The Cold War Daily

Notes on the new great power struggle.

Tag: technology

After Trump, a global online war to save democracy

By now you probably know that something has changed in this world with the election of Donald Trump. You may be wondering how it affects you and what you might be able to do to make it better.*

For something this complex, using a Star Wars analogy is helpful.

For years, the free people in countries like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been warning the world that Russia has been menacing them online, using a combination of cyber attacks, fake news and misinformation to try to coerce its leaders and people. Russia has aimed to influence their nation’s political direction.

From those countries to the US, it has been:


But the US, caught up in wars in the Middle East, endless political gridlock, and its own problems, didn’t take the warnings seriously. Of course, Americans knew something big could one day hit them online but they expected the “Cyber Pearl Harbor” to be a massive attack on its infrastructure.

Instead, when the day came, it was in the form of an information attack on the US during the election, designed to sway voters’ minds. The tens of thousands of hacked emails pushed through WikiLeaks were only one factor.

A much bigger element has been the secret weapon used by anti-democracy forces for years. It functions as a Death Star, aimed at legitimate democracies and pro-democratic movements around the world.

First it was used on pro-democracy protesters in Ukraine, then it was aimed at the UK’s referendum on the EU (Brexit) to support the Leave campaign.

But the biggest use of the death ray has been in crippling and dividing opposition to Donald Trump, first in the primaries and then in the general election. (Google the Great Meme War).


That’s why the Trump victory is more akin to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Trump is not another Republican president; rather he is a man who doesn’t really believe in fundamental ideas central to democracy on which the US has been built and improved over the last 240 years.

Like the Death Star, this machine has more targets lined up to attack.

What the targets have in common is an embrace of democracy, rule-of-law, tolerance and openness. Basically, all the ideas underpinning the United States of America and the era of relative (and I stress “relative”) peace and stability the world has known since the end of World War II.

In the age of weaponised social media and information, however, this Death Star, isn’t a machine as much as a horde of people, evidently guided by Russia’s online information war crowd. Where in the world are they physically? They could be anywhere.

Some are partisans who have bought into an “anti-globalist” worldview. Some are Serbians living abroad who nurse grudges over NATOs role in the war in ex-Yugoslavia.

Reddit, 4Chan and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, create an enormous backdoor into liberal democracies everywhere. This is something Russia has figured out.

People on those platforms can attack and degrade liberal democracy wherever they find it.

Unthinkingly, they seek to replace it with radicalism, racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, anti-gay hate – basically, every possible way to divide a cohesive society.

The alt-right, for example, got big backing from followers on Reddit.

Whether a coincidence or not, this attack on the mainstream democracy resembles the philosophy of a chief Russian ideologue, who supports political extremism, while targeting the broad middle, the masses which don’t seek radical solutions to problems.

Often the candidates and causes backed by this Death Star in the real world are aligned with Russia.

Today’s leaders of Russia are paranoid kleptocrats (rulers by theft), who so misjudged the West’s motives, they have launched an assault on the fundamental cohesion of our society.

And here is where it gets weird.

Did you notice how the tone of the election of Donald Trump didn’t make sense for an American campaign? He lied and then gloated that he had lied. He was backed by radical racists, whom he wouldn’t disavowal, something uncharacteristic in a US candidate. Then there was the unending spectacle that kept the traditional media, Trump’s opponents, and the broader public in a continual stage of reaction. Rather than articulating a competing vision for the Republican Party, the middle class or for America, all of these stake holders were kept in a constant state of distraction.

There were even fake statues of Trump put up in public only to be torn down.

Mysterious fights broke out at his rallies.


A group paid for a huge mural of a Trump as superman in Times Square, which making an image-based, cartoonish appeal for the candidate.

The PR stunts turned heads even as they confused.

But they are similar to the unreality of Russian “sovereign democracy“, an invention of the Russian regime, in which the constant lies, confusion about the motives and authenticity of politicians and groups, leaves the public unable to believe or trust anything they read or see.

There are all indications that the Trump White House will, to some degree, continue to use some of these tactics of distraction.

This “unreality” flowing into the US’s internet is incompatible with the basics of our democracy in which we rely on some level of factual truth to understand the candidates for whom we vote. Facts are the engine of our system.

So where does that leave us today?

Broadly, it’s a battle between those who favor democracy and the dark forces from outside that would undo it in the hope of helping authoritarian kleptocracies.

It’s the battle between a just world where truth matters and an irrational house of mirrors where it’s impossible to understand what’s going on.

Now that Trump and his propagandists are in the White House, expect this corrosive blend of lies and misinformation and disregard for facts to flood America, and the world.

Expect it to get weirder, full of digital hallucinations and fantasies. A regular funhouse every time you open up a browser.

But this is where you come in.

