Mediaboss Marketing

From left, then-expelled Rep. Justin Pearson, D-Memphis, Rep. Gloria Johnson, D-Knoxville, and then-expelled Rep. Justin Jones, D-Nashville, raise their fists as they walk across Fisk University's campus after hearing Vice President Kamala Harris speak on Friday, April 7, in Nashville, Tenn. Johnson was saved from expulsion by one vote. Pearson and Jones have each been returned to their seats. George Walker IV/AP hide caption

From left, then-expelled Rep. Justin Pearson, D-Memphis, Rep. Gloria Johnson, D-Knoxville, and then-expelled Rep. Justin Jones, D-Nashville, raise their fists as they walk across Fisk University's campus after hearing Vice President Kamala Harris speak on Friday, April 7, in Nashville, Tenn. Johnson was saved from expulsion by one vote. Pearson and Jones have each been returned to their seats.

Both Justins' Jones and Pearson have returned to the Tennessee statehouse. They once again represent the people in Memphis and Nashville who elected them.

However temporary, the expulsion of two Black state legislators was both unprecedented and history repeating itself.

For some, it conjured Julian Bond, the civil rights leader elected to the Georgia house of Representatives in 1965, initially denied his seat by white legislators because of his opposition to the Vietnam War. For others it echoed an earlier moment in Georgia, when in 1868 white legislators expelled all 33 Black lawmakers from the governing body.

Three legislators in Tennessee were on the chopping block. Gloria Johnson, a white woman, was spared expulsion by just one vote. Same behavior. Two different outcomes.

It was a stark example of how threats to democracy are, and have always been, rooted and wrapped up in race and racism, says Khalil Gibran Muhammad, professor of race, history, and public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School.

"This should be yet another wake-up call to Americans who believe in justice, who believe in fairness, who believe in democracy," says Muhammad. "To recognize that our system is fundamentally failing and broken at this moment, and race and racism are the key wedges and levers to pull it apart."

The racist optics of expelling two young Black men and saving the white woman was not lost on Republican legislators, as captured in audio of a private conversation that was leaked to and released by the digital news outlet Tennessee Holler.

In the audio, Republican Rep. Jason Zachary accused fellow Republican Jody Barrett, whose lone vote saved Johnson, of throwing the others under the bus.

"I've listened for the last three days to Democrats trash us as racists," Zachary says in the recording, specifically listing off the names of three Black Democratic legislators. "All I have heard from them is how this is the most racist place, one of them used white supremacy. Good lord, we have to realize they are not our friends," he says.

The idea that being called a racist is the worst thing you can be called especially if you are white is itself a long standing tactic of deflection, says Carol Anderson, chair of African American studies at Emory College.

"Part of what the Civil Rights Movement did was to make 'racism' bad," she says at least the appearance of racism. She says now you get this protest whenever racism is called out, "oh no, you called me a racist." Anderson says this makes it seem as if the real harm is in being called racist, rather than in actual racism.

Take the words of another Republican representative caught on the tape, Scott Cepicky. "I've been called a racist, a misogynist, a white supremacist more in the last two months in my life, than I have in my entire life," he says.

"By golly, I'm biting my tongue," he went on. Referring to the reappointment of Rep. Jones to the legislature, "I'm going to have to swallow this to see Mr. Jones back up here, walking these hallowed halls that the greats of Tennessee stood in, and watch them disrespect this state."

He did not say what words he had to bite his tongue to stifle. He did not mention what phrases or thoughts he was swallowing or what specifically it is about the young Black legislator that disrespects the history of the statehouse.

Only expelling the two Black legislators may have surfaced the racism at work in the Tennessee statehouse, but racism and discrimination were also lurking just beneath, according to political scientists, historians and activists on the ground.

"We've been screaming at the top of our lungs for twenty years that there is deep-seated racism for Black and brown communities here," says Lisa Sherman Luna, executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition.

There was something powerful, she says, about seeing it so blatantly and clearly laid out, for so many to witness.

Put aside which two legislators were temporarily expelled, says Carol Anderson. Instead look at what voters were represented by the three targeted representatives. "Those three legislators represent 'the other,'" she says.

Rep. Justin Pearson's district in Memphis is 61.1 % Black. Rep. Justin Jones' district in Nashville is 30.9 % Black and 24 % Hispanic. Rep. Gloria Johnson's district is 58.2 % Black.

Targeting the three for an apparently minor, at least by comparison, rules violation "is a way of calling them and by extension the votes of the people they represent illegitimate," Anderson says.

This is all part of a larger pattern, says Luna. "We often say we're not a red state, we're a gerrymandered state."

Gerrymandering by Republicans in power has significantly watered down the votes of Black people and other people of color, through redrawn maps that help secure a Republican supermajority, even as the state demographics and politics shift.

