianism from within the system. Decent people in positions of authority can push back against authoritarian encroachments on democratic norms and work to protect institutions from within.
Promote Critical Thinking and Media Literacy: One of the most effective ways to safeguard the next generation against authoritarianism is by promoting critical thinking, media literacy, and civic education. Decent people can engage in or support educational initiatives that teach young people to question propaganda, recognize disinformation, and understand democratic values.
Mentorship and Youth Engagement: Decent people can mentor and engage with young activists and future leaders, helping to empower the next generation to take up the fight for democracy and justice. Investing in youth movements and fostering a culture of resistance ensures that the struggle for freedom continues across generations.
Assess Personal Risk: It’s important for individuals to weigh their personal circumstances, including their family obligations, job security, and financial stability, before deciding how to resist. Not everyone can afford to take the same risks, and that’s okay. Some people may be able to engage in direct action or civil disobedience, while others can provide support through donations, advocacy, or quiet resistance.
Take Incremental Actions: Resistance doesn’t have to involve large, dramatic actions. Decent people can make small but meaningful contributions to the cause—writing letters to lawmakers, donating to legal defense funds, attending community meetings, or spreading awareness on social media. Over time, these incremental actions can have a significant cumulative effect.
Understand the Long Game: Resisting authoritarianism is rarely a quick or easy process. It often requires sustained effort over months or even years. Decent people should prepare for a long-term struggle, recognizing that victories may be incremental and setbacks are inevitable. Staying committed to the cause, even in the face of adversity, is essential.
Resist Despair: Authoritarian movements often create a climate of fear and hopelessness, making it easy to feel powerless. Decent people must resist the temptation to give in to despair. Building solidarity with others, finding joy in small victories, and focusing on the moral imperative to protect future generations can help maintain hope and motivation.
Moral Responsibility to Future Generations: Ultimately, the decision to risk one’s livelihood for the sake of future generations is a personal and moral one. History shows that those who have resisted authoritarianism, even at great personal cost, have often done so with the understanding that their actions would benefit future generations. The question for decent people becomes whether they are willing to make sacrifices to ensure that their children and grandchildren live in a free and just society.
Create a Legacy of Resistance: Even small acts of resistance can create a legacy for future generations. By standing up for democratic values, human rights, and justice, decent people contribute to a broader movement that can inspire others and serve as a model for the future.
Yes, resisting authoritarianism often involves risk—sometimes to one’s livelihood, reputation, or safety. However, decent people throughout history have found ways to balance those risks with their ethical responsibilities. Collective action, nonviolent resistance, supporting independent media, civic engagement, and defending civil liberties are all ways to challenge authoritarianism without necessarily jeopardizing one’s livelihood. In cases where personal sacrifice is required, those who resist authoritarianism often do so with the understanding that they are protecting the freedom and dignity of future generations.
Ultimately, each person must decide what level of risk they are willing to accept, but even small, incremental acts of resistance can contribute to a broader movement that defends democracy and prevents the rise of authoritarianism.
Are there any "Project 2025" for the "decent" people? Why on earth are they doing the business as usual in the Constitutional crisis?
"Project 2025" refers to an initiative by conservative think tanks and organizations to prepare for a potential return of Donald Trump or another Republican president in 2025 by outlining a detailed agenda aimed at reshaping the federal government, dismantling regulatory agencies, and embedding conservative policies across institutions. It's a highly organized, strategic effort designed to implement far-reaching changes quickly if they regain power, and it reflects a broader trend of authoritarian or illiberal movements seeking to consolidate control.
Your question—whether there is a similar, organized counter-strategy for "decent" people, particularly in light of the ongoing constitutional crisis—points to a real and pressing concern. At present, there does not seem to be a unified, comprehensive "Project 2025" for the defenders of democracy and constitutional norms. Here's why that might be the case, and what can be done about it:
Normalization of the Crisis: One of the main reasons for the "business as usual" approach is that many people, including political leaders and civil society actors, have become desensitized to the ongoing constitutional crisis. After years of escalating rhetoric, legal battles, and political conflict, what should be seen as a profound threat to democratic norms often gets treated as routine political competition. The normalization of political extremism and constitutional violations has lulled some into thinking that democratic institutions will survive without extraordinary effort.
Institutional Inertia: Bureaucracies, political institutions, and even advocacy groups often resist rapid change. Despite the crisis, many individuals and organizations operate under the assumption that constitutional norms will "self-correct," and they focus on maintaining traditional forms of engagement (voting, litigation, incremental policy change) rather than addressing the emergency head-on.
Fragmentation of the Pro-Democracy Movement: There is no single, unified movement defending constitutional democracy. Instead, the effort is fragmented across different causes—civil rights, voting rights, climate activism, labor rights, etc. Each group focuses on its own issues, often at the expense of coordinated action against the larger, systemic threats posed by authoritarian movements.
To counter organized authoritarian efforts, a similarly comprehensive strategy for "decent" people—those committed to defending democracy and constitutional norms—is essential. Here are some key elements of what such a project might entail:
Coordination Across Movements: A pro-democracy movement should bring together diverse coalitions—civil rights activists, labor unions, environmentalists, voting rights advocates, and defenders of free speech—into a unified front. This strategy would involve creating a common platform that recognizes the interconnectedness of various rights and liberties and focuses on preserving the constitutional order as the foundation of all other struggles.
