sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cognitive dissonance, Sidney Powell

RUNNING HEAD: I Believe

I Believe: How Stole the Show in American Politics

Evan Schwartz Soc 0094 Tufts University Word Count: 4619 I Believe Schwartz 2

I Believe: How Conspiracy Theories Stole the Show in American Politics

“What can never be proven is that he has actually logged on and posted a Q drop. That cannot be proven. But it is known that he has control over the Q account” said Fredrick Furber, the founder of , precursor to 4chan and Q of QAnon fame

(Vogt and Goldman 2020). Furber’s adds yet another layer to QAnon, one of the largest conspiracy theories in existence today. A is a statement that

“…explains an event or of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspriators” (Merriam-Webster 2020). The number of and in conspiracy theories (CTs) in the United States as of the end of 2020 is remarkably high—high enough to easily spot patterns in the distribution of those beliefs. It is common knowledge among academia, as well as centrist and liberal circles, that the American right buys into far more CTs than any other group in the United States. The further to the right a person falls on the proverbial political spectrum, the more CTs they are likely to believe. Why? What is it about the American right’s positionality that leaves them so susceptible to false beliefs? And why have those false beliefs often taken the form of conspiracy theories?

The public is inattentive. The mind doubles down. The god is worshipped, the social media circulates, and the politicians, constituents, and media get caught in a dangerous game. In this essay, I argue that sociological misconceptions, psychological patterns, and personal predispositions have all combined to create the perfect for belief in the false and unexplainable among a certain sector of the public: the

American right. I Believe Schwartz 3

THE ‘WELL-INFORMED’ PUBLIC

There is a glaring flaw in the American democratic system: “American democracy has never had a well-informed public” (Karpf 2019). It is empirically true that most U.S. citizens do not pay close to the news, including political news, and that they never have. It is also true that people who are politically aware are good at identifying factual statements, while people that are digitally capable are good at identifying opinion statements. The prevalence of this ability however, is low: within both populations, the number of people who can identify opinion or fact with high consistency is less than fifty percent (Mitchell, Gottfried, Barthel, and Nami 2018). Therefore, less than half of an already small portion of the United State’s population is consistently capable of distinguishing fact from opinion. This means that every day, the majority of U.S. citizens are, to a large degree, misinformed about major political, social, and economic topics.

Why, then, does the myth exist? A veteran of Myanmar’s pre-2011 government, which used fake news as a technique of psychological warfare, stated that they had been “…taught a golden rule for false news: if one quarter of the content is true, that helps make the rest of it believable (Mozur 2018). If this is the case, then there is more than enough truth in the “…myth of the attentive public…” to maintain this theory. The crux of the matter, however, is that this myth will have difficulty holding up under pressure. As soon as it becomes clear that the public is not paying attention or does not care, many politicians will cease to be beholden to them, and some media outlets may not fact-check themselves as rigorously, a task so monstrous that it has spawned an I Believe Schwartz 4 entire industry. The myth has existed for a long time, which lends it some weight; however, as the veteran said, the one-quarter rule makes it believable, not infallible.

Karpf also theorizes that the myth functions as a social contract between media, politicians, and the people. If citizens are always paying attention, then the media has a responsibility to tell the truth and politicians are pressured to follow through on their promises. If they don’t, people stop consuming the media and politicians lose their jobs

(Karpf 2019). This basic sociological function generally goes unnoticed by society.

Generally speaking, the public is not conscious of the fact that they are a tipping point in this careful, three-way balancing act. The “…myth of the attentive public…” (Karpf 2019) keeps American democracy running and maintains the belief of the entire population that every party is acting responsibly and according to what the other parties have told them they must do.