"A country that is growing in its majority population of non-whites," Khalil Gibran Muhammad says, "has compelled the Republican Party to engage in unconstitutional practices of one kind or another in an effort to retain and or grab as much power as they can."

Racism was also coursing through the words spoken and the tone taken towards the two young Black legislators, says Carol Anderson. She says the formal rules of the expulsion hearings barely concealed a simmering rage on the part of white legislators.

"White rage is all about putting you back in your place," Anderson says.

"White rage demands that people of color, and women, stay in their place in the racial structure and the patriarchal structure," she says.

Take the way Rep. Andrew Farmer addressed Justin Pearson, his hands shaking with emotion. "Just because you don't get your way, you can't come to the well, bring your friends, and throw a temper tantrum with an adolescent bullhorn," he told Pearson. "It doesn't give you the right to enrage folks that are here."

"That's why you are standing there, because of that temper tantrum that day, that yearning to have attention, well you're getting it now," he said to the young Black man.

What Pearson wanted, he told Farmer in response, was to be able to speak for his constituents, many of them young people who had descended onto the state capitol after yet another mass shooting, to demand that politicians do something about gun violence.

"He called a peaceful protest a temper tantrum," Pearson said. "Is elevating our voices for justice or change a temper tantrum?"

The real offense, Pearson said, was not in breaking the rules of decorum. The real offense was that "we asserted our dignity as equal members of this body who you would rather have silenced, who you would rather not hear, who you would rather have back somewhere else, instead of up here as your equal."

Their real offense, according to Pearson, was they refused to assimilate.

The unwritten rules of assimilation to a space that had been run by, and for, mostly white men, was not just raised in the conversations between the young Black activists and white Republicans. It also came up in an exchange between Rep. Justin Jones and an Indian American Republican, Rep. Sabi Kumar.

"You look at everything through the lens of race," Kumar said to Jones. "Those are your experiences, and that's perfectly understandable. But sincerely, after becoming elected, you should be celebrating. You really should be. You should join the House, become one of us."

"That's what this is really about," Jones said in response, that he should "just assimilate."

"This is a very old and effective strategy of evoking a model minority myth where people should be grateful for access" to power, says Harvard's Muhammad.

The suggestion is that proximity to power is enough, that "people of color should come in and follow the rules, but the truth is, the rules were stacked against them from the beginning."

Both Pearson and Jones, alongside other Black legislators have spoken up about being systemically silenced on the statehouse floor. They have said it was either break the rules, or never be allowed to speak at all.

Rather than forcefully filtering everything through the lens of race, Muhammad says, "race always matters," even when people who are Black and brown deny its pervasive power.

Kumar also accused Jones of calling him a "brown face." He said that it was the first time he had ever encountered a racial slur in his 53 years in America.

"I told you what you just exhibited as the only member of their caucus who is not of the Caucasian persuasion," Jones clarified in response. "I said that you put a brown face on white supremacy."

As for never hearing a racial slur, Jones pointed out that just a few weeks prior, another Republican representative "recommended that we should bring back lynching." Jones was referring to Rep. Paul Sherell's comments that the death penalty should include "hanging by tree."

Lynching was a form of racial terror that was used extensively throughout the South to kill and control Black people.

For Lisa Sherman Luna, whose organization, TIRRC, worked to register and turn out voters of color in Tennessee, what is happening in the state shows the great extremes Republicans are willing to go to establish what she calls "white minority rule."

"The rest of the country should be very deeply alarmed, because this is 100% the blueprint for tackling the vision that we have of our multiracial pluralistic democracy," she says.

It may be a blueprint for an anti-democratic push to maintain power, especially white power, but what is happened in Tennessee is also a blueprint for something else. That is, if you believe the words of Justin Pearson, spoken in his defense on the floor of the Tennessee legislature.

"The news for you and for every member in this legislative body is that this country is changing in magnificent ways," he told the body. "That the diversity of the state of Tennessee is changing in magnificent ways, that the voices and the people who are protesting aren't just Black folk, it ain't just white folk, ain't just rich folk or poor folk," Pearson said.

"It is a multiracial coalition built on a solidarity dividend that can break any institution that refuses to change."

More here:
Power, race, and fragile democracy in Tennessee - NPR

Opinion

The settlement, though disappointing, provides at least a measure of accountability

Wed 19 Apr 2023 05.08 EDT

As opening arguments neared on Tuesday afternoon, even the most hardened skeptics might have found themselves thinking the impossible was actually going to happen: the corrosive lies of Fox News would go on trial, Rupert Murdoch would be forced to the witness stand, and positive societal change might result.