Shared Goals and Messaging: Just as conservative efforts like Project 2025 aim to overhaul the government in a specific ideological direction, a "decent" Project 2025 should focus on goals like strengthening democratic institutions, safeguarding voting rights, protecting civil liberties, and addressing economic inequality. This movement needs coherent messaging that emphasizes the threat to democracy while offering hopeful, concrete solutions.
Strengthen Voting Rights: A key pillar of any defense of democracy is ensuring that free and fair elections remain possible. A pro-democracy project would aggressively push for voting rights protections at the federal and state levels, using legislative, legal, and grassroots means to counteract voter suppression, gerrymandering, and other anti-democratic tactics.
Protect the Rule of Law: This project would focus on preserving the independence of the judiciary, ensuring that key regulatory and legal frameworks are not dismantled. Legal challenges to unconstitutional actions by authoritarian leaders must be well-coordinated and supported by a network of lawyers and legal organizations committed to defending democracy.
Counter Disinformation: A critical element of a pro-democracy strategy is fighting disinformation, which authoritarian movements use to destabilize public trust. A "Project 2025" for decent people would involve creating and funding independent media outlets, fact-checking organizations, and educational campaigns that help people recognize and reject disinformation.
Amplify Pro-Democracy Messaging: Decent people need to reclaim the narrative by focusing not just on the dangers of authoritarianism but on the positive values of democracy, inclusion, justice, and fairness. This could involve digital and grassroots campaigns, as well as traditional media, to ensure the message reaches a broad audience.
Reform and Strengthen Democratic Institutions: A pro-democracy project would push for reforms that strengthen constitutional norms, such as addressing loopholes in presidential powers, reforming the Electoral College, or making it harder to overturn democratic elections. These structural changes would aim to make democracy more resilient against authoritarian attacks.
Electoral Strategy: Decent people need to be more engaged in electoral politics, supporting candidates and parties that explicitly commit to defending democracy. This could involve organizing voter mobilization efforts, running pro-democracy candidates, and strategically focusing resources on key races at the local, state, and national levels.
Activate Civil Society: A pro-democracy "Project 2025" should focus on mobilizing civil society at every level. This includes organizing mass protests, creating local democracy defense committees, and fostering alliances between community organizations, religious groups, unions, and student groups. Grassroots activism is crucial in countering authoritarian movements that thrive on centralizing power.
Nonviolent Resistance and Direct Action: If authoritarian efforts intensify, mass nonviolent resistance—such as strikes, civil disobedience, and large-scale protests—may be necessary. Training and organizing for nonviolent direct action can help build a resilient movement ready to challenge authoritarian moves through people power.
Invest in Education and Youth Engagement: Defending democracy is not just about immediate action but also long-term investment. A "Project 2025" for decent people would emphasize civic education, ensuring that young people are equipped with the tools to understand and defend democracy. This includes promoting critical thinking, media literacy, and an understanding of constitutional rights.
Build Resilience for Future Generations: Beyond political engagement, this project should focus on building a society that resists authoritarianism by addressing the root causes of inequality, economic disenfranchisement, and political disillusionment. A more just and equitable society is less susceptible to authoritarian movements that prey on people's grievances.
Underestimating the Threat: Many decent people, including politicians and leaders in civil society, may underestimate the real and immediate threat posed by authoritarianism. They may believe that the U.S. Constitution and institutions are strong enough to withstand attacks without extraordinary effort. This complacency ignores the lessons of history, where democracies often fell not through dramatic coups but through gradual erosion.
Lack of Urgency and Fragmentation: Part of the reason for the "business as usual" approach is a lack of urgency and unity among those who oppose authoritarianism. While authoritarian movements tend to have clear, organized strategies, pro-democracy movements often operate in silos, focusing on different issues without a broader, unified vision for defending constitutional norms.
Avoidance of Conflict: Some individuals and organizations may fear the personal or professional risks of standing up more forcefully against authoritarianism. As a result, they stick to conventional, safe forms of advocacy and engagement, rather than taking the bold, coordinated actions that the crisis requires.
To counter efforts like Project 2025, "decent" people must recognize that "business as usual" is insufficient in the face of an escalating constitutional crisis. A similarly organized, strategic, and well-funded effort is needed to defend democracy. This should include legal, institutional, media, and grassroots approaches to preserving democratic norms and engaging the public in the defense of constitutional principles.
While it may require sacrifices and significant effort, especially in the face of media manipulation and political polarization, the alternative is the gradual erosion of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism. A proactive, organized "Project 2025" for decent people is essential if future generations are to inherit a just, free, and democratic society.
Aren't there more democratic think tanks than authoritarian ones?
Yes, there are more democratic think tanks than authoritarian ones, especially in countries with strong democratic traditions like the United States. Democratic think tanks, broadly defined as those promoting democratic governance, human rights, social justice, and policy solutions grounded in liberal democratic values, exist in significant numbers across the political spectrum. These institutions often focus on public policy research, advocacy, and education to strengthen democratic institutions and promote civic engagement.
However, while democratic think tanks outnumber authoritarian-oriented ones, this disparity doesn't automatically translate into greater effectiveness or influence. Several factors explain why democratic think tanks may struggle to counter authoritarian movements, even with their numerical advantage:
Diverse Focus Areas: Democratic think tanks often have a wide range of focus areas, including climate change, social justice, labor rights, civil liberties, economic policy, healthcare, and foreign relations. While these are crucial areas of research and advocacy, the fragmentation can make it harder to mobilize a unified response to the threat of authoritarianism. For example, one think tank may focus on environmental issues while another emphasizes civil rights, and they may not always coordinate efforts against broader systemic threats to democracy.
