Participatory Propaganda: Trump’s Renewed Push for Gun Rights Gets Everyone Running to the Polls

While researching the material for The Psychology of Persuasive Propaganda, I came across a book by Jacques Ellul called Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. Like much of the material I was pulling up at the time, I saved it in my favorites folder with the intent of “getting to it later.” Apparently, later means almost two months after my own book was published, but who would have known? Written in 1962, when a great deal of research on propaganda was being done, the book expresses some interesting ideas that kind of, in a roundabout way, refute some of the points I made in my book. Maybe refute isn’t the right word. I cited many studies published in psychology, sociology and communications journals discussing the processes of propaganda and the effects of persuasion. Basically, I discussed what is known about human behavior and our responses to persuasive messaging. Ellul says these types of studies can hardly be encompassing of what he calls “total propaganda” because they are essentially snapshots in time, focusing on one aspect. Whereas real propaganda is a continuous, never-ending assault on human faculties. It isn’t that my work lacks some similar sentiments about the continuous nature of propaganda, however, Ellul makes some interesting points. Most of my material focuses on the definition of propaganda suggesting it is all geared towards getting the target audience to accept what would otherwise be rejected through techniques of lies and behavioral manipulation. Ellul rejects this definition saying that adopting such a view prevents a complete understanding of real propaganda, which he says, is employed in a vastly different way than in the past. This was in the 1960s, mind you. The one thing that resonates true between my book and Ellul’s is there is an inherent understanding of human psychology the propagandist’s have and use when formulating their messages.

First of all, modern propaganda is based on scientific analyses of psychology and sociology. Step by step, the propagandists builds his technique on the basis of the knowledge of man, his tendencies, his desires, his needs, his psychic mechanisms, his conditioning—and as much on social psychology as on depth psychology. (Ellul, 1962)

Ellul points out that most people’s interpretation of propaganda involves a short campaign of sorts that targets a specific event. Maybe it will run on one media platform and target a particular audience to achieve a certain goal. This isn’t total propaganda as the totality of the event itself is barely long enough to capture the attention of most people. Even if it did, the fact that such an event is so short in duration means that people who may be captured by the psychological elements of it are able to regain themselves and look at the event, or message, through fresh eyes when it is all over. Total propaganda means immersing the individual into the totality of the manipulation to where he, or she, is an ever-active participant constantly affected by everything happening, unable to escape from it. Think of gun control a moment. We don’t see one message being pushed after a shooting. We see every element of society being mobilized in the so-called fight against gun violence. It isn’t simply a one-off campaign to pass stricter gun laws; it is a public health epidemic affecting every community. Every element of media communications is brought into the mix until every moment of the individual’s life is occupied by the constant exposure to the message. Propaganda, Ellul writes, “is based on slow, constant impregnation. It creates convictions and compliance through imperceptible influences that are effective only by continuous repetition.”

A huge portion of our society has been brainwashed into believing guns are a problem. Much of this can be attributed to what Ellul calls pre-propaganda, which largely takes place in our public education institutions. For example, when Obama was still in office, several high school textbook companies had been exposed for rewriting the Second Amendment to give the impression that the government has the power to govern over it. This took place at a time when Sandy Hook was still in the minds of many school aged children. Not only was the news blasting the need for national gun reform, but the schools were doing their part by keeping these children in a state of fear through active shooter drills and lessons portraying the second amendment as an antiquated right. Fast forward a decade or so and you have a whole new generation of adults ready to push the gun control narrative. This is an example of how real propaganda involves every aspect of society and immerses not only the individual, but entire communities into the narrative.

