The way for this scamming was paved by the 2010 Citizens United ruling, and reinforced by continued GOP opposition that blocked repairing our nation's broken campaign finance laws. Transparency is a joke. Citing its misguided label of 'free speech", a majority of Supreme Court justices will most likely block reform that could shine a bright light on these rip-offs.
Trump was the racist religious extremist Right's trial balloon - hot air buffoon - for repurposing a democratic republic as a clerical fascist state.
Their (Koch, Mercer, Corkery, Scaife, Seide et al) useful man is Leonard Leo. His network funneling dark money from dodgy donors through dubious corporations to antidemocratic causes. The specious Federalist Society rhetoric of originalism/textualism turning the Constitution on its head to drain justice out of American law. (While retaining judicial procedure to end equality before the law and equal representation.)
And now Leo funded groups filing amicus briefs in favor of the 'independent legislature theory' before the Roberts Court Federalist Society majority. Had this theory - which removes state constitution checks and balances from state regulation of federal elections - been in effect in 2020, then GOP gerrymandered state legislatures could have unilaterally given their state electoral votes to Trump.
An amicus brief expose by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Henry (Hank) Johnson (including research by TrueNorth's Lisa Graves)
Thanks for this link. For years Sheldon Whitehouse has been harshly criticizing the Roberts Court. His presentation in Senate Judiciary during Amy Coney Barrett's hearings was fantastic. He was able to show that $34 million was spent for her seat by money laundering. I noticed that none of the Rs on the committee challenged him about it afterwards. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjcXVKg43qY
Yes, lin, the “good ole boys” networks are set up for interpretive law, not legislative. It’s their way or the highway, but you already know that. Anything to screw with the little people.
I've watched this video several times. Sen. Whitehouse is a powerhouse. He has been following the Supreme Court for a long time, and calling out their dark money.
Yes. I watch Senate Judiciary hearings just so I can listen to/watch him. Gosh, I'll never forget the one, I think it was in early March 2021, when Christopher Wray was summoned before that committee about Jan. 6. Sen. Whitehouse laid into him for all the sins he had committed during the Trump times, including his failure to include Senate Judiciary Dems in conferences in which classified info was being passed to the Rs on the committee.
And something else Sen. Whitehouse talks about is the fact that SCOTUS has no code of ethics, including but not limited to recusing themselves when clearly they should be doing just that, for example Justice Thomas. I understand that the law for all federal judges/justices is that this is an individual decision. Much that is in our political and legal system relies on good will. I don't know anything about the subject, but I assume there've always been problems with individuals, at least every now and again. What I can't say, though, is whether or not the problem has always been as serious with SCOTUS as it is now.
Thank you for your cogent analysis of The Big Steal. I so appreciate your substack. Respect from a fellow historian who is inspired by your work and your activism!
The lack of accountability is staggering. All of this happened in plain sight. And now, two years later, the foxes are in the hen house mucking up Congress. In. Plain. Sight. Voting matters.
As you’ve described Trump supporters (not his co-conspirators who were fully aware the Big Lie was indeed a lie) were manipulated and scammed into truly believing the election was stolen. Millions of them donated their hard earned money and hundreds of them participated in storming the Capitol on Jan 6. One can almost feel sorry for them. It appears many of them may actually be held accountable for the damage they did as a result of being manipulated. But the master manipulator continues to get off scot-free as well of accept their money to this day!! Given that many of these folks, indeed almost any person who has been scammed and taken advantage of, will not or cannot admit they were scammed, what can the rest of us do to prevent their continued dangerous activities? They’ve been brainwashed. Can they be re-programmed? And if so how? Whenever I try to even gently share actual facts, with deluded family members and/or friends, I am invariably met with resistance, anger, and an unwillingness to accept the truth. I’m kind of at a loss. And given the current chaos of the House of Representatives and the right wing loaded SCOTUS, I don’t see any legislative solutions on the horizon. I fear and worry our democracy is slipping through our fingers and we don’t have many effective, non-violent, legal paths to stop it.
You ask: "… what can the rest of us do to prevent their continued dangerous activities? They’ve been brainwashed. Can they be re-programmed? And if so how?"
