[Peace-discuss] Liberal fascism

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Obama Confidant's Spine-Chilling Proposal
	by Glenn Greenwald
	Published on Friday, January 15, 2010 by Salon.com

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants.  Often 
mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently 
Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among 
other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, 
information quality, and statistical programs."  In 2008, while at Harvard Law 
School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. 
Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to 
"cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist 
groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" 
about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in 
government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  The 
paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be 
accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, 
or even real-space groups."  He also proposes that the Government make secret 
payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's 
messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be 
more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on 
behalf of the Government).   This program would target those advocating false 
"conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an 
event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have 
also managed to conceal their role."  Sunstein's 2008 paper was flagged by this 
blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story's Daniel Tencer.

There's no evidence that the Obama administration has actually implemented a 
program exactly of the type advocated by Sunstein, though in light of this paper 
and the fact that Sunstein's position would include exactly such policies, that 
question certainly ought to be asked.  Regardless, Sunstein's closeness to the 
President, as well as the highly influential position he occupies, merits an 
examination of the mentality behind what he wrote.  This isn't an instance where 
some government official wrote a bizarre paper in college 30 years ago about 
matters unrelated to his official powers; this was written 18 months ago, at a 
time when the ascendancy of Sunstein's close friend to the Presidency looked 
likely, in exactly the area he now oversees.  Additionally, the 
government-controlled messaging that Sunstein desires has been a prominent 
feature of U.S. Government actions over the last decade, including in some 
recently revealed practices of the current administration, and the mindset in 
which it is grounded explains a great deal about our political class.  All of 
that makes Sunstein's paper worth examining in greater detail.

* * * * *

Initially, note how similar Sunstein's proposal is to multiple, controversial 
stealth efforts by the Bush administration to secretly influence and shape our 
political debates.  The Bush Pentagon employed teams of former Generals to pose 
as "independent analysts" in the media while secretly coordinating their talking 
points and messaging about wars and detention policies with the Pentagon.  Bush 
officials secretly paid supposedly "independent" voices, such as Armstrong 
Williams and Maggie Gallagher, to advocate pro-Bush policies while failing to 
disclose their contracts.  In Iraq, the Bush Pentagon hired a company, Lincoln 
Park, which paid newspapers to plant pro-U.S. articles while pretending it came 
from Iraqi citizens.  In response to all of this, Democrats typically accused 
the Bush administration of engaging in government-sponsored propaganda -- and 
when it was done domestically, suggested this was illegal propaganda.  Indeed, 
there is a very strong case to make that what Sunstein is advocating is itself 
illegal under long-standing statutes prohibiting government "propaganda" within 
the U.S., aimed at American citizens:

As explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, 
"publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) 
purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda."  By covert propaganda, GAO 
means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and 
made to appear as though it came from a third party.

Covert government propaganda is exactly what Sunstein craves.  His mentality is 
indistinguishable from the Bush mindset that led to these abuses, and he hardly 
tries to claim otherwise.  Indeed, he favorably cites both the covert Lincoln 
Park program as well as Paul Bremer's closing of Iraqi newspapers which 
published stories the U.S. Government disliked, and justifies them as arguably 
necessary to combat "false conspiracy theories" in Iraq -- the same goal 
Sunstein has for the U.S.

Sunstein's response to these criticisms is easy to find in what he writes, and 
is as telling as the proposal itself.  He acknowledges that some "conspiracy 
theories" previously dismissed as insane and fringe have turned out to be 
entirely true (his examples:  the CIA really did secretly administer LSD in 
"mind control" experiments; the DOD really did plot the commission of terrorist 
acts inside the U.S. with the intent to blame Castro; the Nixon White House 
really did bug the DNC headquarters).  Given that history, how could it possibly 
be justified for the U.S. Government to institute covert programs designed to 
undermine anti-government "conspiracy theories," discredit government critics, 
and increase faith and trust in government pronouncements?  Because, says 
Sunstein, such powers are warranted only when wielded by truly well-intentioned 
government officials who want to spread The Truth and Do Good -- i.e., when used 
by people like Cass Sunstein and Barack Obama:

"Throughout, we assume a well-motivated government that aims to eliminate 
conspiracy theories, or draw their poison, if and only if social welfare is 
improved by doing so."