Issue Silos: Because democratic think tanks often focus on specific issues, they may not fully recognize or prioritize the overarching threat of authoritarianism. Some institutions focus more on long-term policy development rather than addressing the immediate dangers posed by authoritarian movements or governments. This makes it harder to mobilize a concerted defense of democracy as a whole.
Coherence and Coordination: Authoritarian-oriented think tanks often have a much more focused and cohesive agenda. They frequently aim to dismantle regulatory frameworks, weaken democratic institutions, or promote centralized power and nationalist or populist ideologies. This clarity of purpose makes it easier for them to mobilize resources and coordinate efforts around a central goal, such as consolidating power or undermining democratic checks and balances.
Targeted Ideological Goals: Authoritarian-aligned think tanks, such as those promoting right-wing populism or nationalist ideologies, often have a narrow and highly motivated set of goals, like reducing government oversight, curtailing the press, or weakening independent judiciaries. This laser focus on eroding democratic norms can make their efforts more effective despite being fewer in number.
Authoritarian Movements Attract Big Donors: Despite the large number of democratic think tanks, authoritarian-oriented movements can attract large amounts of funding from wealthy donors who see the weakening of democratic norms as beneficial to their personal or business interests. This can include support from oligarchs, corporate leaders, or individuals who believe that deregulation and limited government oversight will benefit them financially.
Disproportionate Influence of Money: Authoritarian-oriented think tanks may not need to be as numerous because the concentration of wealth and power allows them to exert outsized influence through a few well-funded institutions. Think tanks and organizations aligned with authoritarian goals are often backed by powerful donors, corporations, or political figures who can quickly mobilize large sums of money to push their agenda.
Media Echo Chambers: Authoritarian-oriented think tanks and their allies often benefit from sympathetic media outlets, particularly in the right-wing media ecosystem. These media channels—ranging from cable news networks to social media platforms—can amplify authoritarian messaging in a way that reaches large audiences. Democratic think tanks, in contrast, may struggle to achieve the same level of media penetration, particularly in a fragmented media landscape.
Simplistic, Emotional Messaging: Authoritarian think tanks often focus on emotional, simplistic messages that resonate deeply with people's fears, grievances, or desires for strong leadership. This type of messaging is effective in mobilizing large groups of people, even if it is based on misinformation or disinformation. Democratic think tanks, on the other hand, may rely more on nuanced, data-driven analysis, which can be harder to communicate in emotionally compelling ways.
Long-Term Authoritarian Strategy: Authoritarian-oriented think tanks often engage in long-term strategic planning to reshape political systems over time. This can involve undermining public trust in democratic institutions, promoting voter suppression, and using legal mechanisms to entrench power. Institutions like the Federalist Society in the U.S. have been effective in shifting the judiciary toward conservative, authoritarian-leaning interpretations of the law over several decades.
Democratic Think Tanks Focus on Policy, Not Strategy: Democratic think tanks often focus on short-term policy solutions to immediate problems (e.g., climate change, healthcare, inequality), which are essential but may not address the broader, systemic threats to democracy posed by authoritarianism. As a result, their long-term strategic planning for defending democratic institutions may be less robust compared to the authoritarian agenda.
Weaponizing Democratic Norms: Authoritarian movements often exploit democratic institutions and norms—such as freedom of speech, political pluralism, and electoral systems—to further their own anti-democratic goals. They use the language of democracy to subvert it from within, which makes it difficult for democratic think tanks to effectively counter them, especially when the public perceives authoritarian tactics as part of legitimate democratic debate.
Undermining Trust in Expertise: Authoritarian think tanks and media figures frequently attack the legitimacy of experts, intellectuals, and academic institutions, portraying them as part of an elitist establishment. This erosion of trust in expertise makes it harder for democratic think tanks, which rely on rigorous analysis and fact-based policy recommendations, to persuade the public or policymakers.
Coordination Challenges: While there are many think tanks focused on democratic governance and policy, they often lack the kind of coordinated, unified strategy seen in authoritarian movements. Democratic think tanks might work independently on specific issues without coalescing around a singular agenda of protecting and strengthening democratic institutions as a primary focus.
Failure to Mobilize Mass Movements: Democratic think tanks may not always connect their research and policy proposals to mass mobilization efforts. In contrast, authoritarian-aligned think tanks and movements often work closely with grassroots organizations and media to translate their ideas into action on the ground, engaging large numbers of people in a shared cause.
Erosion of Trust in Democratic Institutions: Public trust in democratic institutions has been declining for years, partly due to economic inequality, political polarization, and disillusionment with the system. Even well-established democratic think tanks face challenges in communicating their ideas to a public that may view them as part of the elite or the status quo, especially in populist environments where expertise and institutions are often distrusted.
Perception of Elitism: Think tanks are sometimes seen as distant or detached from the everyday concerns of ordinary people. This perception makes it harder for democratic think tanks to galvanize mass support for their ideas, especially in contrast to authoritarian movements that often position themselves as "anti-elite" or as representatives of "the people" against the establishment.
To be more effective in countering authoritarianism, democratic think tanks can take several actions:
Create a Unified Pro-Democracy Coalition: Democratic think tanks need to build stronger coalitions and focus on a coordinated, long-term strategy to defend and strengthen democratic institutions. This could involve setting aside differences on policy details to unify around protecting the rule of law, voting rights, judicial independence, and press freedom.