American democracy, which has been teetering on the brink in recent years would be pulled back from the precipice, at least by a few crucial feet.

After all, the jury of six men and six women had been seated in Dominion Voting Systems defamation suit against Fox News.

The judge had delivered his warnings to stay away from news reports as they heard arguments and testimony. And hundreds of reporters had packed a Wilmington, Delaware, courtroom and its overflow room, ready to settle in for the next six weeks of juicy revelations.

Then the hammer fell with a sudden announcement that the sides had agreed to settle, something that had seemed almost inevitable from the start.

Yes, the amount was a huge one $787.5m but it still felt like a below-the-belt blow to those of us who care about truthful reporting and the role of a responsible press in American society.

Dominions lawyers who, after all, work for a for-profit company whose majority owner is a private-equity firm based in New York tried to spin it their way.

Money is accountability, one said. Today represents a ringing endorsement for truth. Funny how much that ringing must sound uncannily like a cash register for a company whose 2022 revenue had been projected at roughly $98m. The settlement is nearly eight times that amount.

As a longtime critic of Fox, and as someone who cares deeply about the role of a truth-telling media in our democracy, I wanted to see the case proceed. But Im not surprised that it didnt. And I never thought that even a verdict for the full damages of $1.6bn would put the hugely profitable cable network out of business or make any lasting difference in how it functions.

And, after all, as one first amendment expert, the author and University of Tennessee professor Stuart Brotman told me on Tuesday, the reputational damage [to Fox] was already done. The pre-trial filings panicky emails and text messages from executives and hosts about going too heavy with the truth about the election demonstrated that Foxs highest priority was keeping its Trump-loving audience happy, not communicating the inconvenient facts about Joe Bidens election.

Brotman also notes that a trial was risky. We live in a political universe that defies gravity, and its hard to say what would have resulted. After all, Trump was arraigned on felony charges and his poll numbers went up. Impeachment meant more successful fundraising. And Fox News on trial might well further endear the network to its dedicated audience who dont get outside their information bubble much.

Whats more, juries are notoriously unpredictable. Anything can happen, which is why settlement however painful is so often the outcome.

Losing a lot of money hurts, Brotman noted, especially so when a second, somewhat similar trial is coming up on Dominions heels the one filed by Smartmatic USA scheduled to be tried soon in New York. (Smartmatic seeks even more money than Dominion $2.7bn in damages, claiming that Fox News hurt the companys reputation by lying about how its technology was used in the 2020 election.)

The only thing that could make a real difference in Foxs fortunes is something very far away from a Delaware courtroom. Thats a consumer-driven change in the way big cable providers pay the carriage fees that are the main source of Foxs revenue. The liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America is working to make that happen, but it will be an uphill climb.

Meanwhile, nothing has changed. The publics memory is short. There will be no apology required as part of the settlement, pointless as that would have been. Fox is already back to bragging about their continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards, which would be funny if it werent so tragic.

If Dominion really cared about serving the publics interest, they wouldnt have settled this case without at least the symbol of a required on-air apology.

But the huge price tag maybe the biggest ever in a defamation case and the appalling findings from the pre-trial filings provide at least some measure of accountability.

They are, after all, those interesting things we call facts. And we cant un-know them.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

See the article here:
Dominions suit exposed how Fox damages democracy with its lies - The Guardian

Former South Korean business minister Young-sun Park and social media CEO Will Hohyon Ryu discussed potential applications of artificial intelligence to democracy during a talk at Harvard Kennedy School Tuesday.

The event hosted by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation in collaboration with the Harvard Korea Institute was moderated by Jeeyang Rhee Baum, an adjunct lecturer at HKS. The discussion centered on the large language model ChatGPT, Ryus social media platform OXOpolitics, and AI in general.

More than 50 people attended the event, which was held in the Kennedy Schools Land Hall.

Park, South Koreas former minister of small and medium enterprises and startups and a fellow at the Rajawali Foundation Institute for Asia, opened the event with a discussion of the concept of liquid democracy, a form of direct democracy where voters can directly weigh in on policy decisions or choose to delegate their vote to a representative.

Liquid democracy empowers direct participation, Park said.

Many democracies are currently experiencing crises of polarization, according to Park. In nations like the U.S. and South Korea, stark divisions between the political left and right mean that politics are not representing the voice of all the public, she said, sparking dissatisfaction with politicians and systems of representation.

To address this, Park said, governments should turn to new advances in technology to make politics more representative. By facilitating direct communication among the people and convergence of the peoples opinion, technology can supplement the shortcomings of representative democracy.

Ryu, the OXOpolitics founder, said a shortcoming of representative democracy is the middlemen who stand between the voters and their representatives.

Its not always the case that my representatives words really represent me, Ryu said.

