Mobs and Riots

Reconstruction

Ulysses Grant, Union General and President of the United States, is more popular now than at any time since the 1880’s. After his death, he was long regarded as an inferior general, a poor President, and an unremarkable and flawed man. With a host of biographies and changing views on racism, his formerly withered reputation is blooming.

Grant’s military career and Presidency are an excellent example of the sandy foundations of the stories we tell ourselves about the past. The moral clarity of his Presidency will henceforth protect him, inasmuch as there is a public memory of him at all in our relentlessly forward-looking society. But in the focus on the shifting opinions of Grant’s career, the context of his moral-firmness is a revelation of vicious inhumanity and tribalism.

Reconstruction is (probably, though I’m sure there are other contenders) the most shameful period of American history.

After the Civil War ended and slavery abolished it became clear that the true driving force of Southern society’s defense of slavery was not its economics, or based in regional conservatism (in the sense of unchanging institutions), or competing views of Federal power – it was based on social tribalism.

Subjugation, the institutionalized inferiority of black people for no other benefit than maintaining a particular division of social standing, became the primary goal of radical Southern political movements.

And the history of that tribalism and those political movements is shockingly depraved and revolutionary.

There were:

Massacres of black people, in some cases hundreds at a time
Literal coups, where state government’s were overthrown by armed force
Widespread Terrorism across the former Confederate states
Massive Federal military intervention, including the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

By the end of Grant’s second term in office, Reconstruction was abandoned. And why did Reconstruction end without enforcing the rights of full citizenship of freed slaves? It was subsumed by national politics.

In the last three weeks, there were two nationally-known incidents (several others but these received the most attention) which intimately concerned race and policing.

The Destruction of Amy Cooper

A white woman used the police as an implicit threat on the physical health and safety of a black man. The reaction to the video of the incident being made public was animated by a modern mob, a digital one. Without passing judgment on her digital destruction, it is an example of the power of social media to amplify tribal signaling. Much of the backlash became about showing everyone else that “they were on the right side,” dare I call it virtue signaling?

The Murder of a Black Man

The murder of George Floyd was a clear example of the aggression and callousness of modern policing. But these protests, riots, and the reaction to them, have gone far beyond this initial outrage. Looting, arson, and people dissatisfied about other aspects of the social order have joined in, and muddied the focused protests over policing.

A Riot is a Signal

Mob violence is an expression of rage and tribalism. A mob, a riot, is a thing-in-itself, not connected to any particular ideology – in the post-Civil War south, riots were anti-black affairs. They were both political tools and a signal of dissatisfaction with the current social regime. We now judge this harshly, but it was, at its base, a signal to the occupying Federal forces, and enough northerners grew tired of constant intervention that they became effective political tools. And public perceptions of those riots became the currency of national politics, deeply influencing the course of political events.

One thing that people tend to forget when they’re caught-up in idealism or discussions on policy: organized violence is effective. It goes both ways, the violence of the mob can produce real change, the suppression of the mob through violence can stifle it.

These incidents now are also in the process of being subsumed by national politics. The construction of narratives in relation to these protests both destroys nuance and is necessary to try to resolve the deep unease generated by chaos.

If I were to exhort people toward one action it would be to resist, and resist deeply, the temptation to blame all of this on one of our two political tribes. These tribes will use this chaos to advance their fight over the throne, and not for reform.

The Verdicts of History

Near the end of 1940, with Britain fighting alone against Nazi Germany, the famously appeasing former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain died. Prime Minister Winston Churchill eulogized him in the House of Commons, saying:

“It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is the worth of all this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour.”

There are three aspects of this thought that are worthy of attention. The first is the changing appreciation of the past when viewed through the lens of current events. The second is the idea of the “telescoping” effect of examining history. People look at events, outcomes – maybe even debates – and do not see the human dimension surrounding the focal points of historical events. The third idea here is an argument for morality, without knowing what will happen in the future, or how any action may be perceived, it is important to do what one thinks is right in the moment.

The Second World War, a truly seminal and unique event in world history, is actually a multitude of related events with social, political, and of course, military dimensions. Most date the War as beginning in September 1939 and ending in September 1945 – but the Japanese invasion of China began in earnest in 1937, and the Japanese annexation of a province in Northern China began in 1931. Colonialism, social injustice, the failures of Capitalism, scientifically-precise industrialization, monetary systems, modern information technology, and forms of government all had a starring role in the upheaval of the so-called Second World War.

