Everyday Erinyes #256

 Posted by at 10:26 am  Politics
Mar 062021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

If there is anything we need right now, it is ways to talk about America, about politics, about conspiracies, about nearly everything, in ways which do not lead to violence but do lead to the proliferation of truth. Ben Franklin felt he had found this in the Socratic method – and certainly that method has been known to work for millennia. Which may be related to the fact that it is in contradiction to the modern American stereotype (probably a wider stereotype than just in America) of the “alpha male,” the “manly man,” the “winner.” (Slightly off topic, but the “alpha male” concept, thought to be from the wild, was actually drawn from observations of animals in captivity. In the wild, they act quite differently.)

But, if anyone can reframe the Socratic method so as to sell it to modern Americans, it would be Ben Franklin. So let’s give him a shot at it.
================================================================

Talking politics in 2021: Lessons on humility and truth-seeking from Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin learned over his lifetime how to be humble and open when he talked to and with people.
Rozbike/Wikipedia, CC BY-SA

Mark Canada, Indiana University

The previous year in the United States was a turbulent one, filled with political strife, protests over racism and a devastating pandemic. Underlying all three has been a pervasive political polarization, made worse by a breakdown in civic – and civil – discourse, not only on Capitol Hill, but around the nation.

In a new year, with a new president and a new Congress, there appears to be opportunity. Americans, starting with the president, are talking about turning away from the division of the recent past and choosing a different direction: talking civilly and productively about the problems the country faces.

But how to do that? As a literary scholar, I appreciate the power of carefully crafted language, and I believe that Americans – from those in government to those around the dinner table – could take a lesson from one of this nation’s founders and greatest communicators: Benjamin Franklin.

From ‘positive Argumentation’ to ‘modest Diffidence’

Before he achieved fame as a statesman, scientist and diplomat, Franklin, who was born in 1706 and died in 1790, made his living in Philadelphia from words – as a printer, journalist and essayist.

Having worked early in his life in Boston for his brother James, a fiery journalist, he knew the kind of war that could be waged with words and had even made a hobby of debating with a young friend.

“We sometimes disputed,” Franklin recalled in his autobiography, “and very fond we were of Argument, & very desirous of confuting one another.”

Two men at a protest about COVID-19 restrictions in California arguing with each other.
Men arguing about COVID-19 restrictions at a protest in Woodland Hills, Calif. on May 16, 2020.
David McNew/Getty Images

Everything changed for Franklin, however, after he came across some examples of Socratic dialogue, in which questions figure prominently. “I was charm’d with it,” Franklin wrote, “adopted it, dropt my abrupt Contradiction, and positive Argumentation, and put on the humble Enquirer & Doubter.”

The inspired Franklin eventually changed his entire manner of discourse, communicating “in terms of modest Diffidence” instead of positive assertion, dropping words such as “certainly” and “undoubtedly” and substituting “I should think it so or so” and “it is so, if I am not mistaken.”

After all, Franklin wrote, “a positive, assuming manner” tends to turn off an audience and thus undermines one’s own intentions.

Such positive assertion can interfere with the exchange of valuable information. “If you wish information and improvement from the knowledge of others,” Franklin wrote, “and yet at the same time express yourself as firmly fix’d in your present opinions, modest, sensible men, who do not love disputation, will probably leave you undisturbed in the possession of your error.”

In 2021, replacing positive assertions in conversations with some “terms of modest Diffidence” just might lead to exchanges that are not only more civil, but also more productive.

Pursuing truth, not victory

More important than modest expression is actual intellectual humility, and here again Franklin’s example is instructive. Even before he turned his inquiring mind to groundbreaking discoveries in electricity, he showed a scientist’s dedication to open, objective investigation with only truth as its object.

In 1727, when he was still in his early 20s, he founded a group called the Junto. Members, including a number of tradesmen like Franklin, took up political, philosophical and other questions such as “Does the Importation of Servants increase or advance the Wealth of our Country?” and “Wherein consists the Happiness of a rational Creature?”

The goal of these discussions, as Franklin explained, was not victory – as it apparently had been for Franklin and his friend years earlier – but something far more valuable for all concerned. Franklin explained that the discussions were to take place “in the sincere Spirit of Enquiry after Truth, without fondness for Dispute, or Desire of Victory.” Anyone who spoke too confidently or contentiously had to pay a small fine.

This preference for pursuing truth over seeking victory found expression in a question that initiates were required to answer: “Do you love and pursue truth for its own sake?” Franklin did, and the results speak for themselves.

A statue of Franklin at his press, in the central part of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Statue of Benjamin Franklin at his press, Philadelphia, Pa.
Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Franklin also had a prescient understanding of biases that color humans’ understanding of reality.

Today, scientists have shown that people are susceptible to mere exposure effect, a preference for information we have encountered multiple times and confirmation bias, an inclination toward information that aligns with a person’s current beliefs. In an essay he published in the 1730s, Franklin wrote of the effect of “Prevailing Opinions” on the individual mind and observed, “A Man can hardly forbear wishing those Things to be true and right, which he apprehends would be for his Conveniency to find so.” He added, “That Man only, who is ready to change his Mind upon proper Conviction, is in the Way to come at the Knowledge of Truth.”

Franklin lived up to this principle. In 1751, he published an essay expressing reprehensible, racist views that were all too common in his era. Years later, however, he helped found schools to educate black children and, after visiting one, saw that the students were equal to white children in their ability to learn.

He wound up changing not only his mind but also his essay when he reprinted it almost two decades later, changing the passage that said that most slaves were thieves “by Nature” to say that they were thieves because of slavery.

[Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter.]

Near the end of his life, Franklin became president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and submitted to Congress a petition to abolish slavery and end the slave trade.

‘Obliged by better information … to change opinions’

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin expressed his belief in intellectual humility. As James Madison recorded his words, Franklin said, “For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”

“It is therefore that the older I grow,” he added, “the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.”

Near the end of the speech, he implored others to adopt this same humility: “On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.”

As these words and experience testify, political polarization and dispute are nothing new. But Franklin managed to rise above the discord, biases and close-mindedness that are common in any era.

He spoke and wrote in ways that, if taken up now, could begin to erode the polarization of the current era: with modesty, diffidence, sincere consideration of others’ positions, doubt in his own infallibility and love of truth for its own sake.The Conversation

Mark Canada, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Indiana University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, the Socratic method requires real self-control. Real humility also does not hurt.  It’s just as difficult for Democrats as it is for Republicans, or anyone else, to refrain from boldly asserting that truth is truth when, in fact, it f’ing well is. But that doesn’t work very well.

Admittedly, the Socratic method does not adapt well to sound bytes, memes, or throwing shade. But, you know, those don’t work either. The Socratic method does work best in a one-on-one conversation, though there may also be a crowd of listeners, as long as they are actually listening. It couldn’t hurt to at least attempt to try it out.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #254

 Posted by at 10:22 am  Politics
Feb 202021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

As I’ve been saying, I have a number of articles saved regarding how white supremacy thinks, when it increases, how it expresses itself, and so on – and especially, what to do about it. I hope to get to all of them eventually. This is not one of them – but it is about accountability, which, like democracy, is not threatened.

