This past week, Americans witnessed the confirmation hearing of Trump’s pick for Attorney General, Pam Bondi. This has been an eye-opener for many, as Bondi supports red flag laws and other gun control measures that conservatives oppose. The perception is that Trump is as pro-gun as one can be, and many Second Amendment advocates claim he has been the best president we have ever had for defending gun rights. Is that true? In 2019, President Trump authorized Attorney General William Barr to go forward with plans to push red flag laws, and other measures meant to identify potential threats before they could be carried out. Trump stated at the time, that he intends to disarm those deemed to be dangerous before they can act. This information, no matter how relevant, has been referred to as fake news by many Trump supporters. However, the fact remains that William Barr provided states with the funding to implement red flag laws, as doing so nationally was not an option. Under Governor Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Florida was one of the several states to accept this funding. Some gun rights activists tried to draw attention to Barr. During his confirmation hearing, for example, he told the late gun-grabbing Diane Feinstein that extreme risk protection orders were the single most important thing that could be done in the push for gun control. Despite these facts, conservatives believe that Trump’s second term is going to bring in a new era of expanded gun rights, as many Republicans have introduced bills to abolish the ATF and repeal the NFA. Perhaps that is their intention, however, it should be noted that not a single Republican asked Bondi about her support for red flag laws. Some Democrats did though, and despite the constant back and forth meant to give the impression that there is conflict, and keep us following the dangling carrot, they were very impressed. What Americans are witnessing is an application of propaganda meant to create perceptions of reality that induce the public to participate in the propagation of false narratives, because those narratives, as is the case with all propaganda, are designed to reflect the public belief simply to keep them following along. This is called participatory propaganda.
Marked by high polarization and the dissemination of falsehoods via online platforms,
contemporary media ecosystems are being used by a plethora of political actors to
manipulate people’s perceptions of reality. (Ribeiro & Zelizer, 2024)
The one concept, or idea, that continually presents itself in the study of propaganda and persuasion is that to achieve the desired results, the message must reflect in some way, the existing beliefs and attitudes of the targeted audience. For example, the article, Psychological Targeting as an Effective Approach to Digital Mass Persuasion states that mass persuasion is more effective when tailored toward an individual or a group’s psychological traits, beliefs, and behaviors. The book Media, Propaganda, and Persuasion so eloquently states, “To make the unruly public more productive and orderly, publicists first need to discover what the public thinks and feels.” This alludes to the idea that before developing a persuasive message, the messenger must first study the beliefs and behaviors of the audience to effectively craft an appeal that has the potential to guide behaviors. Perhaps the most intriguing example can be found in the book, New Lies for Old, by Anoltliy Golitsyn. Focusing on the deceptive methods used by Communist Russia to deceive the West into capitulation, and into believing that communism had died, Golitsyn states that deception is most effective when it reflects the beliefs of the audience meant to be deceived. For example, he says that their methods were effective because officials in the West were never convinced that communism was that much of a threat, to begin with. Therefore, it was easy to create narratives that reinforced this belief while lowering the guard of Western officials. How is this possible? The study of persuasive communications has been going on for many decades. As early as the 1920s, communication researchers were learning how to frame certain parts of a message in a way that effectively guided people’s opinions in desired directions. In today’s world of social media, keeping track of opinions and attitudes–and framing messages in real time meant to change behavior–has become the new propaganda, and unbeknownst to most of the public, they are willingly participating in the spread of false narratives.
Most people would agree–probably on the right and left–that America has been brought to the brink. There is the illusion of conflict between Democrats and Republicans that keep people engaged, and sitting on the edge of their seats. In the study of participatory propaganda, this is called the internalization of conflict. (Azmolov, 2019). People are so–emotionally invested–in their political beliefs, and how they view this conflict, that it is easy for propagandists to manipulate people’s perceptions. For example, conservatives are so convinced that Trump is going to usher in the new golden era of gun rights because social media keeps pushing stories of concealed carry reciprocity, abolishing the ATF, and repealing the NFA. Are these things likely to happen? Probably not. Even if they did, what would it matter if Pam Bondi is confirmed and a national red flag law is pursued? Has Trump said anything about abolishing Biden’s newly found Office of Gun Violence Prevention? How about repealing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which contains language allowing for a national red flag law? The popular belief among conservatives is that Trump is pro-gun, and this belief is continually reinforced with the sharing of memes and social media articles that reflect this view. This is called the socialization of conflict (Azmolov, 2019). Perceptions are created and maintained through the use of social media tools–like emojis for example–which give users positive or negative feelings towards the topic being shared.