Park said AI can complement representatives, synthesizing voters opinions in an accessible way.

AI is the most efficient way to make the direct democracy possible, Park said.

For example, Park discussed how a South Korean startup recently used ChatGPT to compile citizens views on South Koreas relationship with Japan filtering through hundreds of thousands of online posts to create a comprehensive summary of public opinion.

This system opened a new possibility for determining politics widely by analyzing the opinion of the conservatives and progressives in less [than] one minute, she said. This is the first step to getting closer to digital democracy.

Similarly, Ryu said he developed the social media platform OXOpolitics to connect voters directly to politicians. The platform collects users opinions on political issues and visualizes the data for politicians to see.

Ryu said OXOpolitics is a form of liquid democracy because it allows each individual to weigh in on political issues themselves.

Imagine theres an AI that understands me better than myself, he said. We are trying to bring AI-assisted liquid democracy into reality.

Ryu acknowledged, however, the dangers of introducing artificial intelligence into political systems.

We are doing a really dangerous thing, he said. Bringing AI not human intelligence but artificial intelligence to politics is potentially disruptive.

Park argued that developers can avoid these dangers by upholding five ethical principles: transparency, safety, responsibility, fairness, and goodwill. Ryu agreed that it is important to hold AI ethically accountable.

We can follow AIs recommendations, but ultimately, humans still have the responsibility as citizens to make the right decisions, he said.

To ensure that algorithms make beneficial decisions for the public, Ryus platform includes an explanation of where the algorithms recommendations come from.

With transparency, you can trust AI, he said.

In the end, Ryu said, AI is just a tool whose users must decide how it contributes to democracy.

AI could be a dictator that tells us what to do, Ryu said. But the same time, it can be a representative.

See more here:
Technology Experts Discuss Role of AI in Democracy at Harvard ... - Harvard Crimson

Brazilian senator Humberto Costa recalls the successes of participatory budgeting, where everyday Brazilians met to decide portions of their local government budgets, and why it needs to implemented widely once again. Courtesy of AP Newsroom.

by Humberto Costa|April19,2023

What are the obstacles and opportunities facing democracy today? Zcalo is publishing aseries of letters to highlight how the worlds democratic ideals are faring in practice. From Brazil: Senator Humberto Costa writes about the efforts to re-mobilize one of his nations signature democratic ideas: participatory budgeting.

One of the worlds great democratic innovations is about to make a big comeback in the place where it was invented: my country, Brazil.

And the story of that innovations rise, fall, and revitalization offers lessons for the world.

Participatory budgeting was a creation of Brazil, first introduced in Porto Alegre in 1990. Under participatory budgeting, everyday Brazilians met and decided themselves how to spend portions of their local government budgets. The meetings and debates were not easy work, but people liked having the power. So, the idea spread quickly to other cities, with the support of the Workers Party, of which I was a member.

At the time, the Workers Party was out of power nationally, but counted many mayors and state governors in our ranks. Participatory budgeting was part of our efforts to engage more Brazilians where they live.

In the 2000s, I saw participatory budgeting firsthand in Recife, my own city, the capital of the northeastern province of Pernambuco. We used it extensively at the neighborhood level, so people could set priorities for spending and choose specific projects they wanted to pursue.

I was in government at the timeworking on health mattersand we were intrigued and often surprised by the choices people made. In many situations, we assumed people had one set of priorities, but that found criteria were totally different when we actually asked them to make a decision.

One of the worlds great democratic innovations is about to make a big comeback in the place where it was invented: my country, Brazil.

In one example, we thought that a group of neighborhoods might prioritize building a public health office, or clinic. But through a participatory budgeting process, the people of the neighborhoods indicated that they actually wanted something different: an extension of an existing program called City Gym that provided space for recreation and exercise.

Constructing a city gym gave them a place to go to pursue their health, to run and walk, and to meet friends. The citizens also wanted exercise equipment. Participatory budgeting gave them the power to get what they wanted. It also seemed to improve healthreducing stress and diabetes risk. An international evaluation recommended the City Gym program to other countries.

Watching participatory budgeting in process, those of us working in public health learned that we had to listen to people. We expanded other programs that citizens told us they wanted, like the Family Health Program, a national program team composed by doctors and taking in consideration and they offer primary care. We also learned that we had to talk to people more often, if we were going to convince them to prioritize spending on an area we wanted to promote.

Participatory budgeting was such a success in Brazils local communities that it spread around the world, to more than 11,000 communities, according to an atlas that documents the process. Participatory budgeting processes have won many awards for innovation and engagement.

But in Brazil, its birthplace, the process has declined in use. What happened? There was resistance from officials who didnt want to cede power to people, or found setting up the process to be challenging. My partys priorities changed. As we won presidential elections and took power nationally, we lost interest in city hall and state government.