The United States is not the first nation to have established an impeachment process. Neither are we the first nation to learn that, as a process to achieve accountability – well, let’s just say it is far from perfect. Here’s a little history so that we can consider similarities and differences.
================================================================

Why the British abandoned impeachment – and what the US Congress might do next

The impeachment trial of Warren Hastings in 1788.
Library of Congress

Eliga Gould, University of New Hampshire

Impeachment was developed in medieval England as a way to discipline the king’s ministers and other high officials. The framers of the U.S. Constitution took that idea and applied it to presidents, judges and other federal leaders.

That tool was in use, and in question, during the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Republicans raised questions about both the constitutionality and the overall purpose of impeachment proceedings against a person who no longer holds office.

Democrats responded that the framers expected impeachment to be available as a way to deliver consequences to a former official, and that refusing to convict Trump could open the door to future presidential abuses of power.

An impeachment case that was active in Britain while the framers were writing the Constitution in Philadelphia helped inform the new American government structure. But the outcome of that case – and that of another impeachment trial a decade later – signaled the end of impeachment’s usefulness in Britain, though the British system of government offered another way to hold officials accountable.

Impeachment in Britain

During the 17th century, the English Parliament used impeachment repeatedly against the royal favorites of King Charles I. One, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, went to the gallows in 1641 for subverting the laws and attempting to raise an Irish army to subdue the king’s opponents in England. Although kings couldn’t be impeached, Parliament eventually tried King Charles I for treason too, sentencing him to death by public beheading on Jan. 30, 1649.

A century later, impeachment no longer carried a risk of execution, but in 1786 the House of Commons launched what would become the most famous – and longest – impeachment trial in British history.

The lower house of Parliament, the House of Commons, impeached Warren Hastings, who had retired as governor-general of British India and was back in England, for corruption and mismanagement. That action provides a direct answer to one current legal question: The charges were based on what Hastings had done in India, making clear that a former official could be impeached and tried, even though he was no longer in office.

Future U.S. president John Adams, who was in London at the time, predicted in a letter to fellow founder John Jay that although Hastings deserved to be convicted, the proceedings would likely end with his acquittal. Nevertheless, Adams and Jay were among those who supported the new U.S. Constitution, whose drafters in 1787 included impeachment, even though that method of accountability was close to disappearing from Britain.

Nearing the end of its usefulness

The trial of Hastings, in Parliament’s upper house, the House of Lords, didn’t actually begin until 1788, and took seven years to conclude. The prosecution included Edmund Burke, one of the most gifted orators of the age. Eventually, though, the House of Lords proved Adams right, acquitting Hastings in 1795.

This stunning loss could have been the death knell for impeachment in Great Britain, but Hastings was not the last British political figure to be impeached. That dubious honor goes to Henry Dundas, Lord Melville, Scottish first lord of the admiralty, who was charged in 1806 with misappropriating public money. Dundas was widely assumed to be guilty, but, as with Hastings, the House of Lords voted to acquit.

These examples showed that impeachment, even when the accused government official had done the things that he was accused of doing, was a blunt, cumbersome weapon. With both Hastings and Dundas, the House of Commons was willing to act, but the House of Lords – which was (and is) not an elected body and therefore less responsive to popular opinion – refused to go along. As a tool for checking the actions of ministers and other political appointees, impeachment no longer worked, and it fell out of use.

A new method of accountability

The decline of impeachment in Britain coincided with the rise of another, more effective process by which high officials there could be held accountable.

British prime ministers answer to Parliament, doing so literally during the now-weekly question time in the House of Commons. Leaders who for whatever reason lose the support of a simple majority in the lower house, including through a vote of no confidence, can be forced to resign. The last time a British prime minister lost a vote of no confidence was in 1979, when the minority Labour government of James Callaghan was defeated.

A packed House of Commons
The U.K. prime minister’s ‘question time’ is one key method by which the government’s leader can be held to account by other lawmakers.
U.K. Parliament via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

If a prime minister receives a vote of no confidence, there is an alternative to resignation: call an election for a new Parliament, which is what Callaghan did, and let the people decide whether the current government gets to stay or has to go. If the prime minister’s party loses, he or she is generally out, and the leader of the party with the new majority takes over. In 1979, the defeat of Callaghan and the Labour Party paved the way for the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s first female prime minister.

This provides an immediate course of action for those who oppose a British government for any reason, including allegations of official wrongdoing, and delivers a rapid decision.

[Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter.]

In the United States, by contrast, a president can be accused of corruption or even sedition but face no real consequences, so long as one more than a third of the Senate declines to convict.

Now that Trump has been acquitted, then the Constitution’s bulwark against presidential malfeasance could become yet another mechanism of minority government.

Another path

If impeachment is rendered useless in the U.S., as it was in Britain two centuries ago, the Constitution does offer another remedy: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Rep. Jamie Raskin gestures during the Trump impeachment trial
If Rep. Jamie Raskin and the other House managers of the impeachment case don’t prevail, that may not be the end of possible accountability for former President Donald Trump.
Senate Television via AP

Originally intended to prevent former Confederates from returning to power after the Civil War, Section 3 bars people who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. from serving in state or federal governments, including in Congress or as president or vice president.

The language in the amendment could justify barring Trump from future office – and the resolution to do so may require only a majority vote in both houses of Congress, though enforcement would likely also need a ruling from a judge.The Conversation

Eliga Gould, Professor of History, University of New Hampshire

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, I don’t think it requires a whole lot of logic, or imagination, to see that instituting the option of a vote of no confidence (or the equivalent) would not work well here. I think the most obvious reason is that, in those nations which use it, there are at least three active political parties, so that it is impossible to govern without forming some kind of coalition with someone. Here, a vote of no confidence would be essentially the same as a recall election. And, if you have ever lived through one of those, you know how dangerous those can be. And particularly with no consistent media delivering facts.

Further, a vote of no confidence, like impeachment, is a political tool. What we need today (and would have benefitted from having for the last four years) is a legal tool. The decision that no sitting president can be prosecuted for crimes is based on one legal opinion almost fifty years old. Some of us thought it wrong at the time. Many thought it wrong during the events of the last four years. Yet it is held as sacrosanct.

I am not a lawyer nor a legislator myself. But might Congress not consider writing and passing a law along the lines that no one in the Federal Government, elected or appointed, can be considered immune from prosecution for any Federal crime, or any State crime committed under that State’s jurisdiction, even while in office? Because that’s what we have needed, and I guarantee we will need it again. (Actually, we need it already. I’m confident Nameless will concur and have a suggestion.)

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #253

 Posted by at 10:57 am  Politics
Feb 132021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

As I’ve been saying, I have a number of articles saved regarding how white supremacy thinks, when it increases, how it expresses itself, and so on – and especially, what to do about it. I hope to get to all of them eventually. This would appear to be the right time for this one.