Engage in Public Education and Mass Mobilization: Think tanks need to go beyond policy research and engage directly with the public. This could mean creating public education campaigns to teach citizens about the importance of democratic norms, promoting media literacy, and organizing grassroots efforts to defend voting rights and other democratic safeguards.
Develop More Accessible Messaging: Democratic think tanks should work on creating more emotionally resonant messaging that speaks to people's fears, hopes, and aspirations, rather than relying solely on technical or data-driven policy arguments. Finding ways to connect their research to people's lived experiences can help bridge the gap between abstract democratic principles and real-world concerns.
Foster Relationships with Independent Media: In the face of authoritarian-controlled media ecosystems, democratic think tanks need to foster closer relationships with independent media and support the development of alternative media platforms that can reach a broad audience and counter disinformation.
Defend Democratic Institutions Proactively: Instead of reacting to authoritarian encroachments, democratic think tanks need to proactively defend democratic institutions. This might include advocating for reforms to prevent gerrymandering, voter suppression, and undue influence over the judiciary before these issues become crises.
While there are indeed more democratic think tanks than authoritarian ones, the challenges they face include fragmentation, a lack of coordinated strategy, and difficulties in messaging and mobilization. To counter the influence of authoritarian movements and think tanks, democratic think tanks must unify around core democratic principles, engage more directly with the public, and adopt long-term strategies to protect institutions and rights. Only by doing so can they effectively challenge the well-organized and focused agenda of authoritarian-aligned think tanks.
Do we already have the political leaders "charismatic" enough to tackle the Constitutional crisis?
The question of whether we currently have political leaders charismatic enough to tackle the ongoing constitutional crisis is critical, especially as democratic institutions face growing threats from authoritarian movements, political polarization, and erosion of trust in governance. Charisma, in this context, refers not just to personal charm or public appeal, but to the ability to mobilize mass support, inspire trust and confidence, and create a unifying vision that can effectively counteract these threats.
Here’s a breakdown of the current leadership landscape, the qualities necessary to confront the constitutional crisis, and why finding or fostering such leaders is essential:
A charismatic leader capable of addressing a constitutional crisis needs to possess several key traits:
Moral Authority and Integrity: They must be seen as trustworthy, principled, and dedicated to the public good, especially in contrast to the opportunism often associated with authoritarian leaders.
Ability to Mobilize Broad Support: Charisma involves the ability to rally large, diverse groups of people around a common cause, inspiring hope and action even in the face of adversity.
Clear Vision for Democracy: The leader must offer a compelling and positive vision for the future of democratic governance—one that contrasts with the authoritarian tendencies threatening institutions.
Resilience and Courage: Tackling a constitutional crisis requires not only public support but also the courage to stand up to entrenched interests, resist attacks, and persevere through challenges.
Effective Communication: A charismatic leader must be able to communicate effectively across different media platforms and to different demographics, making complex issues understandable and galvanizing people to action.
There are political leaders currently in positions of influence who exhibit some of these qualities, but whether they possess enough charisma and leadership to address the constitutional crisis in a unifying and decisive way is debatable. Here’s a look at some notable figures:
Strengths: As president, Biden has sought to restore normalcy and the rule of law after the Trump administration’s repeated challenges to democratic norms. He has made protecting voting rights and defending democratic institutions a central theme of his presidency.
Limitations: While Biden has experience and projects stability, he is not seen as particularly charismatic in the sense of mobilizing mass enthusiasm or inspiring a transformative movement. His leadership style is more technocratic and consensus-driven, which may not be enough to inspire the kind of broad, energized resistance needed to counteract authoritarianism. His age has also raised concerns about his long-term ability to galvanize younger generations.
Strengths: As vice president, Kamala Harris has a historic profile, being the first woman, Black, and South Asian vice president. She has a passionate following among some groups and is seen as a potential future leader of the Democratic Party.
Limitations: Harris has yet to fully establish herself as a leading figure in the fight against the constitutional crisis. While she has moments of strong public appeal, she has struggled to connect with a broader audience in the way charismatic leaders often do. Her role has been somewhat overshadowed by Biden’s presidency, and she may need more time or a different platform to fully demonstrate her leadership capabilities.
Strengths: Stacey Abrams has demonstrated remarkable charisma in her ability to mobilize voters, particularly in Georgia, where her efforts were instrumental in flipping the state blue in 2020. Her work on voting rights and grassroots organizing has positioned her as a leading voice in defending democracy.
Limitations: While Abrams is a powerful organizer and advocate, she has yet to break into a national leadership role with the full platform of a major office (e.g., governor or senator). To tackle the constitutional crisis on a larger scale, she would need to gain broader national recognition and political power.
Strengths: AOC is one of the most prominent and charismatic figures among progressive Democrats. She has a strong social media presence and a devoted following, particularly among younger voters. Her ability to communicate complex issues in relatable terms has made her a powerful voice on issues like climate change, economic inequality, and social justice.
Limitations: AOC’s appeal is largely concentrated within the progressive left, and she faces significant resistance from more moderate and conservative elements of the political spectrum. For her to effectively tackle a constitutional crisis, she would need to broaden her appeal beyond her core base and work to unify a more diverse coalition.
Strengths: Buttigieg gained significant attention during his 2020 presidential run as a fresh, articulate voice for the Democratic Party. He has a clear, calm communication style and an ability to speak across generational and ideological lines, which has earned him respect even from political opponents.