Ellul seemed to have a solid grasp on something called Participatory Propaganda. While he never uses those words specifically, his description of how propaganda immerses the whole community is fitting. What is participatory propaganda? It is a way of pulling everyone in by creating a conflict. The conflict engages people that are emotionally attached to the issue, so they contribute their actions to the changing of perceptions surrounding that issue. Gun control is a great example because there are two opposing sides. On the left, of course, are the gun grabbers. People who would happily eliminate the second amendment altogether. On the right, are the alleged, gun rights supporters. This conflict sets the stage for compromise. While the left threatens big action on gun bans, what generally happens is the acceptance of a smaller infringement that incrementally advances the gun control agenda in one way or another. When people are this emotionally attached, they are more easily manipulated into accepting something they may otherwise reject. At the same time, their pre-existing ideas can also be reinforced. This is referred to as the internalization of conflict. A very relevant example of this can also be related to the persuasion strategy known as fear then relief. Conservatives, being relieved Hillary Clinton didn’t win in 2016, made excuses for Trump’s support of red flag laws by saying “can you imagine what Hillary would have done?” The red flag law issue, to some people, is an acceptable infringement because it is lesser than what a Democrat may have done.

For the first time in recent history the Department of Justice is siding on the side of gun owners and calling AR-15 bans unconstitutional. President Trump has ordered the ATF to not appeal the recent NFA injunction, and the DOJ is calling the handgun ban on 18–20-year-olds unlawful. There are some interesting points to consider here. One, Ellul discusses something called the all-encompassing myth. This is an image of something that activates a man towards the propagandist’s objective because it reinforces everything he believes to be reality on a grand, almost too good to be true scale. For example, everything the Trump administration has done is portrayed as the greatest ever in the history of the country. Much of this mythical perception of Trump started with Rush Limbaugh and is carried on by other members of the conservative, talking head media. The narrative matches the emotional dispositions of an electorate who was desperate for a restoration of sanity after eight years of Obamaism. The DOJ’s involvement in the Second Amendment fight reinforces, and builds upon this perception, making Trump himself a figure of mythical, unquestionable proportions because he is perceived as being the first in history to stand up for gun rights. In my last article I argued that the agenda behind this may be gaining acceptance for the idea that the government has power over the Second Amendment in the sense they have a role of deciding what is or isn’t legal, or protected by the amendment itself. They don’t. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that the constitution prevents the government from regulating at all. It is the nature of propaganda, and the way it divides everything into a this or that conflict, that moves the targeted audience towards the acceptance of infringements as long as they are perceived as being less than what could possibly happen. Participatory propaganda, or what Ellul would call total propaganda, “restores state sovereignty from within.” This means that the government is controlling the narrative with the full intention of persuading the masses to simply follow along in a reactionary, as opposed to a proactive manner. In other words, Trump’s sudden and feigned support the Second Amendment is nothing more than an attempt to reignite the same motivation and beliefs that led to his victory in the first place. He is trying to win back voters after telling them he doesn’t really care about their financial situations. Trump’s actions will also invigorate the leftist’s anti-gun sentiments and motivate them to get to the polls. So what? That is the nature of participatory propaganda. Whether you are voting right or left, you are participating in a system that is propagandizing you. Trump’s actions are meant to not only reinforce his voter’s beliefs, but to enflame the passions of the anti-gunners as well.

The whole system we live in is an example of participatory, or total propaganda, as the false left/right paradigm keeps us engaged in a fight amongst ourselves. We believe, with every election, that our actions and commitments to a particular political party are what will fix the nation. Instead of focusing on the corruption of the party we voted for, we focus on the things we are told to hate. While we fight with each other over a deliberately construed conflict meant to divide us, the state effortlessly advances its own interests. It is the same song and dance every time around. Too many of us are ideologically rooted to one party or the other, because we identify with the issues they allegedly seek to advance, we cannot see the ways we are being lied to, manipulated and enslaved. The Second Amendment is currently being used as a tool to keep voters attached to Trump while at the same time, enraging the left. However, as I argued in my last article, Trump is hardly the type of principled statesman that is needed to truly defend and uphold the Bill of Rights. He has lied about everything while demonstrating time and again that he has no concern for what the peasants are currently experiencing in terms of economic hardship. Even if he does advance, or restore the Second Amendment, it won’t be anything that can’t be undone. Unfortunately, gun rights are not on the ballot this time around. People are more focused on their gas tanks, stomachs and shrinking wallets.

Enjoy this content?

Be sure to check out my latest book! The Psychology of Persuasive Propaganda: The Things You Should Know.