But it's precisely because the Government is so often not "well-motivated" that 
such powers are so dangerous.  Advocating them on the ground that "we will use 
them well" is every authoritarian's claim.  More than anything else, this is the 
toxic mentality that consumes our political culture:  when our side does X, X is 
Good, because we're Good and are working for Good outcomes.  That was what led 
hordes of Bush followers to endorse the same large-government surveillance 
programs they long claimed to oppose, and what leads so many Obama supporters 
now to justify actions that they spent the last eight years opposing.

* * * * *

Consider the recent revelation that the Obama administration has been making 
very large, undisclosed payments to MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber to provide 
consultation on the President's health care plan.  With this lucrative 
arrangement in place, Gruber spent the entire year offering public 
justifications for Obama's health care plan, typically without disclosing these 
payments, and far worse, was repeatedly held out by the White House -- falsely 
-- as an "independent" or "objective" authority.  Obama allies in the media 
constantly cited Gruber's analysis to support their defenses of the President's 
plan, and the White House, in turn, then cited those media reports as proof that 
their plan would succeed.  This created an infinite "feedback loop" in favor of 
Obama's health care plan which -- unbeknownst to the public -- was all being 
generated by someone who was receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
secret from the administration (read this to see exactly how it worked).

In other words, this arrangement was quite similar to the Armstrong Williams and 
Maggie Gallagher scandals which Democrats, in virtual lockstep, condemned.  Paul 
Krugman, for instance, in 2005 angrily lambasted right-wing pundits and policy 
analysts who received secret, undisclosed payments, and said they lack 
"intellectual integrity"; he specifically cited the Armstrong Williams case. 
Yet the very same Paul Krugman last week attacked Marcy Wheeler for helping to 
uncover the Gruber payments by accusing her of being "just like the 
right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals."  What is one key 
difference?  Unlike Williams and Gallagher, Jonathan Gruber is a Good, 
Well-Intentioned Person with Good Views -- he favors health care -- and so 
massive, undisclosed payments from the same administration he's defending are 
dismissed as a "fake scandal."

Sunstein himself -- as part of his 2008 paper -- explicitly advocates that the 
Government should pay what he calls "credible independent experts" to advocate 
on the Government's behalf, a policy he says would be more effective because 
people don't trust the Government itself and would only listen to people they 
believe are "independent."  In so arguing, Sunstein cites the Armstrong Williams 
scandal not as something that is wrong in itself, but as a potential risk of 
this tactic (i.e., that it might leak out), and thus suggests that "government 
can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into 
action from behind the scenes," but warns that "too close a connection will be 
self-defeating if it is exposed."  In other words, Sunstein wants the Government 
to replicate the Armstrong Williams arrangement as a means of more credibly 
disseminating propaganda -- i.e., pretending that someone is an "independent" 
expert when they're actually being "prodded" and even paid "behind the scenes" 
by the Government -- but he wants to be more careful about how the arrangement 
is described (don't make the control explicit) so that embarrassment can be 
avoided if it ends up being exposed.

In this 2008 paper, then, Sunstein advocated, in essence, exactly what the Obama 
administration has been doing all year with Gruber:  covertly paying people who 
can be falsely held up as "independent" analysts in order to more credibly 
promote the Government line.  Most Democrats agreed this was a deceitful and 
dangerous act when Bush did it, but with Obama and some of his supporters, 
undisclosed arrangements of this sort seem to be different.  Why?  Because, as 
Sunstein puts it:  we have "a well-motivated government" doing this so that 
"social welfare is improved."  Thus, just like state secrets, indefinite 
detention, military commissions and covert, unauthorized wars, what was once 
deemed so pernicious during the Bush years -- coordinated government/media 
propaganda -- is instantaneously transformed into something Good.

* * * * *

What is most odious and revealing about Sunstein's worldview is his 
condescending, self-loving belief that "false conspiracy theories" are largely 
the province of fringe, ignorant Internet masses and the Muslim world.  That, he 
claims, is where these conspiracy theories thrive most vibrantly, and he focuses 
on various 9/11 theories -- both domestically and in Muslim countries -- as his 
prime example.

It's certainly true that one can easily find irrational conspiracy theories in 
those venues, but some of the most destructive "false conspiracy theories" have 
emanated from the very entity Sunstein wants to endow with covert propaganda 
power:  namely, the U.S. Government itself, along with its elite media 
defenders. Moreover, "crazy conspiracy theorist" has long been the favorite 
epithet of those same parties to discredit people trying to expose elite 
wrongdoing and corruption.