“Today, the digital public sphere offers a new set of tools for the manipulation and control of citizen engagement in conflicts. The socialization of conflict is now driven by the content proliferated through social networks, as well as through the digital affordances of online platforms that offer a wide range of responses to conflict.” (Asmolov, 2019)
How did Donald Trump ever be viewed as a great conservative hero to begin with? Before the 2016 election, it was common knowledge that Trump was close friends with the Clintons. He had contributed large amounts of money to The Clinton Foundation and had “interacted with them socially for decades.” (CNN) Then, out of nowhere, because he ran as a Republican, they are bitter enemies? Or, did he run as a Republican to create the perception they are bitter enemies? Conservatives were at a low point after eight years of Obama. The truth is, Minnie Mouse could have won the 2016 election if she promised to arrest Hillary Clinton. A conflict was created between Clinton, who was seen as an extension of the Obama years, and Trump who promised to Make America Great Again. Trump was never viewed as someone who shared in conservative values before, but because he defeated Clinton, and therefore saved America from the depths of depravity (allegedly), no one questioned him. He was seen as America’s savior, and every media narrative since that time has depicted the creation of a conflict between Trump and the Democrats. A narrative that suggests Trump is bitterly hated by the established order because he threatens to “drain the swamp” and undo everything they have accomplished. The more they hate him, the more unquestionable he becomes. Even though Trump advanced gun control during his first term, and appointed many people who were considered to be swamp dwellers, that narrative was propagated by the willing participation of all who believed it through social media, solidifying it as a reality. Despite his appointment of Pam Bondi, many believe he intends to abolish the ATF. In the study of persuasion, there is something called the Fear-Then-Relief principle, which is based on decades of study into the human response to emotional trauma. It suggests that when placed under a great amount of stress, or fear, compliance can be gained by removing that stimulus and replacing it with something more acceptable. Even if that something would ordinarily be opposed. It is believed, and this goes back to Pavlov, that people experience a state of mindlessness in this state of relief, and that their willingness to go along with any suggestion afterward is automatic as they associate the relief with the suggestion. Trump’s 2016 victory was associated with the eight years of dread conservatives felt during Obama’s reign, therefore, the belief that he was going to set things right was reinforced. Interestingly, this theory coincides with a quote from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals–which Hillary Clinton incidentally wrote her college thesis on by the way.
“Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” (Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, xx)
Is it possible that everything written in this article is a bunch of meaningless fluff, and Trump really will usher in a new golden era of gun rights and other conservative values? Sure, anything is possible. The information cited in this article, and others I have written, is factual information that exists. Compliance gaining, propaganda, attitude change, and persuasion are all areas of academic study that are studied for a reason. To gain compliance on issues that would otherwise be opposed. The problem with today’s conservatives is that they acknowledge the existence of propaganda, but fail to accept they may be susceptible to it. To lay that burden on Republicans alone is even a mistake, as both Republicans and Democrats believe the other side is engaged in massive efforts to propagandize the other. The truth is far more terrifying. Today’s social media has morphed into a system of self-propagation. People are willingly engaging in propaganda by sharing memes and articles simply because they reflect their own beliefs, and it feels good to do so. Many of these memes and articles are created to control perceptions in a way that advances the state’s agenda. To put it in the words of Edward Bernays, “The purpose of all propaganda is to mold the minds of the masses so that they will direct all of their efforts toward the desired ends of the shadow government, who use the powers of propaganda to gain approval from the people on issues they may have, at one time, disapproved of.”
“Participatory propaganda restores state sovereignty from within. It aims to build walls in the inner spaces of the subject (you) by shaping categories of perception of the environment. First, it constructs the object of a conflict that can potentially divide people. Second, relying on the design of social networks that combine information proliferation with personal interaction, as well as the mediated mobility of devices, it makes this conflict an omnipresent and integral part of everyday life.” (Asmolov, 2019)