That was an enormous mistake. When participatory budgeting declined, the people became less engaged and less organized. And that meant that when the far right gained power, the people were not mobilized to resist. Democracy is something that requires practice.

The Workers Party has just won the presidency again. But this time, we are not repeating our mistake. Im now a senator, and participatory budgeting and democratic programs like it are a big part of what were working on.

Indeed, our new president, Lula, is preparing a participatory budgeting program for the nation. Its an important topic in discussions at the federal government level, where we hope to apply it to four-year planning budgets.

Id like to see it used more broadly also to make decisions in each state, and in municipalities. Such participation could help set priorities for addressing many issues, including health, education, and public security.

It wont be easy to create this process at the national level. It will take some time. But its an important step. Its time to re-mobilize this signature Brazilian idea so that Brazilians can again set their own priorities, and make their own decisions about the future.

Link:
A Letter From Brazil: Where a Great Democracy Invention Is Making ... - zocalopublicsquare.org

Ive avoided writing this essay for at least three years but my stomach gnaws.

My town, an epitome of rural America, boasts not one but two January 6, 2021 insurrectionists. And for the noisy oneHank Munzer, its always a boast. He introduces himself that way.

The other insurrectionist, years younger, comes from an ostensibly Christian family as his father was and is a preacher. I dont think he preaches the gospel of love. This younger man sang tenor with me in the college choir one year. His sister cleaned our house for a few years and ended up running an orphanage in Kenya. In our town brewery this man, in his thirties, when asked about his career aspirations, said something like Id like to be a mercenary soldier.

He keeps his head down awaiting his court case.

Not so Hank, whose business shop lines our towns main north-south street. He was arrested about a week after the Capital riot and charged with one felony count and four misdemeanors, two of those disorderly or disruptive conduct. Among other things he was accused of recording videos inside the Capitol. Six days later he posted those on Facebook. That fact alone evidences his online dependency. Did he know or care about legality? He thinks he did nothing wrong and only exercised free speech.

He was arraigned then released on bailhe grins in his orange prison suitand then he got to work on his business building in Dillon.

Hank was supposed to go to trial in August 2022 but now theres been another half-year postponement. Hes wanted a change of venue but will be tried in Washington D.C. He prefers to represent himself rather than use a lawyer. That fact suggests the level of his self-righteous zealotry or his narcissistic personality disorder. Or both.

Meanwhile, he enjoys local notoreity. He even ran for city council and garnered dozens of votes. Whose sick joke is that? Exactly whom in rural America is he speaking for? One flavor of rural America consists of a range of deep resentments; above all, resentment of the federal government. Nothing new here, given the long history of agricultural subsidies and dependencies.

In some regards, my town, as a breeding ground for insurrectionists, represents just the latest expression of rural resentment signified earlier by the Sagebrush Rebellionremember its shovel brigade, with many shovels trucked from my state?or, more recently, the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge takeover by Cliven and Ammon Bundy, ongoing loose cannons?

What has my town become? In this milieu of noise and anger, when rudeness reigns unchecked, how many of us will change whats happened?

Why are most of us enslaved to social mediathe origin story herenot recognizing and diffusing their role in our unravelling? Hank is an epitome and product of social media through which his crazy voice assumes outsize proportions. Now, were drowning as fringe voices infect and debase public discourse.

This guy has received plenty of press since his arrest. His version of what unrolled at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 sounds like a child marveling at a fairy tale in which hes participating. He claims he travelled all the way to the Capitol to meet Trump though, of course, Trump wasnt allowed to go, throwing a temper tantrum in his limo-SUV.

Hank has been in our town for some years and even repaired our washing machine or connected our new dishwasher. On the latter occasion, he chatted on his bluetooth most of the time. He acts affable, garrulous.

How long ago did he start trolling alt-right chat rooms? Maybe hed turned into a MAGA-head before that disastrous acronym became commonplace. What combination of ignorance and disposition and random events led to his fantastic convictions? Through sundry platforms he found fellow true believers and discovered deep solidarity.

In the press, hes all innocence: At the time I didnt know what was going on, but looking back it almost seemed like it was a trap they opened the doors.

Really? Happened to be breaking in but knowing nothing? They opened doors? Theres that unspecified plural pronoun again. The key note here is paranoia, a QAnon homebase. His rendition contradicts every account Ive studied about that day of infamy. Hank continues in a passive vein that denies any agency on the part of the mob: No one ever asked us to leave or exit the building; its like we were turned on, suddenly.

The depth of delusion takes ones breath away.

