Cold War Daily

A debate has flared about how much foreign-backed disinformation is shaping democratic politics, particularly in the US.

We see this around pro-Palestinian campus protests in the US. The NY Police Department says Columbia University protesters used “rhetoric associated with terrorism”. 

But we also see this in discussions about Russia’s influence over US political discourse.

A piece in Foreign Affairs written by Thomas Rid of “Active Measures” fame, as well as Lee Foster and others, cautions the public about blaming “foreign interference for problems whose origins are clearly domestic.”

“Active measures” – a Cold War term – doesn’t even describe what Russia did to the US in 2016. (See Dark Shining Moment for a more complete explanation of Russia’s activities in that pivotal year.)

Caution on ‘disinformation’

The Foreign Affairs article points to statements from Representatives Michael McCaul and Nancy Pelosi that blame foreign interference…

To avoid inadvertently assisting adversaries, American officials and investigators must steer clear of two pitfalls. Downplaying the threat of foreign disinformation campaigns risks making it easier for bad actors to take advantage of an unprepared public. But the reverse is also true: overstating the power of propaganda risks amplifying not only the original falsehood, but also an even more corrosive and polarizing narrative—that American politicians are somehow remote-controlled, and that U.S. citizens don’t have agency.

It’s a fair point to make and a healthy reminder.

However, McCaul’s acknowledgement about the spell Russian propaganda has over parts of the Republican Party also remains a noteworthy admission.

Ironically, the Foreign Affairs article is published the same week that rightwing host Tucker Carlson has released an interview he conducted with Russian far-right extremist ideologue Alexander Dugin. In Carlson’s telling, Dugin’s “ideas are considered so dangerous, the Ukrainian government murdered his daughter and Amazon won’t sell his books.”

By a similar logic, Adolf Hitler’s ideas were so dangerous democracies [and Russia], had to raise armies to attack Germany and march on Berlin. Dangerous indeed.

To give an idea of the nature of the Tucker Carlson’s guest this week, when Russia began fomenting rebellion in eastern Ukraine in 2014, Alexander Dugin called publicly for Ukrainians to be killed.

Posing him as a misunderstood “truth speaker” is as disingenuous as posing Charles Manson as a mere hippie prone to youthful exuberance.

Yet Dugin’s slurry of “Eurasianist” BS (short version: cultural differences – not politics – are destiny) is now flowing directly into the minds of Carlson’s Western fan base.

People may be tempted to call this “disinformation” – which has in a domestic setting become a kind of shorthand for “content we disagree with”. 

Attack on liberal democracy

While calling it “disinformation” may not be inaccurate, the content is still problematic.

Dugin represents a kind of conspiratorial illiberalism that functions as a poison for Western unity and to liberal democracies.

(Note: by “liberal democracies”, I mean the political tradition of the US comprising mainstream Republican and Democratic parties.)

To be fair, many of Dugin’s extremist ideas are not foreign to the Western mind. (He is inspired by some Western thinkers.) Dugin’s role is in curating, marketing, confecting, coordinating a quasi-religion of hate among disparate figures in both West and East. And that’s where his power is; his enterprising exploitation of the open internet.

So what defense does liberal democracy have for this?

Democracy’s disadvantage

Worryingly, if anything, liberalism has a structural disadvantage on this point, when compared to totalitarianism. 

Dugin’s propaganda speaks in destinies, it’s compelling, it’s totalizing in nature.

Liberal democracy meanwhile is incremental, it’s doesn’t offer a dramatic payoff, it muddles forward, its legitimacy contingent on deliberation and checks on power.

Twentieth century French liberal political thinker and writer Raymond Aron had contemplated a similar challenge in his time.

In discussing the fate of liberalism against totalitarianism, Aron noted “reform is boring and revolution exciting.”

“The one is prosaic, the other poetic.”

Aron was speaking of the Hitlers and Mussolini of his era.

Reform is boring, let’s burn it all down

But the same qualification is applicable to the revolutionary hate speech over social media.

And so today, the liberal world is marked by the prospect of incremental reform. Look at Joe Biden’s agenda: Rebuilding the manufacturing economy, ensuring more economic fairness, rebuilding the middle class, pushing back on corporate overreach, even fighting junk fees on concert tickets. Reform.

Incremental, debated, tempered.

Compare that to the dynamo of revolution of MAGA land, “the entire system is corrupt”, the quest for lost international respect, “lock her up”, “I alone can solve this problem”, “I am your retribution.” Everything in broad, satisfying rhetorical brush strokes.

It’s not so much the specific promises, but the premise that a single action (the wall! the border! the purge!) will solve all other problems.

And it’s also in this cartoonish spirit of burn-it-all-down revolution that a vulnerable US right wing message machine ingests the illiberal, anti-Westernism of Dugin.

The Dugins of Russia promise a revolution that’s going to change this world, they address our boredom with the modern world.

But really what the Dugins offer is narrow hate speech that undermines the core premise of liberal democracy. 

And so in this situation the word “disinformation” stands not for deceptively altered information designed to confuse and denigrate. Rather, “disinformation” is the kind of direct slander that seeks to unseat liberalism as the dominant political creed in western democracy.

It’s not so much the techniques of how information is disseminated on social media.

Rather, it’s the ideas, the ideology, the politics, and how they corrode the broader system of liberal democracy we all rely on and which, in its own low-key way, offers a viable and proven alternative to the corrupt gangsterism of Russia and authoritarian states of the world.