The liar doesn’t care about consistency.
He doesn’t care if it’s obvious he’s lying.
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT
In fact, that's the whole point.
Putin perfected the method.
2/
Reading recommendation: Rand Corp, "The Russian Firehose of Falsehoods Propaganda Model," includes advice on how to counter a rapid and continuous stream of lies.
https://t.co/1Jg5CvgrJC
1/
The liar doesn’t care about consistency.
He doesn’t care if it’s obvious he’s lying.
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT
In fact, that's the whole point.
Putin perfected the method.
2/
@TimothyDSnyder tells how reporters were often so astonished by Putin's outrageous lies, that they focused on the lies instead of Putin's latest atrocities.
The lies became the news.
The actual news gets pushed off the stage.
3/
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT
That's why Trump really wants an actual trial, and why he was so annoyed with the Supreme Court (and other courts) refusing to hear the case.
He wants a stage for the lies.
4/
I think the "entertainment" part applies to the GOP leadership who know Trump is lying but cheer the lies because they are so destructive.
5/
From the Rand study: While we must refute the falsehoods, “retractions and refutations are seldom effective.”
“Don’t expect to counter the Firehose of Falsehood with a squirt gun of truth.”(p.9)
https://t.co/C08paJsKTT
6/
Another remedy: counter the effects of the lies.
The effect of Trump’s lies is to undermine democracy.
So we move quickly to strengthen democracy and institutions.
7/
There is also @GeorgeLakoff's "truth sandwich." He has a few books explaining.
8/
Even if the methods are new, sowing the seeds of doubt, division, and discord to turn Americans against each other is an old trick. The antidote is citizenship: to get engaged, organized, mobilized, and to vote - on every level, in every election. https://t.co/yOvaCZYtrW
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) February 11, 2020
https://t.co/7epc6Ynxn9
Had journalists used the Truth Sandwich before 2016, the lie "her emails" might not have sunk so deeply into the public consciousness that even people who knew it was a lie felt a nagging doubt.
9/
Truth Sandwich:
— George Lakoff (@GeorgeLakoff) January 20, 2020
1. Start with the truth. The first frame gets the advantage.
2. Indicate the lie. Avoid amplifying the lie if possible.
3. Return to the truth. Always repeat truths more than lies.
Hear more in Ep 14 of FrameLab w/@gilduran76 https://t.co/cQNOqgzIBW
Why not both? Trump isn't stupid.
Psychiatric professionals have made the second argument.
I'll argue the other side. . .
https://t.co/QpJ6xQWru5
10/
This has been the playbook for this @realDonaldTrump and current @gop administration. It is safe to assume they learned it from the people financing them, Russia
— Bozack (@Bozack16) December 14, 2020
Bannon coached Trump.
Bannon also went to Brazil to coach Bolsonaro (the Brazilian Trump) to do the same thing.
It's not hard to watch Putin and see how well it works.
https://t.co/UIrScw9bZe
11/
Steve Bannon to Michael Lewis: "The Democrats don't matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." https://t.co/YuCqFJZ6M5
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) February 12, 2018
That paragraph was a layperson venturing into psychiatry⤴️
12/
13/
But lies in the public sphere destroy democracy.
Some people knowingly want to destroy democracy. Really, they do. Democracy is hard and can be frustrating.
https://t.co/8jaeKqE6h8
14/
What if people want to believe the lies?
— Tommy Hamilton (@tommy60430) December 14, 2020
The people who live on conspiracy theories?
For now, we have to just outvote them.
Thanks, Ayelet, for drawing more excellent points from the article⤵️
https://t.co/yx8OdOBabx
15/
Combat propaganda & disinformation with:
— Aylett Colston (@EveryVoiceNC) December 14, 2020
- repetition of correct information
- forewarning
- countering the effects of the propaganda.
Don't repeat the lie, even to correct it.
More in this thread from @Teri_Kanefield: https://t.co/QzLM0msRjN
More from Teri Kanefield
KM asks why the GOP leadership is terrified of losing.
(Both Lindsay Graham and Matt Gaetz said if the GOP loses this election, they'll never win again.)
GOP is a minority party. If they lose power, they lose the ability to manipulate systems to keep minority control.
1/
The fear is also explained by Richard Hofstader, who wrote the classic work⤵️
Hofstadter reviewed American politics from before the founding of the nation through McCarthyism. He noticed a pattern among an impassioned minority on the fringes of the political spectrum.
2/
He called their behavior the “paranoid style” in politics.
Those embracing the paranoid style of politics believe that unseen satanic forces are trying to destroy something larger in which they belong.
3/
According to Hofstadter, the “something larger” to which they belong is generally phrased as “the American way of life.”
They “feel dispossessed” and that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind.”
4/
They therefore adopt extreme measures. They will stop at nothing to prevent what they see as an impending calamity.
Remember, Hofstadter published this in the early 1960s.
5/
(Both Lindsay Graham and Matt Gaetz said if the GOP loses this election, they'll never win again.)
GOP is a minority party. If they lose power, they lose the ability to manipulate systems to keep minority control.