I’m not sure I would have used the word “arcane” myself – it just hasn’t been looked at or thought much about once it was applied to former Confederates and the last of them died. But it’s a provision which certainly was necessary for Reconstruction to happen – and I’m far from the only one to point out that Reconstruction never fully happened. It was never fully implemented. And it is way past time for that to be done. The measure suggested in this article might not fully implement it, certainly, but at least it would help and not impede our progress.
================================================================

Congress could use an arcane section of the 14th Amendment to hold Trump accountable for Capitol attack

If the Senate acquits former President Donald Trump in the upcoming impeachment trial, there’s an obscure other way to punish him.
iStock /Getty Images Plus

Gerard Magliocca, IUPUI

Until recently, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was an obscure part of the U.S. Constitution.

The amendment is better known for its first section, which guaranteed individual rights and equality following the abolition of slavery. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was created to tackle a different problem related to the Civil War: insurrection.

It prohibits current or former military officers, along with many current and former federal and state public officials, from serving in a variety of government offices if they “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States Constitution.

This section was created after the Civil War as part of the 14th Amendment to bar military officers and civil officials who joined the Confederacy from serving in government again.

Now, this provision is cited in the article of impeachment against former U.S. President Donald Trump, introduced after the insurrectionist violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. An impeachment trial is began in the Senate on Feb. 9. If Trump is acquitted, some senators have reportedly considered a resolution invoking Section 3 of the 14th amendment in an effort to bar him from holding future office.

Kaine stands in a doorway wearing a face mask
Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, is reportedly preparing a 14th Amendment alternative to a Senate impeachment trial.
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

A Reconstruction-era amendment

Right after the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, Section 3 was enforced vigorously.

For example, Congress directed the Union Army to oust any former Confederate officials then holding office in the ex-Confederate states still under martial law. It is estimated that tens of thousands of men were made ineligible to serve by Section 3.

Snap shot of the text of the articles of impeachment
Article 1 of the impeachment charges against Donald Trump invokes the 14th Amendment.
U.S. House of Representatives

Congress then enacted legislation as part of the First Ku Klux Klan Act in 1870 giving the Justice Department authority to bring lawsuits in federal court to enforce Section 3 against former Confederate officials still holding office in other states.

Three justices on Tennessee’s Supreme Court were sued under this law. One resigned; the other two contested their ineligibility in court. North Carolina and Louisiana also enforced Section 3 in court upholding in 1869 the dismissal of some state officials who had served the Confederacy, including a sheriff, a constable and a district attorney.

In 1871, after the North Carolina Legislature elected their Civil War-era governor, Zebulon Vance, to the Senate, the Senate deemed him ineligible to serve under Section 3. The state legislature was forced to choose someone else.

Unity versus accountability

Less than five years into Reconstruction, however, many Northerners began calling on Congress to grant amnesty to Southern officers barred from office by Section 3. The 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to restore the right to hold office with a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

This campaign, led by the prominent New York newspaper editor Horace Greeley, reflected white fatigue with the burdens of enforcing the entire 14th Amendment and a desire to move past the bitterness of the Civil War. Greeley and his “Liberal Republicans” mounted a presidential campaign in 1872 based in part on a platform of “universal amnesty.”

President Ulysses S. Grant, who was running for reelection, knew white public opinion now favored amnesty. In a Dec. 4, 1871 message to Congress, he asked lawmakers to grant amnesty to former Confederate officials. After a long and emotional debate, Congress did so in 1872 with the General Amnesty Act.

Soon Southern voters sent many previously disqualified men back to Congress, including Alexander Stephens, the former Confederate vice president.

Confederate president Jefferson Davis and a few hundred other former federal officials and military officers remained excluded from public office.

Carved stone on the side of a mountain
Georgia’s Stone Mountain commemorates Confederates leaders Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, both banned from office in the 1870s.
Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

In granting this amnesty, Congress rejected a proposal by Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner, an eloquent advocate for racial equality, to couple forgiveness for white Southerners with a new civil rights law that would, among other things, have barred racial discrimination in schools.

In 1898, with the Spanish-American War about to begin, Congress removed Section 3 ineligibility from all living ex-rebels. It was widely seen as another gesture of national unity, but it was another nail in the coffin of Reconstruction.

Neglected but not forgotten

During the 20th century, Section 3 was largely ignored. It was used just once, during World War I, to exclude the socialist Congressman Victor Berger from the House for his anti-war speeches.

In the 1970s, Congress gave Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis posthumous Section 3 amnesty. This was again done in the name of national “reconciliation,” after the divisive Vietnam War.

Today Section 3, created to vanquish white supremacy, is seeing a revival. The Confederate flag, which never entered the Capitol during the Civil War, was carried inside during the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.

Pelosi signs a document with four people standing behind her, and American flags
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi signs an article of impeachment against then-president Donald Trump, Jan. 13, 2021.
Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images

Any congressional members determined to have “engaged in insurrection” may be expelled under this provision by a two-thirds vote in their house of Congress. That includes, potentially, lawmakers who are found to have directly aided or incited the rioters. Capitol police are investigating several Republican congressional representatives for allegedly leading “reconaissance” tours of the building on Jan. 5.

Though lawmakers can remove their colleagues from office, they cannot legally keep those members from running for, and occupying, public office again. That’s because there is today no federal statute enforcing Section 3; those parts of the Ku Klux Klan Act were repealed long ago. Unless Congress passes a new enforcement law, any expelled lawmakers could return later.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

Similarly, Congress could at any time use Section 3 to declare its constitutional opinion that Trump is ineligible to hold public office again, with a majority vote. But only the courts, interpreting Section 3 for themselves, can bar someone from running for president.

The issue may never come up. The Senate may disqualify Trump first, as part of impeachment, or he may choose not to run again. If he does run, though, he may have to take his case to the Supreme Court. A bipartisan congressional opinion of ineligibility would be a big blow to his candidacy.

This article, originally published Jan. 29, 2021, has been updated to reflect latest developments.The Conversation

Gerard Magliocca, Professor of Law, IUPUI

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, as I type, I’m not hoping for conviction, but I am still hoping for disqualification to be voted on (and confident it will succeed if it is.) By the time this is up, it will probably be over, and I may already be disappointed. but, if so, there is always the 14th Amendment to fall back on. And this procedure would require only a simple majority in both  houses.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #252

 Posted by at 10:28 am  Politics
Feb 062021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

As I said lst week, I have a number of articles saved regarding how white supremacy thinks, when it increases, how it expresses itself, and so on. I hope to get to all of them eventually. This one is specifically about how violence is incite, which, in a word, is “indirectly.” A number of Republicans are “defending” Donald Trump** with the claim that he didn’t specifically tell his supporters to go kill people (they’re not using those words, but that’s the general idea.) Well, duh. Of course he didn’t. that’s not how it’s done. Here’s how it actually is done:
================================================================

Incitement to violence is rarely explicit – here are some techniques people use to breed hate

Dangerous speech is a toxic brew of emotion and age-old tropes.
Mihajlo Maricic / iStock via Getty Images Plus

H. Colleen Sinclair, Mississippi State University

As senators plan for an impeachment trial in which former President Donald Trump is accused of inciting his supporters to mount a deadly insurrection at the Capitol, global concern is growing about threats of violent unrest in multiple countries, including the U.S. The United Nations reports the proliferation of dangerous speech online represents a “new era” in conflict.

