Donald Trump is a master at dividing a divided nation. Some, no doubt, believe that his call for 'comity' in his State of the Union Speech was sincere, perhaps a nod to the unifying gestures that most Presidents see as part of the job. But comity is not in Trump's nature; nor is it in his nature to do those things that people have come to expect from presidents. From the moment he began his presidential campaign, his language has been divisive and incendiary, all designed to establish him as the tribune for the grievances of his political base. In his inaugural address, he did not soften his tone or seek to reach out to those who had not supported him, but rather doubled down. Now, two years in, his primary motivation is to assure his base that he has not wavered.
For this president, conflict, not comity, is the objective. As each new issue emerges, one month after another, the nation remains divided into warring camps. The fight over The Wall, which consumed the nation for a month or more, is actually a pretty mundane issue in the scheme of things. It is nothing like Charlottesville. Or Russia, for that matter. There is no national emergency. Drug trafficking and migrants coming across the relatively unprotected expanses of the southern border are at historically low levels. For years, funding for border security – including money for fences and walls – was a mundane issue that no one talked much about. Now, the entire controversy has become emblematic of a state of affairs that has continued to deteriorate. Issues that might not have been particularly divisive in another time now become intensely politicized. Issues that would normally be intensely political now become morally non-negotiable.
"We will build a wall," is a Scissor. From the perspective of each side, it speaks a simple truth. And from the perspective of each side, the other side's ignorance of that truth is contemptible. For the President and his followers, what could be more simple than the logic of building a wall along the border, particularly as those followers are already convinced of the social-ills that unchecked immigration has beset upon their families and the nation? For opponents of the wall, it is as plain as day that The Wall is nothing more than a political ploy designed to appeal to the basest instincts of Trump's nativist supporters, and offers little value with respect to either drug interdiction or reducing illegal crossings.
For this president, conflict, not comity, is the objective. As each new issue emerges, one month after another, the nation remains divided into warring camps. The fight over The Wall, which consumed the nation for a month or more, is actually a pretty mundane issue in the scheme of things. It is nothing like Charlottesville. Or Russia, for that matter. There is no national emergency. Drug trafficking and migrants coming across the relatively unprotected expanses of the southern border are at historically low levels. For years, funding for border security – including money for fences and walls – was a mundane issue that no one talked much about. Now, the entire controversy has become emblematic of a state of affairs that has continued to deteriorate. Issues that might not have been particularly divisive in another time now become intensely politicized. Issues that would normally be intensely political now become morally non-negotiable.
The President's supporters would surely argue that the constant controversy surrounding Donald Trump is not of his making, but rather of those who rejected his leadership from the outset and have never relented. Yet the historical record suggests otherwise; controversy has been, and remains, his modus operandi, his chosen path. Thirty years ago, during the Central Park jogger case, he demonstrated this penchant for stirring things up in order to garner public attention and build his public persona. In the wake of protests following his call for the death penalty for the Central Park Five – men who were exonerated years later by DNA evidence – he declared, "I don't mind if they picket. I like pickets." A decade ago, in the early years of social media, Trump used Birtherism as a means to garner national controversy and support for his nascent presidential ambitions – efforts, it is worth noting, that were promoted by Michael Cohen and the National Enquirer. Controversy is the goal, not the by-product.
Donald Trump is a master of the Scissor. A Scissor – as described in the insightful but terrifying post, "Sort by Controversial" – is a statement or situation that is designed to maximize controversy within a population. Sort by Controversial describes a project undertaken by two data scientists at an online adversing firm to develop an algorithm that will produce phrases that will maximize controversy – as measured by a combination of up-votes and down-votes – within a Reddit community. Their initial purpose was related to selling ads; controversy sells, and therefore the ability to maximize controversy can maximize the attention paid to a product. Or whatever.
Donald Trump is a master of the Scissor. A Scissor – as described in the insightful but terrifying post, "Sort by Controversial" – is a statement or situation that is designed to maximize controversy within a population. Sort by Controversial describes a project undertaken by two data scientists at an online adversing firm to develop an algorithm that will produce phrases that will maximize controversy – as measured by a combination of up-votes and down-votes – within a Reddit community. Their initial purpose was related to selling ads; controversy sells, and therefore the ability to maximize controversy can maximize the attention paid to a product. Or whatever.
The Scissor, as it turns out, is also an ideal tool for political manipulation, particularly in a world where people are primed to see the worst in people with dramatically different political views. The lead data scientist on the project tested the algorithm that she developed on Reddit's archive of 1.7 billion discussion group comments, and the computer produced 100 political Scissors – statements that would maximize political controversy. Of the 100 kicked out by the program, five turned out to mirror actual controversies that had already taken place, including, at #58, "Republican Supreme Court nominee accused of committing sexual assault as a teenager." Others that mirrored actual events included one similar to Colin Kaepernick's decision to kneel in protest during the national anthem, a proposal to build a mosque on Ground Zero, and a baker who refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding.
