{"id":4219,"date":"2018-11-29T15:02:54","date_gmt":"2018-11-29T20:02:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/?p=4219"},"modified":"2018-11-29T15:03:34","modified_gmt":"2018-11-29T20:03:34","slug":"jeff-stein-strategic-speech-and-alt-right-metapolitics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/jeff-stein-strategic-speech-and-alt-right-metapolitics\/","title":{"rendered":"Jeff Stein | Strategic Speech Tactics and Alt-Right Metapolitics"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Jeff Stein<\/strong><\/p>\n

This week\u2019s readings reveal an ascendant alt-right \u201cmetapolitical\u201d strategy; in the words of alt-right leader Daniel Friberg, the movement\u2019s project is to \u201cdisseminat[e] and anchor[] a particular set of cultural ideas, attitudes, and values in a society,\u201d thus laying the groundwork for \u201cdeeper political change.\u201d[1]<\/a> \u00a0In response, this post situates the alt-right\u2019s metapolitical project within the larger speech environment.\u00a0 It offers a taxonomy of commonly-employed alt-right strategic speech tactics.\u00a0 It then argues that the movement\u2019s strategic speech tactics exploit architectural features of modern modes of digital communication[2]<\/a> and harness the ideological drift of the American \u201cfree speech\u201d ideal.[3]<\/a>\u00a0 Finally, it argues that the left is constrained in its response to alt-right metapolitics because the left and the alt-right hold \u201casymmetric ideological commitments,\u201d[4]<\/a> thus foreclosing symmetric counter-strategic speech as a viable left response.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I. Strategic Speech Tactics of the Alt-Right<\/p>\n

Friberg offers a two-part vision of \u201cmetapolitical warfare\u201d: (1) The alt-right \u201cundermines and deconstructs\u201d what it perceives as prevailing left-wing narratives; (2) The movement then \u201ctranslate[s] [the warfare] into actual political power\u201d by influencing of \u201cthe masses\u201d and public figures, including media elites (like Ann Coulter) and politicians (like Donald Trump).[5]<\/a>\u00a0 In an effort to understand the operation of this metapolitical warfare, it is worth isolating the various strategic speech tactics that alt-right leaders employ to execute their larger strategy.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Gaslighting and Trolling<\/p>\n

One of the alt-right\u2019s most favored tactics involves blatant attempts at psychological manipulation: namely, gaslighting.[6]<\/a> \u00a0George T. Shaw\u2019s \u201cdeconstruction\u201d of concepts like \u201cracism\u201d and \u201csexism\u201d exemplifies alt-right gaslighting methods: First, the concept is disingenuously redefined beyond recognition; then, the alt-righter insists that he has not changed the concept\u2019s uncontested meaning; finally, the alt-righter attempts to wield the redefined concept against those who would dismiss his convictions as per se repugnant and unworthy of intellectual engagement.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

As described by Alex McNabb, such gaslighting often occurs through the practice of online \u201ctrolling.\u201d[8]<\/a>\u00a0 According to McNabb, \u201cthe preliminary goal is to get the target to agree to a general premise, and then use that premise to relentlessly clobber him.\u201d[9]<\/a> \u00a0Of course, the ultimate goal is not to persuade the target; rather, the troll\u2019s true audience is the right-leaning social media lurker: \u201cWhile the liberal or progressive may never repent, there are others watching the exchange, and it is the troll\u2019s mission to demonstrate the strength of his rhetoric and arguments to them while making his opponent look like a pitiful laughing stock.\u201d[10]<\/a> \u00a0In McNabb\u2019s telling, such trolling has \u201cturned the tide against leftwing ideological hegemony,\u201d in stark contrast to past right-wing \u201cdebate and argument\u201d approaches.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the greatest success of gaslighting is simply bringing abhorrent ideas back into the fold of commonplace discourse.\u00a0 As Shaw explains: \u201cThe shitlib will doubtessly have numerous ridiculous assumptions \u2026 but he is now debating, rather than assuming and condemning you based on his fundamental assertion.\u201d[11]<\/a> Indeed, once the target has been trapped in a gaslighting game, \u201che must address your assertion.\u201d[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

B. Victimization<\/p>\n

Alt-righters also habitually cast themselves as victims of a global phenomenon: white genocide.[13]<\/a>\u00a0 According to alt-right leaders like Shaw, their \u201coutrageous and offensive\u201d ideas about \u201cracial differences\u201d and \u201cthe Jewish question\u201d are compelled by \u201ca transfer of power from white males\u201d that threatens their very existence.[14]<\/a>\u00a0 Indeed, they argue, Jews and other \u201csocial engineers\u201d have achieved their goal of white genocide by \u201ccollapsing white birthrates through sowing beliefs and attitudes that make family formation impossible, and by sanitizing and normalizing miscegenation.\u201d[15]<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

