The Dark Underbelly of the 2020 Election
In George Orwell’s dystopian classic, 1984, the citizens of Oceania were required to attend an assembly called the ‘Two-Minutes Hate.’ During these sessions, images of a person named Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers were projected on a screen, the very sight of which caused the assembly to unleashed a torrent of rage and disgust at the images, shouting obscenities, shaking fists, threatening vengeance, spitting, etc. A narrator enumerated Goldstein’s crimes as his sheep-like image spoke of state opposition. This explosion of hate and insults continued for the next two minutes, and then the session was ended.
In Orwell’s book, Goldstein had supposedly been a high-ranking member of the Party. The Party’s propaganda line was that he had split with the state and formed an opposition group known as the Brotherhood. It turns out that Goldstein and his followers were no more than a fabrication of the ruling Party, created to give a face to all things the state was fighting against and identified as the cause of the horrible living conditions. Although fictional, Goldstein and the Brotherhood were the embodiment of both the enemies of the state and the cause of virtually every injustice. The book’s ‘two-minute hate’ sessions allowed individuals to direct their disgust towards a fiction and away from the real and actual causes of their suffering.
While the United States is certainly not an image of 1984, the parallels between Orwell’s two-minute hate and today’s political discourse are both striking and frightening. In 2009, legal scholar Cass Sunstein coined the term “the Goldstein Effect” in his book, ‘Worst Case Scenarios’ which he described as “the ability to intensify public concern by giving a definite face to the (an) adversary…." Sunstein and others have pointed out that Nixon, Bush, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein have been subjected to various degrees of the Goldstein Effect through media-generated hate programming. In each case, these efforts resulted in intensified public outrage directed towards the selected targets. The Goldstein Effect describes what is essentially a propaganda tool whereby coordinated and consistent media programming portrays an adversary in the worst possible light, regardless of the fairness or veracity of that adversary’s positions or claims. The result is a highly emotional negative response from that segment of the population towards which the propaganda is directed.
In Orwell’s novel, the state, of course, maintained total control of all media outlets. The United States today is blessed with a substantial variety of information and communication avenues. Nevertheless, these outlets tend to cluster around one or the other end of a liberal/conservative axis. Over the past four years, the liberal cluster of voices has delivered a Goldstein Effect-type agenda most persuasively. The individual in the cross-hairs of these efforts has, of course, been President Donald Trump. Probably no individual in modern history received more intense, continuous, and coordinated torrents of hate than Mr. Trump. Not only was this barrage fierce, but was constant since the day he rode down the famous escalator. These assaults have originated across all media outlets and have taken the form of televised news reporting, print articles, college lectures, Congressional actions, and others. Most significant were the Russian Collusion Hoax and the impeachment efforts. To his credit, President Trump, somehow, managed to remain undaunted and calm in the face of these extreme criticisms.
The extent and volume of disparagement leveled at President Trump is stunning. Unlike 1984’s ‘two-minutes hate’, Mr. Trump's torrent of hate originates from (1) profound differences in operating/governing philosophy, and (2) Mr. Trump's role as an outsider seeking to alter the internal balance of powers within the DC establishment. It does not help that Mr. Trump's communications reflects his background in blue-collar construction generously seasoned with his direct and blunt New York manners.
Further, the genesis of the Goldstein Effect of the last four years is likely the result of an organic effort arising from a shared animosity against Mr. Trump, specifically, and conservatism in general, rather than through any organized plot. However, events, such as the Russian Collusion Hoax, were created with the full intent of discrediting the President and upon which news organizations could base attacks.
As of this writing, the 2020 Presidential election has not been decided. The apparent close vote count plus irregularities uncovered due to suspected fraud are pointing to weeks of court battles before an outcome is reached. Nevertheless, what is so striking is the unmistakable impact of the Goldstein Effect on the election outcome. The weaknesses of the Democratic candidate, his demeanor and unwillingness to address major issues, his inability to answer penetrating questions, and his reluctance to even appear in public created a foggy and vague public image, probably exactly what his strategist hoped for.
With no solid reason to vote against Mr. Biden, many voters satisfied the need to express the anger and disgust produced by four years of Goldstein Effect hate programming. To many, it became practically a civic duty to vote against the President no matter who was running against him. No late revelation of crime, lack of accomplishments, or on-set of medical issues deterred nearly half the nation from voting against Mr. Trump. Voters had been inoculated against Trump’s accusations and primed for action by the Goldstein Effect's cumulative impact, conceived and delivered by national news and other organizations.
The implications are serious. The tentacles of hate created by the Goldstein Effect reach deep into American life. It has been seen on campuses, in corporate organizations, and even within families. Virtually everything deemed Trumpian has been demeaned, criticized, or denied. Also, the four-year barrage served to further widen America's political divide. Whether criticism was valid or not, it always went one way; to deny the effectiveness or truthfulness of Trump’s position. Positive reporting by alternative media, giant public rallies, and positive exposure via a few internet outlets were not enough to give Mr. Trump a decisive victory.
Given the success of the four years of hate against Mr. Trump, strategists of both major parties are most likely to launch Goldstein Effect plans against candidates during future elections. If the Goldstein Effect is seen as an easy road to victory, it’s possible we may never return to civil discourse and honest competition between opposing ideas. Everyone loses.