The modern world has highlighted this glaring problem more and more brightly over the past two decades, as the fact that people do not pay attention to the news has become more and more visible, accessible, and trackable. Traditional media remains a primary source of , but increasingly, people get their news from what Toff and Nielsen call “…distributed discovery…”: through a filter of social media. Whether by scrolling through or receiving notifications from Apple News on their phone, people receive news as a consequence of doing other tasks. They do not seek the news out, and they rarely question it intensively or follow up on what they see. Toff and

Nielsen call this the phenomenon of “…ambient news…,” in which news finds the people rather than the other way around (Toff and Nielsen 2018). This exposes two main issues. Firstly, people engage with news indirectly. They happen across it while I Believe Schwartz 5 searching for more interesting things to look at, absorbing it absentmindedly and due to interest in other notifications that popped up on their phones. If someone clicks on an article, it is usually because it was shared to their feed by someone else. Secondly, and consequently, whoever controls the media through which people are scrolling controls that passive , and hence, the consumption of news in the United States. If people are only getting their news through secondary sources, it is those secondary sources who determine what people see, not the news media itself. This puts social media platforms at the helm of an industry which, as has been stated repeatedly by many companies, a job they neither want nor are equipped to handle. As a result, the news people get is governed primarily by computer algorithms that track what they like to see and their online social networks, neither of which are controllable or conscious systems.

This also means that media becomes an individualized experience rather than a one. People are aware that they should be checking their sources, especially ones that they don’t usually interact with, but are largely unaware of or passive about the curation of those sources in the first place (Toff and Nielsen 2018). This results in the individualization of falsehoods and semi-truthful news that is perfectly tailored to match a person’s already extant beliefs. The feed of a college student at Tufts

University would usually look quite different from the feed of a plumber from a small town in Ohio. It is likely that most of what they see will never match up. This also means that partisan news reaches the ‘other side’ less and less. Therefore, in America, not only is it becoming more and more clear that the myth that people are paying attention to politicians and the media out of civic is largely false, but the information I Believe Schwartz 6 received about and from either party is increasingly personalized and limited. No one is really paying attention most of the time; and if they are, they’re paying attention only to what is convenient to see and to hear. The public is not only uninformed; it is also selectively informed, which, in some ways, can be even an even more dangerous state of being.

DOUBLING DOWN

More than ever, the news we receive is based upon what we already believe, and what we believe is heavily influenced by our political opinions. In fact, one study found that “…members of each political party were more likely to label both factual and opinion statements as factual…” when those statements were in line with their own beliefs. Therefore, people are much better at discerning truth from fiction when confronted with information that is in line with their political and social values.

Conversely, Americans are more likely to think that factual statements which do not align with their own beliefs are opinions regardless of whether that is the case (Mitchell et al. 2018). While this poses some difficult political questions regarding the news media, it also provides some clarity: we are all equally susceptible to falsehoods and confusion, regardless of political affiliation. The ability to discern fact from fiction is a psychological trait rather than a partisan tendency.

Which falsehoods we believe, however, is heavily determined by what political party we identify with the most. It is still clear that the American right is far more likely to believe CTs than the average American. A large part of the reason why this is true is I Believe Schwartz 7 because right-wing Americans see CTs more often on their news feeds. This produces something called “’…the illusory truth effect…,’” and is believed to happen because our brains process information that we’ve already seen more quickly and easily than new information. Our brains will also continue to process that information more quickly for at least a week after we have seen a particular fact or headline (Parker 2019). This effect is compounded in the modern world by the fact that social media, as previously stated, curates news feeds toward individual people, making it far more likely that individuals will come across information that they have already seen or information that is closely in line with other pieces they have already read. The “’…illusory truth effect…’” is therefore even stronger than it would normally be and should be factored into any analysis of of the news. And although this effect is also completely nonpartisan in nature, (Parker 2019) there are far more opportunities in modern-day America for it to occur in right-wing Americans as opposed to left-wing Americans.

But why do right-wing voters see more CTs on their news feeds? There are plenty of conspiracy theories out there for people on the other end of the spectrum Most

Democratic voters believe “…Russia hacked Democratic emails…” or “…Election Day votes…,” one conspiracy theory among many that have taken up residence among people across the spectrum of the American left. The Republican CTs, however, are often far more famous. There is the infamous Pizzagate, which resulted in a man showing up at a restaurant with a gun based on nothing but hearsay and the casting of illegal ballots, a refrain that has persisted strongly since won the election

(Frankovic 2016). I Believe Schwartz 8

So, if everyone’s news feed is undergoing personalization and everyone is equally susceptible to misidentifying factual statements, and conspiracy theories exist across the political spectrum, why, then, are CTs so much more prevalent on the

American right? What is it about right-wing voters that leads them to believe, and believe strongly, in scenarios that have no factual basis?