Dangerous speech is defined as communication encouraging an audience to condone or inflict harm. Usually this harm is directed by an “ingroup” (us) against an “outgroup” (them) – though it can also provoke self-harm in suicide cults.

U.S. law reflects the assumption that dangerous speech must contain explicit calls to criminal action. But scholars who study speeches and propaganda that precede acts of violence find direct commands to violence are rare.

Other elements are more common. Here are some of the red flags.

Firing up emotions

Adolf Hitler, dressed in a business suit, giving a speech.
Adolf Hitler addresses the crowd, September 1930.
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Psychologists have analyzed the speeches of rousing leaders like Hitler and Gandhi for their emotional content, assessing how much fear, joy, sadness and so on were present. They then tested whether the levels of emotion could predict whether a certain speech preceded violence or nonviolence.

They discovered the following emotions, particularly combined, could ignite violence:

  • Anger: The speaker gives the audience reasons to be angry, often pointing out who should be held responsible for that anger.
  • Contempt: The outgroup is deemed inferior to the ingroup, and thus unworthy of respect.
  • Disgust: The outgroup is described as so revolting they are undeserving of even basic humane treatment.

Constructing the threat

By studying political speeches and propaganda that have inspired violence, researchers have identified themes that can stir these powerful emotions.

Targets of dangerous speech are often dehumanized, depicted as fundamentally lacking qualities – empathy, intelligence, values, abilities, self-control – at the core of being human. Commonly, outgroups are depicted as evil, due to their alleged lack of morality. Alternatively, they may be portrayed as animalistic or worse. During the Rwandan genocide, Tutsis were referred to as cockroaches in Hutu propaganda.

To build a “story of hate,” a good guy is needed to counter the villain. So whatever dehumanizing quality is present in the outgroup, the opposite is present in the ingroup. If “they” are the Antichrist, “we” are the children of God.

Alleged past wrongdoings of the outgroup against the ingroup are used to position the outgroup as a threat. In cases of ongoing conflict between groups, such as between Israelis and Palestinians, there may well be examples of past wrongs on both sides. Effective dangerous speech omits, minimizes or justifies past wrongs by the ingroup members, while exacerbating past wrongs of the outgroup.

“Competitive victimhood” is used to portray the ingroup as the “real” victim – especially if ingroup “innocents” like women and children have been harmed by the outgroup. Sometimes past acts of the outgroups are fabricated and used as scapegoats for the ingroup’s past misfortunes. For instance, Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany losing World War I.

A man with four huge machete scars across his face. Part of his ear is missing.
A survivor of the Rwandan genocide, 1994.
Scott Peterson/Hulton Archive via Getty Images

A particularly dangerous fabrication is when outgroups are accused of plotting against the ingroup the very deeds the ingroup is planning, if not actually committing, against the outgroup. Researchers coined the term “accusations in a mirror” after this strategy was explicitly described in a Hutu propaganda handbook following the Rwandan genocide.

Disengaging one’s moral compass

Effective dangerous speech gets people to overcome internal resistance to inflicting harm.

This can be accomplished by making it seem like no other options remain to defend the ingroup from the threat presented by the outgroup. Less extreme options are dismissed as exhausted or ineffective. The outgroup can’t be “saved.”

Simultaneously, speakers deploy “euphemistic labeling” to provide more palatable terms for violence, like “cleansing” or “defense” instead of “murder.” Or they may use “virtue-talk” to play up honor in fighting – and dishonor in not. After directing his followers to kill their children and themselves, cult leader Jim Jones called it “an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world.”

Sometimes, the ingroup suffers from an illusion of invulnerability and does not even consider the possibility of negative consequences from their actions, because they are so confident in the righteousness of their group and cause. If thought is given to life post-violence, it is portrayed as only good for the ingroup.

By contrast, if the outgroup is allowed to remain, obtain control or enact their alleged devious plans, the future looks grim; it will mean the destruction of everything the ingroup holds dear, if not the end of the ingroup itself.

These are just some of the hallmarks of dangerous speech identified through decades of research by historians and social scientists studying genocide, cults, intergroup conflict and propaganda. It is not an exhaustive list. Nor do all these elements need to be present for a speech to promote harm. There is also no guarantee the presence of these factors definitely leads to harm – just as there is no guarantee that smoking leads to cancer, though it certainly increases the risk.

The persuasiveness of a speech also depends on other variables, like the charisma of the speaker, the receptivity of the audience, the medium by which the message is delivered and the context in which the message is being received.

However, the elements described above are warning signs a speech is intended to promote and justify inflicting harm. People can resist calls to violence by recognizing these themes. Prevention is possible.

[Get our most insightful politics and election stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s Politics Weekly.]The Conversation

H. Colleen Sinclair, Associate Professor of Social Psychology, Mississippi State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, those of us (like everyone here) who already know this through our reading, our knowledge of history, our observation in our own lives, can be at a disadvantage when it turns out we need to explain it to people who think that, if you want someone to kill someone else, you just tell him (or her, but usually a him) so. I’m not really thinking of you are me trying to explain this to a friend or colleague or neighbor, but of the fact that our impeachment managers may very well – probably will – have to explain how this works to Republican Senators who are not just dense but wilfully dense. Our managers are all highly intelligent – I just hope intelligence doesn’t get too much in the way of understanding how those think who aren’t – and communicating with them.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #251

 Posted by at 10:30 am  Politics
Jan 302021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

I have a number of articles saved regarding how white supremacy thinks, when it increases, how it expresses itself, and so on. I hope to get to all of them eventually, but in looking them over, that this one stood out as being more related to “what can we do about it” than the others. A couple are about preventing it, but it’s a little late for that now, and a little early for future generations. So let’s look at one potential solution and see how effective it is – or isn’t.
================================================================

Does ‘deplatforming’ work to curb hate speech and calls for violence? 3 experts in online communications weigh in

Twitter’s suspension of Donald Trump’s account took away his preferred means of communicating with millions of his followers.
AP Photo/Tali Arbel

Jeremy Blackburn, Binghamton University, State University of New York; Robert W. Gehl, Louisiana Tech University, and Ugochukwu Etudo, University of Connecticut

In the wake of the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, Twitter permanently suspended Donald Trump’s personal account, and Google, Apple and Amazon shunned Parler, which at least temporarily shut down the social media platform favored by the far right.

Dubbed “deplatforming,” these actions restrict the ability of individuals and communities to communicate with each other and the public. Deplatforming raises ethical and legal questions, but foremost is the question of whether it’s an effective strategy to reduce hate speech and calls for violence on social media.

The Conversation U.S. asked three experts in online communications whether deplatforming works and what happens when technology companies attempt it.