And our perceptions of the War have changed over time too. Once a beyond-reproach moral victory for the West, the actions of the Allies, and the United States in particular, have been brought under scrutiny. This is not to diminish the evil (yes, I will use the absolutist term of “evil”) of the Nazis, the Fascists in Europe broadly, and the racist, genocidal violence perpetrated by the Japanese in their (Orwellian-named) Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. But – as time skidded into the future, the Allied bombing campaigns (including the use of the atomic bombs), the “take-no-prisoners” attitude and taking of gruesome trophies by American soldiers in the Pacific, and the ruthless appropriation of the underpinnings of the British Empire by the Americans have all come under a moral examination.

All of the aspects of the Second World War which I just mentioned share a common theme, they all involve a type of mental foreshortening of events. Mental foreshortening occurs for the sake of convenience, things that are too complex to understand are made simpler, perhaps with a narrative: “World War 2 occurred because Hitler decided to invade countries surrounding Germany.” It occurs because the emotional content that drove decisions is not always apparent in historical sources and a “zeitgeist” can be difficult to measure: “Germany was taken over by the Nazi’s because of the Great Depression.” And it occurs because we want to protect our moral integrity, or the moral integrity of aspects of our chosen identity: “The US had to bomb those cities like that because it was the only way to win the War quickly.” [Note: this is very similar to what Epsilon Theory calls “abstraction” and “memes.”]

We like to put neat labels on events to make them easier to understand, but history, just as current events, flows and ebbs like a tide, it does not run straight between banks like a river. And as the generation that lived through World War 2 fades, the memories of the past fade too. We can scarcely imagine the mass mobilization, the mass feeling, the patriotism, the colossal scale of horror of the Second World War now.

So what can this knowledge tell us about the issues and events of the day?

Firstly, in the Impeachment of President Donald Trump, the Democrats are looking for a “savior” and are appealing to the “verdict of history” in trying to sway Republicans to their point of view. Democrats will find this effort to be in vain. Any individual Senator or Cabinet official will not be remembered as a “coward.” If they are remembered at all, it will be as a gear in a large machine. (How many people have strong feelings about Senator Aldrich – besides Twitter’s Rudy Havenstein?) When you hear people “appealing to history” it is an acknowledgment of the failure to obtain or exercise power. There is no possible conception of how history will view the Impeachment, or the Trump presidency, without knowing the consequences of his tenure in office beforehand.

“History,” in its simplification and smoothing of emotions, will remember the Impeachment as an aspect of the failure of the political parties to compromise – the entire period may well be seen as being defined by (in another Epsilon Theory phrase) the “widening gyre.” There are too many things happening, too many different aspects of the present age to consider, for any individuals without the magnetic presence of Trump to be remembered for much of anything – they will be cut out. Appeals to history are ineffective, unrealistic, and arrogant. In 700 AD, a single history or document would serve to color our perceptions of an entire time period or of a leader’s rule, but no more. Evidence and multitudinous documentation now exist for every moment of our lives. (Incidentally, this may lead to some more “mental foreshortening” to reduce complexity and assign a narrative, but it may be difficult for any single actor to create that simplification.) Churchill famously tried to define his place in history by “writing” it, but those narratives are coming undone now too.

Climate-change is another fraught topic. One that involves appeals to an absolute and certain view of the future. On both sides – “nothing will happen, its all a scam” and “it is the end of the world” – the outcomes are both unknowable. So what is there to say about this that “history” can teach us? Future scientists (if we’re not all dead, under 20 feet of water) will almost certainly say that our predictions were wildly incorrect, and that the movements were more a product of social issues than actual environmental concerns. The view of our present moment will change when viewed through the distant and holistic lens of the future. Political clashes resulting from differing views on climate change will be hard to understand, as the firm convictions and views of the participants will find their sharp edges dulled by subsequent, factual events. With this in mind, it would behoove both sides to take measured, morally-correct actions in the present. Instead of trying to force massive change (or no change), a holistic view of both shortcomings in knowledge and inclusion of all impacted parties should be implemented. In practice this means trying to find economic solutions for developing countries, attempts to innovate technologically, and to ameliorate the political fears of climate-change deniers.

A history of post-9/11 America is being formulated now too, but its dimensions are vague. Modern capitalism is being questioned in a way that seemed to vanish after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Economic and political and military power all seem to be waning for the United States, but it is unclear to what degree this is occurring. A narrative will be assigned to America’s fate – after it is obvious.