If you believe in democracy, if you believe in a world governed by law, which seeks justice driven by facts and accountability, you are going to have to fight for them.

At the heart of a tolerant, sensible democracy is the idea that if a problem can be measured and described, it can be addressed and fixed.

In a reasonable world, no problem is too big.



Even the Trump victory, which at first glance looks like a celebration of hate and irrationalism, can be explained by the economic, demographic and technological changes facing the US and the world. If it can be explained, it can be understood. If it can be understood, it can addressed. So can Russia’s ability to influence the US elections. Moscow recognized that social media was uncontested space and went about exploiting to influence the politics in the West. Simple.

In the near-term, expect a stream of unreality telling us everything is out of our hands. That fear and suspicion should be our guide, even though such emotions undermine out ability to think sensibly.

We’ll be told that there is malign conspiracy everywhere.


But the reality that can be measured and described is that Trump’s backers built their own information zone that circumvented the traditional media, making it irrelevant.

The truth is that this engineering and social-engineering challenge can be addressed and countered.

In the years leading up to this election, Americans didn’t defend their information space, the place online where they informed themselves and debated issues.

Until then it was unimaginable that Americans would need to.

Now with Trump in the White House, it will likely be an unrelenting war on democratic, American values, free speech, freedom from fear, and even the expectation of a rational government.

The weaponisation of social media presents a greater challenge for believers in democracy: our tradition forbids the government from trying to influence its own people. Even if Trump weren’t headed for the White House, those who want to defend democratic values online can’t count on, or expect, a government plan.

Instead, citizens will need to organize themselves into online militias to control and shape the democratic debate. And to steer it towards democracy and away from radicalism.

It will be difficult – but it won’t be impossible.

In this way, those defending liberal democracy really will be the Ewoks. They’re be outsized and outgunned – and the authoritarians, the racists, the sexists, the know-nothings, they will have the bully pulpit of the White House, backed, potentially, by the Death Star of Russia’s cyber influence campaign.


But pro-democracy netizens can use the same tools the trolls use against them: memes, artwork, viral messages, social media bots, combinations of all of these. They can troll the trolls, they can take the fight to the defenders of the indefensible.

Reupping their messages, speaking with a united, if somewhat chaotic, voice will help propel the message for democracy far beyond the online forums. Remember, in order to defend democracy, you may need to dismantle its critics online – and when doing so, you should have fun and be relentless.

With the election of an quasi-authoritarian in the White House, citizens of the free world will be counted on like never before, to fight back.

As Winston Churchill, facing a Nazi invasion in 1940, could have said of this time: “We shall defend our liberal democracy, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on Facebook, we shall fight on the chatrooms, we shall fight in Facebook and on Twitter, we shall fight in the 4Chan and Reddit; we shall never surrender.”


Those were dark days in Britain.

These are dark days in the US.

But history works in strange ways.

Today, free Americans, and British and French and Latvians and Estonians and Ukrainians and Finnish and Germans can work together online to support each other. Free Indians and Pakistanis and Malaysians and Japanese, too.

Pro-liberal democracy people anywhere, can fight for democracy online.

Just as there is a globalized online effort to roll back liberal democracy and the international rules-based order, there needs to be a globalized online effort to support democracy and the rule of law.

Fighting for this online will have far more impact than in the streets.

And rather than celebrating the irrational forces of darkness, those who fight for democracy fight for a world in which power is rational, fair, and open.

This is a lot to lay on young people.

And it’s easy to blame the older generation.

But it’s also true that every generation must defend democracy anew.

Now is your time.

There will be dark moments, when you’re going to see strange, disheartening things.

But remember, if a problem can be measured and described, it can be addressed and fixed. That’s true of politics too.

That’s a reality worth fighting for.

Understanding what is happening, gives us the hope of correcting it and not succumbing to the disorder.

Technology has rendered the old rules of politics, news, and society out-of-date. But right and wrong matters more now than ever before.

So if you don’t want to be ruled by a:


Who creates a world dominated by guys like this:


Or this:


And if you want to do work for this kind of world:


Where honor and truth are rewarded:


Order and light

And law and justice triumphs over evil:


Nazis on trial at the end of World War II

Where the working class matter:


LBJ fought for the Great Society to lift millions from poverty

And humanity can reach higher:


Kennedy setting out a great goal

And politics can improve our lives:


Teddy Roosevelt radically reformed the US for the better

Then it’s time to defend democracy.

The choice is yours.

The time to act is now.

Follow Chris Zappone on Facebook

(* If I were to write a persuasive article on the online challenge to democracy, this is what it would look like. It’s not my typical fare but there you have it…)

Viewing the future in dark times – more engineers, fewer bookies

In the past, confidence for the future in advanced democracies offered a counterpoint to endless security fears. The existential terror of nuclear Armageddon during the Cold War, for example, lived side by side with the promise and expectation of a better life, fundamental to the success of democracies.