1/
Does their life end if they lose an election? Is it worth a complete loss of integrity??
— KM (@Kyarmot) November 10, 2020
The fear is also explained by Richard Hofstader, who wrote the classic work⤵️
Hofstadter reviewed American politics from before the founding of the nation through McCarthyism. He noticed a pattern among an impassioned minority on the fringes of the political spectrum.
2/
He called their behavior the “paranoid style” in politics.
Those embracing the paranoid style of politics believe that unseen satanic forces are trying to destroy something larger in which they belong.
3/
According to Hofstadter, the “something larger” to which they belong is generally phrased as “the American way of life.”
They “feel dispossessed” and that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind.”
4/
They therefore adopt extreme measures. They will stop at nothing to prevent what they see as an impending calamity.
Remember, Hofstadter published this in the early 1960s.
5/
January 6th will be a freak show. Biden will become president because the only way to stop it would be for the House to agree, and that won't happen.
Going forward, the GOP becomes even more dangerous and radicalized.
A few hopeful points:
The GOP could very well lose control of the Senate.
Because these GOP Senators will force a vote, the GOP may fracture, with moderates forced out. While this radicalizes the party, they lose
A few reasons. As @ProfBrianKalt points out, refusing to seat them because they say the election wasn't valid gives credence to the lie that the election wasn't valid.
Moreover, there's no authority to refuse to seat an elected rep for telling lies. .
. . . which is what refusing to seat them would amount to.
The Democrats say, "You are doing really bad things so we won't seat you."
See the problem with that?
(1) It's illegal. The House doesn't get to decide who is seated. The states send their own reps.
moreover . . .
(2) If you say, "The House gets to refuse to seat a person who tells a lie about the election," where does that lead?
If things continue this direction, the political divide will not longer be liberal v. conservative.
The divide will be pro- democracy v. anti-democracy. . .
Going forward, the GOP becomes even more dangerous and radicalized.
What do you see as an outcome of this Teri?
— AnimalsIntuit (@copplestonearts) January 2, 2021
A few hopeful points:
The GOP could very well lose control of the Senate.
Because these GOP Senators will force a vote, the GOP may fracture, with moderates forced out. While this radicalizes the party, they lose
What do you see as an outcome of this Teri?
— AnimalsIntuit (@copplestonearts) January 2, 2021
A few reasons. As @ProfBrianKalt points out, refusing to seat them because they say the election wasn't valid gives credence to the lie that the election wasn't valid.
Moreover, there's no authority to refuse to seat an elected rep for telling lies. .
Why won\u2019t the Dems in Congress give some consequences? Like refusing to seat those participating in sedition?
— Teacher Sarah (@cmommy77) January 2, 2021
. . . which is what refusing to seat them would amount to.
The Democrats say, "You are doing really bad things so we won't seat you."
See the problem with that?
(1) It's illegal. The House doesn't get to decide who is seated. The states send their own reps.
moreover . . .
(2) If you say, "The House gets to refuse to seat a person who tells a lie about the election," where does that lead?
If things continue this direction, the political divide will not longer be liberal v. conservative.
The divide will be pro- democracy v. anti-democracy. . .
This is what he wants to do.
No matter how this trial plays out, the US will remain divided between those who choose truth, Democracy, and rule of law and the millions who reject these things.
1/
The question is how to move forward.
My mantra is that there are no magic bullets and these people will always be with us.
Except for state legislatures, they have less power now than they have for a while.
2/
The only real and lasting solutions are political ones. Get Democrats into local offices. Get people who want democracy to survive to the polls at every election, at every level.
It’s a constant battle.
3/
Maybe I should tell you all about Thurgood Marshall’s life to illustrate how hard the task is and how there will be backlash after each step of progress.
4/
Precisely. That's why Thurgood Marshall's life came to mind.
We are still riding the backlash that started after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
That's why I keep saying there are no easy
No matter how this trial plays out, the US will remain divided between those who choose truth, Democracy, and rule of law and the millions who reject these things.
1/
Wouldn't he just use this to repeat his Big Lie and have GOP echo him?
— Thel Marquez (@theljava) January 31, 2021
The question is how to move forward.
My mantra is that there are no magic bullets and these people will always be with us.
Except for state legislatures, they have less power now than they have for a while.
2/
The only real and lasting solutions are political ones. Get Democrats into local offices. Get people who want democracy to survive to the polls at every election, at every level.
It’s a constant battle.
3/
Maybe I should tell you all about Thurgood Marshall’s life to illustrate how hard the task is and how there will be backlash after each step of progress.
4/
Precisely. That's why Thurgood Marshall's life came to mind.
We are still riding the backlash that started after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
That's why I keep saying there are no easy
Yep. My relatives continue to support Trump and make false equivalencies as justification. I\u2019ve found it impossible to present factual information that changes minds. Trump\u2019s emotional appeal registers with them: that things were better before civil rights advances.
— Martha Brockenbrough INTO THE BLOODRED WOODS (@mbrockenbrough) January 31, 2021
It looks like 45 Republican Senators voted against holding an impeachment trial for Trump.
I hope nobody had high hopes that the GOP would do the right thing.