Just to be clear: these scenarios were created by the algorithm, they were not inputs into the process. The designers of the algorithm quickly realized that they had produced a perfect cyber weapon for the social media age. It also occurred to them that others had come to this conclusion before them; according to Robert Mueller's indictments, Vladimir Putin's intelligence services built the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg for the express purpose of using Scissor strategies to wreck havoc in the United States.
Just to be clear: these scenarios were created by the algorithm, they were not inputs into the process. The designers of the algorithm quickly realized that they had produced a perfect cyber weapon for the social media age. It also occurred to them that others had come to this conclusion before them; according to Robert Mueller's indictments, Vladimir Putin's intelligence services built the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg for the express purpose of using Scissor strategies to wreck havoc in the United States.
The schism created by "We will build a wall" is emblematic of a political divide that is only deepening. On one side, the President is relishing the opportunity to declare a national emergency, while on the other, Democrats have escalated opposition to the wall to a moral issue, putting aside their willingness just one year ago to provide a far larger amount of money for Trump's wall in exchange for a DACA fix. The notion that politics in a democracy is necessarily about reaching the middle ground on contentious issues is being torn away.
The most effective Scissor is one that elevates normal political opposition to moral opprobrium. In a political context, it undermines the potential for negotiations and deal-making. Democracy depends upon a commitment to resolve issues through political discourse and negotiation, and ultimately rests on some basic acknowledgement that those with widely differing views share equal standing as participants in the shared democracy. That has never been an easy balance, as there have been myriad issues that legitimately involved conflicting moral stances, but it is an essential one nonetheless.
As social media has amplified the speed and intensity of political disagreements, it has undermined the notion that those with widely differing views share equal standing as participants in democracy. That is to say, it has undermined comity. Accordingly, we are increasingly vulnerable to the creation and manipulation of controversy by those seeking to use Scissors, whether to gain power through democratic means, or seeking the destruction of democracy itself.
It is critical that we collectively learn to understand and defuse Scissors – which loom as a weapon of mass destruction threatening the core of our society – before we do irreparable harm to ourselves. The author of Sort by Controversial fears that the overwhelming emotional power of a well-designed Scissor makes it nearly impossible to withstand. He despaired over the third-highest-ranked Scissor statement produced by the algorithm – he declined to say what it was – as emblematic of the danger that lies ahead. "How do you know," he concluded, "that there’s not an issue out there where, if you knew it, you would agree it would be better to just nuke the world and let us start over again from the sewer mutants, rather than let the sort of people who would support it continue to pollute the world with their presence?"
Follow David Paul on Twitter @dpaul. He is working on a book, with a working title of "FedExit! To Save Our Democracy, It’s Time to Let Alabama Be Alabama and Set California Free."
Artwork by Joe Dworetzky. Check out Joe's political cartooning at www.jayduret.com. Follow him on Twitter @jayduret or Instagram at @joefaces.
The most effective Scissor is one that elevates normal political opposition to moral opprobrium. In a political context, it undermines the potential for negotiations and deal-making. Democracy depends upon a commitment to resolve issues through political discourse and negotiation, and ultimately rests on some basic acknowledgement that those with widely differing views share equal standing as participants in the shared democracy. That has never been an easy balance, as there have been myriad issues that legitimately involved conflicting moral stances, but it is an essential one nonetheless.
As social media has amplified the speed and intensity of political disagreements, it has undermined the notion that those with widely differing views share equal standing as participants in democracy. That is to say, it has undermined comity. Accordingly, we are increasingly vulnerable to the creation and manipulation of controversy by those seeking to use Scissors, whether to gain power through democratic means, or seeking the destruction of democracy itself.
It is critical that we collectively learn to understand and defuse Scissors – which loom as a weapon of mass destruction threatening the core of our society – before we do irreparable harm to ourselves. The author of Sort by Controversial fears that the overwhelming emotional power of a well-designed Scissor makes it nearly impossible to withstand. He despaired over the third-highest-ranked Scissor statement produced by the algorithm – he declined to say what it was – as emblematic of the danger that lies ahead. "How do you know," he concluded, "that there’s not an issue out there where, if you knew it, you would agree it would be better to just nuke the world and let us start over again from the sewer mutants, rather than let the sort of people who would support it continue to pollute the world with their presence?"
Follow David Paul on Twitter @dpaul. He is working on a book, with a working title of "FedExit! To Save Our Democracy, It’s Time to Let Alabama Be Alabama and Set California Free."
Posts