Hanks most stunning disclaimer: He acted without malice and claims he doesnt support violence against anyone. People like this repeat these lies to reassure themselves and, in their delusion, persuade themselves theyre proselytizing others.

This includes victimhood as a core ingredient. One of the most pernicious consequences of alt-right chatrooms, for example, concerns the proliferation of victimhood. The sometimes indeterminate they act in ways and with consequences that seemingly constrain or harm mea seductive, even irresistible mode of auto-suggestion, no matter how far-fetched.

The symbiosis of their fault and poor me depends depends upon an unformed, unchecked egotism. In rural U.S., its a knee-jerk inheritance to rant against the feds, to pose as the little guy tilting against big government. Of course the feds prove a primary employer via federal land agencies, its no surprise to admit.

The brand of victimhood in the ascendant is also reinforced by our towns setting. Out here in the boondocks, some locals harbor every possible resentment against urban- and suburbanitesthey who include most the population and more political power. Long subject to satiric treatment and neglect, rural America, whether aging white or more, is more pissed off than ever about chronic disregard or dismissal among stakeholders in the contemporary U.S. Even in our rural state, something like 80% of us now live in or near six to eight cities (those with 30,000 or more).

The current rural malaise includes an agrarian longing, however suspect: A hearkening back more than a century when many more Americans were rural rather than urban. In residual rural pockets, folks typically have less broadband width and less high-speed access. It could be argued that in the post-Internet world, the neglect or stigmatization of rural U.S. accelerates. After all, most all our Internet cues come from suburbs or cities. Folks on the farm or ranch or in the two-traffic light town already feel that, increasingly, they dont fit along the spectrum of contemporary fashions and feel than ever more removed from sites of power and prestige. Angry and depressed about economic disjunction and ongoing disregard, they easily slip on the clothes of victimhood. And they seek and seize upon scapegoating targets.

In the pathology of victimhood, its also easy to adopt a David-vs.-Goliath stance, particularly when Goliath owns considerable tracts of landpublic lands, a great legacy but beyond any local control. Or when wealthy out-of-staters arrive, moving into something big, whether temporarily or permanently, and paying cash. Lots of cash.

Another likely source of MAGA victimhood in contemporary rural America derives from this political truth: Our votes hardly matter. At the federal level, our votes (electoral college or otherwise) dont add up to much and weve so few Representatives. At the state level, delegations representing about half a dozen cities wield most political clout. Where does that leave rural U.S.?

A generation ago, one national politician described our state as hyper rural. You know the feeling? My county, larger than Connecticut, boasts about 9,000 residents and few traffic lights. Most Americans cant imagine or understand or appreciate such a mode of life. Many pass through but few would choose to stay. In pockets like mine, its an unimaginable distance to D.C. or New Yorkother countries.

Why should D.C. call the shots about public lands right here, for instance? What do they know at ground level? And so it goes, more Beltway rants.

In his spot-on analysis of my state, Fifty-Six Counties, novelist Russell Rowlanddefines a fierce love of the land or their families or their country characteristic, I believe, of rural Americans: They love until it makes them blind, until they feel the need to barricade themselves against anything that threatens that love.

That circling-the-wagons mentality against ostensible outside threats, a species or xenophobia and denial, results in destructive conduct: So we drink. We kill ourselves. We throw our sinking self-image out onto those around us, sometimes in violent, ugly ways, and we decide that our problems are everyone elses fault, and that if they would go away, or act more like we do, or learn to think more like we think, then we would feel better.

In such soil grows the Hankss of rural communities. After all, they are out to get us, right? And rural problems come from elsewhere, according to this self-delusion.

This toxic combination of ignorance, victimhood, naivet, and auto-hypnosis, now commonplace, would remain minuscule but for alt-right media platforms.

The paint job on Hanks business building proves his lie as it is far more than an eyesore; as a calculated act of visual violence, it repels many of us and, according to one local realtor, dissuades occasional prospects who considered moving here. One friend told me she no longer drives on this main street; another said she chants ahole, ahole, ahole every time she rides by. The city council does nothing because of Freds ostensible First Amendment protections.

My stomach used to cramp as I passed but in more recent seasons, Ive grown numb, pretending to ignore this bizarre paint job. Most townspeople do their best to ignore it. Ive never seen a building, graffitied or otherwise, like this one anywhere.

For example, on its south side theres a large image of a sheeps head (black), its mouth gagged with a red bandanna. Above the image, in block letters, MIND CONTROL DEVICE and underneath that, prodded by an arrow in larger block letters, SHEEP NO MORE. Presumably its an allusion to William Lederers long ago A Nation of Sheep.

Actually, now were more a nation of sheep than ever, and some know why. Who are the sheep now? Hanks answer diametrically opposes that of the majority.

