Interestingly the left has been a master firehose of falsehood for years achieving mastery of the technique during the Trump administration as media, politicians and tech collude. The right has been slow to catch up but clearly have become quite skilled at this game as well. Lucky us to be pawns in a power struggle to the death. Your article is a mini firehose of falsehood fostering polarization and confusion because it ignores the big picture and the incredible abuses of the other side. How disingenuous.
Sue Seboda, I agree that when we talk about the problem of polarization in US politics we should address the excesses of both sides. And I do. That said, it's mendacious to suggest that in our current political environment, dominated as it is by Trump and Covid, that the real problem is the left. And "the right has been slow to catch up"? I don't know that there's any adequate response to that misrepresentation, though I would be happy to see others take a shot at it. Rauch is under no obligation to note the left's excesses here because we're all living--and too many are dying--in a world shaped by the authoritarian cult of personality whose future dimensions we can now only guess at. As someone who is highly critical of the far left and worried about what damage its proponents will wreak during a centrist attempt to repair the damage, I see your post as profoundly unhelpful whataboutism.
I respectfully disagree. The "left" controls many socially important institutions, including Silicon Valley, the educational system and the mainstream media. (It's a bit absurd to talk about the "left" controlling capitalist corporations, which is a conversation for another time, but it should be read as the ideology of the "woke" left, rather than the old-school, Marxist left.) Narrative-driven media ignores facts to fit their agenda, all the while proclaiming that "truth matters" and "democracy dies in darkness". When the media are not honest brokers -- when they substitute "moral clarity" for "a false sense of balance" -- they undermine their authority. Their partisans will cheer them on , but many people stop trusting those institutions, and the space for demagogues like Trump increases. This problem is not going to go away when Trump leaves office. Trump is the symptom as much as the disease.
You can see how this works every time a journalist leaves an institution that they find suffocating. When Glen Greenwald and Matt Taibbi decamp for Substack, you hear cries about how new platforms are providing succor the "right" or the "privileged". Joe Rogan is alt-right or a gateway to the alt-right. The claims are self-evidently absurd. This really amounts, at root, to a totalitarian demand for ideological conformity.
The "right" and "left" are codependent. If we are serious about fixing the problem, we need to open space for dissent and commit to the notion that "objective truth" exists and is not just a manifestation of a power narrative. We need to stop attempting to silence and shame those we disagree with, and engage in good-faith discussion. I completely agree that the Trumpian right has abandoned this project, but so has the now-mainstream "critical theory" left.
As currently constituted, the clash between the two sides will inevitably lead to violence. The real kind, not the "epistemic" variety.
Hi MF: I'm sorry I don't have time to respond to your post at length. I agreed in full with your penultimate paragraph until I reached the phrase, "now-mainstream 'critical theory' left." I disagree that the sides are equivalent in power and influence, and I disagree with several of your individual points. Do you really think the Washington Post has succumbed to the notion that "objectivity" is a manifestation of power? We can disagree with particular demands for conformity without dissolving the differences.
Not fully and explicitly, but implicitly I think it informs both editorial and news decisions. IIRC, the Washington Post had an opinion piece "Why it's okay to hate all men." That this was published, when it would be unacceptable to say about any other group, is an implicit acceptance of the critical theory position that certain _types_ of criticism are legitimate based on the perceived power of the group being criticized. The NYT coverage of civil unrest, which took pains to emphasize how peaceful the protests were (only later yielding to more critical articles that described that many disadvantaged groups were harmed by them). The apologia for protests in a time of COVID, but only for the correct causes. The Covington kids. The contrast between some of Brett Kavanaugh's accusers and the treatment of Tara Reid's accusations. The claims that publishing a op-ed places journalists' lives at risk. The blithe dismissal of "gender critical" positions as rank transphobia, rather than a philosophical discussion. (Note that I am not taking a position here on any of these ideas.) There are many examples. It's more subtle than Trump or Breitbart, but yes, I think those critical theory ideas are pervasive and influential. And they create the space for bad actors on both sides.
I don't claim that both sides harbor equal political power. (I'm glad to see Trump go, though I'm not American.) But power is not a monolith. I think that the educational establishment, media sources and Silicon Valley magnates are highly influential, and harbor power that matters greatly, even if it doesn't command a military.
I don't think who holds the most power at a given moment is the most important question. More important is how we negotiate differences in a society where not everyone will agree. When you try to harness institutional power to render a broad scope of opinion as beyond the pale of acceptable conversation -- as we see in our institutional media, educational institutions and social media corporations -- you undermine trust in those institutions and create space for the "firehose of lies". What other outcome would you expect?