This is indeed the billion-dollar question for the future. We see people being brainwashed, then becoming apparently ineducable, their abilities for learning new things having been frozen in time.
The lasting effect of indoctrination on young children is well documented and broadly understood: "Give me a child before the age of seven, and I will show you the man". Religions have historically been famous for this sort of thing. Moulding of vulnerable young souls.
But here we are dealing with adults, and this a different problem. The main phenomenon resembling Trumpist political indoctrination of adults today appears to be the new uncontrolled pentecostal evangelism which repeatedly takes a dark turn in latter-day pseudo-Christian cults. Here preachers need no licence, are required to take no qualifying studies, are subject to no external constraints. Anyone can get up, claim they have found Jesus, and start a "church". Free to fundraise without limits or guidelines, these preachers regularly apply extreme illegitimate moral pressure on congregants to donate or be regarded as a sinner: "step up to the plate or be damned!". This exclusive authoritarian mandate then frequently becomes embroiled in sexual misconduct. The pattern of impure revelation taking over a personality is all too familiar in the field of religion.
The good news here is, effective deprogramming techniques have been developed to deal with cult victims and bring them back into the world of normal reality.
Related to religious cult deprogramming are the activities of secular organisations such as the CIA which have developed methods to deal with political cults such as Islamic jihadism or far-right fascist Christian groups.
The problem we still have is that these deprogramming techniques work with individuals, not groups. We are left with the phenomenon of mass brainwashing conveyed through the internet and damaging the consciousness/conscience of millions. Globalised, and hence deracinated from race or culture to some extent, the effects of these internet brainwashers are hugely difficult to deal with simply because of the scope of their activity.
I see no other option but to implement strict regulation of online activity without delay. Mass activity and influencing requires mass regulation and enforced ethical guidelines.
In my view, the unspoken assumption of Zuckerberg, Musk and likeminded entrepreneurs, that no regulation means everyone behaving nicely in freedom, because basically we're all nice guys, evinces a staggering immaturity, biased towards a warped, all-too-frequent male difficulty with sharing and real "we-consciousness" and an intellectual inability to understand what "freedom" actually means.
So we need regulation specifically of untrammelled masculinist individualism purveyed over the internet. Benefits for the "I" must be balanced with benefits for the "we". As someone said in response to Snyder's previous article: actions require accountability and consequences.
I agree. I just don’t know how “I see no other option but to implement strict regulation of online activity without delay. Mass activity and influencing requires mass regulation and enforced ethical guidelines.” can be done without coming up against the constraints of our First Amendment. And even if someone comes up with a brilliant idea for legislation that might work, the fascists already elected and appointed in our government and SCOTUS will fight tooth and nail to ensure it doesn’t pass or is defeated in the courts if it does. We’ve got our work cut out for us that’s for sure.
"We’ve got our work cut out for us that’s for sure."
Yes, indeed. There is another angle of approach, which in itself won't solve the internet problem, but which may bear fruit in the political field—
Not too long ago, somebody famous—I forget who, but I think they may have been American—said that you cannot beat an existing paradigm by opposing it. Rather, you have to replace it with a new paradigm. This made a deep impression on me at the time, and I think the truth of it may have been borne out in practice as recently as last year.
I live in Australia. We had federal elections in May last year. The old far-right Trump-loving coalition government, which had been in power for years and in which a pentecostal-cult devotee had been serving as prime minister, was thrown out. A new Labor government was elected with a large enough majority (just) to govern in its own right. Simultaneously, the Greens increased their vote massively, and a new crossbench force dubbed the "Teals"—conservative blue plus environmentally conscious green—made its presence felt for the first time. So we had a very large and significant crossbench for the first time in addition to the new Labor government. The pendulum had swung radically to the left. Given that it started at the far right, this meant it has come to rest just slightly left of centre. Australia is too Americanised for real leftwing government to be possible right now—for that, you have to go to Europe. Nevertheless, the degree of change that has been brought in is huge.