To the right we read a quotation from Martin Luther King, Jr., who would likely be surprised to be included here: NOTHING IN ALL / THE WORLD IS / MORE DANGEROUS / THAN SINCERE / IGNORANCE AND / CONSCIENTIOUS / STUPIDITY. This strikes me as one unintentionally accurate self-description of Fred and the swelling tribe of conspiracy theorists.

Below this proclamation, again in block lettering, four mottos: THOSE THAT FEAR HAVE NOT BEEN / MADE PERFECT IN LOVE followed by GOODBYE HOSPITAL ADMIN. / CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY followed by TYRANNY NEVER ENDS WITH / COMPLIANCE OR SUBMISSION / THIS IS WAR, and closing, in deeper black paint, THOSE THAT TRADE LIBERTY FOR / SECURITY DESERVE NEITHER. It would take too long to unpack this unruly collage, a stunning jumble of juxtapositions.

The east and north facades reveal quotations from JFK and George Bush, Sr., and insinuate many linkages between Kennedys assassination and the previous president and his Big Lie regarding the 2020 election. Perhaps the most subversive note concerns the visual linkages between our foundational We The People doctrine and QAnon dogma.

Kevin Roose of The New York Times posted an article (Sept. 3, 2021) anatomizing QAnons genesis, growth, and appeal. QAnon, a cancer thats metastasized from fringe to mainstream, perpetuates lies about a range of topics via YouTube. The core lie, posted by some troll (Q) in October 2017, breezily flourishes far beyond what is meant by crackpot: A group of Satan-worshipping elites who run a child sex ring are trying to control our politics and media.

Say what?

Hard to know where to start among these glaring, primitive fears: Satan worship, pedophilia, or this global cabal that includes Democrat leaders, left-wing Hollywood trendsetters. Even the Dalai Lama and Pope Francis make the list of villains.

The Storm, a species of fast-forward end time, refers to the near-future event when Trump returns to power and unleashes this vague cabal, punishing its members and bringing them to justice.

It turns out QAnon attracts a diverse constituency, not just crazy libertarians or fearful evangelical Christians. According to Roose, a December 2020 poll suggests that 17% of Americans subscribe to QAnon. Among Republicans its a higher percentage. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have ostensibly removed thousands of accounts and blocked a lot of QAnon content, which of course only feeds the miasma of persecution and paranoia that defines these True Believers.

How has this crazed fantasy moved onto the radar screen within two to three years? Loose analyzes QAnon as both a social community and a source of entertainment. These claims worry me all the more though Im unsurprised. QAnon functions in some regards as a cult, a fringe online church community with all the predictable bonding. Cults sustain a sense of solidarity, exclusivity and privilege through ongoing proselytizing and reinforcement protocols. Deep State true believers believe they know more than rest of us and revel in the difference.

Im even more struck by QAnons fundamental texture of online gaming, as most posts involve some decoding as though this cults cryptic communications attest to a privileged arcana of knowledgelets call it a pseudo-cabal. No doubt the element of gaming underlines this cults sense of exclusivity. You know, like a series of secret passwords that permit entrance into the speakeasy. Above Freds front window we read, TRUST THE PLAN / WWG1WGA.

I grew up a gullible lad but adulthood and education thickened my skin. In the world according to Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok, what does adulthood look like? QAnon appears only a ripe instance of a young childs gullibility, a cancer growth of online addiction. Gullibility, like clinical depression, has reached epidemic proportions well before COVID-19. Do social media fuel it or are there other lead causes?

Here in the sticks resentment against the feds remains a hoary, inherited creed, however unfounded and dubious. That tradition provides a welcoming micro-climate for conspiracy theories to flourish because for some, the wagons keep circling.

Weve been warned repeatedly.

Social historian Sherry Turkles books carefully plot the online invasion and subsequent evisceration of stable identity and erosion of actual, physical communities. One of her titles captures the potent paradox occasioned by social media, Alone Together. Its old news that social media diffuses ones identity and allows Freuds id, a red zone, to take charge: No filters so the spontaneous overflow of powerful anger and rudeness never need be recollected in tranquility.

Being virtually together reinforces, in myriad insidious ways, our burden of being increasingly alone. Besides, being angry together, online or in front of Fox News, feeds our dopamine, a craving marking addiction. Her subtitleWhy We Expect MORE from Technology and LESS from Each Otherperfectly forecasts our common unravelling well before the 2016 Presidential election with its reality TV star. This book deeply depressed me as I knew most would never heed her prophetic voice.

Turkles more recent book, Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age measures the depths of our decline and makes one poignant read. Turkle argues what many online addicts have forgotten, that the pathway out of alone leads us back into physical interaction via conversation. The art of conversation, however risky or messy, reminds us of what human beings have always done besides eating, making love, and killing.