Big fan of your last two paragraphs. If we haven't learned how fragile our institutions/processes are by now, we aren't paying attention. Playing fast and loose with the truth and/or the process of obtaining it (scientific method/due process) undercuts everything and puts us in a very bad place.
I reckon our world views are so disparate that we would need a few hours of eye contact debate to get somewhere. I share your concerns completely regarding what damage far left policies will cause and believe a centrist would be helpful at this time in our country. Biden may have been one in the past but I am not encouraged by his first proclamations. Our current political system has been a whipsaw frenzy between Trump and the Democrats each operating their firehoses at maximum capacity. This is a serious problem for our country. The media is a huge problem. The authoritarianism I see growing in our society has nothing to do with Trump but is fueled by the far left although no doubt Trump would love to be an authoritarian dictator. The left seems far more organized and able to implement long term strategies than the Republicans. I have not completed research yet but an example of this is the years long shift in how votes are conducted. Somehow half of the country believes people are disenfranchised if they have to show a picture ID to vote. That concept has me scratching my head. Not even a decade ago, Democrat leaders were opposed to illegal immigration. The messaging has been changed and firehosed to such a degree that a good part of the population now believes porous borders are a good thing. I bring these items up not to start a discussion on immigration or voter ID requirements but to give examples of how concepts that were nonsensical a short time ago are now acceptable. Before Trump, the Republicans were nowhere near as good at this sort of branding and messaging. Trump has changed that. Anyway, need to make dinner. Have a good night!
Hi again, Sue Seboda. I don't think we're likely to see eye to eye, but that doesn't mean we can't talk. I believe you're making a similar argument to MF, above, and my reply to you would be similar. I see you're concerned about the left, albeit in a way I can't endorse. One thing I'll say quickly is that there's nothing sinister about parties changing their positions. And the process of factions struggling for supremacy within a party may play out in public--as it is now with both parties--or not. Indeed, if parties and groups within parties hadn't changed their minds about important issues, we might still be living with many forms of discrimination that were widely accepted in our past.
I agree with your sarcastic comment re: how lucky we are "to be pawns in a power struggle to the death," however, it would be more helpful to me (and perhaps others) to extrapolate on the evidence of your starting point. At least then we can have a conversation on activities that we believe are problematic (and discuss how to fix them). Regardless, the concept that we are entitled to our own personalized narratives relating to truth with the added benefit of amplifying via technology via our echo chambers is corrosive. Bret's latest article is a great perspective on a slightly different yet very related point. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/opinion/liberal-media-censoring.html
Thanks for sending the article Mike. I will read tonight. Good points. Before I respond, want to ensure I understand - "the concept that we are entitled to our own personalized narratives relating to truth with the added benefit of amplifying via technology via our echo chambers is corrosive". It's not our own perception of truth that is corrosive but the echo chambers that amplify them? Or is it both our own perceptions of truth and the echo chambers that are corrosive?
Contrary to vogue post modernist thinking, I do believe a (more) objective understanding of the truth is possible and that we should do our best to pursue it and not intentionally/in bad faith muddy the waters (i.e., Trump's claims around the election or the representation that ALL activities/existence is/are motivated/explained [consciously, subconsciously or otherwise] by identity and our never ending pursuit of power). As Bret highlights, the only way you can have a good faith discussion on policy is to see the world as it is (complex and nuanced . . . and full of contradictions). To answer your question, what I find most corrosive is that too many are comfortable drawing inputs that only confirm their own understanding AND then espousing that position as the "truth" (regardless of how tenuous its grip on truth may be). Amplification is secondary but exacerbates the issue as modern technology (ease of reach and an algorithm that feeds on conflict) and our ever growing polarization (even more fuel for our tribal tendencies of "us" vs "them") causes the whole system (we're a democracy, right?!) to break down.
The past week shows one of the consequences of a lack of commitment to truth. Without being fed repeated lies, that mob wouldn't have been so motivated to mount an insurrection.
It's time to stop the both-sides-ism. Political spin may be unfortunate, but it is a given. An orchestrated campaign of repeated, outright falsehoods is something entirely different. And unlike political spin, it can easily lead to violence.
The ‘firehose of falsehood’ applies equally to the BLM outcries with every publicized ‘white cop shoots black’ event and, more recently, to the excuses made by proposition 16 supporters in CA of their failed attempt (once again) to enact affirmative action laws. Maybe the ‘firehose’ provides too much pressure for our fragile minds to withstand?
You are comparing apples and oranges. The 'firehouse of falsehoods' on the right is coming from the President of the United States, and therefore, the US government. No matter how outrageous some of the BLM demands are or seem, they come from a non-government civilian group with zero powers of enforcement.
