A couple of recent diaries have looked back at our accomplishments back in the sixties when we dared to dream big. It was a fun trip down memory lane. But then other images from the sixties and then the seventies came to mind. The SDS. Donald Segretti. Karl Rove. Lee Atwater among others. But these four will do for now. Karl Rove and Lee Atwater’s greatest effect on American politics would not come until later, but they had their start together in the early seventies with the College Republican National Committee
Donald Segretti was, in essence, a paid professional pot-stirrer. The political term “rat-fucking” was coined to describe his exploits, first in influencing student government elections at USC, then later for CREeP (Richard Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign organization). Segretti was later convicted and sentenced for his activities which included the “Canuck Letter” and “Henry (Scoop) Jackson Letter” among others. Basically, he would use stolen official stationary to compose forged letters that would be damaging to both the supposed author and/or another politician. Often, news organizations would run with the content of the letters for at least one news cycle, and force the supposed author to account for the existence and content of the letter. Each succeeding news cycle would keep the smear before the public and continue the damage to the integrity of the “author.”
One of Karl Rove’s earliest political tricks was one of these purloined stationary letters during the campaign of Democrat Alan J. Dixon, who was running for Treasurer of Illinois. But Karl went on to specialize in a different area. He became the master of the “whisper campaign.” This tactic does more than win an election by defeating an opponent. It destroys careers. It destroys lives. The targets, even if they win the election, are forever tainted by this tactic.
Lee Atwater, is the father of framing. He is the author and architect of the “Southern Strategy” wherein coded language stirs up racial fear and animus to win elections. The linked article will tell better than I what his contribution to our electoral landscape has been.
Oh. The SDS? A friend of mine long past, was a member of the SDS at Harpur College during the late sixties. He used to regale us with stories about how they studied parliamentary procedure and Robert’s Rules of Order so that they could storm any meeting of any campus organization and force votes on proclamations on any subject. Against the bombing of Cambodia? The Science Club would issue a statement against it. Cheerleaders against male chauvinism. Chess Club demands the removal of the president of the college.
Why these examples? Doesn’t take much imagination to see this type of activity still exists, polished and refined in some cases to appear to be the unvarnished truth. We see it in social media. We see it on blogs and in comment threads. Some of these activities are relatively harmless... “just hardball politics.” Others can be tragic in terms of the destruction done to the reputation of individuals, organizations and institutions.
What these tactics did not have back in the sixties and seventies was the speed and amplification potential of the internet and social media. Now a whisper can race around the world in less than the time it takes the world to turn. A diary that went up this morning has 4,000 Facebook shares in a little over seven hours.
So the question is this: Are we going to aid in the poisoning of our political discourse? Are we going to spread and amplify the work of the SDS’ers of today? The Segretti’s, the Rove’s, the Atwater’s? Or will we be responsible members of online communities and not trust the word of a five degree of separation Facebook friend or an avatar author before we comment or share? Check with primary sources every time you see something outrageous. Use “the Google.” Scoop Jackson did not have an illegitimate child born of a seventeen year old. A child legal advocate was not a pedophile. And the Chess Club barely knew who was president of the college. (And I’m sorry, I can’t think of a Lee Atwater example that would not prompt me to expletives.)
One more point. We need to ferret out the professional pot-stirrers, the whisperers, the manipulators and the merchants of hate. Don’t give them camouflage, don’t give them cover by using their lexicon and syntax. It makes them harder to find. Also, outrage is how they know what they are doing is working. Quell your outrage. Engage with reason. Voice your agreement or disagreement in a manner that is consistent with who you are and according to your values... not theirs.
Peace.