How was this brought about? It seems by the Labor party, during campaigning, assiduously avoiding 180° polarising head-on confrontations with the right. Rather, one could say it came in at 90°—operating around the corner, so to speak, so the right could not see it clearly and hence could not nail it. Labor chose a couple of policies that weren't too controversial, encapsulated them in slogans anyone could understand, and delivered the package in a moderate, reasonable, steady, collegial tone of voice. I think it was the tone which spoke emotionally to a populace fed up with raging ranting rightists, a populace which had begun to understand the damage done to our public services by too many years of rightwing privatising government. So the old paradigm was not faced down. Rather, the new paradigm was slipped in while they weren't looking.
Australia is admittedly only a small country of 25 million, and change is undoubtedly easier to effect in small populations. Nevertheless, nothing is impossible, and it may be that the US' devolved state-based structures may enable change to creep in from the periphery.
I agree with you that the challenges are huge, but still they may not be insuperable. Our new government here is working well, with massive changes already effected in just half a year. It is hugely popular, and although in reality it is more centrist than leftwing, it has meant that people like me are just beginning to feel we can breathe again.
We downunder are watching your progress with bated breath and our fingers crossed, as are many other parts of the world, especially Europe. And the US is not an island set apart from the rest of humanity. Even it may be influenced by pressures from abroad to some extent. So you are not alone!
I think your point about tone is extremely important. I think part of helping to get the change needed is abandoning the judgmental, holier-than-thou how can you be so stupid, to vote against your own interests approach. And taking up a tone that says and shows, here is what we’ve done. Here is how it is going to make your life better. If you support this change, we will continue to make your life better. As polly-anna as it may seem, I think part of a successful approach has to be optimism and positive evidence from recently passed legislation that the voters can see in their bank accounts and in their lives. This juxtaposed against the nastiness and no legislative actions outside of obstruction and destruction of the GOP, may be a piece of the puzzle. Congratulations on the progress you’ve made in Australia! I hope we can duplicate it here in the US!
"And giving money is an action, a commitment. You don't give money to people you think are scamming you. And once you have given the money, it becomes almost unthinkable that you have been scammed. Once Trump’s supporters made a contribution, they had bought in to the Big Lie."
This is called the sunk cost fallacy, and it kills people all around the world all the time. Our brains have in-built heuristics that are highly flawed and extremely dangerous. If there is a god, it truly screwed the pooch when it developed these flawed algorithms that make it hard for us to admit we have been conned.
Interesting comment. I'll take a stab: To admit one has been conned, is to feel shame and in a way, taking the blame, which is very hard. It takes a bigness of spirit to be able to admit this and not be devastated. Many if not most are not self confident enough to admit their mistakes, especially mistakes in thinking. So it threatens to be totally demoralizing to admit being wrong, rather than just being specifically wrong (not totally stupid). This inability to admit wrong may be very deeply felt from childhood. Rather people will buy the alternative storyline that in this case is being fed. There are storylines are out there to grab. We are patriots! And you know where to go to be fed this and get the acceptance and assurance of the group you need.
There's validity in most of your observations. The sunk cost fallacy usually goes with a deficit of critical thinking skills, but other factors could come into play as well. One of those is the desire to feel important and included in a group that is accepting of the person.
A brilliant analysis expressed in layman's language. It lays bare multiple failings in America's body politic, and paints a particularly clear picture of Trump's corrupting influence aided and abetted by Republican diehards.
Wow, did you ever nail it, Mr. Snyder. I'd thought about some of these pieces but I hadn't put them all together, and I wasn't seriously considering the crucial role of the RNC.
Dr. Snyder shows how Trump was able to con his followers "long after the election results were absolutely clear, furthering separating them from reality." Separation from reality: that's the key. I remembered something from Ian Tattersall's 2008 book, "The World From Beginnings to 4000 BCE." Tattersall wrote that our species is unique: "Human beings are symbolic creatures. Inside their heads they break down the outside world into a mass of mental symbols, then recombine those symbols to recreate that world. What they subsequently react to is often the mental construct, rather than the primary experiences themselves. And such re-creations differ from person to person and from society to society, which is what ultimately lies behind most of the conflicts and disagreements that we encounter in recorded human history." [p. 101]
Thank you for your commentary, Dr. Snyder. You mentioned some points I had not thought about before, connections I had not made. I appreciate your work.