Cognitive Dissonance and The Feedback Loop

Arguing with a conspiracy theorist is usually an ineffective enterprise: more often than not, the theorist will double down on their own beliefs and come away feeling more strongly about their opinions than before, while the person who initiated the argument will simply be frustrated. This is an example of cognitive dissonance, a psychological effect that causes people to reaffirm their own beliefs. The term was coined by a social psychologist who joined of a cult in order to witness what would happen when a prophesized ‘end of the world’ date came to pass. He discovered that when faced with the fact that the world did not end, most of the believers left the cult, primarily going back to their daily lives. The strongest believers, however, became even more convicted that their beliefs were the truth, creating new rationales to justify that one of their core tenants had proved to be invalid (Michaelson 2020).

The strongest believers in CTs do this consistently, because for them, CTs are not just a set of beliefs: “…they are how people understand themselves and their communities.” Certain CTs can become a person’s entire world, fundamentally shaping how they perceive itself. People will do almost anything to avoid facing the fact I Believe Schwartz 9 that their identity and are based on untruths (Michaelson 2020) both because they do not want to be wrong and because leaving what you believe to be reality is a difficult task to undertake. When statements by authorities and experts contradict what a person is true or contain information that is inconvenient and uncomfortable for believers or potential believers of CTs to absorb, they turn to conspiracy as an alternative to shifting their identity. It is important to specify that this is not an act of finding a theory particularly compelling, but one of finding factual information particularly repulsive. It is often not out of belief in a theory, but out of rejection of evidence that CTs gain popularity (Pierre 2020). This means that the specifics of the belief are not nearly as important as what the CTs purports to be against.

The most clear and widespread example of this phenomenon is what Benkler,

Faris, and Roberts call “The Propaganda Feedback Loop.” (Benkler, Faris, and Roberts,

75 2018). Benkler et al. argue that there are currently two different media systems operating in the United States. The first is what they call a “Reality-Check Dynamic.”

This dynamic is essentially “the myth of the attentive public” described above: the media tries to be neutral, factual, and critical of politicians, and is moderated by the public. The public receives “…identity confirming…” information—factual from the media, opinion from politicians. Politicians try to get media to cover them positively and to be reelected to their positions. Under this system, the public holds both news media and politicians accountable for telling the truth, while the media provides truth to constituents and criticism to politicians and politicians provide representation to constituents and attempt to appeal to news media in order to receive favorable coverage (Benkler, Faris, and I Believe Schwartz 10

Roberts, 77 2018). Historically, this is how news has operated, and currently, center and left news media systems still primarily operate in this way.

The second system is the “Propaganda Feedback Loop.” Under this system, a change occurs. The news media outlets begin competing to deliver “…identity confirming…” information. This competition begins to eclipse factual information within the system as well as the desire or responsibility to cover that information. The public then receives news that is more identity confirming. They begin to trust that news more because it is appealing and because the media tells them that they should do so, thereby demanding more identity-based content from the outlets who reciprocate their desires. The politicians, who want positive news media coverage and public support, then also begin to deliver identity confirming information in order to receive favorable media coverage and continued support from their constituents. This allows the Loop to make its way into politics as well. At this point, system turns into a competition for who can be the most identity-affirming rather than who can be the most truthful. Media and politicians begin to attack anyone and anything that does not buy into the system including other news media systems. Those news media systems then lose readers, listeners, and viewers, who are all turning to sources within the Loop (Benkler, Faris, and Roberts, 79 2018). Currently, the right-wing media system operates in this way, rendering information distributed by the system impenetrable to outside critique.