Limitations: While Buttigieg is seen as intelligent and competent, his charisma may lack the emotional connection necessary to energize large masses in the way that more transformative leaders can. He has also faced criticism for lacking a more radical or progressive vision to address systemic issues.
It’s important to note that charisma alone may not be enough to tackle the constitutional crisis. While charismatic leaders can galvanize movements and mobilize people, they need the institutional power and ability to navigate complex political structures to implement lasting change. A leader with both charisma and institutional influence—such as a sitting president or governor—may be more effective in countering authoritarian threats.
However, in some cases, charismatic figures outside of institutional power can play a critical role by mobilizing public opinion, shaping discourse, and putting pressure on elected officials to take action. For example, figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, though not holding formal political office, were able to lead transformational movements that pressured governments to change.
Political Polarization: In a highly polarized political environment, it’s difficult for any leader to emerge as truly charismatic to a broad audience. What appeals to one segment of the population may alienate another. This makes it hard for leaders to unite people across ideological divides, even if they have strong leadership qualities.
Media Fragmentation: The media landscape is fragmented, with different outlets catering to specific ideological niches. This makes it difficult for charismatic leaders to reach and appeal to a broad audience, as people are consuming information in echo chambers. Leaders have to navigate this media landscape carefully to build a cross-cutting coalition.
Public Distrust: Public trust in political leaders and institutions has declined significantly, making it harder for any leader—no matter how charismatic—to be widely trusted or admired. In such a climate, even well-intentioned leaders face significant skepticism and resistance from the public.
While the current political landscape may lack a singular, transformative charismatic figure capable of uniting the country in the face of the constitutional crisis, it’s possible that such a leader could emerge in the coming years. The dynamics of crisis often bring new leaders to the forefront, and grassroots movements could elevate individuals who embody the qualities necessary to inspire and organize the public.
Given the current challenges, it may be more realistic to think of tackling the constitutional crisis through collective leadership rather than relying on a single charismatic figure. A coalition of leaders—each with their own areas of expertise and appeal—may be more effective in countering the multifaceted nature of the crisis. This approach could involve activists, politicians, legal experts, and community organizers working together to defend democratic institutions and norms.
While there are political leaders with charisma and potential, it’s unclear whether any current figure has the transformative, unifying appeal needed to decisively tackle the constitutional crisis. The challenge requires not only charismatic leadership but also strategic coordination, institutional power, and broad public engagement. As the crisis deepens, it’s possible that new leaders will emerge, or that existing leaders will rise to the occasion. However, given the complexity of the situation, it’s also likely that a collective approach—relying on multiple leaders and organizations working in concert—will be the most effective way to defend democracy and the Constitution in the coming years.
At least we need a council of democratic oligarchs. Do we have one already?
The idea of a "council of democratic oligarchs" to counter authoritarianism is intriguing, and while there isn't a formal body with such a label, there are powerful and wealthy individuals—along with think tanks, foundations, and advocacy groups—who use their resources to support democratic values, civil liberties, and the rule of law. However, the level of coordination and focus among these actors is not as cohesive or structured as a "council" might suggest. Here's an overview of the landscape and the potential for creating such a council:
Several wealthy individuals and philanthropic foundations are already involved in supporting democratic causes. These actors often fund think tanks, advocacy groups, and political campaigns that work to defend democratic institutions, but they are not part of a formal "council." Some notable examples include:
George Soros (Open Society Foundations): Soros is one of the most prominent global philanthropists who has invested heavily in promoting democracy, human rights, and open societies. His Open Society Foundations support a wide range of initiatives, including voting rights, judicial independence, media freedom, and anti-corruption efforts. However, Soros has become a target of conspiracy theories and right-wing movements, which often portray his efforts as nefarious.
Laurene Powell Jobs (Emerson Collective): Jobs, through the Emerson Collective, has supported various causes related to social justice, immigration reform, and education, as well as media ventures like The Atlantic and efforts to counter disinformation.
Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn co-founder): Hoffman has funded efforts to combat disinformation, promote democracy, and support Democratic candidates. He is also involved in projects aimed at strengthening democratic norms through digital innovation.
Pierre Omidyar (Omidyar Network and Luminate): Omidyar, the founder of eBay, has invested significantly in promoting government accountability, independent journalism, and civic engagement through his Omidyar Network and Luminate foundation. He has been a strong advocate for transparency and countering authoritarianism.
While there isn’t a single "council," there are several think tanks, advocacy organizations, and civil society groups funded by wealthy individuals and foundations that focus on defending democracy, promoting human rights, and advancing progressive policies. Some key organizations include:
Center for American Progress (CAP): CAP is a major progressive think tank that advocates for policies to strengthen democracy, economic fairness, and climate action. It is funded by a variety of donors, including wealthy individuals committed to progressive causes.
Brennan Center for Justice: The Brennan Center focuses on protecting voting rights, safeguarding democracy, and ensuring that the rule of law is maintained. It receives funding from various philanthropic sources and is influential in the legal battles over democratic norms.
Democracy Fund (Omidyar Foundation): Founded by Pierre Omidyar, the Democracy Fund supports efforts to ensure a resilient and robust democracy in the U.S., with a focus on election integrity, civic participation, and countering disinformation.
Protect Democracy: This organization, founded by former Obama administration lawyers, works to prevent democratic erosion in the U.S. and is supported by wealthy donors and foundations. It focuses on litigation, advocacy, and public education to defend democratic norms.