May "The Big Ripoff" along with "the Big Lie" continue to reverberate finding a way into the ears of those that were ripped off and further defend it to avoid looking at the the sap in the mirror. They have been thoroughly had. Paul Krugman in his subscriber newsletter: "the real power lies in the Republican Party... outside its formal structures".. the appeal of pacs, fundraising groups and personality driven politics "drunk on the camera lights" who know nothing nor care about governing yet call themselves "true conservatives". May we survive this.
The scamming on the right is a feature for those propagating it and using it to bilk money from those who are gullible (far too many). Plays on emotion and insecurity of those who feel left behind, even if they are not. If this were being done by a boiler room operation claiming to be a charity or a company, FTC and others would investigate, shut them down, and sue and jail for fraudulent business practices. My question is, “Why should political speech be different?”
But now, we have the problem of doubling down in that those who were scammed cannot admit they were scammed as it feeds into their already fragile egos and insecurities, so they persist and even grow more strident to drown out the voices in their head (and from others) that they have been conned. Call it a variation of the Dunning-Krueger effect.
While Trump and his ilk may not be the brightest in many ways, they know how to manipulate people. And Trump being a classic malignant narcissist had to have a plan to keep his ego intact and be the center of attention and hold on as long as possible. So that this was a well laid out plan is not shocking. I have seen this play out first hand in the C suite during succession and transition, having worked for somebody who was also a malignant narcissist. The fragile ego demands staying on top regardless of how it is done.
The way for this scamming was paved by the 2010 Citizens United ruling, and reinforced by continued GOP opposition that blocked repairing our nation's broken campaign finance laws. Transparency is a joke. Citing its misguided label of 'free speech", a majority of Supreme Court justices will most likely block reform that could shine a bright light on these rip-offs.
The Supreme Court is more subversive than all of Putin’s active measures.
Trump was the racist religious extremist Right's trial balloon - hot air buffoon - for repurposing a democratic republic as a clerical fascist state.
Their (Koch, Mercer, Corkery, Scaife, Seide et al) useful man is Leonard Leo. His network funneling dark money from dodgy donors through dubious corporations to antidemocratic causes. The specious Federalist Society rhetoric of originalism/textualism turning the Constitution on its head to drain justice out of American law. (While retaining judicial procedure to end equality before the law and equal representation.)
And now Leo funded groups filing amicus briefs in favor of the 'independent legislature theory' before the Roberts Court Federalist Society majority. Had this theory - which removes state constitution checks and balances from state regulation of federal elections - been in effect in 2020, then GOP gerrymandered state legislatures could have unilaterally given their state electoral votes to Trump.
An amicus brief expose by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Henry (Hank) Johnson (including research by TrueNorth's Lisa Graves)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1271/244031/20221206153808434_2022-10-25pm%20Moore%20v.%20Harper%20CLEAN2.pdf
Thanks for this link. For years Sheldon Whitehouse has been harshly criticizing the Roberts Court. His presentation in Senate Judiciary during Amy Coney Barrett's hearings was fantastic. He was able to show that $34 million was spent for her seat by money laundering. I noticed that none of the Rs on the committee challenged him about it afterwards. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjcXVKg43qY
Sheldon Whitehouse stands out. He would make a fine president.
I agree!
ThankYou. Yes, I heard it. I hope more people follow your link. And this one.
https://truenorthresearch.org/2020/10/backgrounder-on-the-supreme-court-judge-amy-barrett-trump-advisor-leonard-leo-and-billionaire-charles-koch/
I do, too. Thanks for the link. Just pulled it up and am now starting to read it.
Yes, lin, the “good ole boys” networks are set up for interpretive law, not legislative. It’s their way or the highway, but you already know that. Anything to screw with the little people.
Rose Mason-are you familiar w/ Sen. Whitehouse's multiple You Tube postings called "The Scheme"? There are 19 parts to it. Well worth the watching.
I'd never heard of it, but just found it. Thanks!
YES!!!!
I've watched this video several times. Sen. Whitehouse is a powerhouse. He has been following the Supreme Court for a long time, and calling out their dark money.