C. Dehumanization<\/p>\n

Finally, the alt-right constantly traffics in dehumanization, belittling \u201copponents\u201d[16]<\/a> and allies alike with abusive rhetoric. \u00a0Some of these statements come in the classic form of cultivating reliable boogeymen (e.g., invocations of \u201cthe Jewish question\u201d).\u00a0 Invectives also take the form of \u201cdistinctive words and terms\u201d which are meant to demean everyone from clear enemies to potential allies.[17]<\/a>\u00a0 As Renata Salecl notes: \u201c[T]he alt-right writers lecture men on their lost manliness and the ideals of how a man should look like and behave. With this discourse, alt-right repeats and accentuates the type of aggression that for some time dominates reality TV shows and which has been mastered to perfection with Donald Trump. In this discourse, people are called \u2018losers,\u2019 and they are constantly \u2018fired.\u2019\u201d[18]<\/a>\u00a0 Notably, these attempts at critique, navigation, and persuasion are the epitome of strategic speech; in Habermas\u2019 terms, these speech actions are entirely \u201cdisengaged from the mechanism of reaching understanding.\u201d[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

II. A Hospitable Modern Speech Environment<\/p>\n

Why have these strategic speech tactics been effective?\u00a0 While some tactics\u2014like concocting Jewish boogeymen and dehumanizing enemies\u2014are certainly not innovations, I argue that the alt-right\u2019s successful deployment of these tactics is especially potent given two features of the modern speech environment: (1) the political valence of free speech has drifted dramatically to the right; and (2) the architecture of modes of digital communication promotes the amplification of alt-right metapolitical content.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A. Free Speech\u2019s Ideological Drift<\/p>\n

While the \u201cweaponization of the First Amendment\u201d has become an id\u00e9e fixe in popular discourse about conservative capture of \u201cthe freedom of speech,\u201d[20]<\/a> a much broader ideological drift[21]<\/a> has occurred with respect to the American free speech right.\u00a0 As early as 1993, Professor Jack Balkin noted:<\/p>\n

Since the 1920s left-liberals in the United States have tended to take relatively libertarian views on free speech, while conservatives have been more likely to balance the interest in free speech against the interest in social order, the preservation of important social values, and so on. In the last several years we have seen a gradual and partial reversal of these positions in debates over regulation of sexual and racial harassment, campaign finance, and pornography.[22]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This ideological drift has continued at an accelerated pace. \u00a0Today, \u201cfree speech\u201d is the battle cry of the alt-right,[23]<\/a> with provocateurs like Milo Yiannopoulos and Steve Bannon framing their stunts as vindications of an unflappable societal commitment to the freedom to say anything\u2014especially deeply offensive or demonstrably harmful things\u2014free from fear of any punishment, including social backlash.[24]<\/a> \u00a0By contrast, it is those with egalitarian goals\u2014like religious tolerance and civil rights for racial and ethnic minorities\u2014who highlight the harms associated with an absolute free speech right.[25]<\/a><\/p>\n

The alt-right\u2019s strategic speech tactics capitalize on\u2014and exacerbate\u2014this trend.\u00a0 By redefining and hijacking the free speech right\u2014just as they have with many other concepts\u2014the alt-right cloaks its dehumanizing and trolling rhetoric in the language of universal rights and constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. \u00a0This, in turn, perpetuates the right-ward drift of the free speech concept, giving the movement increased license to deploy harmful speech as a part of its metapolitical warfare.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

B. The Architecture of Modes of Communication<\/p>\n

Additionally, the architecture of the social media platforms\u2014and the Internet more broadly\u2014creates the conditions for successful deployment of the alt-right\u2019s strategic speech tactics.[26]<\/a>\u00a0 Almost a decade ago, Professor Danielle Keats Citron noted that unique qualities of the online speech environment make it especially hospitable to the spread of hateful speech, including the ability of large anonymous mobs to repeatedly single out and harass women, as well as racial and religious minorities.[27]<\/a>\u00a0 More recently, Professor Tim Wu has highlighted the threats posed by alt-right \u201ctroll armies,\u201d which, in some cases, have driven journalists from social media altogether.[28]<\/a><\/p>\n

Moreover, the potential for virality makes sensational, dehumanizing, and outrageous content all the more insidious.[29]<\/a> \u00a0This is especially true because major social media platforms often \u201ceffectively filter[] people into like-minded groups, isolating them from \u2026 moderating voices.\u201d[30]<\/a> \u00a0These features are perpetuated by ineffectual content moderation policies; Twitter and Facebook, for example, routinely fail to stop the spread of hateful speech, promulgating opaque \u201ccommunity standards\u201d which are applied unevenly (when applied at all).[31]<\/a>\u00a0 And outside of major platforms, \u201calt-tech\u201d sites provide readymade filter bubbles where right-wing extremists\u2014like the recent alleged Tree of Life synagogue shooter\u2014thrive.[32]<\/a><\/p>\n