Jeff Orlowskis documentary, Our Social Dilemma, also sounds the warning about the subversive dominance of the mega-platforms in our lives. Were all at the mercy of algorithmsand this is no conspiracy theory, its current mega-business according to Behaviorism 101. This film should be required watching for anyone creating or using social media.

In recent decades, published research directly correlates social media addiction with clinical depression. Some mental health professionals believe that clinical depression represents the fifth vital sign health care providers should monitor.

Why do conspiracy theory platforms proliferate? Inside that house, safely online no matter the gross distortion of or disconnect from actuality, some find and fasten onto various pseudo-brother- or sisterhoods. And group victimhood. In these spaces, inhibitions drop away and gullibility reigns and more dopamine is released. For some, the more incredulous the claims, the more eagerly theyre grasped. Such essential human modes as introspection or sustained reflection, like listening, disappear. What has ever happened to critical thinking, a traditional hallmark of being educated and adult?

Some poor bastard out there can even hatch a fantasy linking two taboosSatan worship and pedophilia and sexual predationwith a vague plot centrally casting the worst President in our history. Its all easy under a big expanding tent.

Lets return to my hometown with this sore on one of its main streets. Hanks convictions belong in an alternate reality. He loves the attention, shies away from no microphone or camera, and apparently knows more about most subjects than the rest of us. Ive heard him holding forth. In front of his building he displayed a F Biden sign until one city council member pressured him to remove it.

Zealots of the Big Lie are dangerous whether in Congress or on a main street in rural America. And the extreme right-winger strategy focuses upon local elections school boards, county commissioners or health officers, above all. Hank, who believes he can best represent himself in his trial, thinks hell beat all charges and then file and win a civil lawsuit: They are going to pay me a huge premium for this.

Does anyone else share his roseate lenses? No narcissism here, right? Theres that vague pesky they again, default mode for conspiracy theorists.

For more than two years Hank parked his Trump truck by his front door on public property: A smaller version of his buildings decor, blue with prominent white lettering. On one corner in smaller lettering, an offensively crude jingle: Joe & The Hoe Gotta Go. Serious confusion, and not just about the Civil War and Emancipation Proclamation. Who is speaking for Whom?

Remember Hank harbors no malice and opposes violence. Ive never seen this truck move, though presumably it rides slowly with a few other vehicles on Fridays after 5:30. Like other residents, Ive driven past on a Friday later afternoon, watched a few pickups and overweight men, usually menyou know, Carhartts snug, burly if not beardedrally around. The truck train then drives slowly and makes noise on residential streets. Does anyone pay attention? Whose First Amendments rights are being infringed here?

And you know how our nation flags been appropriated. This weekly event feels like a tiny fringe group and the phallic symbolismthose fluttering erect flagsfeels sophomoric or worse.

Most in my town ignore or dismiss him, despite a noisy, sympathetic fringe. From inside his bubble, he exaggerates his influence. Yet the truck remained, another act of visual violence. Is he tolerated due to apathy?

Turns out the truck is illegal because its one giant political sign. According to Montana law(18.6.246, POLITICAL SIGNS), section one states Signs promoting political candidates is used shall be placed on private property only. Section two reads, in part, Political signs must not be placed on or allow any portion to intrude in the public right-of-way or on public property. That includes sidewalks and streets. Further, Political signs must be removed with 14 days following the applicable election.

So whats the deal here?

Unsurprisingly perhaps, this section of code requires local enforcement and our city council and police department chose not to enforce the code, and get this glaring screed off the streets. Why not? Why have local officials willfully ignored state law and, as it turns out, municipal code as well? Do they think Hank commands more support than he does? This apathy and failure reflect fragile democracy at a local level.

Our states lead human rights organization has long tracked extreme rightwing fringe groups in and out of our region. It has provided webinars on Harassment, Discrimination, Intimidation and disseminated a Rapid Response Guide for Hate Incidents. Their research documents not only armed paramilitary groups but aggressive actions to influence local elections. Since COVID-19, county health officers have found themselves a bullseye for these outfits and those swayed by them.

Bullying has no place in a healthy democracy yet weve witnessed endless displays, online and on the ground, at every level. Thats no surprise given the role modeling of the past half dozen years and more.

January 6 insurrectionists need jail time.

I cant swallow the lethargy of millions while fringe groups migrate inward. What differences exist between our current House of Representatives and the Reichstag in 1933? Have we forgotten the consequences of Josef Goebbels, in the late 1930s, repeatedly denouncing Die Juden as vermin? What are the differences between vermin or woke labelling?

Read more:
Essay: The rural rotting of democracy Daily Montanan - Daily Montanan