Yes. I watch Senate Judiciary hearings just so I can listen to/watch him. Gosh, I'll never forget the one, I think it was in early March 2021, when Christopher Wray was summoned before that committee about Jan. 6. Sen. Whitehouse laid into him for all the sins he had committed during the Trump times, including his failure to include Senate Judiciary Dems in conferences in which classified info was being passed to the Rs on the committee.
And something else Sen. Whitehouse talks about is the fact that SCOTUS has no code of ethics, including but not limited to recusing themselves when clearly they should be doing just that, for example Justice Thomas. I understand that the law for all federal judges/justices is that this is an individual decision. Much that is in our political and legal system relies on good will. I don't know anything about the subject, but I assume there've always been problems with individuals, at least every now and again. What I can't say, though, is whether or not the problem has always been as serious with SCOTUS as it is now.
Watch this to understand how your rights are being shredded by the American Oligarchy as it has activated Lewis Powells Memorandum https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/
It's very difficult to persuade a man that he's been snookered.
Thank you for your cogent analysis of The Big Steal. I so appreciate your substack. Respect from a fellow historian who is inspired by your work and your activism!
The lack of accountability is staggering. All of this happened in plain sight. And now, two years later, the foxes are in the hen house mucking up Congress. In. Plain. Sight. Voting matters.
As you’ve described Trump supporters (not his co-conspirators who were fully aware the Big Lie was indeed a lie) were manipulated and scammed into truly believing the election was stolen. Millions of them donated their hard earned money and hundreds of them participated in storming the Capitol on Jan 6. One can almost feel sorry for them. It appears many of them may actually be held accountable for the damage they did as a result of being manipulated. But the master manipulator continues to get off scot-free as well of accept their money to this day!! Given that many of these folks, indeed almost any person who has been scammed and taken advantage of, will not or cannot admit they were scammed, what can the rest of us do to prevent their continued dangerous activities? They’ve been brainwashed. Can they be re-programmed? And if so how? Whenever I try to even gently share actual facts, with deluded family members and/or friends, I am invariably met with resistance, anger, and an unwillingness to accept the truth. I’m kind of at a loss. And given the current chaos of the House of Representatives and the right wing loaded SCOTUS, I don’t see any legislative solutions on the horizon. I fear and worry our democracy is slipping through our fingers and we don’t have many effective, non-violent, legal paths to stop it.
You ask: "… what can the rest of us do to prevent their continued dangerous activities? They’ve been brainwashed. Can they be re-programmed? And if so how?"
This is indeed the billion-dollar question for the future. We see people being brainwashed, then becoming apparently ineducable, their abilities for learning new things having been frozen in time.
The lasting effect of indoctrination on young children is well documented and broadly understood: "Give me a child before the age of seven, and I will show you the man". Religions have historically been famous for this sort of thing. Moulding of vulnerable young souls.
But here we are dealing with adults, and this a different problem. The main phenomenon resembling Trumpist political indoctrination of adults today appears to be the new uncontrolled pentecostal evangelism which repeatedly takes a dark turn in latter-day pseudo-Christian cults. Here preachers need no licence, are required to take no qualifying studies, are subject to no external constraints. Anyone can get up, claim they have found Jesus, and start a "church". Free to fundraise without limits or guidelines, these preachers regularly apply extreme illegitimate moral pressure on congregants to donate or be regarded as a sinner: "step up to the plate or be damned!". This exclusive authoritarian mandate then frequently becomes embroiled in sexual misconduct. The pattern of impure revelation taking over a personality is all too familiar in the field of religion.
The good news here is, effective deprogramming techniques have been developed to deal with cult victims and bring them back into the world of normal reality.
Related to religious cult deprogramming are the activities of secular organisations such as the CIA which have developed methods to deal with political cults such as Islamic jihadism or far-right fascist Christian groups.
The problem we still have is that these deprogramming techniques work with individuals, not groups. We are left with the phenomenon of mass brainwashing conveyed through the internet and damaging the consciousness/conscience of millions. Globalised, and hence deracinated from race or culture to some extent, the effects of these internet brainwashers are hugely difficult to deal with simply because of the scope of their activity.
I see no other option but to implement strict regulation of online activity without delay. Mass activity and influencing requires mass regulation and enforced ethical guidelines.