Finally, the offline importance of Fox News cannot be overstated.\u00a0 Hosts like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham routinely feature content directly lifted from alt-right social media influencers, broadcasting white nationalist arguments to two important constituencies: (1) millions of Americans who are not active online; and (2) President Donald Trump.[33]<\/a>\u00a0 With this final link, the second part of the alt-right\u2019s metapolitical project\u2014translating \u201cmemes\u201d into actual power\u2014is regularly achieved.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

III. A Left Response?<\/p>\n

Given the success of the alt-right\u2019s strategic speech tactics\u2014as well as the online and offline conditions that foster them\u2014how might the left respond? \u00a0This section argues that symmetric counter-measures, like manipulative and strategic uses of social media and other modes of speech dissemination, are ultimately antithetical to core left speech commitments like sincerity and fairness.<\/p>\n

Indeed, the left\u2019s ability to counter the alt-right\u2019s current metapolitical project may hinge on its ability to engage in effective speech.\u00a0 However, the successful strategic speech tactics employed by the alt-right are offensive to egalitarian commitments, and, as such, must be considered off the table.<\/p>\n

Consider, for example, Professor Seana Shiffrin\u2019s efforts to conceptualize \u201cour collective testimonial framework.\u201d[34]<\/a>\u00a0 According to Shiffrin, \u201c[o]ur moral lives \u2026 depend on our accurate knowledge of others\u2019 beliefs, feelings, and situations if we are to respond well to them, and our democratic lives depend upon respectful and, often, responsive engagement with the positions and concerns of others.\u201d[35]<\/a>\u00a0 Further, in Shiffrin\u2019s telling, adopting \u201ca posture of epistemic remove or doubt \u2026 hinder[s] our ability to engage with and respond to [others] as equals.\u201d[36]<\/a>\u00a0 If a foundational commitment to sincerity is a prerequisite to egalitarian treatment, as Shiffrin argues, then the type of strategic and exploitative speech tactics of the alt-right are fundamentally inconsistent with broader left goals.<\/p>\n