Interestingly the left has been a master firehose of falsehood for years achieving mastery of the technique during the Trump administration as media, politicians and tech collude. The right has been slow to catch up but clearly have become quite skilled at this game as well. Lucky us to be pawns in a power struggle to the death. Your article is a mini firehose of falsehood fostering polarization and confusion because it ignores the big picture and the incredible abuses of the other side. How disingenuous.
Sue Seboda, I agree that when we talk about the problem of polarization in US politics we should address the excesses of both sides. And I do. That said, it's mendacious to suggest that in our current political environment, dominated as it is by Trump and Covid, that the real problem is the left. And "the right has been slow to catch up"? I don't know that there's any adequate response to that misrepresentation, though I would be happy to see others take a shot at it. Rauch is under no obligation to note the left's excesses here because we're all living--and too many are dying--in a world shaped by the authoritarian cult of personality whose future dimensions we can now only guess at. As someone who is highly critical of the far left and worried about what damage its proponents will wreak during a centrist attempt to repair the damage, I see your post as profoundly unhelpful whataboutism.
I respectfully disagree. The "left" controls many socially important institutions, including Silicon Valley, the educational system and the mainstream media. (It's a bit absurd to talk about the "left" controlling capitalist corporations, which is a conversation for another time, but it should be read as the ideology of the "woke" left, rather than the old-school, Marxist left.) Narrative-driven media ignores facts to fit their agenda, all the while proclaiming that "truth matters" and "democracy dies in darkness". When the media are not honest brokers -- when they substitute "moral clarity" for "a false sense of balance" -- they undermine their authority. Their partisans will cheer them on , but many people stop trusting those institutions, and the space for demagogues like Trump increases. This problem is not going to go away when Trump leaves office. Trump is the symptom as much as the disease.
You can see how this works every time a journalist leaves an institution that they find suffocating. When Glen Greenwald and Matt Taibbi decamp for Substack, you hear cries about how new platforms are providing succor the "right" or the "privileged". Joe Rogan is alt-right or a gateway to the alt-right. The claims are self-evidently absurd. This really amounts, at root, to a totalitarian demand for ideological conformity.
The "right" and "left" are codependent. If we are serious about fixing the problem, we need to open space for dissent and commit to the notion that "objective truth" exists and is not just a manifestation of a power narrative. We need to stop attempting to silence and shame those we disagree with, and engage in good-faith discussion. I completely agree that the Trumpian right has abandoned this project, but so has the now-mainstream "critical theory" left.
As currently constituted, the clash between the two sides will inevitably lead to violence. The real kind, not the "epistemic" variety.
Hi MF: I'm sorry I don't have time to respond to your post at length. I agreed in full with your penultimate paragraph until I reached the phrase, "now-mainstream 'critical theory' left." I disagree that the sides are equivalent in power and influence, and I disagree with several of your individual points. Do you really think the Washington Post has succumbed to the notion that "objectivity" is a manifestation of power? We can disagree with particular demands for conformity without dissolving the differences.
Not fully and explicitly, but implicitly I think it informs both editorial and news decisions. IIRC, the Washington Post had an opinion piece "Why it's okay to hate all men." That this was published, when it would be unacceptable to say about any other group, is an implicit acceptance of the critical theory position that certain _types_ of criticism are legitimate based on the perceived power of the group being criticized. The NYT coverage of civil unrest, which took pains to emphasize how peaceful the protests were (only later yielding to more critical articles that described that many disadvantaged groups were harmed by them). The apologia for protests in a time of COVID, but only for the correct causes. The Covington kids. The contrast between some of Brett Kavanaugh's accusers and the treatment of Tara Reid's accusations. The claims that publishing a op-ed places journalists' lives at risk. The blithe dismissal of "gender critical" positions as rank transphobia, rather than a philosophical discussion. (Note that I am not taking a position here on any of these ideas.) There are many examples. It's more subtle than Trump or Breitbart, but yes, I think those critical theory ideas are pervasive and influential. And they create the space for bad actors on both sides.
I don't claim that both sides harbor equal political power. (I'm glad to see Trump go, though I'm not American.) But power is not a monolith. I think that the educational establishment, media sources and Silicon Valley magnates are highly influential, and harbor power that matters greatly, even if it doesn't command a military.
I don't think who holds the most power at a given moment is the most important question. More important is how we negotiate differences in a society where not everyone will agree. When you try to harness institutional power to render a broad scope of opinion as beyond the pale of acceptable conversation -- as we see in our institutional media, educational institutions and social media corporations -- you undermine trust in those institutions and create space for the "firehose of lies". What other outcome would you expect?
Big fan of your last two paragraphs. If we haven't learned how fragile our institutions/processes are by now, we aren't paying attention. Playing fast and loose with the truth and/or the process of obtaining it (scientific method/due process) undercuts everything and puts us in a very bad place.