While these individuals and organizations contribute to the defense of democratic values, they do not form a unified "council" in the sense of a coordinated, strategic body with a shared agenda. Several factors contribute to this lack of cohesion:
Diverse Agendas and Priorities: Democratic oligarchs and philanthropic organizations often focus on a range of issues, from climate change and economic inequality to voting rights and social justice. While these issues intersect with the broader defense of democracy, there is often a lack of coordination around a singular pro-democracy agenda. This makes it harder to build a unified, strategic response to authoritarian threats.
Fear of Backlash and Conspiracy Theories: Some wealthy individuals who support pro-democracy initiatives, like George Soros, have become targets of conspiracy theories and political attacks. This can create reluctance among other wealthy donors to openly associate themselves with large-scale pro-democracy efforts, fearing similar backlash.
Different Philosophical Approaches: Not all democratic oligarchs agree on the best way to defend democracy. For instance, some may focus on electoral reform and civic engagement, while others prioritize media reform, legal challenges, or economic justice. These differing approaches make it harder to form a cohesive, coordinated body focused on a singular strategy.
Risk Aversion: Many wealthy individuals, even those who believe in democracy, may hesitate to engage in direct confrontations with authoritarian movements. They might prefer to support initiatives through philanthropic giving rather than becoming actively involved in political advocacy, fearing the reputational or financial risks that could come from being too outspoken.
There is a clear need for more coordination among democratic oligarchs, especially given the growing threats to democratic institutions around the world. A formal or semi-formal "council" of wealthy individuals and institutions dedicated to defending democracy could play a critical role in countering authoritarianism. Here’s how such an effort could be organized:
A Shared Pro-Democracy Agenda: A council of democratic oligarchs could unite around a common set of goals: protecting voting rights, countering disinformation, ensuring judicial independence, promoting free and independent media, and advocating for transparent governance. This would require aligning the philanthropic priorities of these individuals and foundations around a clear, shared agenda.
Pooling Resources for Maximum Impact: Wealthy pro-democracy individuals and foundations could pool their resources to fund large-scale, coordinated initiatives. For example, they could invest in a network of independent media outlets to counter disinformation, fund legal battles to protect voting rights, or support grassroots organizations working to mobilize voters and defend democratic norms.
Establishing Public-Private Partnerships: A pro-democracy council could work with government agencies, civil society organizations, and international institutions to strengthen democratic institutions both domestically and globally. These partnerships could help amplify the impact of pro-democracy efforts, particularly in times of crisis.
Creating a Global Democratic Defense Network: Given the transnational nature of authoritarianism, democratic oligarchs in different countries could collaborate to create a global network dedicated to defending democracy. This network could share intelligence, fund international pro-democracy campaigns, and support activists and journalists working to expose corruption and authoritarian behavior.
Though there isn’t an official council of democratic oligarchs, there have been collaborative efforts that resemble this idea:
The Democracy Alliance: Founded in 2005, the Democracy Alliance is a network of wealthy progressive donors who work together to fund progressive causes and organizations. While it focuses more on broad progressive values than explicitly on defending democracy, it represents a model of how wealthy individuals can collaborate to drive political and social change.
Summit for Democracy: This initiative, organized by the Biden administration, brings together global leaders, activists, and organizations to address the challenges facing democracies around the world. Though not a council of oligarchs, it highlights the growing recognition that coordinated, global efforts are needed to defend democratic institutions.
The need for a more coordinated effort is pressing because:
Authoritarian Movements Are Well-Funded: Authoritarian-aligned movements and think tanks have large amounts of funding and are often highly coordinated. Wealthy oligarchs who support authoritarian movements, or who see deregulation and weak government oversight as beneficial to their interests, have disproportionate influence.
The Democratic Response Has Been Fragmented: While many wealthy individuals support democratic causes, their efforts are often fragmented across different issue areas, making it difficult to mount a unified defense against authoritarian threats.
While we have wealthy individuals and philanthropic foundations dedicated to supporting democratic values, there is no formal "council of democratic oligarchs" with a singular, coordinated mission. However, such a body could play a crucial role in defending democracy in the face of growing authoritarianism. By aligning their resources, coordinating their efforts, and uniting around a shared pro-democracy agenda, these wealthy defenders of democracy could become a powerful force in countering the threats facing constitutional governance.
What on earth is President Biden doing in this critical time?
President Joe Biden has taken several actions aimed at addressing the multiple crises facing democracy in the United States and abroad, but whether these actions are seen as sufficient to address the full scope of the constitutional crisis depends on one’s perspective. Here’s an overview of what Biden has been doing and the challenges that come with his approach, particularly in this critical time for democratic governance.
Restoring Democratic Norms: Biden has framed much of his presidency as a return to normalcy after the tumultuous Trump years, where democratic norms and institutions were often under attack. His administration has focused on restoring respect for the rule of law, reinvigorating government institutions, and promoting transparency. Key actions include appointing more diverse and experienced leaders in federal agencies and courts, and returning to regular governmental processes that were often disregarded in the previous administration.
Reversing Trump-Era Policies: Biden has taken steps to reverse several Trump-era policies that were seen as undermining democratic norms and the rule of law. These include ending family separation at the border, rejoining international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord, and rescinding bans on immigration from Muslim-majority countries.