In my view, the unspoken assumption of Zuckerberg, Musk and likeminded entrepreneurs, that no regulation means everyone behaving nicely in freedom, because basically we're all nice guys, evinces a staggering immaturity, biased towards a warped, all-too-frequent male difficulty with sharing and real "we-consciousness" and an intellectual inability to understand what "freedom" actually means.
So we need regulation specifically of untrammelled masculinist individualism purveyed over the internet. Benefits for the "I" must be balanced with benefits for the "we". As someone said in response to Snyder's previous article: actions require accountability and consequences.
I agree. I just don’t know how “I see no other option but to implement strict regulation of online activity without delay. Mass activity and influencing requires mass regulation and enforced ethical guidelines.” can be done without coming up against the constraints of our First Amendment. And even if someone comes up with a brilliant idea for legislation that might work, the fascists already elected and appointed in our government and SCOTUS will fight tooth and nail to ensure it doesn’t pass or is defeated in the courts if it does. We’ve got our work cut out for us that’s for sure.
"We’ve got our work cut out for us that’s for sure."
Yes, indeed. There is another angle of approach, which in itself won't solve the internet problem, but which may bear fruit in the political field—
Not too long ago, somebody famous—I forget who, but I think they may have been American—said that you cannot beat an existing paradigm by opposing it. Rather, you have to replace it with a new paradigm. This made a deep impression on me at the time, and I think the truth of it may have been borne out in practice as recently as last year.
I live in Australia. We had federal elections in May last year. The old far-right Trump-loving coalition government, which had been in power for years and in which a pentecostal-cult devotee had been serving as prime minister, was thrown out. A new Labor government was elected with a large enough majority (just) to govern in its own right. Simultaneously, the Greens increased their vote massively, and a new crossbench force dubbed the "Teals"—conservative blue plus environmentally conscious green—made its presence felt for the first time. So we had a very large and significant crossbench for the first time in addition to the new Labor government. The pendulum had swung radically to the left. Given that it started at the far right, this meant it has come to rest just slightly left of centre. Australia is too Americanised for real leftwing government to be possible right now—for that, you have to go to Europe. Nevertheless, the degree of change that has been brought in is huge.
How was this brought about? It seems by the Labor party, during campaigning, assiduously avoiding 180° polarising head-on confrontations with the right. Rather, one could say it came in at 90°—operating around the corner, so to speak, so the right could not see it clearly and hence could not nail it. Labor chose a couple of policies that weren't too controversial, encapsulated them in slogans anyone could understand, and delivered the package in a moderate, reasonable, steady, collegial tone of voice. I think it was the tone which spoke emotionally to a populace fed up with raging ranting rightists, a populace which had begun to understand the damage done to our public services by too many years of rightwing privatising government. So the old paradigm was not faced down. Rather, the new paradigm was slipped in while they weren't looking.
Australia is admittedly only a small country of 25 million, and change is undoubtedly easier to effect in small populations. Nevertheless, nothing is impossible, and it may be that the US' devolved state-based structures may enable change to creep in from the periphery.
I agree with you that the challenges are huge, but still they may not be insuperable. Our new government here is working well, with massive changes already effected in just half a year. It is hugely popular, and although in reality it is more centrist than leftwing, it has meant that people like me are just beginning to feel we can breathe again.
We downunder are watching your progress with bated breath and our fingers crossed, as are many other parts of the world, especially Europe. And the US is not an island set apart from the rest of humanity. Even it may be influenced by pressures from abroad to some extent. So you are not alone!
I think your point about tone is extremely important. I think part of helping to get the change needed is abandoning the judgmental, holier-than-thou how can you be so stupid, to vote against your own interests approach. And taking up a tone that says and shows, here is what we’ve done. Here is how it is going to make your life better. If you support this change, we will continue to make your life better. As polly-anna as it may seem, I think part of a successful approach has to be optimism and positive evidence from recently passed legislation that the voters can see in their bank accounts and in their lives. This juxtaposed against the nastiness and no legislative actions outside of obstruction and destruction of the GOP, may be a piece of the puzzle. Congratulations on the progress you’ve made in Australia! I hope we can duplicate it here in the US!