The GOP remains the Party of Trump and is hardening into an extremist anti-democratic
They are the anti-rule of law, anti truth party. https://t.co/e6EME39xNn
Fortunately, they're outnumbered.
Not by much, but they're outnumbered.
Hi, everyone.
A lot of these doomsday comments are annoying me.
Have you all learned nothing over the past few years?
You might want to duck because, I'm about to go on a tear . . .
The same people telling me we're doomed and democracy is dead are probably the same people who told me (1) Trump would make himself dictator (2) The Supreme Court would keep him in office and (3) he would never leave the White House.
Nobody owes you a democracy . . .
My mantra the past 4 years: democracy will survive if enough people want it to, and are willing to do the work.
Did the doomsday people happen to see that the vote was 55-45 in favor of holding a trial?
I think the problem is there has been so much peddling of hope porn. . .
I hope nobody had high hopes that the GOP would do the right thing.
The GOP remains the Party of Trump and is hardening into an extremist anti-democratic
They are the anti-rule of law, anti truth party. https://t.co/e6EME39xNn
Fortunately, they're outnumbered.
Not by much, but they're outnumbered.
They clearly aren\u2019t the party of LAW AND ORDER
— DWUK (@UKfriendlyguy) January 26, 2021
Hi, everyone.
A lot of these doomsday comments are annoying me.
Have you all learned nothing over the past few years?
You might want to duck because, I'm about to go on a tear . . .
The same people telling me we're doomed and democracy is dead are probably the same people who told me (1) Trump would make himself dictator (2) The Supreme Court would keep him in office and (3) he would never leave the White House.
Nobody owes you a democracy . . .
My mantra the past 4 years: democracy will survive if enough people want it to, and are willing to do the work.
Did the doomsday people happen to see that the vote was 55-45 in favor of holding a trial?
I think the problem is there has been so much peddling of hope porn. . .
More from Politics
For a few weeks I’ve been wondering about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and just how she emerged as a politico. Her path to Washington is shocking, at the very least. My first question was: What were her campaign positions BEFORE she became a national figure?
1/
So I went to her campaign website and took that web address and looked through the internet archive. When I went back to 2017, it was not her website, it belonged to the group "Brand New Congress."
2/
Here's what the web address https://t.co/Uhz2q4Dpll looks like now:
3/
Here's what the same web address looked like in late 2017:
4/
What's “Brand New Congress?” BNC is a group of Bernie Sanders staffers who got together, decided to make the 2018 midterms all about Bernie policies by taking his ideas & finding 400 Bernie carbon copies to dump into Congressional & other races, creating a 400 headed Bernie.
5/
1/
So I went to her campaign website and took that web address and looked through the internet archive. When I went back to 2017, it was not her website, it belonged to the group "Brand New Congress."
2/
Here's what the web address https://t.co/Uhz2q4Dpll looks like now:
3/
Here's what the same web address looked like in late 2017:
4/
What's “Brand New Congress?” BNC is a group of Bernie Sanders staffers who got together, decided to make the 2018 midterms all about Bernie policies by taking his ideas & finding 400 Bernie carbon copies to dump into Congressional & other races, creating a 400 headed Bernie.
5/
1/Politics thread time.
To me, the most important aspect of the 2018 midterms wasn't even about partisan control, but about democracy and voting rights. That's the real battle.
2/The good news: It's now an issue that everyone's talking about, and that everyone cares about.
3/More good news: Florida's proposition to give felons voting rights won. But it didn't just win - it won with substantial support from Republican voters.
That suggests there is still SOME grassroots support for democracy that transcends
4/Yet more good news: Michigan made it easier to vote. Again, by plebiscite, showing broad support for voting rights as an
5/OK, now the bad news.
We seem to have accepted electoral dysfunction in Florida as a permanent thing. The 2000 election has never really
To me, the most important aspect of the 2018 midterms wasn't even about partisan control, but about democracy and voting rights. That's the real battle.
2/The good news: It's now an issue that everyone's talking about, and that everyone cares about.
3/More good news: Florida's proposition to give felons voting rights won. But it didn't just win - it won with substantial support from Republican voters.
That suggests there is still SOME grassroots support for democracy that transcends
4/Yet more good news: Michigan made it easier to vote. Again, by plebiscite, showing broad support for voting rights as an
5/OK, now the bad news.
We seem to have accepted electoral dysfunction in Florida as a permanent thing. The 2000 election has never really
Bad ballot design led to a lot of undervotes for Bill Nelson in Broward Co., possibly even enough to cost him his Senate seat. They do appear to be real undervotes, though, instead of tabulation errors. He doesn't really seem to have a path to victory. https://t.co/utUhY2KTaR
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 16, 2018
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
I\u2019m sorry it\u2019s just insane that Democrats are like, \u201cwe won everything and our opening position on relief is $1.9T\u201d and Republicans are like, \u201cwe lost and our opening position is $600B,\u201d and the media will be like, \u201cDemocrats say they want unity but reject this bipartisan deal.\u201d
— Meredith Shiner (@meredithshiner) January 31, 2021
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
