In today’s complex information landscape, the insidious influence of propaganda poses a significant threat to the health of democracies worldwide. While often overlooked or dismissed as a relic of the past, propaganda remains a potent force, shaping public opinion and eroding the foundations of informed citizenship. Through selective presentation of information and emotional manipulation, propaganda undermines trust in democratic institutions and distorts the public discourse.
Elizabeth Kolbert’s exploration of human cognition in “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds” provides an insightful starting point for understanding how propaganda operates in the modern age. She examines why individuals often maintain their convictions despite contradictory evidence. The author explains how “cognitive biases make people susceptible to propaganda,” which exploits these vulnerabilities to reinforce preexisting beliefs and manipulate public opinion. These biases lead people to selectively process information that aligns with their existing beliefs while dismissing contradictory evidence. By exploiting these vulnerabilities, propagandists are able to manipulate public opinion and maintain control over the narrative. It thrives on confirmation bias, presenting information selectively to reinforce preexisting beliefs while disregarding opposing viewpoints. Propaganda capitalizes on belief perseverance by employing repetition and emotional manipulation to solidify desired narratives in the minds of its audience.
Building on Kolbert’s analysis, Hannah Arendt’s seminal work, “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” offers further insights into the dangers of propaganda, particularly within authoritarian regimes. Arendt highlights the symbiotic relationship between propaganda and authoritarianism, emphasizing how propaganda thrives on presenting a coherent narrative that offers a sense of order amidst societal chaos. By exploiting societal discontent and eroding common sense, propaganda enables authoritarian leaders to consolidate power and suppress dissent. Arendt depicts the “mob” as the precursor to totalitarian movements, with mob leaders exploiting societal taboos and gaps in conventional propaganda to spread totalitarian ideologies. Leaders exploit societal taboos and gaps in conventional propaganda to propagate totalitarian ideologies. The “mob” represents a collective sense of frustration, often stemming from economic hardships, social unrest, or feelings of marginalization. Totalitarian leaders adeptly capitalize on these sentiments, offering simplistic solutions and scapegoats to redirect the mob’s anger and discontent.
Executive underreach, as discussed by Pozen and Scheppele, represents a subtler yet equally pernicious form of propaganda. Leaders who downplay significant public issues for political gain undermine trust in democratic institutions and perpetuate misinformation. Pozen and Scheppele’s analysis sheds light on how executive underreach can shape public perception and maintain power, even in ostensibly democratic societies. Both responses of Presidents Trump and Bolsonaro to the COVID-19 pandemic were viewed as propagandistic tactics aimed at shaping public perception and maintaining their respective political narratives. Both engaged in minimizing the severity of the virus, promoting unproven treatments, and berating public health measures such as lockdowns and social distancing. These actions contributed to the spread of misinformation and also served to bolster their own political agendas. By failing to effectively address the COVID-19 crisis, both leaders eroded trust in governmental institutions and exacerbated social divisions. This erosion of trust can be seen as a form of propaganda in itself, as it undermines the credibility of alternative sources of information and reinforces the narratives promoted by those in power.
The normalization of extremism, as observed by Lowenstein and Postel, further underscores the dangerous consequences of propaganda. By blurring the lines between mainstream conservatism and radical ideologies, propaganda mobilizes individuals toward violent actions and threatens societal cohesion. Lowenstein and Postel’s study highlights the urgent need to counteract propaganda’s influence and promote a more inclusive and tolerant public discourse. The authors warned that the U.S. was quickly approaching a phase of conflict akin to open insurgency, with January 6 potentially marking the beginning of a series of organized attacks. This reflects how propaganda can be used to mobilize individuals towards violent and extremist actions, that the insurrection was meant as a recruitment and radicalization action. Despite the involvement of far-right militant groups like the Proud Boys in the Capitol siege, a significant portion of the participants were ordinary individuals from white-collar occupations. This demonstrates the effectiveness of propaganda in blurring the lines between mainstream conservatism and extremist ideologies.
The pervasive influence of propaganda poses a significant threat to democracy in the modern age. By understanding its mechanisms and actively countering its tactics, we can safeguard democracy and promote a more informed and resilient society. Through critical thinking, engagement with diverse perspectives, and a commitment to truth and transparency, we can mitigate the impact of propaganda and uphold the principles of democracy for generations to come. The preservation of democracy is not merely a theoretical concern; it is a fundamental aspect of ensuring freedom, equality, and justice for all citizens. By addressing the threat of propaganda, we can protect these values and secure a better future for ourselves and future generations.
Works Cited:
Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. New York, Harcourt, Brace.
Kolbert, E. (2017, February 20). Why facts don’t change our minds. The New Yorker.
Lowenstein, J. K., & Postel, D. (2022). We’ll miss it when it’s gone: The assault on –and the fight to save– democracy in the United States today. Deusto Journal of Human Rights, (10), 103-131.
Pozen, D. E., & Scheppele, K. L. (2020). Executive Underreach, in Pandemics and Otherwise. American Journal of International Law, 114(4), 608-617.
Jahnvi, there is a lot of great source material referenced in here. I would agree that the connection between cognitive biases a distorted sense of discontent can help an authoritarian come to power. But it is the same ordinary individual that can control whether they will be influenced by said propaganda into mobilization and hatred or remain educated and accepting of other identities that makes it so particularly powerful.