Standards of living rose, lifespans extended and citizens enjoyed freedom of movement unimaginable in the past.

Now, instead of an optimism pegged to a concrete vision for a better future in Western democracies, there is wariness and doubt. The outlook is provisional, conditional, tentative.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that future terror attacks are discussed in terms of risks, as is the style today. Risks, likelihoods and odds have become the de facto way to discuss, not just the chance of a terror attack, but a politician’s prospects of winning an election. Taking alongside the risk-based view of major economic or ecological events and it seems odds now dominate how the future is conceived and discussed.

But is a horse-racing form guide the best way to view the future that we can shape?


Buckminster Fuller’s US pavillon at Expo 67. Fuller forecast techno-utopian visions.

In past times, people looked forward to the future. Their optimism was grounded in specific expectations of a better world: financially, socially, physically. The Depression and World War II generation, after surviving those events, witnessed technological leaps that changed their world, giving people every reason to expect a better life ahead.

Achievements as mammoth and varied as penicillin, the Hoover Dam, the Brooklyn Bridge, computers, vaccines to inoculate against disease, intercontinental jet travel, the Apollo moonshot or even national healthcare schemes fundamentally reshaped the world.

Entrepreneur and investor Peter Thiel eschews the power of risk and luck in favour of the power of planning. He believes that from the 1700s to the 1960s, optimists with definite plans led the Western world.

Since the long bull market of 1982 began and the string of major technological advances seemingly dried up, “finance eclipsed engineering as the way to approach the future”.


Peter Thiel

In Australia, you could argue that the mining and housing booms have further enshrined the concept of risk, chance and odds as a way to understand the future.

Individuals manage “risk” in their retirement savings. They “future-proof” their careers against as many different outcomes as they can. For a decade, the economic outlook of the Lucky Country, relied on the puzzle of what was going on inside China’s economy.

Australia’s real estate market placed further emphasis on sentiment and luck for the winners of auctions. Quite tellingly, Malcolm Turnbull, upon becoming PM, noted it was a “turn of events I did not expect.”


Mentions of ‘risk’ (red line) and ‘progress’ (blue line) in books from 1900 to 2008.

Even on the national security front, Australia “hedges” its risk, simultaneously hoping against but planning for an eventual China-related war in Asia. All of it, a risk-based future.

Perhaps Thiel is right in saying that “if you expect an indefinite future ruled by randomness, you give up on trying to master it”.

Watching politicians in Australia and in democracies beyond, one can only conclude that many have given up on trying to master the future.

Politicians govern from poll to poll in fear of voter or party revolts, while businesses can only see ahead to the next quarter in trying to placate the market. In the throes of the current US primary season, notice the absence of future plans and how abundant polls are.

Everyone fancies themselves an armchair statistician. A Nate Silver. A 538er. And so the future vision of a nation extends ahead only weeks, rather than years. This is particularly true on the Republican side, as the GOP contends with a leadership vacuum being filled by Donald Trump.


Metropolis of Tomorrow, Hugh Ferriss, 1929

Maybe the popularity of this risk-based view of the future accounts for how democracies generally have responded to the big challenges of the time. There is a lassitude, a wobbliness about decision-making in matters as diverse as the eurozone crisis, the migrant crisis, the war in Syria, Islamic State, and China’s island-building.

In Australia, mining taxes and climate change legislation have been enacted then reversed as governments watched their approval ratings oscillate. Even the national broadband network has somehow become a whipping post of successive governments.

If it’s true that Western democracies need new industries in order to keep incomes rising and employment full, then clearly a bit of engineering is in order. But let’s be honest: governments and people don’t embrace this kind of thinking unless they have to. Embarking on major projects means accepting a sizeable chance of failure.


Deep in France’s Trente Glorieuses – Jean Luc Godard directing a film in 1964

The question now is, have we reached such an uncertain point, that we need to begin planning big for the future. Economic growth is uncertain. Great power politics are emerging again in Asia but also in Europe. Islamic State is active abroad and lurks within Western nations, too. Mass migration is reshaping politics. Meanwhile, rising and revanchist powers use their military to jockey for influence.

Rather than drifting towards a future with options continually held, bets hedged, hoping for lucky days ahead, democracies can create their own destiny: economically, technologically and socially. Setting ambitious national goals – concrete, tangible, but rhetorical and political too – would give the future shape.

Then, the optimistic world view that acted as an engine for Western democracies in decades and centuries past can be put back in place. It would be an counterweight to the parade of dangers democracies confront. If liberal democracies know where they are going, they will be able to shape their future. If they shape the future, they can bend it in a favourable direction. In uncertain times, this can’t help but offer hope of a better tomorrow.

Follow Chris Zappone on Facebook

%d bloggers like this: