What do Christian homeschoolers, “no compromise” gun rights advocates, anti-vaxxers, QAnon, social media trolls, and your crazy uncle all have in common?
Confrontational politics. This brand of activism uses specific persuasive techniques to convert a narrow slice of the electorate into fervent single-issue voters. A shockingly small number of people come to have massive influence on election outcomes, public policy, and political discourse.
Learning about confrontational politics has cast new light on much of the “news” I’ve seen on social media the last few years, my relationships with people who wholeheartedly espouse insane conspiracy theories, and my understanding of why U.S. politics have become so dysfunctional.
The Surprising Origins of Confrontational Politics
R.J. Rushdoony published one of the most influential books you’ve never heard of. His ideas have done as much as anyone’s to sow discord in politics, in the media, and in families or friendships with diverse beliefs.
Published in 1973, The Institutes of Biblical Law by Rushdoony argued for “Christian Reconstruction” — reconstructing society from the ground up according to a literalist, fundamentalist understanding of the Christian bible.
For those unfamiliar, Christian fundamentalists believe the Bible is the divinely-inspired, infallible “word of God.” The Bible can’t be wrong about anything, including science. Never mind that whoever wrote Genesis wasn’t trying to offer a scientific account of creation.
Christian Reconstruction came to be centered around homeschooling. Parents in the movement removed their kids from public schools to educate them according to fundamentalist beliefs. There is little-to-no regulation of homeschooling in the U.S. In fact, people can get taxpayer money to send their kids to parochial schools (see Powers and Principalities, Ep. 4).
Why? Because Rushdoony proselytized strategies that Christian Reconstructionists used to convert others to their cause, influence elected officials, kill regulation, and redirect public resources to private religious education through “school choice vouchers.”
Rushdoony’s influence didn’t end there. He mentored H.L. Richardson, a state Senator from California, author of a book on confrontational politics, and founder of Gun Owners of America, the original “no compromise” gun rights group and the second largest gun lobby in America after the NRA.
Aaron, Ben, and Chris Dorr are some of the most prominent “no compromisers” today, and they explicitly describe their approach to gun rights advocacy as confrontational politics. Their anti-gun control messages and demands of “political purity” on gun issues are so extreme that even staunchly pro-gun politicians despise them and their tactics.
As reported by NPR’s No Compromise podcast, you can attend $50 half-day seminars to learn the strategies of confrontational politics from the Foundation for Applied Conservative Leadership (FACL). The Dorrs and many other gun rights activists have been listed as official instructors. Some fifty FACL seminars have taken place in the U.S. this year.
NPR journalist Chris Haxel attended a FACL seminar outside of St. Louis as part of No Compromise. The seminar was filled almost entirely with women — all of them anti-vaxxers.
QAnon used the strategies of confrontational politics to move from a fringe oddity to a dangerously normalized assumption embraced by right-wing media, Senator Kelly Loeffler, and congressional candidate Marjorie Taylor-Greene. Taylor-Greene has been nicknamed the “Q candidate” for her wholehearted parroting of QAnon ideas.
The New York Post dog-whistled QAnon’s claims of a secret Satanic pedophilia cult within the Democratic party with its dubious reporting that Hunter Biden left a laptop containing child pornography at a repair shop. The right-wing media’s attempts to inflame a scandal over the story reflects a key strategy of confrontational politics: target a small group predisposed to your message.
I doubt any of my conservative friends and family members have heard of either Rushdoony or his book, yet his ideas have influenced them and their lives in profound ways. His ideas pushed religious and conservative political activism toward activating uncompromising extremism.
It’s easy to see the results of Rushdoony’s ideas in our media environment today, and the description “uncompromising extremists” aptly fits my friends and family members who still won’t wear masks, believe in the “deep state,” and view political beliefs through the lens of “good vs. evil.”
The Simple Math Behind Confrontational Politics
In both decades-old and recent training videos (see No Compromise, Ep. 6), proponents of confrontational politics emphasize that only a small slice of the electorate matters.
Primaries are key hurdles to winning the general election, but only about 25% of the U.S. electorate votes in primary elections (about 28% voted in the 2016 primaries, nearly a record). According to FACL instructors, some 8% are reliable Republicans and 8% are dependable Democrats. About 2% vote for third-party candidates or write-in candidates.
That leaves about 6–7% who “matter” in confrontational politics. To sway elections and strike fear in incumbent politicians, one needs to persuade only a little more than 3–3.5% of that group to become dedicated to one’s issue.
So dedicated that they vote for candidates based exclusively on support for that issue, including in primaries; that they sustain decades of political pressure to get school vouchers; that they view the NRA as too “soft” on gun rights; that they push for laws enabling them to refuse school-required vaccinations; or that they advocate voting for “Q,” a.k.a. Donald Trump, who will defeat the child sex-trafficking ring in the Democratic party.
The 3% pressures politicians so actively that they can’t be fully ignored. They’re the loudest voices and most reliable voters in the room.
Worse still, their ideas often get amplified and normalized by people with larger, more mainstream followings.
For example, in “Mainstream Republicans Are Starting to Sound a lot like QAnon,” Jared Casto recounts how conservative media has amplified QAnon and the “QAnon-light” New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Despite the story’s poor sourcing and obvious credibility issues (see Casto above), Rudy Guluiani promoted the “Hunter Biden is a pedophile” narrative on Newsmax. Multiple popular right-wing blogs ran with the story.
Next, Lou Dobbs reiterated the claim for his audience on Fox Business and retweeted one of the right-wing blogs. Other conservative personalities began tweeting the narrative to millions.
Then Don Trump Jr. went on Fox News and accused the Bidens of involvement in “human trafficking and prostitution rings.” All of this echoes QAnon’s claims of a child-sex ring among Democrat elites.
Next thing you know, nearly 40% of Republicans think QAnon’s conspiracy theories are “at least somewhat accurate” and a full 50% of Trump supporters believe “top Democrats are involved in an elite child sex-trafficking ring.”
No wonder my Fox News-loving family freaked out when I flipped from right to left. If I had known about confrontational politics back then, I wouldn’t have taken their reaction so personally.
At least now I better understand why American politics sucks so much now. Jason Casto cites Business Insider reporting that GOP strategists view QAnon as a strategic voting bloc and a campaign asset. These strategists described QAnon believers as “a useful band of fired-up supporters.”
For many issues, the “fired-up” 3% spouting conspiracy theories exerts far more influence on politics and public discourse than their numbers or ideas merit.
Thus we consume political campaigns with questions about email servers, the non-scandal of Burisma, and dubious stories about laptops with child porn rather than focusing on policy ideas.
We waste time and damage relationships arguing with each other about “birtherism,” the “deep state,” alleged socialism, and QAnon instead of discussing how to make society better — or perhaps more wisely, just being friends and family.
The Strategies of Confrontational Politics
When you’re trying to influence so few people, you can employ much more radical rhetoric. In fact, the more radical your rhetoric, the more impact it will have on the people predisposed to your message.
Technology makes it possible to reach this group and ensconce them in an echo chamber of misinformation, fear-mongering, and outrage. We shouldn’t hold our crazy uncle accountable for his beliefs so much as we should encourage him to get his news anywhere but social media.
Using Big Tech to Reach the 3%
Before the internet, it was time-consuming and expensive to identify and coordinate the 3% of the population spread throughout the country who might support extreme ideologies and positions.
Thanks to Big Tech, it’s as easy as creating a Facebook group, promoting a tweet, or posting an outlandish video on YouTube.
Facebook groups coalesce users based on common interests. Networks of similar groups amplify each other’s posts, spreading them to thousands, sometimes millions. While Facebook’s granular user-data enables precise microtargeting of cheap ads, why bother when the algorithm does it for free?
As The Social Dilemma points out, fake news spreads six times faster on social media than actual news.
The Dorr brothers, for example, disseminate their propaganda through Facebook groups, Facebook live videos, and reposts of a news articles that they rewrote to give them a “they’re-coming-for-your-guns” angle.
They also anonymously produce the Second Amendment Daily website and email newsletter, whose slanted stories often get reshared on social media as though they’re gospel, even by pro-gun politicians and activists who dislike the Dorrs’ extreme philosophy and abrasive approach.
As much as I want to fact-check my friends and family member’s social media, the rhetoric of confrontational politics works far too well. No wonder my social media activism has succeeded only in pissing people off and inviting scorn for my viewpoint and ideas.
Using “Us vs. Them” to Capture the Audience
The Dorr brothers are a perfect example of the “us vs. them” rhetoric that makes confrontational politics so effective.
Their harsh criticism of everyone who doesn’t embrace the “No Compromise” philosophy makes Donald Trump look like Mr. Rodgers. They believe there shouldn’t be any gun laws at all, and they ridicule anyone (including the NRA, other pro-gun groups, and conservative Republicans) who supports any kind of gun regulation, such as concealed carry permits.
They present themselves as tireless, relentless, outspoken defenders of your gun rights against stupid lib-tards, spineless politicians, and biased media. They record theatrical, bombastic videos in state legislatures, at gun rallies, and at lockdown protests, ranting, insulting opponents, and claiming that they’re working for you in the halls of power and online every single day.
Is it surprising, then, that my pro-gun friends and family members trust people like the Dorr brothers more than me when it comes to the gun control debate? No. No, it’s not.
In reality, the Dorrs mostly just record a video in one corner of the state house, change suit jackets, record a second video in a different corner, change again, and so on until they’ve produced a month’s worth of videos to post online. They flood Facebook with hours of content each day, falsely portraying themselves as constantly lobbying and advocating.
The more they repeat their arguments, the truer they seem to the people following them. Repetition makes a claim feel true regardless of its content. Psychologists call this the “illusion of truth effect.” And the more information provided, the more fuel audiences have for their confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. Confrontational politics provides plenty of “evidence” people can use to justify believing what they want to believe.
It helps, too, that confrontational politics doesn’t always have an obvious profit motive. If you’ll join their movement and contribute financially, the Dorrs say, you’ll allow them to keep working hard to protect your gun rights from, as one Dorr video says, people “who don’t know which end the bullets come out of.” The Dorrs seem genuine in only wanting to defend your gun rights.
Whereas you and me — the “radical liberals” — might want to take those rights away, starting with universal background checks and bans on high capacity magazines. The slippery-slope! The horror!
As it turns out, most of the donations the Dorrs’ nonprofit receives go to printing mailers to request more donations — mailers printed by a private company they own. NPR’s No Compromise reports that the Dorr brothers don’t seem to be getting rich from the scheme. The documents NPR found suggest that the Dorrs might gross about $240,000 each. I’d argue that’s a nice living for posting a couple hours of ranting on Facebook each day.
But absent investigative journalism, how would people who see that Facebook content ever know what the Dorrs do with the donations they receive?
Anti-vaxxers are another example of confrontational politics. They don’t argue against the science of vaccines as much as they argue against the authority of medicine. They question the motives of doctors, health officials, and the government. What secret agenda might Anthony Fauci have for exaggerating COVID? Could the pandemic be a lie to justify mandatory vaccinations? Might those vaccinations secretly contain tracking chips?
Once they’ve fostered suspicion, anti-vaxxers often cite “scientific evidence” that they don’t want you to know about. We know better, their rhetoric goes, and we’re looking out for you and your children against them. Propaganda videos like Plandemic portray vaccines as deadly and doctors as sinister.
It works. Plandemic received almost 2.5 million views on Facebook, double the Pentagon’s “aerial phenomena” video and dwarfing The Office reunion video. There doesn’t seem to be a clear profit motive unless an anti-vaxxer sells some miraculous, all-natural, homemade alternative or Judy Mikovits just published a book.*** But again, they’re just trying to help!
So even though I begged my right-wing family members to wear masks for my health and the health of my immunocompromised wife, they refused to be “bullied” into sacrificing their freedom to the vaccination agenda. They identified me as part of the dangerous “them” rather than a fellow human asking for consideration and courtesy.
Similarly, the basic premise of QAnon is that we know the truth — the existence of a vile them that can be defeated only by Donald Trump, the messianic “Q.” We can defeat them if we vote for Trump. QAnon-believers promote their theories with religious fervor even though there seems to be little financial incentive apart from gaining a platform.
Confrontational politics radicalizes a tiny minority and captures their unwavering loyalty through:
- the power of social media algorithms;
- “us vs. them” rhetoric;
- incessant online theatrics; and
- a veil of pure motivations.
Once engaged, this minority becomes too vocal, aggressive, and agitative for leaders and journalists to ignore. Pro-gun Republicans can’t ignore “no compromisers” who constantly call them out. Mainstream media have little choice but to debunk QAnon and the Biden laptop story when a handful of people promote these stories to millions.
But the less the fringe is ignored, the more their views spread, become normalized, and gain acceptance. The gulf between people with different political beliefs grows wider. The “us vs. them” lens colors our relationships.
How to Contain Confrontational Politics
I’ve argued for fighting misinformation through educating the public in rhetorical analysis and creating social media “friction” that forces people to slow down and apply those skills.