This type of system is called a “feedback loop” because as soon as members of the loop begin to police deviance from the norm, self-confirmation becomes the highest priority of the system. The competition to do this the best, the loudest, and the most often completely deviates the news media from its original purpose and keeps it there I Believe Schwartz 11 indefinitely. It is determined to be “propaganda” because in the United States, news is divided primarily by partisan identity, which becomes the identity that the feedback loop is based upon. People within the loop still hear reality-check news; they simply do not believe it. And when reporters or politicians try to reality-check the Loop, the Loop responds by doing what it does best: doubling down on identity and rejecting anything that does not confirm it. This kicks new reporters, politicians, and news media groups out of the Loop or brings them inside it as they bow to the demands of the public, the politicians, and the other media outlets (Benkler, Faris, and Roberts, 80 2018).

The Propaganda Feedback Loop is one of the most practical and public examples of cognitive dissonance to ever exist. Cognitive dissonance, to summarize, is the act of doubling down on beliefs that are core to an individual’s identity due to rejection of undesirable statements rather than attachment to the belief. This definition also serves as a description of how the Propaganda Feedback Loop functions while explaining one reason why CTs are much more prevalent among right-wing voters.

Right-wing voters are almost automatically sucked into the Loop by virtue of where and how they get their news, and as such, are much more likely to fall prey to CTs that are popular within it.

There is little to no news media that exists outside of the Loop because it inherently destroys its competitors, making this, dangerously, not only the only socially acceptable media option for people on the right, but the only option. On top of this, as previously mentioned, social media is an individualized system that gives the consumer information that aligns with their beliefs (Pierre 2020). This means that once news from within the Loop shows up on someone’s feed and is engaged with, they are more likely I Believe Schwartz 12 to receive more of, and soon only, that type of news, thereby allowing the Propaganda

Loop to jump from news media to all other forms of media as well.

It is also important to mention that one of the other core aspects of the Loop is that it becomes more intense over time. If the point is for politicians and media outlets to constantly one-up each other over who is the most identity confirming, those confirming statements, naturally and logically, become more extreme over time. Effectively, many

CTs are an extreme form of propaganda, making their prevalence within the loop and among those who are caught in it a natural conclusion. As well, CTs rely on the rejection of contradictory information, making this system a perfect environment for them to grow.

It was only a matter of time, therefore, before CTs would become much more prevalent among right-wing voters than left-wing voters. CTs may be inherently nonpartisan, but media is not, and once the Loop is started, it escalates rapidly.

Cognitive dissonance is now an inherent aspect of the right wing news media system and, consequently, right wing politics and other forms of media. CTs are perfect statements for use in the “…identity confirming…” competition, especially once other sources of information, and thus one-upmanship, have been exhausted. Considering this, it is logical that politicians would begin openly voicing adherence to conspiracy theories (Peters 2020) rather than shocking.

A RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

I Believe Schwartz 13

But of all things, why conspiracy theories? What makes QAnon more appealing than the next alternative? CTs are, by definition, group beliefs (Pierre 2020). Therefore, conversely, there needs to be a group of susceptible people for a given CT to feed from.

Psychological research has found that people who believe CTs usually express “a ‘need for certainty’ or a need for closure’ or… the desire to believe that everything happens for some greater purpose” (Pierre 2020). Their adherents are also often people who do not have power or believe that they are losing power (Ayed 2020). The more unstable a person feels that their life and experiences are becoming, the more strongly they will hold onto their beliefs (Weintraub 2020).

A source of stability, the need to have a greater purpose, the desire to be part of a group: all of these are reasons why people often turn to . Indeed, CTs have long been considered comparable to . People usually do not come up with their own CTs, but rather come across ones that have already been created (Pierre 2020).

There is a main difference, however. As Zakheim points out, CTs are essentially religious systems with conspiracy in place of, for example, a Bible. However, unlike in religions, the ‘gods’ of CTs are deceivers, not providers. Therefore, rather than worshipping the ‘source’ of the conspiracy, believers most often view it with hatred instead (Zakheim 2020).