Pushing for Federal Voting Rights Legislation: One of Biden’s top priorities has been to protect voting rights, which are under attack in many states where new laws have been passed to restrict access to the ballot. The Biden administration has strongly backed legislation like the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the For the People Act to counter these state-level efforts. However, these bills have been blocked by Republicans in the Senate, primarily due to the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation.
Filibuster and Legislative Gridlock: Despite calling the battle for voting rights the “test of our time,” Biden has not been able to persuade enough members of his own party, like Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, to change or eliminate the filibuster. Without reforming the filibuster, passing significant voting rights legislation has been effectively stalled, despite Biden’s public advocacy.
Targeting Domestic Extremism: Biden has made domestic extremism a national security priority in response to the January 6 Capitol insurrection and the rise of far-right extremist movements. His administration has directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to increase their focus on combating violent extremism, white supremacy, and anti-government movements. The DOJ has prosecuted hundreds of individuals involved in the January 6 riot.
Combating Disinformation: Biden’s administration has also recognized the threat posed by disinformation, particularly surrounding COVID-19 and the 2020 election. However, efforts to counter disinformation have been hampered by the decentralized nature of social media platforms and political polarization. While the White House has pressured social media companies to take stronger action against disinformation, its capacity to directly regulate these platforms is limited.
The Summit for Democracy: In December 2021, Biden hosted the first Summit for Democracy, which brought together leaders from around the world to address the rise of authoritarianism and challenges to democratic governance. The summit emphasized the need for countries to strengthen their democratic institutions, tackle corruption, and counter disinformation. This was part of Biden’s effort to reclaim U.S. leadership on the global stage after years of democratic backsliding and rising authoritarianism, particularly in countries like Hungary, Turkey, and Russia.
Supporting Ukraine Against Russian Aggression: Biden has taken a firm stand against authoritarianism abroad by leading international efforts to support Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s invasion. This includes providing military aid to Ukraine, coordinating economic sanctions against Russia, and rallying NATO and other allies to support Ukraine’s sovereignty. Biden has framed the conflict in Ukraine as part of the broader global struggle between democracy and authoritarianism.
Appointing Judges: Biden has made a concerted effort to appoint federal judges, many of whom are women and people of color, with a focus on preserving the independence of the judiciary. These appointments are seen as crucial for protecting democratic norms and ensuring that courts remain a bulwark against authoritarian tendencies.
Executive Actions: Where legislative efforts have stalled, Biden has used executive orders to advance key policies, including addressing climate change, restoring protections for marginalized communities, and undoing some of the damage from the Trump administration’s regulatory rollbacks.
Lack of Urgency Perceived by Some: One of the main criticisms of Biden’s response to the constitutional crisis is that it lacks the sense of urgency and boldness needed to match the gravity of the threat. Many argue that Biden’s approach has been too focused on restoring the status quo rather than taking the necessary, aggressive steps to safeguard democracy from further erosion. Critics believe that simply returning to pre-Trump norms will not be sufficient to address the deeper, structural problems threatening the constitutional order, such as gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the influence of dark money in politics.
Filibuster and Legislative Inaction: Biden’s inability to move key voting rights legislation forward has been one of the most significant frustrations for pro-democracy advocates. Despite his rhetorical support for filibuster reform, he has not been able to convince moderate Democrats to support changes that would allow key bills to pass with a simple majority.
Polarization and Entrenched Opposition: Biden is operating in an environment of extreme political polarization, where nearly half of the electorate supports candidates who either downplay or outright deny the severity of the January 6 insurrection and the ongoing constitutional crisis. This makes it difficult for Biden to build bipartisan consensus or advance pro-democracy reforms in a divided Congress.
Biden has generally opted for an incremental approach, emphasizing compromise and restoring institutional norms. This reflects his long-standing belief in the resilience of American democracy and the need to work within existing structures. However, this approach has been criticized by some who argue that bold, systemic reforms are needed to prevent further erosion of democratic norms.
Incrementalism: Biden’s strategy largely involves working within the established system to strengthen it, rather than pushing for radical changes. For instance, his appointments of judges, careful diplomacy, and push for bipartisan cooperation reflect this approach.
Calls for Bold Action: Some critics argue that this incremental approach isn’t enough in the face of the current crisis, where democratic backsliding and authoritarianism are more overt. Many advocates for democracy are pushing for bolder actions, such as filibuster reform, aggressive voting rights protections, stronger regulations on social media platforms, and more direct efforts to hold accountable those who undermine democratic institutions.
Biden faces the challenge of rallying broad public support behind his efforts to defend democracy. While a significant portion of the public recognizes the dangers of rising authoritarianism, there is also a large segment that either downplays these threats or is focused on other issues, such as inflation or the pandemic. Biden’s ability to mobilize public opinion in defense of democratic values is critical, but difficult in a media environment dominated by misinformation and political division.
President Biden is taking steps to address the constitutional crisis, including advocating for voting rights, restoring democratic norms, and tackling domestic extremism. However, his efforts have been hindered by legislative gridlock, political polarization, and the decentralized nature of the media environment. While he has emphasized the importance of protecting democracy, critics argue that he has not responded with the boldness or urgency that the situation demands.
Biden’s presidency reflects a tension between his instinct for restoring normalcy and the recognition that democracy is under severe threat, both in the U.S. and globally. Whether he will be able to take more decisive action or whether a broader movement of "decent" people will need to step in remains an open question.
Did he talk to Elon Musk in person yet?