I’ve also suggested simply not engaging with friends or family members with whom we disagree politically. Instead, we should prioritize people over convincing them of our beliefs.
I still believe those are the best long-term and interpersonal solutions, but in the short-term, for society’s benefit, censorship might work much better.
A Defense of Censorship
By the time a falsehood gets fact-checked, it’s too late. Misinformation feeds confirmation bias and motivated reasoning and takes advantage of the “illusion of truth effect.” Many studies show that people persist in believing false information even after they’ve been told by its source that it’s not true. Debunking misinformation also repeats it, making it feel truer than before.
Misinformation that engenders fear or outrage is especially difficult to undo. Neuroscientist Tali Sharot exposed research subjects to misinformation while they were in an MRI machine. A week later, she brought the subjects back and revealed that the information had been randomly generated.
Yet half the subjects persisted in believing the misinformation even when its source had revealed it to be false. Her team found that subjects had much more difficulty correcting false beliefs when the misinformation stimulated the amygdala and aroused strong negative emotions.
Confrontational politics take advantage of confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, the “illusion of truth effect,” and the irrationality of emotional arousal by plastering fear-mongering messages tailored to its target audience all over social media, day after day.
The solution is to stop those messages.
Facebook and Twitter quickly decided to suppress the dubious Hunter Biden story. Unfortunately, the story still attained millions of engagements. It was shared 300,000 times (and counting) after Facebook announced it would limit its spread. Clearly, Facebook could do more to stop misinformation.
Nonetheless, the censorship decision framed the New York Post story in terms of its falsehood. Outside of right-wing media, people are focusing on the obvious problems with the article’s sources and credibility. Instead of turning into Hillary’s emails, it’s turning into a non-story.
A Defense of Echo Chambers
I don’t have much faith that Big Tech will consistently censor misinformation. If Trump appeared poised to be reelected, I suspect they would continue to tip-toe around conservatives who complain about content-moderation even though right-wingers thrive on Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere.
We can act as our own media censors. I’ve turned off almost all of the notifications on my smartphone. I couldn’t resist checking Facebook, Twitter, or Gmail whenever I saw banners or badges. Turning them off helped me unplug from the onslaught of confrontational politics, but I still found myself compulsively scrolling through the Newsfeed or the Twitter stream.
It doesn’t matter whether we’re in an echo chamber. What matters is the kind of echo chamber we’re in.
I didn’t want to delete Facebook since I have so many pictures there and I want to run Facebook ads (if you can’t beat them, join them). Instead, I installed browser extensions that block Facebook. I can’t get on Facebook on my phone and I have to use a browser I hate to go there on my tablet, so now I very rarely visit Facebook. I encounter far fewer things that offend, enrage, or disturb me and far less propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation.
On Twitter, I mostly follow mainstream news organizations and journalists, and authors whom I admire. I can’t recall the last time I saw misinformation on Twitter that wasn’t brought up to be debunked. When I realize I’m following someone problematic, I quickly unfollow that person. I’m similarly selective with podcasts. I’m not on most other social media, but I’m sure you can find ways to customize your experiences.
Acting as my own content-moderator leaves me in an echo chamber, but is that such a bad thing? In my view, it doesn’t matter whether we’re in an echo chamber. What matters is the kind of echo chamber we’re in.
My echo chamber consists mostly of NPR (especially Up First), The New York Times, and The Atlantic. I tried adding Fox News and the National Review in the past, but I decided they were even more biased than they claim the “lamestream media” is, they were bad for my mental health and blood pressure, and their views really didn’t keep me any better informed.
To put it another way, if staying in an echo chamber of NPR podcasts and articles allows me to avoid slogging through the wheat and chaff of newsfeeds cluttered with confrontational politics (not to mention foreign disinformation), then sign me up.
A Call for Voting
Of course, if more than half the electorate cast votes, then the tyranny of the minority would end. Politicians could ignore the radical 3% and still get elected. More importantly, they could avoid being primaried by more extreme candidates who appeal to a few groups of highly-engaged single-issue voters.
People sometimes complain that their vote doesn’t really count. It’s just one of millions, lost in the white noise. But that’s exactly why your vote matters. We’ve got to drown out the 3%. We can’t allow conspiracy theorists to be taken seriously as a strategic constituency.
Vote in general elections. Vote in the midterm elections. Vote in the primaries. Vote, and mobilize other voters.