Very well said. Critical thought and civil discourse are dying. But both are necessary to move forward constructively.
I reckon our world views are so disparate that we would need a few hours of eye contact debate to get somewhere. I share your concerns completely regarding what damage far left policies will cause and believe a centrist would be helpful at this time in our country. Biden may have been one in the past but I am not encouraged by his first proclamations. Our current political system has been a whipsaw frenzy between Trump and the Democrats each operating their firehoses at maximum capacity. This is a serious problem for our country. The media is a huge problem. The authoritarianism I see growing in our society has nothing to do with Trump but is fueled by the far left although no doubt Trump would love to be an authoritarian dictator. The left seems far more organized and able to implement long term strategies than the Republicans. I have not completed research yet but an example of this is the years long shift in how votes are conducted. Somehow half of the country believes people are disenfranchised if they have to show a picture ID to vote. That concept has me scratching my head. Not even a decade ago, Democrat leaders were opposed to illegal immigration. The messaging has been changed and firehosed to such a degree that a good part of the population now believes porous borders are a good thing. I bring these items up not to start a discussion on immigration or voter ID requirements but to give examples of how concepts that were nonsensical a short time ago are now acceptable. Before Trump, the Republicans were nowhere near as good at this sort of branding and messaging. Trump has changed that. Anyway, need to make dinner. Have a good night!
Hi again, Sue Seboda. I don't think we're likely to see eye to eye, but that doesn't mean we can't talk. I believe you're making a similar argument to MF, above, and my reply to you would be similar. I see you're concerned about the left, albeit in a way I can't endorse. One thing I'll say quickly is that there's nothing sinister about parties changing their positions. And the process of factions struggling for supremacy within a party may play out in public--as it is now with both parties--or not. Indeed, if parties and groups within parties hadn't changed their minds about important issues, we might still be living with many forms of discrimination that were widely accepted in our past.
I agree with your sarcastic comment re: how lucky we are "to be pawns in a power struggle to the death," however, it would be more helpful to me (and perhaps others) to extrapolate on the evidence of your starting point. At least then we can have a conversation on activities that we believe are problematic (and discuss how to fix them). Regardless, the concept that we are entitled to our own personalized narratives relating to truth with the added benefit of amplifying via technology via our echo chambers is corrosive. Bret's latest article is a great perspective on a slightly different yet very related point. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/opinion/liberal-media-censoring.html
Thanks for sending the article Mike. I will read tonight. Good points. Before I respond, want to ensure I understand - "the concept that we are entitled to our own personalized narratives relating to truth with the added benefit of amplifying via technology via our echo chambers is corrosive". It's not our own perception of truth that is corrosive but the echo chambers that amplify them? Or is it both our own perceptions of truth and the echo chambers that are corrosive?
Contrary to vogue post modernist thinking, I do believe a (more) objective understanding of the truth is possible and that we should do our best to pursue it and not intentionally/in bad faith muddy the waters (i.e., Trump's claims around the election or the representation that ALL activities/existence is/are motivated/explained [consciously, subconsciously or otherwise] by identity and our never ending pursuit of power). As Bret highlights, the only way you can have a good faith discussion on policy is to see the world as it is (complex and nuanced . . . and full of contradictions). To answer your question, what I find most corrosive is that too many are comfortable drawing inputs that only confirm their own understanding AND then espousing that position as the "truth" (regardless of how tenuous its grip on truth may be). Amplification is secondary but exacerbates the issue as modern technology (ease of reach and an algorithm that feeds on conflict) and our ever growing polarization (even more fuel for our tribal tendencies of "us" vs "them") causes the whole system (we're a democracy, right?!) to break down.
The past week shows one of the consequences of a lack of commitment to truth. Without being fed repeated lies, that mob wouldn't have been so motivated to mount an insurrection.
It's time to stop the both-sides-ism. Political spin may be unfortunate, but it is a given. An orchestrated campaign of repeated, outright falsehoods is something entirely different. And unlike political spin, it can easily lead to violence.
The ‘firehose of falsehood’ applies equally to the BLM outcries with every publicized ‘white cop shoots black’ event and, more recently, to the excuses made by proposition 16 supporters in CA of their failed attempt (once again) to enact affirmative action laws. Maybe the ‘firehose’ provides too much pressure for our fragile minds to withstand?
You are comparing apples and oranges. The 'firehouse of falsehoods' on the right is coming from the President of the United States, and therefore, the US government. No matter how outrageous some of the BLM demands are or seem, they come from a non-government civilian group with zero powers of enforcement.
Thank you.
Excellent point. There are so many firehoses operating now that it is a veritable flood.