Beware of trying to assign a specific or complex historical value to events happening now. If you are going to conduct an action that is tangential to the broad history of the nation or world (supporting a political party, allocating your resources in a political manner – boycotts, cryptocurrency, ESG-investing) then you must act by what you think is right, not by what history will say about the movements. Predicting the future is the Quixotic task of legions of technological innovations and industrial-scale processes, but it will always fail. We are achieving the opposite of Hari Seldon’s Psychohistory, we may be able to predict the short-term future, or the actions of one individual, but definitely not all of humanity. Stay closer to the ground, more self-contained. Act boldly for what you think is right, but leave the predictions, and the verdicts of history, to those future generations looking backward with a mirror.

Sound and Fury

Sound and Fury

Amid the uproar over the book “Fire and Fury” by Michael Wolff, documenting (supposedly) the inner workings of the Trump White House and campaign, two incidents have not gotten the attention they deserve. And they portend grave ills in our political system.

First, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke exempted the state of Florida from natural gas and oil drilling off its coast. Republican governor Rick Scott met with Zinke and afterward Zinke indicated that he had allowed the exemption at the governor’s request. Zinke has not indicated that democratically-run states could get similar exemptions. Along with the tax bill recently passed this is a clear example of Republican punishment of blue states.

Second, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein unilaterally released testimony by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS (commissioners of the infamous Steele dossier) without the consent and approval of Republicans. This action outraged the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. Partisan clefting in the Committee displays an utter lack of cooperation and shared goals by the individuals tasked with running our government.

Winner-take-all

Key to these two incidents is evidence of intensifying winner-take-all effects in American political life. Laws are not passed and policy changes are not made unless one party controls majorities in the branches of government.

This fact is salient: Government has shifted from the mean to the outliers. While it may be true that our government was not as bipartisan in the past as it may seem from our current perspective, the political parties no longer shift to the middle in order to enact policy or win votes. Intolerant minorities now control policy and because of people’s political tribalism they will vote with a party or candidate with an extreme view as long as they are labeled Republican or Democrat. That is to say: people would rather vote and support a viewpoint with which they do not strongly agree as long as those candidates and policies are labeled and marketed as being part of their party.

Going as far back as the Affordable Care Act’s passage under the Obama Administration, passed with no Republican votes, the political parties have shown an inability to compromise. While this changing landscape has been analyzed, remarked-upon, and derided it has recently lost some attention due to the abhorrent and tumultuous Trump Administration. It is clear that the Trump Administration is a symptom, not the disease.

Going Forward

Partisanship, particularly the takeover of the Republican Party by an intolerant, radical minority, will stretch beyond the current administration. It is myopic to believe that all will be well after the inevitable downfall of President Trump – the American people and political system are not dealing with the causes of Trump’s rise in the first instance.

It is an irony that part of Trump’s appeal was in not belonging to a political party, that he was not part of the stagnant and dysfunctional establishment, but that his election has exacerbated the partisan divide in the country.

Dysfunction in Washington is here to stay, and while the issues of collusion and incompetence are important, in the arc of history it will be remembered as being “sound and fury” and not the central issue of the time.

Asymmetry Between Trump and the Media

Lies and Truth

Modern political history is replete with an interesting oddity. One politician is accused of inappropriate conduct in a salacious sex scandal and their career is ruined. Another is accused and nothing happens.

President Trump lies incessantly. No one truly disputes this, even supporters. At this point, Trump’s lies present an exclamation point on his out-sized personality and don’t have any truly negative consequences. On the other hand, if CNN makes a slight error in its reporting on Trump, there is outrage and disaster.

Since Trump’s swearing-in there have been dozens of stories that were negative of the Trump administration that have been retracted or corrected. Every time this happens it provides ammunition for Trump and those who maintain his cult to fire broadsides against the “fake news media.”

Every time Trump lies nothing happens, every time a news outlet “lies” there is serious harm to their credibility, especially in the eyes of Trump supporters. This asymmetry in consequences for mistakes and untruth is devastating to news organizations.

Since the philosophy and public function of news organizations is centered around truthfulness they have more to lose by being seen as “untruthful” than someone who has no credibility in terms of honesty. Failure to be accurate and honest in covering the Trump administration may only happen a very small number of times in any particular “news room” but that happening undermines honest, incisive reporting of abuses by the government.

The Ethics of Journalism and Bias

At the founding of the nation, there were not “journalistic” ethics like we currently have. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, in particular, ran newspapers that reported unverified, scandalous and insulting stories and opinion pieces attacking one another’s political parties. There was no pretension to high ethics and impartiality: newspapers were on the parapets of an ideological battlefield between differing visions for the government and country. People were deeply divided and the interest of party often predominated over the interests of the nation, there were unsettled legal questions as to what powers belonged to which segments of government, and there were abuses of the peoples’ constitutionally guaranteed rights. In spite of all this venom and difficulty, the nation continued to grow and prosper.