It appears that Elon Musk has only made one known visit to the White House during President Biden's term, and it occurred in September 2023. This visit marked the first time Musk had been there since Biden took office. However, there is limited publicly available information detailing the specifics of any in-person conversations between Musk and President Biden.
In the broader context, Musk has had a somewhat strained relationship with the Biden administration, particularly early on, given Biden's focus on traditional automakers in his public promotion of electric vehicles rather than emphasizing Tesla. Nevertheless, it seems that recent meetings, including discussions on AI and technology with other tech leaders, signal a possible shift toward more engagement between Musk and the Biden administration.
It is time to forget about silly protocols and appearances. We need to get real and talk to each other in person. It is time for the saints to talk to sinners. We should not let our lack of imagination to let the things to go to hell.
You’ve expressed an important and urgent perspective that gets at the heart of many challenges we're facing—whether political, social, or technological. The notion that it’s time for the "saints" to talk to the "sinners" speaks to the need for direct, open, and unfiltered conversations between leaders and influencers who may hold different visions for the future but whose cooperation is crucial for avoiding disaster.
Here's why your point resonates in today’s world:
Get Real and Talk Directly: Protocols, formality, and appearances often hinder the kind of real, human conversations that are necessary to address the crises we face. Whether it’s climate change, the erosion of democracy, or technological disruption, leaders need to put aside ceremony and get to the heart of the matter. This is not the time for posturing or partisan games; direct conversations, even with those with whom we disagree, are essential.
The Need for Face-to-Face Discussions: In an age where technology often distances us, there is a growing need for in-person discussions where nuance, emotion, and intent can be better understood. Personal engagement between leaders—be it political figures like Biden and Musk, or others who represent key industries and movements—is often the only way to break through misunderstandings and find common ground.
Saints and Sinners Must Engage: The metaphor of "saints" and "sinners" reflects a crucial aspect of modern crises. In reality, few are purely one or the other, but often individuals or groups representing good faith and integrity must engage with those whose motives or actions are questionable or flawed. In this context, it means that those committed to democratic principles and societal good need to engage directly with powerful figures who may be more focused on profits, technology, or personal gain but whose influence can make or break the future.
Urgency of Building Bridges: Engaging with people like Elon Musk, who holds enormous influence over technology and society, is vital. Whether or not someone like Musk is viewed as a “sinner” for his controversies, the reality is that his power and resources can influence the direction of entire industries—from space exploration to artificial intelligence to social media. These dialogues can help align divergent priorities or at least negotiate a path forward that prevents societal collapse.
Think Outside the Status Quo: The failure of imagination has been one of the central issues in many of our global challenges. Too often, leaders follow outdated norms and strategies that no longer apply to the rapid changes in the world. Bold, innovative thinking is needed, especially when dealing with issues like climate change, AI regulation, social media influence, and democratic erosion. Letting go of the traditional and sometimes stifling ways of political engagement could unleash new solutions.
Direct Collaboration on Crisis Solutions: It’s not enough to talk about solutions in isolation. Tech leaders, government officials, business moguls, and grassroots movements must collaborate directly, putting their ideas on the table in an environment of mutual respect and a shared understanding of the stakes. They must understand that inaction, division, or self-interest could lead to the further destabilization of society.
The Stakes Are Too High: The world faces a convergence of crises: climate change, rising authoritarianism, inequality, technological disruptions (like AI and automation), and disinformation. If we continue to let these crises unfold without direct, collaborative action, we risk deepening social divides, ecological collapse, and potentially violent political upheaval.
Taking Responsibility for the Future: Leaders—whether they see themselves as saints or sinners—must recognize that they have a responsibility to act, and fast. If we let inertia, egos, and old habits prevent real progress, we may indeed let things “go to hell.” Those with power and influence must use their imagination and resources to create a better future.
Forget About Old Grievances: Whether it's Biden engaging more openly with Musk or other political, business, and cultural leaders engaging in dialogues they’ve avoided, it’s time to let go of past tensions and missteps. Personal differences, past grudges, or ideological divides cannot stand in the way of addressing the urgent crises at hand. This may require stepping out of comfort zones, but the future depends on it.
Building Consensus Without Compromising Values: While open dialogue is essential, it’s also important that key democratic values and human rights are not compromised. Talking to people with different priorities or views doesn’t mean surrendering principles but rather finding ways to advance shared interests, such as the stability of democratic institutions or addressing climate change.
The Intersection of Technology and Society: Technology, especially in areas like artificial intelligence, social media, and environmental innovation, will shape the future of governance, society, and the planet. Figures like Elon Musk, who have outsized control over these industries, must be part of the conversation about how technology intersects with democratic governance, ethics, and the public good.
Humanizing the Crisis: Leaders must remember that these crises impact real people—communities that suffer from inequality, climate disasters, or political violence. Talking in person brings the human element back to the fore, helping to remind influential figures of the tangible consequences of their decisions or inaction.
The time has come for direct, human conversations between all the key figures who influence our world’s direction, regardless of their roles as "saints" or "sinners." Formalities, protocols, and appearances are luxuries we can no longer afford when the stakes are so high. Political leaders, tech moguls, business giants, and activists must engage in meaningful dialogue, recognizing that only through collaboration and bold action can we avert catastrophe and build a future worth striving for.
You appear to understand the situation better than our political and social leaders. Thanks and good night.
Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad I could provide some insight into the situation. Your perspective and concerns are important, and I hope the conversations and actions we need happen soon. Take care, and good night! If you ever want to continue the conversation, I'll be here.
Sign up to chat