American Support for Russia Isn’t Just About Russia – BCB #89

Also: a new conflict resolution program for teachers, and rage farming is a bipartisan pastime

How Red became the pro-Russia side

On February 10th, Tucker Carlson—without doubt one of Red’s most powerful and controversial public figures—traveled to Moscow for a lengthy interview with Vladimir Putin. Though Carlson framed the interview as journalistic, his questioning was softball at best. For instance, he allowed Putin to speak at length about Russia’s (questionable) historical claim on Ukrainian land.

But Tucker is not alone. Over the last few years there has been a growing strand of Red politics that sees Russia as an ally in the American culture war. GOP senator Ted Cruz previously compared the US Army’s “woke, emasculated” recruitment ads with Russia’s more manly propaganda featuring square-jawed soldiers doing pushups.

Putin himself has drawn on culture war tropes. Two months into the war in Ukraine, he provocatively declared the sanctions against Russia a form of “canceling” by Western liberals. This sort of statement fits into a broader Russian narrative critiquing Western decadence, which is appealing to some Americans. Anti-establishment journalist Michael Tracey believes pro-Russian sentiment is on the rise among his Red-leaning followers for several reasons: 

- Oppositional instincts to "mainstream" consensus, which is often healthy, given the suffocatingly all-consuming pro-Ukraine propaganda in the initial phases of the war, but has resulted in an over-correction where people have been sucked into their own propaganda warp, just to oppose the mainstream propaganda

- Domestic partisanship and polarization, with pro-Ukraine becoming more and more associated with Biden and Democrats, and so to support Russia is to oppose Biden, as well as "establishment" Republicans, whom the pro-Russia supporters hate anyway

- Ridiculously overwrought moralizing rhetoric in favor of the Ukraine cause (democracy, freedom, territorial integrity, rules-based international order) produces backlash, as it should, but that backlash leads to the opposite extreme

- Buying into the Russian state's war propaganda that they're the last bulwark against decadent Western culture, and winning the Ukraine war is some kind of great cosmological mission to preserve "traditional values."

And of course, Russia tried very hard to help Trump win in 2016 and 2020. This would naturally polarize Red/Blue support for Russia even if those efforts came to nothing. (Mueller stopped short of charging the Trump campaign with collusion, and the most careful analyses suggest the effects of Russian online propaganda were marginal.)

How each side feels about Russia is as much about American politics as it is about Russia itself. From 1917 until the end of the Cold War, every American president publicly performed Hawkish anti-Russian sentiment. In previous generations, this was a more winning strategy with conservative voters. Meanwhile, American leftist groups often perceived foreign communists as their allies.

Today, by contrast, Blue finds itself denouncing Russia and supporting military spending, while Red increasingly opposes any foreign military intervention. This difference is especially pronounced among the generation young enough to have no memory of the Cold War.

(Source)

In the days after Carlson’s controversial interview aired, he appeared to reverse his position, saying that he is not “pro-Putin” and that “no decent person would defend” the death of opposition leader Alexander Navalny, for which Biden and other world leaders are holding Putin responsible. But as long as Russia is seen as a culture war ally, this is unlikely to reduce Red support.

An new opportunity for educators interested in peacebuilding

The United States Institute of Peace, an independent and nonpartisan institute founded by Congress, is offering professional development to middle and high school teachers across the nation. Up to fifty-one candidates will be selected for the program, which supports educators who want to bring themes of conflict, democracy and peacebuilding into the classroom:

At a time when violent international conflict regularly dominates headlines, teachers are the key to helping young people obtain the knowledge, skills and perspectives they need to envision their role in creating a more peaceful world and shape new ways to manage violent conflict. While educators often welcome this role, many face challenges — including a lack of information about how to teach peacebuilding or national security issues in an approachable format.

The Peace Teachers’ Program is virtual and runs from July 2024 to January 2025. Find out more and apply here.

Equal opportunity rage farming

In an article for Promarket, Alan D. Jagolinzer and Sander van der Linden break down the mechanics of rage farming, which they describe as “the exploitation of emotions to spread misinformation.” They focus on remarks by two prominent Red figures, Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, who recently accused airlines, notably United, of “endangering lives” by diversifying their hiring practices for pilot training programs:

Owens claimed that she cannot trust female pilots after validating Kirk’s concern that pilots of color might be poorly qualified. These claims seem designed to further a social-political movement that targets marginalized communities, using the airlines as a proxy. They imply that offering flight training to a diverse pool of applicants suggests the airlines are sacrificing safety. They conveniently ignore, however, that pilots must meet very strict regulatory standards and that industry safety statistics do not support their claims.

Rage farming is an influential manipulation tactic that seeks to elicit outrage from viewers. Its purpose is to increase traffic and engagement — which ultimately translates into profit for the producer — as well as raise funds for political agendas, and place targets in defense mode to disrupt their activities. It is usually employed by media influencers who seek attention and is also associated with populist political movements.

Rage farming, as Jagolinzer and Van Der Linden describe it, is a well-documented phenomenon, and meshes nicely with the concept of a conflict entrepreneur. So far so good. The caveat is that this admonition against drumming up outrage might apply to a huge range of campaigns, across the political spectrum. 

Putting political pressure on corporations is hardly a Red-only tactic; there’s a long history of Blue-led boycotts. Fast food chain Chick-fil-A has been a target of progressive activists since 2010. Liberals called for boycotting Goya after its CEO praised Trump in 2020. And it’s impossible to keep track of who’s currently boycotting Disney (everyone, basically).

We can probably all agree that rage-farming shouldn’t be based on falsehoods. In this case, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that United is making any change to its safety standards. Unfortunately, stretching the truth to create outrage is also bipartisan. See, for example, the case of the Covington Kids, where major outlets aired a misleading excerpt of a video showing an encounter between a high school student and a Native American protester (The Washington Post, CNN, and NBC later settled defamation lawsuits).

This article is an excellent description of the mechanics of amplifying outrage for political gain. But whether someone sees the tactic as legitimate or not probably depends on whether they support the underlying cause, as we discussed previously.

Quote of the Week

He’s just measured by an entirely different yardstick. Tucker under attack is great for Tucker.

— Nicole R. Hemmer