The Real Lesson To Take From Russia's Meddling

Russia’s attempt to influence the recent presidential election has dominated public attention since late 2016 when it was officially recognized.  This reaction is understandable and to some degree appropriate, although the actual impact of Russian interference has likely been overstated.  There is a danger, however, we will miss the real lesson to be learned from this unsavory episode:  today’s American media, both traditional and social, invites surreptitious meddling in our electoral processes.

Most Americans are surprised and vexed by the success Russian bots and cyborgs enjoyed in 2016 feeding stories into our political processes.  No matter what their objective---to elect Donald Trump president or to just stir discord in our political system---the extent of their activities and their accomplishments has been shocking. 

 

The same vulnerabilities the Russians have taken advantage of, however, are available to cyber outlaws based in other countries and those working for some domestic organizations.  In recent years extraordinary sums of money have been spent on media ads and disinformation campaigns funded by American entities created under section 501©(4)  of the IRS tax code.  These social welfare organizations are tax exempt and do not have to identify their donors. 

How have these circumstances arisen?

The deregulation passion that has seized the US in the past forty years has had a major impact on communications.  When I began work as a young television journalist some fifty years ago, the “fairness doctrine” reigned supreme.  Broadcasters were required to provide coverage of significant news stories and to do so in a balanced manner, laying aside personal political biases, and since the airways were considered to be owned by the public, the operating license of a station was subject to periodic review by the Federal Communications Commission.

Television advertising was tightly limited at the time, the result of a voluntary agreement among the three major networks that dominated the industry.  The limitations seem almost blissful today---no more than one product could be advertised in each 30-second spot; no more than five consecutive spots; and no more than 8 ½ advertising minutes in an hour.

First to go were the advertising limits. President Carter’s Justice Department filed an anti-trust suit in July 1979 against the three major networks arguing the voluntary code represented restraint of trade.  A settlement of the suit reached in November 1982, wiped out the aforementioned limits.

Another shoe fell in 1987 when the FCC suspended the “fairness doctrine,” citing the rapid development of cable television as justification.  The assumption was that competition among the growing number of broadcast outlets would guarantee coverage of key issues and insure access to the airways for all points of view.  

Things have not worked out as predicted.  The quest for advertising dollars has diminished serious news coverage, and where “news” has prospered it is on programs leaning perceptibly right or left---such as Fox News on the right and MSNBC on the left.  Unfortunately, ratings of such programs appear to depend on reinforcing prejudices, making the programs potential targets for tailored messaging whether from foreign or domestic sources.    

The Internet made possible the explosion of social media. Democratic and Republican administrations have both been reluctant to impede this growth with regulations.  Russian meddling has revealed the shortcomings of this restraint.

Editorial responsibility is virtually nonexistent in social media.  In addition, platforms are structured to encourage resharing of content rapidly---“going viral.”  Democracy advocates in the emerging world view this latter capability enthusiastically, citing the role social media played in 2011 enabling the Arab Spring.  However, these circumstances also facilitate the impact of bots and cyborgs, the primary instruments of Russian interlopers. 

The desire to monetize social media platforms opens the door for further abuse.  Online ads on social media websites are aggressively encouraged.  Ads could even be invited to this blog, and efforts to determine the accuracy or appropriate content of ads seems limited.

Nearly all social media platforms collect personal data from their users for marketing purposes.  Some of that information may be relevant to political research as well, but careful management of such data has not been a priority.  Facebook has just been severely rebuked for allowing personal data to fall in the hands of Cambridge Analytica, a data mining and data analysis company which provided support for the Trump campaign and a key US Senate race in NC.

Condemnation of Russian meddling and their hacking activities is essential. This behavior is unacceptable.  Even though the Trump administration claims the ongoing investigation is a witch hunt, it admits Russian hackers are capable of penetrating key sectors of our infrastructure, including energy, water, and transportation.  While the US may have countervailing capabilities, tit-for-tat on such a scale is not a comforting prospect.     

Whatever the US decides is the appropriate response to Russia, it will not diminish the need to encourage better management of our media resources and control of access.  An effective democracy requires information sources that its citizens are able to trust.    

Government is not a four letter word

A lot of politicians and many well-financed special interest groups today want you to see government as the ultimate pariah.  Whether at the federal, state or local level, they attempt to paint government as an unnecessary burden to citizens.

This has not always been the case.

When the framers of the Constitution gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, they were anxious about the absence of effective government under the Articles of Confederation.  Foreign powers were seeking to splinter the new nation and the individuals states were engaged in economic competition that threatened financial chaos.  The framers knew civilized society could not function without effective government. 

Structuring a system capable of creating rules to regulate political and economic interaction and of maintaining those rules in a responsible manner was the first priority of the Constitutional Convention.  And for most of our nation’s history this system has functioned  well---the Civil War being a major exception  that proved the rule.

As our nation has grown in population and geography, the world has becomes more complex and our lives more intertwined economically and socially at home and abroad.  Consequently, government has become even more essential to our security and prosperity.  America can no longer be characterized as a vast frontier where the rugged individual can fend for himself without help from neighbors and fellow citizens. 

Government is the vehicle by which individuals can address needs and concerns normally beyond our capacity to accomplish as individuals.  Streets and highways, airports and seaports, education, water and sewer, law enforcement and public safety, adequate health care and shelter, management of the economy, national security and international relations, all are areas where government can act more competently and efficiently on our behalf than we can on an individual basis.

Yes, historically, Americans have expressed skepticism about relying too much on government.  But even that paragon of “limited government” Thomas Jefferson took the broader view when confronted with the opportunity to double the nation’s land size and eliminate a potential foreign threat.  Over the years presidents of both major parties have exercised the authority of government with vigor when the national interest and the general welfare appeared at risk.

And yes, government can be inefficient and ineffective.  But when this is the case, we have not junked it, we have fixed it.  That has been the critical role of our elected representatives---overseeing government to make sure it performs as it should.

That government is sometimes inefficient or ineffective should not be a surprise.  So are banks, insurance companies, telephone companies, hospitals and drug companies.  No one suggests we do away with any of these bureaucratic institutions.  They do, however, require our careful observation---and yes, regulation.

It is not that government is always the best vehicle for addressing a particular problem or need, but when politicians and their special interest patrons rail so vociferously against “government” in a universal sense, they discourage responsible consideration of the real role of government.  Many issues facing our society require thoughtful deliberation as well as genuine empathy for the hopes and dreams of all our citizens.    

Beware the politician whose mantra is “government is the problems, not the solution.” He is expressing a reluctance to perform the duties of his office.  It could be he does not understand his responsibilities as your representative, but more likely he recognizes a stronger obligation to some special interest that has contributed to his election campaign and wants to avoid government oversight and scrutiny.

It is ironic that in his famous essay on dangers of political factions, James Madison took the position that in a large republic the multiplicity of interests would prevent any one faction from threatening democracy.  Madison did recognize that the greatest “durable source of faction” would be economic.  He could not have foreseen, however, the concentration of wealth plaguing America today.

During the past four decades in America powerful interests with access to huge sums of money and a sympathetic Supreme Court have aggressively sought to undermine our political system, seeking inordinate influence over the levers of government at all levels.  In the 2016 elections more than $6.5 billion dollars were contributed to candidates and causes.  Corporations and wealthy individuals provided most of the money with approximately one tenth coming from the richest 100 families.

The United States today is still a well-populated, sophisticated nation of more than 300 million people, envied by much of the world.  Our capacity to sustain our place in the world, however, is being called in to question by our failure to address the basic goals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we are to have a viable and equitable society in the future, we need elected officials who believe in the efficacy and necessity of a government that serves all the people.