What now?

It is foolish to directly compare any two historical time periods, narratives and anecdotes make two eras appear more similar than they actually were. But what we can take from journalism at the founding of our nation is the idea that perhaps the secret to dealing with a lying President and a media with no credibility is to ignore them both. Time will reveal the successes or failures of the current President (and I believe time will not be kind to him) and it will smooth the breathless, semi-hysterical coverage proffered by news organizations.

When there are severe abuses and corruption, they should be checked, vigorously inspected, and the information used for opposition, but the reports should truly be scandalous. In the recent past a major headline may have presented itself to a reader twice a day, or once on the evening news. That gave both journalists and the public time to ingest important information and for journalists to check the accuracy of their reporting. Speed in reporting and the constant inundation of news has made the signal indistinct from the noise. Ironically, news outlets not interested in placing themselves on the pedestal of journalistic ethics lose their asymmetry in regards to their coverage of government, and this President and need not worry about this danger of speed in reporting.

Media companies on the right, with no pretension of pure and absolute integrity, have a tremendous advantage over the media organizations which claim they are journalistic watchdogs. Breitbart, for instance, can propagandize without losing legitimacy for inaccuracies. Once again, it all comes down to the people who read the news, and ignorance is bliss.

Individuals who are less plugged-in to the news, who are less concerned about both the stream of lies from the President and catching the President in a lie, are more likely to eventually receive truly accurate news about the state of the country and the government. On the other hand, this present state of affairs is probably not going to be “solved.” It is naive to think that news organizations who only propagandize can produce critical reporting, just as it is naive to think that “traditional” news organizations will stop rushing to produce headlines (and thereby suffer the reverses that erode the public’s faith in them). It is also totally naive to believe that people will suddenly become more careful and cautious consumers of media, people will remain as they have throughout history. They may be periodically influenced by journalism, advertising, and propaganda, but they will certainly not suddenly become aware of all their own biases and shortcomings and correct themselves.

Our country and government survived the vicious “journalistic” atmosphere at the founding of the nation by simply persevering until new standards and technologies and beliefs changed the cultural and social landscape. Disasters will force action, otherwise people and nations will continue to plug along. In short, there is nothing much the public, or journalism, can do to confront the issues made plain by the asymmetry between Trump and the media outlets which report on him. We may all be a little healthier by trying to unplug a little more, however.

The Megyn Kelly Mistake

In a television interview of Alex Jones, the radio broadcasting conspiracy theorist and founder of Infowars.com, NBC News anchor Megyn Kelly tore into him over his support for the idea that the Sandy Hook massacre was a government-backed conspiracy. By all accounts she acquitted herself well and made Alex Jones look bad. But none of that matters. She was broadcasting to the wrong audience, and in turn, received no viewership for her new flagship program.

In a stinging stab of irony, the same people who listen to Alex Jones are probably the people she was most effective in appealing to in her previous career at Fox News.

Megyn Kelly was successful on Fox News as an anchor – she is intelligent, dogged, beautiful, and persuasive. Her profile continued to rise as an anchor and fill-in on Fox News and she received her own program, The Kelly File, on October, 7th, 2013. She did very well on the program being tough and probing (she was formally a prosecutor) and had excellent ratings, occasionally edging Bill O’Reilly. But when her contract ended with Fox News she chose to go to NBC and was elevated to the position of a lead anchor for three separate broadcast efforts.

NBC and Megyn Kelly failed to understand the new political-media landscape. There are no more trusted, non-partisan figures who can draw audiences. Its all about the audience, and bending your performance to suit their beliefs. The people who surrounded Megyn Kelly on Fox News were indicative of this media terrain. Tucker Carlson (who took Kelly’s time slot) and Sean Hannity have abandoned any pretense of moderation or fairness and appeal directly to the Trump/conservative political base.

Many on the right of the political spectrum understand the new realities of finely divided demographics. There are a host of provocateurs who have targeted Trump supporters and right-wingers as if they were a business targeting their products toward a certain demographic. These people are engaging in a scheme to make money, not to uphold their political beliefs.

Jack Posobiec, Mike Cernovich, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Paul Joseph Watson are the foremost examples of people who have taken advantage of the internet and the media of political affirmation to benefit financially from targeting the “alt-right.” They spread lies, disinformation, and back Trump unreservedly in an attempt to attract an audience.

Megyn Kelly will probably fail as a news anchor for NBC in drawing audiences because liberals will not watch her because of her association with Fox News, and conservatives and Trump supporters will not watch her because she is not unabashedly backing their view points.