Sort of, but it’s not a long-term solution

Jeremy Blackburn, assistant professor of computer science, Binghamton University

The question of how effective deplatforming is can be looked at from two different angles: Does it work from a technical standpoint, and does it have an effect on worrisome communities themselves?

Does deplatforming work from a technical perspective?

Gab was the first “major” platform subject to deplatforming efforts, first with removal from app stores and, after the Tree of Life shooting, the withdrawal of cloud infrastructure providers, domain name providers and other Web-related services. Before the shooting, my colleagues and I showed in a study that Gab was an alt-right echo chamber with worrisome trends of hateful content. Although Gab was deplatformed, it managed to survive by shifting to decentralized technologies and has shown a degree of innovation – for example, developing the moderation-circumventing Dissenter browser.

From a technical perspective, deplatforming just makes things a bit harder. Amazon’s cloud services make it easy to manage computing infrastructure but are ultimately built on open source technologies available to anyone. A deplatformed company or people sympathetic to it could build their own hosting infrastructure. The research community has also built censorship-resistant tools that, if all else fails, harmful online communities can use to persist.

Does deplatforming have an effect on worrisome communities themselves?

Whether or not deplatforming has a social effect is a nuanced question just now beginning to be addressed by the research community. There is evidence that a platform banning communities and content – for example, QAnon or certain politicians – can have a positive effect. Platform banning can reduce growth of new users over time, and there is less content produced overall. On the other hand, migrations do happen, and this is often a response to real world events – for example, a deplatformed personality who migrates to a new platform can trigger an influx of new users.

Another consequence of deplatforming can be users in the migrated community showing signs of becoming more radicalized over time. While Reddit or Twitter might improve with the loss of problematic users, deplatforming can have unintended consequences that can accelerate the problematic behavior that led to deplatforming in the first place.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that deplatforming, while certainly easy to implement and effective to some extent, will be a long-term solution in and of itself. Moving forward, effective approaches will need to take into account the complicated technological and social consequences of addressing the root problem of extremist and violent Web communities.

Yes, but driving people into the shadows can be risky

Ugochukwu Etudo, assistant professor of operations and information management, University of Connecticut

Does the deplatforming of prominent figures and movement leaders who command large followings online work? That depends on the criteria for the success of the policy intervention. If it means punishing the target of the deplatforming so they pay some price, then without a doubt it works. For example, right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter in 2016 and Facebook in 2019, and subsequently complained about financial hardship.

If it means dampening the odds of undesirable social outcomes and unrest, then in the short term, yes. But it is not at all certain in the long term. In the short term, deplatforming serves as a shock or disorienting perturbation to a network of people who are being influenced by the target of the deplatforming. This disorientation can weaken the movement, at least initially.

However, there is a risk that deplatforming can delegitimize authoritative sources of information in the eyes of a movement’s followers, and remaining adherents can become even more ardent. Movement leaders can reframe deplatforming as censorship and further proof of a mainstream bias.

There is reason to be concerned about the possibility that driving people who engage in harmful online behavior into the shadows further entrenches them in online environments that affirm their biases. Far-right groups and personalities have established a considerable presence on privacy-focused online platforms, including the messaging platform Telegram. This migration is concerning because researchers have known for some time that complete online anonymity is associated with increased harmful behavior online.

In deplatforming policymaking, among other considerations, there should be an emphasis on justice, harm reduction and rehabilitation. Policy objectives should be defined transparently and with reasonable expectations in order to avoid some of these negative unintended consequences.

Yes, but the process needs to be transparent and democratic

Robert Gehl, associate professor of communication and media studies, Louisiana Tech University

Deplatforming not only works, I believe it needs to be built into the system. Social media should have mechanisms by which racist, fascist, misogynist or transphobic speakers are removed, where misinformation is removed, and where there is no way to pay to have your messages amplified. And the decision to deplatform someone should be decided as close to democratically as is possible, rather than in some closed boardroom or opaque content moderation committee like Facebook’s “Supreme Court.”

In other words, the answer is alternative social media like Mastodon. As a federated system, Mastodon is specifically designed to give users and administrators the ability to mute, block or even remove not just misbehaving users but entire parts of the network.

For example, despite fears that the alt-right network Gab would somehow take over the Mastodon federation, Mastodon administrators quickly marginalized Gab. The same thing is happening as I write with new racist and misogynistic networks forming to fill the potential void left by Parler. And Mastodon nodes have also prevented spam and advertising from spreading across the network.

Moreover, the decision to block parts of the network aren’t made in secret. They’re done by local administrators, who announce their decisions publicly and are answerable to the members of their node in the network. I’m on scholar.social, an academic-oriented Mastodon node, and if I don’t like a decision the local administrator makes, I can contact the administrator directly and discuss it. There are other distributed social media system, as well, including Diaspora and Twister.

The danger of mainstream, corporate social media is that it was built to do exactly the opposite of what alternatives like Mastodon do: grow at all costs, including the cost of harming democratic deliberation. It’s not just cute cats that draw attention but conspiracy theories, misinformation and the stoking of bigotry. Corporate social media tolerates these things as long as they’re profitable – and, it turns out, that tolerance has lasted far too long.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]The Conversation

Jeremy Blackburn, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Binghamton University, State University of New York; Robert W. Gehl, F. Jay Taylor Endowed Research Chair of Communication, Louisiana Tech University, and Ugochukwu Etudo, Assistant Professor of Operations and Information Management, University of Connecticut

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, there you have it. The clear consensu answer is “yes, but.” I am certainly intrigued by the type of social network described by Professor Gehl, but it does appear to require participants to accept facts and be willing to enter into rational discourse, which kind of eliminates the categories of people who need deplatforming the most. I don’t know what the solution actually is. It probably involves getting social media platforms not to function as profit-making activities, and good luck with that. But at least this is a start.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #250

 Posted by at 10:48 am  Politics
Jan 232021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

The autocracy may have been flushed … but that doesn’t mean we can forget about ti. It happened so easily and gradually and, so to speak, seeped into our bones. That won’t be gone so fast. But, more importantly, it happened during normal. That means – we must recognize it – normal isn’t good enough. We must – we absolutely must – take some steps to strengthen and protect our safeguards against this sort of thing.
================================================================

Why Trump’s challenges to democracy will be a big problem for Biden

Just because he’s leaving office doesn’t mean Donald Trump will stop being a threat to democracy.
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

James D. Long, University of Washington and Victor Menaldo, University of Washington

When a mob attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and stopped Congress from certifying Joe Biden as the nation’s next president, it was scary – and fatal for at least five people.

But it did not pose a serious threat to the nation’s democracy.

An attempt at an illegal power grab somehow keeping Donald Trump in the Oval Office was never likely to happen, let alone succeed. Trump always lacked the authority, and the mass support, required to steal an election he overwhelmingly lost. He didn’t control state election officials or have enough influence over the rest of the process to achieve that goal.

Nevertheless, over his term as president, he repeatedly violated democratic norms, like brazenly promoting his own business interests, interfering in the Justice Department, rejecting congressional oversight, insulting judges, harassing the media and failing to concede his election loss.

