One reason I think social media is turning everyone into authoritarians: people don't read or think.
They see a headline and have a strong emotional reaction, which they Tweet and which then gets repeated by others, who are also not thinking . . .
1/
Political psychologists like @karen_stenner describe the authoritarian personality.
Those with an authoritarian disposition are averse to complexity. They reject nuance.
They prefer sameness and uniformity and have “cognitive limitations.”
(link in the next Tweet)
2/
See for example, "Authoritarianism is not a momentary madness,” which originally appeared in this book, an dwhich Stenner has now made available free on her website, here: ……e-4700-aaa9-743a55a9437a.filesusr.com/ugd/02ff25_370…
Timothy Snyder also talks about the danger of what he calls Internet Memes.
3/
He said he can tell from emailed questions whether the person was asking a question after reading a book or was asking a question after seeing a rage-inducing Internet meme, which they then repeated to him.
Non-authoritarians are supposed to embrace complexity.
4/
Snyder says that authoritarian regimes keep everyone in a state of constant rage.
People have no sense of time beyond their immediate rage.
Well, maybe we're doing that to ourselves: We're taking away our own ability to see nuance and complexity.
5/
In his Youtube video series, Snyder compares the Internet to the invention of the printing press.
These rapid changes in how we get information can lead to disaster because we don't know how to handle the sudden bombardment of new information.
6/
Some say the way to combat authoritarianism is to keep everyone enraged and angry.
It seems to me this causes burnout and cynicism, which causes people to disengage.
Indicting people and having juries return "not guilty" verdicts because there isn't evidence to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt may not accomplish what people think it will accomplish.
Interesting tidbit: The obstruction statute being used to prosecute lots of the insurrection cases, U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) was part of an Act passed in 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal specifically to prosecute destruction of records that might be needed in future proceedings.
Of course, this is the law so it's never as easy as it seems.
If there is a tricky word in this statute, it would be "official proceeding."
Would there need to be a specific proceeding on the horizon?
The Enron executives . . .
. . . the Enron (Arthur Anderson) executives started shredding documents after an investigation was opened into their corrupt practices, but before a subpoena was issued.
I think the real question is what a post-Trump GOP will look like.
If white power militias, hardcore reactionaries, and zany conspiracy theorists still have a place in the GOP, the problem won't leave with Trump. morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/a-gop-cracku…
The reactionary Supreme Court justices, for example, have shown that they have no interest in saving Trump, but they're committed to promoting the agenda of the "religious right," for example, by taking the teeth from the Voting Rights Act.
Exactly.
The problem is what political scientist @dziblatt
calls the "Conservative Dilemma," which in a nutshell says that conservative economic policies (when presented truthfully) are unpopular so to win elections, they invite in the right-wing fringe.
In other words, even if big shots start turning on each other, these people will still be fighting for control of local election boards and local school boards. sacbee.com/news/californi…
Extremists won't give up even if Trump goes down.
They need to LOSE elections at every level.