Partisan conspiracy theories usually point fingers at the other side of the aisle when asked who the conspirators are. The problem, of course, is that political discourse then inherently becomes a “…moral and spiritual…” issue rather than an issue of fact and rationality (Riggleman 2020). Once again in reflection of the Propaganda Feedback

Loop, one side is attempting identity-based appeals, while the other is attempting I Believe Schwartz 14 factual appeals, making their arguments incompatible and incomparable. Thus, rather than addressing the actual issues of mistrust in government and the perception of loss of power (Pierre 2020), the CT side avoids addressing those issues altogether by claiming that they are a result of, for example, Jewish lizards running a shadow government rather than politicians who are not really listening to their needs. This is unfortunate in part because most CT believers do have a very real issue that they are concerned about. In the case of the United States’ right, this is often distrust in the government. What results is that people will turn to even multiple, contradictory CTs before they will address the issue directly in and of itself (Weintraub 2020).

It is important as well to address the fact that many Republicans are in a perfect position to be sucked into CTs. The majority of Trump’s base is white, middle or lower class, and deeply religious. White people will soon be outnumbered by BIPOC in the

United States, the divide between the rich and the poor is larger than ever and being religious primes a person to operate by faith rather than by facts. In yet another way, the right has become a perfect place for CTs to thrive.

Once again conspiracy theories become a logical outcome rather than a shocking one. Why QAnon? QAnon perfectly combines the collectivist aspect of conspiracy with not only a malevolent ‘god,’ but a benevolent one too (i.e., Q). QAnon is appealing because it offers power, stability, and a greater purpose for people who distrust the parts of the world that Q is against (Michaelson 2020). It perfectly hits every religious aspect that even the most effective CTs can sometimes miss: of course, people believe it.

I Believe Schwartz 15

THE NEW AGE OF PROPAGANDA

In May of 2020, Twitter refused to take down Tweets President posed regarding a conspiracy theory involving murder, a news host, and an employee at the House of Representatives (Ayed 2020). He has claimed that people wearing

“dark uniforms” were coming to Washington on planes, that protestors and are receiving funding from billionaires and Democrats, and that the CDC has lied about the number of deaths caused by Covid-19. These are all, of course, on top of his claims of election fraud (Dale 2020) and open support of candidates who believe in QAnon (Beer

2020). Other believers in the fraud CT posted false electoral maps to Twitter (Bump

2020). Attorney and former mayor of New York City has famously stated that “’…Truth isn’t truth…,’” and attorney Sidney Powell made claims of communist funding influencing the election and electronic rigging in a public speech on behalf of

Trump (Bump 2020), and later responded angrily to attempts to contact her (Peters

2020). The administration’s support of CTs has escalated steadily over the past four years and will possibly escalate further even as Trump (hopefully) leaves office.

Michaelson believes that “…all but a same hardcore of Trump’s supporters will simply tweak their meta-theories…,” abandoning their support of him and his CTs

(Michaelson 2020). President Elect Joe Biden seems to be angling for bipartisan support and collaboration and Trump and his administration have relatively little to fall back on (Hook 2020). If this happens, the country and Biden will still be left with millions of dissatisfied Americans. Is it the responsibility of politicians and government officials to

“…gain or gain back the trust of the public” (Pierre 2020)? Is it the responsibility of I Believe Schwartz 16 society to become better at discerning what is and is not misinformation (Pierre 2020)?

Is it time for a new governing and economic system that doesn’t reject healthcare requests during a pandemic and apologizes when it has conducted massacres, , or other atrocities? Who can say. Regardless, there will probably always be some people out there who continue to believe Trump; the only question is how many.

“Trump is the only one we’ve been able to trust for the last four years,” said Strickland,

an oilfield production engineer. “As far as the civil war goes, I don’t think it’s off the

table.”

-Mayor Johnathan Strickland (Brooks, Layne, and Reid 2020)

I Believe Schwartz 17

REFERENCES

Ayed, Nahlah. 2020. “Are Conspiracy Theories Really ‘A New Religion’?.” CBC Radio-

Canada, October 31. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/are-conspiracy-theories-

really-a-new-religion-1.5782172

Beer, Tommy. 2020. “Majority of Republicans Believe the QAnon Conspiracy Theory Is

Partly or Mostly True, Survey Finds.” Forbes, September 2.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/02/majority-of-republicans-

believe-the--conspiracy-theory-is-partly-or-mostly-true-survey-

finds/?sh=109449a5231d

Benkler, Yochai, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts. 2018. Network Propaganda:

Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford UP,

October 15.