"And giving money is an action, a commitment. You don't give money to people you think are scamming you. And once you have given the money, it becomes almost unthinkable that you have been scammed. Once Trump’s supporters made a contribution, they had bought in to the Big Lie."
This is called the sunk cost fallacy, and it kills people all around the world all the time. Our brains have in-built heuristics that are highly flawed and extremely dangerous. If there is a god, it truly screwed the pooch when it developed these flawed algorithms that make it hard for us to admit we have been conned.
Interesting comment. I'll take a stab: To admit one has been conned, is to feel shame and in a way, taking the blame, which is very hard. It takes a bigness of spirit to be able to admit this and not be devastated. Many if not most are not self confident enough to admit their mistakes, especially mistakes in thinking. So it threatens to be totally demoralizing to admit being wrong, rather than just being specifically wrong (not totally stupid). This inability to admit wrong may be very deeply felt from childhood. Rather people will buy the alternative storyline that in this case is being fed. There are storylines are out there to grab. We are patriots! And you know where to go to be fed this and get the acceptance and assurance of the group you need.
There's validity in most of your observations. The sunk cost fallacy usually goes with a deficit of critical thinking skills, but other factors could come into play as well. One of those is the desire to feel important and included in a group that is accepting of the person.
This would suggest a remedy, a way to turn people around: include them in something more appealing.
A brilliant analysis expressed in layman's language. It lays bare multiple failings in America's body politic, and paints a particularly clear picture of Trump's corrupting influence aided and abetted by Republican diehards.
Wow, did you ever nail it, Mr. Snyder. I'd thought about some of these pieces but I hadn't put them all together, and I wasn't seriously considering the crucial role of the RNC.
Dr. Snyder shows how Trump was able to con his followers "long after the election results were absolutely clear, furthering separating them from reality." Separation from reality: that's the key. I remembered something from Ian Tattersall's 2008 book, "The World From Beginnings to 4000 BCE." Tattersall wrote that our species is unique: "Human beings are symbolic creatures. Inside their heads they break down the outside world into a mass of mental symbols, then recombine those symbols to recreate that world. What they subsequently react to is often the mental construct, rather than the primary experiences themselves. And such re-creations differ from person to person and from society to society, which is what ultimately lies behind most of the conflicts and disagreements that we encounter in recorded human history." [p. 101]
Thank you for your commentary, Dr. Snyder. You mentioned some points I had not thought about before, connections I had not made. I appreciate your work.
Thank you, Dr. Snyder for keeping all of us focused on the Big Lie and the fraud and complicity it fostered.
May "The Big Ripoff" along with "the Big Lie" continue to reverberate finding a way into the ears of those that were ripped off and further defend it to avoid looking at the the sap in the mirror. They have been thoroughly had. Paul Krugman in his subscriber newsletter: "the real power lies in the Republican Party... outside its formal structures".. the appeal of pacs, fundraising groups and personality driven politics "drunk on the camera lights" who know nothing nor care about governing yet call themselves "true conservatives". May we survive this.
The scamming on the right is a feature for those propagating it and using it to bilk money from those who are gullible (far too many). Plays on emotion and insecurity of those who feel left behind, even if they are not. If this were being done by a boiler room operation claiming to be a charity or a company, FTC and others would investigate, shut them down, and sue and jail for fraudulent business practices. My question is, “Why should political speech be different?”
But now, we have the problem of doubling down in that those who were scammed cannot admit they were scammed as it feeds into their already fragile egos and insecurities, so they persist and even grow more strident to drown out the voices in their head (and from others) that they have been conned. Call it a variation of the Dunning-Krueger effect.
While Trump and his ilk may not be the brightest in many ways, they know how to manipulate people. And Trump being a classic malignant narcissist had to have a plan to keep his ego intact and be the center of attention and hold on as long as possible. So that this was a well laid out plan is not shocking. I have seen this play out first hand in the C suite during succession and transition, having worked for somebody who was also a malignant narcissist. The fragile ego demands staying on top regardless of how it is done.
re: digging in on being wrong
Kathryn Scultz
https://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong
NPR Hidden Brain
https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/im-right-youre-wrong/
Now, what?