However, as scholars who study democracy historically and comparatively, we predict that the biggest threats to democracy Trump poses won’t emerge until after he exits the White House – when Biden will have to face the Trump presidency’s most serious challenges.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden
Just because he’s leaving office doesn’t mean Donald Trump will stop being a danger to democracy. Joe Biden will have to deal with Donald Trump’s legacy.
Brendan Smialowski, Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

It wasn’t a coup

Trump never really threatened a coup, which is a swift and irregular transfer of power from one executive to another, where force or the threat of force installs a new leader with the support of the military. Coups are the typical manner in which one dictator succeeds another.

A coup displacing a legitimately elected government is quite rare; prominent examples from the past 100 years across the world include Spain in 1923, Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Brazil in 1964, Greece in 1967, Chile in 1973, Pakistan in 1999 and Thailand in 2006.

A military-backed takeover was not going to happen in the U.S. Its armed forces are extremely unlikely to intervene in domestic politics for regime change, especially not in favor of a president who is historically unpopular among its ranks.

Even if Trump’s most ardent supporters believe he won, there aren’t enough of them to credibly threaten a civil war. Despite their ability to breach a thinly defended Capitol, a sustained insurrection would be easily quashed by law enforcement.

Trump couldn’t even stage an “auto-coup,” which happens when an elected executive declares a state of emergency and suspends the legislature and judiciary, or restricts civil liberties, to seize more power. There have also been very few of those perpetrated against democratically elected governments over the last 100 years. The most prominent examples are Hitler’s Germany in 1933, Bordaberry in Uruguay (1972), Fujimori in Peru (1992), Erdoğan in Turkey (2015), Maduro in Venezuela (2017), Morales in Bolivia (2019) and Orbán in Hungary (2020).

A U.S. president can’t dismiss the legislative or judicial branches, and elections are not under his control: The Constitution declares that they are run by the states. And the declaration of election results is also well outside the power of the president (or vice president). It doesn’t matter whether the losing side formally concedes; the new president’s term begins at noon on Jan. 20.

The attack on the Capitol may have threatened the lives of federal legislators and Capitol police officers, but the most it achieved was to interrupt, briefly, a ministerial procedure. Within hours, both the House and Senate were back in session in the Capitol, carrying on their certification of the electoral votes cast in 2020.

People scale the walls of the U.S. Capitol
People scale the walls of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

Still a threat to democracy

By objecting to the outcome of the election, Trump highlighted aspects of the process that many Americans were previously unaware of, ironically ensuring the public is better informed about the mechanics and details of American elections. In that way, he may have, paradoxically, made American democracy stronger.

And it was fairly strong already. There was no evidence of any sort of widespread fraud or other irregularities. Major media organizations continue to explain and document the facts regarding the election, contradicting the president’s disinformation campaign. In 2020, voter turnout was higher than it has been for a century. Despite the pandemic, Trump’s rhetoric and threats of foreign tampering, the 2020 elections were the most secure in living memory.

But beyond elections, Trump has threatened America’s other bedrock political institutions. While there are many seemingly disparate examples of his disregard for the Constitution, what unites them is impunity and contempt for the rule of law. He has committed numerous impeachable acts – including potentially the incitement-to-riot on Jan. 6. He is facing a criminal investigation in New York state, and may be looking at federal inquiries both about possible misdeeds he committed in office and from before he became president.

The framers of the Constitution feared many things they designed the U.S. government to defend against, but perhaps one anxiety eclipsed all others: a lawless president who never faces justice, and was never held accountable during or even after leaving office. As Alexander Hamilton wrote, “if the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution.”

There’s very little time left to hold Trump to account during his term. After the events of Jan. 6, he now faces public backlash from longtime congressional allies and resignations from his Cabinet. He has also been locked out of Facebook and Twitter.

But the question of real, lasting – and legal – accountability will fall to Biden, and his nominee for attorney general, Merrick Garland. They will decide whether to continue existing investigations and potentially start new ones. State attorneys general and local prosecutors will have similar powers for the laws they enforce.

The aftermath

Newly elected leaders can often face strong incentives – and encouragement – to prosecute their predecessors, as Biden does now. But that approach, often called restorative justice, can also destabilize democracy’s prospects if lame-duck executives anticipate this and decide to hunker down and fight instead of conceding defeat. Consider Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, toppled by Western military intervention and killed by his people in 2011. He refused to flee or seek asylum for fear that both foreign governments and his own successors would prosecute him for human rights violations.

A depiction of the 1649 execution of King Charles I of England.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted to create limits on leaders, beyond execution.
National Portrait Gallery, London, via Wikimedia Commons

Perhaps counterintuitively, it is when outgoing presidents in transitioning democracies enshrine protections against their prosecution directly before leaving office that the democratic system is more likely to endure. This was the case in Chile with dictator Augusto Pinochet, who left power in 1989 under the aegis of a constitution he foisted on the country on his way out.

By contrast, after-the-fact pardoning of crimes – as Gerald Ford did of Richard Nixon – runs the risk of creating a larger threat to democracy: the idea that rogue leaders and their henchmen are above the law. If Trump finds a way to pardon himself, he may reduce his legal vulnerability, but he can’t erase it entirely.

If prosecutors or Congress let Trump off the hook, they may be the ones breaking new and dangerous ground, truly shattering the rule of law that underpins American democracy.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]The Conversation

James D. Long, Associate Professor of Political Science, Co-founder of the Political Economy Forum, Host of “Neither Free Nor Fair?” podcast, University of Washington and Victor Menaldo, Professor of Political Science, Co-founder of the Political Economy Forum, University of Washington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
AMT, I would disagree with the statement that January 6 wasn’t a coup. I believe it was, albeit a failed one, and wiser people than I (for example, Robert Reich) say the same. But that is not really what’s important. What’s is important is preventing it from happening again.

There is a documentary by Rick Steves available on Passport – for those who are meb=mbers of their local PBS station (if you are but have not ever used it, you may need to contact the station and tell them you want it) – called “The Rise of fasciam in Europe.” Very illuminating. I think it may underplay the role of racism – or maybe we are just more racist as a nation than any other – that’s certainly possible.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share

Everyday Erinyes #249

 Posted by at 10:37 am  Politics
Jan 162021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

Now that a teacher has been caught on video telling students last week’s rioters were Antifa (I keep wanting to say “I am not making this up”), it might be a good time to start thinking about how this history should be taught in schools, now and in the future. Well, we do have some expert guidance with suggestions.
================================================================

How should schools teach kids about what happened at the US Capitol on Jan. 6? We asked 6 education experts

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they storm the U.S. Capitol.
Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images

David Schonfeld, University of Southern California; Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, Tufts University; Kyle Greenwalt, Michigan State University; Paula McAvoy, North Carolina State University; Sarah Stitzlein, University of Cincinnati , and Tiffany Mitchell Patterson, West Virginia University

Teachers scrambled to create lesson plans to help students make sense of the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol right after it happened.

It’s a fraught task. Even the news media wasn’t sure what to call this unprecedented attack on U.S. democracy. Was it a coup? A riot? An act of domestic terrorism?