Who is it who relentlessly spread "false conspiracy theories" of 
Saddam-engineered anthrax attacks and Iraq-created mushroom clouds and a 
Ba'athist/Al-Qaeda alliance -- the most destructive conspiracy theories of the 
last generation?  And who is it who demonized as "conspiracy-mongers" people who 
warned that the U.S. Government was illegally spying on its citizens, 
systematically torturing people, attempting to establish permanent bases in the 
Middle East, or engineering massive bailout plans to transfer extreme wealth to 
the industries which own the Government?  The most chronic and dangerous 
purveyors of "conspiracy theory" games are the very people Sunstein thinks 
should be empowered to control our political debates through deceit and 
government resources:  namely, the Government itself and the Enlightened Elite 
like him.

It is this history of government deceit and wrongdoing that renders Sunstein's 
desire to use covert propaganda to "undermine" anti-government speech so 
repugnant.  The reason conspiracy theories resonate so much is precisely that 
people have learned -- rationally -- to distrust government actions and 
statements.  Sunstein's proposed covert propaganda scheme is a perfect 
illustration of why that is.  In other words, people don't trust the Government 
and "conspiracy theories" are so pervasive is precisely because government is 
typically filled with people like Cass Sunstein, who think that systematic 
deceit and government-sponsored manipulation are justified by their own Goodness 
and Superior Wisdom.

UPDATE:  I don't want to make this primarily about the Gruber scandal -- I cited 
that only as an example of the type of mischief that this mindset produces -- 
but just to respond quickly to the typical Gruber defenses already appearing in 
comments:  (1) Gruber's work was only for HHS and had nothing to do with the 
White House (false); (2) he should have disclosed his payments, but the White 
House did nothing wrong (false: it repeatedly described him as "independent" and 
"objective" and constantly cited allied media stories based in Gruber's work); 
(3) Gruber advocated views he would have advocated anyway in the absence of 
payment (probably true, but wasn't that also true for life-long conservative 
Armstrong Williams, life-long social conservative Maggie Gallagher, and the 
pro-war Pentagon Generals, all of whom mounted the same defense?); and (4) 
Williams/Gallagher were explicitly paid to advocate particular views while 
Gruber wasn't (true:  that's exactly the arrangement Sunstein advocates to avoid 
"embarrassment" in the event of disclosure, and it's absurd to suggest that 
someone being paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars is unaware of what 
their paymasters want said; that's why disclosure is so imperative).

The point is that there are severe dangers to the Government covertly using its 
resources to "infiltrate" discussions and to shape political debates using 
undisclosed and manipulative means.  It's called "covert propaganda" and it 
should be opposed regardless of who is in control of it or what its policy aims are.

UPDATE II:  Ironically, this is the same administration that recently announced 
a new regulation dictating that "bloggers who review products must disclose any 
connection with advertisers, including, in most cases, the receipt of free 
products and whether or not they were paid in any way by advertisers, as occurs 
frequently."  Without such disclosure, the administration reasoned, the public 
may not be aware of important hidden incentives (h/t pasquin).  Yet the same 
administration pays an MIT analyst hundreds of thousands of dollars to advocate 
their most controversial proposed program while they hold him out as 
"objective," and selects as their Chief Regulator someone who wants government 
agents to covertly mold political discussions "anonymously or even with false 
identities."

UPDATE III:  Just to get a sense for what an extremist Cass Sunstein is (which 
itself is ironic, given that his paper calls for "cognitive infiltration of 
extremist groups," as the Abstract puts it), marvel at this paragraph:

   "What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can 
do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.
(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those 
who disseminate such theories.
(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to 
discredit conspiracy theories.
(4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in 
counterspeech.
(5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, 
encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential 
effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable 
conditions.  However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in 
cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which 
involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5)."

So Sunstein isn't calling right now for proposals (1) and (2) -- having 
Government "ban conspiracy theorizing" or "impose some kind of tax on those who" 
do it -- but he says "each will have a place under imaginable conditions."  I'd 
love to know the "conditions" under which the government-enforced banning of 
conspiracy theories or the imposition of taxes on those who advocate them will 
"have a place."  Anyone who believes this should, for that reason alone, be 
barred from any meaningful government position.

© 2010 Salon.com
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator 
in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would 
a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, 
released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.