Bump, Philip. 2020. “Here’s How Seriously You Should Take the Trump Legal Team’s

Conspiracy Theories.” , November 19.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/19/heres-how-seriously-you-

should-take-trump-legal-teams-conspiracy-theories/

Brooks, Brad, Nathan Layne, Tim Reid. 2020. “Why Republican Voters Say There’s ‘No

Way In Hell’ Trump Lost.” , November 20. I Believe Schwartz 18

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fraud-insight-

idUSKBN2801D4

Dale, Daniel. “Fact Check: A Guide to 9 Conspiracy Theories Trump is Currently

Pushing.” CNN Politics, September 2.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/fact-check-trump-conspiracy-theories-

biden-covid-thugs-plane/index.html

Frankovic, Kathy. 2016. “Belief in conspiracies largely depends on political identity.”

YouGov, December 27. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-

reports/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-political-iden

Hook, Janet. “News Analysis: Biden Preps to be President as Trump Fights for the Job

He Is Ignoring.” Los Angeles Times, November 22.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-11-22/split-screen-biden-preps-to-be-

president-trump-fights-to-keep-the-job-yet-doesnt-do-it

Karpf, David. 2019. “On Digital Disinformation and Democratic Myths.” Social Science

Research Council, Mediawell, December 10. https://mediawell.ssrc.org/expert-

reflections/on-digital-disinformation-and-democratic-myths/

I Believe Schwartz 19

Merriam Webster. 2020. “Conspiracy Theory.” Merriam Webster. https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory

Michaelson, Jay. 2020. “The Mentality That Explains Trump’s Dead-Enders.” Daily

Beast, November 16. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-mentality-that-explains-

trumps-dead-enders

Mitchell, Amy, Jeffrey Gottfried, Michael Barthel, and Nami Sumida. 2018.

“Distinguishing Between Factual and Opinion Statements in the News.” Pew

Research Center, June 18. https://www.journalism.org/2018/06/18/distinguishing-

between-factual-and-opinion-statements-in-the-news/

Mozur, Paul. 2018. “A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s

Military.” , October 15.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-

genocide.html

Parker, Holly. 2019. “Fake News and the Illusory Truth Effect.” Today,

November 10. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-future-

self/201911/fake-news-and-the-illusory-truth-effect

I Believe Schwartz 20

Peters, Jeremy W. 2020. “ Dared Question a Trump Lawyer. The

Backlash Was Quick.” The New York Times, November 23.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/us/politics/Tucker-Carlson-trump.html

Pierre, JM. 2019. “Integrating Non-Psychiatric Models of Delusion-Like Beliefs into

Forensic Psychiatric Assessment. Journal of the American Academy of

Psychiatry and the law 47:171-179.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202001/understanding-

the-psychology-conspiracy-theories-part-2

Riggleman, Denver. 2020. “The Spread of Conspiracy Theories Like QAnon Threatens

Our Politics: GOP Congressman.” USA Today, November 14.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/11/14/conspiracy-theories-pose-

threat-our-politics-and-civil-discourse-column/6241514002/

Toff, Benjamin and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2018. “‘I Just Google It’: Folk Theories of

Distributed Discovery.” Journal of Communication 68(3):636-657, April 16.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.tufts.edu/10.1093/joc/jqy009

Vogt, P.J. and Alex Goldman. 2020. “#166: Country of Liars.” Reply All. New York:

Gimlet, September 18. https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/llhe5nm

I Believe Schwartz 21

Weintraub, Allie. 2020. “Why Do People Turn to Conspiracy Theories During Times of

Uncertainty. Inside Edition, October 30. https://www.insideedition.com/why-do-

people-turn-to-conspiracy-theories-during-times-of-uncertainty-62750

Zakheim, Keith. 2020. “A Conspiracy Fever is Raging Across America.” The National

Interest, November 19. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/conspiracy-fever-

raging-across-america-172923