Likewise, it’s not clear where lessons should begin.

The Conversation U.S. asked six education experts how teachers – and parents – can help young people comprehend, analyze and process what happened.

Don’t avoid the topic

Dr. David Schonfeld, director of the National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and professor of clinical pediatrics, University of Southern California

Educators may worry they don’t know the right thing to say and will unnecessarily upset students. But saying nothing can say a lot to children – that adults are unaware, unconcerned, unable or unwilling to provide support in difficult times.

Teachers and parents can begin by asking students what they have heard and understand about the event. As kids explain it, it’s important to look for misunderstandings and ask about worries and concerns.

Children often have very different fears than adults. Some may be based on limited information or misunderstandings. For example, children might fear that it’s unsafe to go into any government building and worry about a parent who works in a post office. The goal of these conversations is to help children understand what happened in order to address their worries and concerns.

Especially in the midst of a pandemic, when children and adults are worried about illness and death and many families are dealing with financial concerns and other sources of stress, it’s not a time for teachers to introduce their personal take on what elected officials did right or wrong or to speculate about potential future dangers.

The events of Jan. 6 are a harsh reminder that even in the U.S. people are never completely safe from violence. But adults can use this opportunity to express a hopeful perspective for the future and reassure children that what happened at the Capitol should not make them feel unsafe in their home, at school or in their community.

No business as usual

Paula McAvoy, assistant professor of social studies education, North Carolina State University

I believe that social studies teachers should not return to business as usual in early 2021. Instead, they should spend ample time helping students understand what happened on Jan. 6, what precipitated the mayhem and what should happen going forward.

Once students have had space to process, the priority is to help them become more informed. When engaging in this work, teachers must not treat the question, “Did Joe Biden legitimately win the 2020 election?” as open to interpretation. He most definitely did. Likewise, teachers should not give any credence to the idea that the election was stolen, as the angry mob that wreaked havoc in the Capitol alleged. Instead, teachers should affirm each state’s certification. They should be clear that over 80 judges – including some appointed by Trump – rejected the baseless claim that fraud affected the outcome. They should do this because it is true.

The question, “Should President Trump be impeached again?” is, however, open for interpretation. Engaging students in an extended inquiry into this question as members of Congress grapple with it in real time creates an opportunity to closely read parts of the Constitution, including the 25th Amendment, parse out the difference between a violent insurrection and a protest, and evaluate Trump’s words and actions.

This moment is an opportunity for everyone to deepen their understanding about democracy. And social studies teachers should not let it slip away.

Focus on white supremacy

Tiffany Mitchell Patterson, assistant professor of secondary social studies, West Virginia University

White supremacy has always been violent, protected and upheld in America’s institutions. This is well documented and we must teach it. The world witnessed yet another example on Jan. 6, 2021.

I believe it’s a good idea for teachers to devote some class time to allow students to share their thoughts, feelings and questions on what they have seen and heard about the insurrection in a way that does not harm students of color. This is also an opportunity to engage students in spotting many racial double standards by having students analyze the media coverage, political rhetoric and law enforcement responses to the Black Lives Matter protests across the nation in 2020, and this unprecedented attack that followed smaller-scale operations at some state capitols.

I do understand that some teachers may be reluctant to address what happened. Those educators need to be honest with themselves about why that is and do the necessary self-reflective work needed to overcome their hesitation.

Teachers also must resist the urge to view what I consider a coup attempt as an isolated incident. Instead, they should place it in a historical context.

Many resources are available. The Zinn Education Project and the Southern Policy Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance initiative, among others, provide lesson plans and resources to learn and teach about racism and white supremacy. For some teachers this is ongoing work, and for others this siege is sure to be a catalyst for change. But progress toward the goal of dismantling white supremacy can happen in K-12 classrooms – if teachers choose to do the critical work that it requires.

Kids are, sadly, familiar with violence

Kyle Greenwalt, associate director of teacher preparation and associate professor of education, Michigan State University

School curriculum and children’s own life experiences both oblige teachers to discuss with their students events like those that happened at the U.S. Capitol.

In Michigan, for example, state standards for kindergarteners require them to consider several important civic ideals. These include the notion that “people do not have the right to do whatever they want” and that democracy requires cooperation as well as “individual responsibility.”

But it’s not only educational standards that make it necessary to teach kids about such events and engage them in related discussions. The reality children face in their daily lives also demands it.

Children and teens are no strangers to disagreement, questions of fairness and, unfortunately, scenes of violence like those we saw in the Capitol. For example, schools commonly have active-shooter drills that can leave children feeling confused, scared or angry. I believe that teachers have a moral responsibility to help students process these experiences.

In a truly democratic society, students are not only taught about democracy but are encouraged to practice it. That is, students are empowered to use what they have learned to engage in civic life outside of the classroom walls.

That’s what happened when students led the March for Our Lives after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. A youthful passion for engagement is also what inspired the Swedish teen Greta Thunberg and a wave of climate strikes.

Young people are capable of showing their elders what it means to live democratically and take care of the common good.

Connect events to the past and the future

Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, director of the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University

Most students today have never seen our elected leaders and political systems work well, let alone live up to America’s constitutional ideals. Many are confused by what they’ve seen, if not angry and traumatized. It’s important for teachers to communicate that all kinds of emotional reactions are valid.

Let students express and process what they feel safely. Do not dehumanize any student because of their opinion – but teach them to always consider the intent and impact of their response. If appropriate, encourage methods like journaling that allow for reflection without sharing.

This is also an opportunity to connect current events with other moments in American history when the nation’s institutions were tested or our leaders fell short in their commitment to core American values.

[Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

Even with younger students, I don’t believe educators should shy away from the fact that some people violated not just social norms but their professional, political and moral duties – and why their actions threaten the health of our republic.

These conversations can enhance students’ understanding of the past and present and inspire a passion to build a better future for all Americans.

Explain what ‘dissent’ is

Sarah Stitzlein, professor of education and affiliate professor of philosophy at University of Cincinnati

I believe teachers should teach students what political dissent is, why it matters to a healthy democracy and how to engage in it.

Ideally with the support of their school administrators and local community, teachers should help students distinguish justified protest from the violent siege that occurred at the Capitol. They should explain how good dissent seeks to understand problems, critiques injustice, sparks discussion between people with different views, bases claims on evidence and employs democratic processes.

Teachers should empower students with the skills of dissent. These include raising awareness, forming persuasive arguments, building coalitions and using critical thinking to challenge misinformation. Students should practice putting forward solutions that can be discussed and tested. Young people should be encouraged to imagine how life can be better in America as a way to build hope with their peers.