Similarly, strategic speech tactics that involve psychological manipulation or demeaning listeners seem deeply incompatible with egalitarian principles.\u00a0 On this point, consider the arguments of Professor Jeremy Waldron, who writes that a functioning speech environment must provide all members of society with \u201ca general assurance of decent treatment and respect as [they] live their lives and go about their business in public.\u201d[37]<\/a>\u00a0 For Waldron, this \u201cassurance\u201d is inextricably linked to the (Rawlsian) project of creating a fundamentally fair society.[38]<\/a>\u00a0 Insofar as this is a left project, vituperative strategic speech tactics may be untenable vehicles for left metapolitical moves.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Daniel Friberg, The Real Right Returns: A Handbook for the True Opposition 4 (2014). In George T. Shaw\u2019s telling, the alt-right\u2019s \u201cideological guideposts\u201d are: (1) \u201c[R]acial [and] ethnic traits are inherited and mostly unchangeable \u2026 [and racial diversity] make[s] white societies poorer, more dangerous, and finally unlivable for whites; (2) \u201cJews not only wield obscene power in Western societies, they use that power to damage native white populations\u201d; and (3) \u201cWhite genocide is underway.\u201d\u00a0 George T. Shaw, An Alternative to Failure, in<\/em> A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders XI\u2013XII (George T. Shaw ed., 2018).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> See, e.g., Tim Wu, Knight First Amendment Inst., Is the First Amendment Obsolete? (2017); Danielle Keats Citron, Cyber Civil Rights, 89 B.U. L. Rev. 61, 63\u201364 (2009).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> See J.M. Balkin, Ideological Drift and the Struggle over Meaning, 25 Conn. L. Rev. 869, 871 (1993).<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> See Joseph Fishkin & David E. Pozen, Asymmetric Constitutional Hardball, 118 Colum. L. Rev. 915, 959 (2018).<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Daniel Friberg, The Metapolitical Warfare of the Alt-Right, in<\/em> A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders 179\u201382 (George T. Shaw ed., 2018).<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> See Ariel Leve, How to Survive Gaslighting: When Manipulation Erases Your Reality, Guardian (Mar. 16, 2017), https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/science\/2017\/mar\/16\/gaslighting-manipulation-reality-coping-mechanisms-trump (\u201cThe term \u2018gaslighting\u2019 refers to when someone manipulates you into questioning and second-guessing your reality.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> See George T. Shaw, Dismantling Anti-White Newspeak, in<\/em> A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders 189 (George T. Shaw ed., 2018).\u00a0 Shaw, for example, claims that the only \u201ccoherent\u201d definition of racism involves the proposition: \u201cThose who imagine that they see different behavioral tendencies and intellectual capacities among differently-evolved human populations are lying, doubtlessly because of psychological issues, and ultimately because of genocidal hatred.\u201d Id.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Alex McNabb, The Art of the Troll, in<\/em> A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders 201 (George T. Shaw ed., 2018).<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Id. at 202.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Shaw, supra note 7, at 192.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Id. at 193.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Id. at 187.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Shaw, supra note 1, at XII\u2014XIII.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Shaw, supra note 7, at 186.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Cf. Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political 26 (1932) (\u201c[T]he specific political distinction \u2026 is that between friend and enemy.\u201d).<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> See Shaw, supra note 7, at 194\u201496 (describing some \u201cWestern males who [are] entirely detached from Western history and destiny\u201d as like insects, soulless, and \u201cexpendable unit[s] of a mass society\u201d).<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Renata Salecl, Emotions and the Praxis of the Alt-Right, Praxis 13\/13 (Nov. 12, 2018), https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/renata-salecl-emotions-and-the-praxis-of-alt-right\/.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> 1 J\u00fcrgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society 196 (Thomas McCarthy trans., Beacon Press 1984) (1981).<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> See, e.g., Adam Liptak, How Conservatives Weaponized the First Amendment, N.Y. Times (June 30, 2018), https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/06\/30\/us\/politics\/first-amendment-conservatives-supreme-court.html.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> For a formal description of \u201cideological drift,\u201d see David E. Pozen, Transparency\u2019s Ideological Drift, 128 Yale L.J. 100, 106 (2018).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> Balkin, supra note 3, at 871.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> See Lisa Hofmann-Kuroda, Free Speech and the Alt-Right, 26 Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences 369, 369 (2017) (\u201c\u2018[F]ree speech\u2019 and the \u2018alt-right\u2019 have become inextricably linked in the contemporary media landscape\u201d).<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> See Aaron Hanlon, What Stunts Like Milo Yiannopoulos\u2019s \u2018Free Speech Week\u2019 Cost, N.Y. Times (Sept. 24, 2017), https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/09\/24\/opinion\/milo-yiannopoulos-free-speech-week-berkeley.html (describing \u201cthe right-wing tactic of framing anything less than free speech absolutism as \u2018against free speech\u2019\u201d).<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> See, e.g., Jeremy Waldron, Dignity and Defamation: The Visibility of Hate, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 1596 (2010); Richard Delgado, Words that Wound: A Tort Action for Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name-Calling, 17 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 133 (1982); Charles R. Lawrence III, If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus, 1990 Duke L.J. 431; Mari J. Matsuda, Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim\u2019s Story, 87 Mich. L. Rev. 2320 (1989).<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> Cf. Larry Lessig, Code version 2.0, at 121 (2006).<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> Citron, supra note 2, at 69\u201484.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> Wu, supra note 2, at 13.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> Id. at 11.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> See Maya Kosoff, Facebook’s Hate Speech Problem may be Bigger than it Realized, Vanity Fair (Aug. 21, 2018), https:\/\/www.vanityfair.com\/news\/2018\/08\/facebooks-hate-speech-problem-may-be-bigger-than-it-realized; see also Cass R. Sunstein, Deliberative Trouble? Why Groups Go to Extremes, 110 Yale L.J. 71 (2000).<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> See, e.g., Aja Romano, Richard Spencer is an infamous white nationalist. Twitter says he\u2019s not part of a hate group, Vox (Sept. 5, 2018), https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2018\/9\/4\/17816936\/why-wont-twitter-ban-richard-spencer-hate-groups.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> See Louise Matsakis, Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting Suspect\u2019s Gab Posts are Part of a Pattern, Wired (Oct. 27, 2018), https:\/\/www.wired.com\/story\/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-gab-tree-of-life\/; see also Kevin Roose, The Alt-Right Created a Parallel Internet. It\u2019s an Unholy Mess, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 2017), https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/12\/11\/technology\/alt-right-internet.html.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> See, e.g., Michael Edison Hayden, It\u2019s OK to be White: How Fox News is Helping to Spread Neo-Nazi Propaganda, Newsweek (Nov. 19, 2017), https:\/\/www.newsweek.com\/neo-nazi-david-duke-backed-meme-was-reported-tucker-carlson-without-context-714655.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> Seana Valentine Shiffrin, Speech Matters: On Lying, Morality and the Law (2014).<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> Id.<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> Waldron, supra note 25, at 1613.<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Id. at 1626.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Jeff Stein This week\u2019s readings reveal an ascendant alt-right \u201cmetapolitical\u201d strategy; in the words of alt-right leader Daniel Friberg, the movement\u2019s project is to \u201cdisseminat[e] and anchor[] a particular set of cultural ideas, attitudes, and values in a society,\u201d… Continue Reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2166,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[38964],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4219","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-resources-4-13"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4219","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2166"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4219"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4219\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}