It’s important that they realize how dissent and hope together can help strengthen U.S. democracy.The Conversation

David Schonfeld, Director, National Center for School Crisis and Bereavement, University of Southern California; Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, Director, Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement in the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University; Kyle Greenwalt, Associate Professor of Education, Michigan State University; Paula McAvoy, Assistant Professor of Social Studies Education, North Carolina State University; Sarah Stitzlein, Professor of Education and Affiliate Faculty in Philosophy, University of Cincinnati , and Tiffany Mitchell Patterson, Assistant Professor of Secondary Social Studies, West Virginia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, there’s a Tweet quoting Speaker Pelosi in today’s Video Thread which refers to the fact that kids are familiar with violence – a lot more familiar than we give them credit for, and a lot more familiar than is best for them. And that is only one way in which kids are well equipped to handle the truth – and in fact, likely better equipped than many teachers. Any assistance we can get in bringing the truth to our children would be greatly appreciated.

The Furies and I will be back

Share

Everyday Erinyes #248

 Posted by at 10:24 am  Politics
Jan 092021
 

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

I’ve been doing these for a long time – closing in on five years – and, at least for me, it has not been difficult to hang on to outrage. In fact, I’ve often found it a challenge to hang on to anything else. But, as this article points out, the events of this week have created an environment in which, going forward, it will be at least equally necessary to hold on to our vigilance – to our vision, to or “nose,” to our gut feelings, or however you perceive danger. We are not out of the woods yet.
================================================================

‘Once you engage in political violence, it becomes easier to do it again’ – an expert on political violence reflects on events at the Capitol

Protesters forcing their way into the Capitol.
Win McNamee/Getty Images News via Getty Images

Naomi Schalit, The Conversation

Editor’s note: Ore Koren is a scholar of civil conflict and political violence. Before the November 2020 election, he wrote a story for The Conversation about the likelihood of election-related violence in the U.S. So we went back to him on Wednesday, while what some are calling an insurrection unfolded at the U.S. Capitol, to ask him for some perspective on the event. This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: You’re a scholar of political violence. What were you thinking as you watched what’s happened at the U.S. Capitol?

Koren: First of all, I felt pretty stunned. I think that’s a natural response to this. This is a new situation; it shows the power of misinformation and stuff that we’re not really good at dealing with.

My research focuses on organized political violence, which often happens in places where the state does not have much power to prevent violence, where the economy is underdeveloped, where democratic institutions are weak, and where there is a history of organized violence. And usually when we see events at this magnitude, they are accompanied by many casualties, which thankfully was not the case today.

What happened at the Capitol, from what I can tell, was a messy riot where people lashed out at the heart of American democracy, but it remains unclear how organized an effort this was.

Still, it is kind of shocking. We have the biggest economy in the world. Based on what we see in the research, weak economic performance is a strong predictor of organized political violence. The people marching on the Capitol have much more to lose than to gain from this, and to me that’s puzzling.

With an incumbent who has been advocating for a strong law-and-order agenda, many people did not expect this. In a country with a strong domestic security apparatus, militias and vigilantes hurt rather than help in promoting the rule of law.

What separates the U.S. and other advanced and militarily capable democracies from other countries where deadly election violence happens is the ability to wage an effective state response and very quickly implement the rule of law, cracking down on both the perpetrators and any groups they might be affiliated with.

One example of a very effective state response was in Michigan, where the militias plotting to kidnap the state’s governor were quickly apprehended by federal authorities.

Capitol police officers point their guns at a vandalized door, barricaded to prevent entry.
U.S. Capitol police officers point their guns at a door that was vandalized in the House chamber during a joint session of Congress on Wednesday in Washington, D.C.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images News via Getty Images

Q: How does this compare with political violence in countries you’ve studied?

Koren: Compared to other countries, I’m hoping it won’t get to that threshold of being more extreme. A lot of violence actually happens when a party refuses to give away power or a party blames the other for cheating. Well, that’s kind of what we saw happening here, right, one party was blaming the other for cheating. Only here, we had lots of evidence to the contrary, and we had legal and institutional ways of verifying any cheating or lack thereof.

In the U.S., most of the election challenges happened through formal legal channels. The main problem in places where we see violence happen is because they don’t have these kinds of institutions to deal with this, courts, all those things that our legal system can handle. But in countries where such institutions are weak, the state can’t handle that, and can’t address election challenges through a peaceful process. In this case, we see many political leaders, and not only angry citizens, saying those political institutions are not valid.

Also, in other countries, those engaging in such violence are often pro-government militias, but these are not pro-government militias we’re seeing here; as we saw today, they are actively opposing the police.

Q: But what you’ve got in the U.S. is a group of people who actually don’t believe that those institutions handled this, that it’s all corrupt, that it’s all fake and not real and cheating and plots happened. And we’ve had a president saying that.

Koren: Well, you have the president saying he was cheated, but going through the legal channels. The president didn’t just go and say, “OK, let’s go charge the Capitol,” although Wednesday morning’s speech could definitely be interpreted as instigating something like this. Until now, his rhetoric could be considered more about mobilizing support, and trying to create enough reasonable doubt that could then be used to pressure the results through formal channels.

But we do have a very unpredictable incumbent pushing the legal envelope during the worst pandemic in a century. What we’re seeing today, I think, has a lot more to do with his unpredictability and things we can’t account for in models we use to study political violence events. It’s been more than two months since the election and we didn’t see any serious violence until now, but as the legal options closed, the situation became more problematic. We don’t often see election-related violence months after an election.

Protesters enter the Capitol building.
Protesters enter the Capitol building.
Win McNamee/Getty Images News via Getty Images

Q: What do you think this means for the stability of the U.S. government or U.S. elections?

Koren: I’m not an election expert, but it’s a bad precedent. We don’t have a recent history of election violence and, now we can say we do have it, and that’s not a good thing.

What hugely contributed to all of this is misinformation. People mobilized based on a conspiracy with no evidence. I think this is a major problem that has to be addressed – I don’t know how. But it is really crucial to address the underlying problem – that people believe in what they feel is real, not what is real.

Once you engage in political violence, it becomes easier to do it again. But if there’s an effective state response to these events, then it can help strengthen those institutions.

So, I think a lot of people will be saying, look, this is all going to have long-term negative implications. But there’s also a possibility that this can actually help in the long run by showing the grave consequences of manipulating democratic institutions for political gain. Again, it depends on how the state and politicians and security and everybody responds to this. But having a history of political violence is a pretty strong predictor of future violence.

I think it’s really important for federal authorities to show their ability to tackle this. When it comes down to it, the government must show that it can protect American democracy, through force if necessary.

[The Conversation’s most important election and politics headlines, in our Politics Weekly newsletter.]The Conversation

Naomi Schalit, Senior Editor, Politics + Society, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

================================================================
Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, Professor Koren says, “In a country with a strong domestic security apparatus, militias and vigilantes hurt rather than help in promoting the rule of law.” this article does not back that up with evidence, but if someone who has studied this subject as he has says this, you can bet he’s able to back it up. And, if that’s the case, what does that say about the Second Amendment? I do not believe that even the dumbest of out Founders was dumb enough not to realize that as true once there was sufficient evidence.

Interestingly, as you may already have heard from “The Petition Site” (formerly Care2), my old college is doing study on guns and people’s opinions about them. Anyone can participate. Here’s the link.

The Furies and I will be back.

Share
 Older Entries  Newer Entries