Don Lavoie Fellowship Discussion: Module 3
'Manufacturing Militarism: U.S. Government Propaganda in the War on Terror' by Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail R. Hall
Public Choice and Government Propaganda
Welcome to the third module of the Don Lavoie Fellowship discussion portal. In this module's discussions you will be joined by Dr. Christopher Coyne, Dr. Nathan Goodman, and Dr. Engy Moussa who will help lead the discussion, pose additional questions and comments.
As you are reading the book by Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail R. Hall, Manufacturing Militarism: U.S. Government Propaganda in the War on Terror, and preparing for the next week's group discussions in Zoom, please watch this video in which Professor Christopher Coyne talks about his book and discusses its main themes. Additionally, please listen to this episode of the Hayek Program podcast, in which Abigail Hall joins in and adds on how the Public Choice framework applies to propaganda. Additionally, you can read this piece by Dr. Nathan Goodman in which he offers his thoughts on the importance of the book.
Question: What is propaganda? What are its essential elements? Are Democratic and Authoritarian systems equally susceptible to the rise of propaganda?
Aashish Reddy: As defined by the authors, propaganda is the dissemination of information which is deliberately untrue or misleading, intended to bring benefit to its purveyors, and likely to impair the decision-making process by which a rational individual could form a judgement on what course of action is in his or her own best interest.
I have come to believe since reading the book that the primary problem lies in propaganda being spread by means of state power - that is, through the permanent institutions of government, including intelligence agencies and so on - rather than through their political party. Thus in my view, the problem is necessarily worse when an individual or small group has more control over a more expansive state; hence the issue is worse in Authoritarian societies. I would add parenthetically that even in such societies, there is a necessity for the rulers to persuade the people that they are act at least approximately in their interest, because even though there is no institutionalised means to replace a government, the citizenry can still violently overthrow a government if they have "nothing to lose".
Collective Fear
In this podcast, Coyne talks to Professor Higgs, who described the ratchet effect theory which offers an explanation of the government growth in scope and size post crisis. To illustrate his point, he discusses his challenge to the claim that World War II helped the U.S. out of the Great Depression as well as the lessons of his book Crisis & Leviathan. In the interview, Professor Higgs also talks about his intellectual background, Austrian economics, and his work at The Independent Review.
Question: How do self-governing citizens avoid this tendency?
Aashish Reddy: I would add to much of the extant discussion that the notion that a democratic citizenry should attempt to gather near-perfect information in order to form a rational judgement about their best interest to cast their vote is mistaken.
The reason a democracy works is not because citizens do that; of course, most citizens are ill-informed about politics (this is not a negative judgement; most people obsessed with politics are likewise ill-informed about physics).
Rather, what happens is that some political party will come to power on the basis of some hypothesis they've formed with respect to what course of action the state should pursue to improve the general lot of the citizens. At the next election, the people will express a judgement on whether the hypothesis has been generally successful, or whether it has been a failure. The politicians are responsible for enacting what they believe will be good; there are a wide number of ways in which this affects the well-being of even one citizen. If on balance, an individual decides that he is worse off (or believes he could be better off under the alternative), he will vote for the opposition; if not, the incumbent.
This is how political knowledge is obtained. The opposition are incentivised to form an intellectual judgement on what the incumbents have done wrong which has led to people being unhappy (and, more quietly, on what they have done right that they will not discard).
Thus after the prices and incomes policies (and similar things) in the UK led to a bad state of affairs, governments enacting such policies were rejected. Thatcher formed a view about what the issue was, and what ought to be done. For a time, the Labour opposition rejected this new paradigm and sought to return to the old way of doing things. They were rejected repeatedly. Only with Blair did they settle with what was clearly good, accepting much of the Thatcherite paradigm, but also had a vision for what could be improved. They introduced a minimum wage, opposed by the Conservatives at that time; but that policy was not identified as a cause of widespread discontent, and so came to be accepted. Thus the Blairites could act on political knowledge created by Thatcher, and David Cameron acted on this plus the knowledge created by Blair.
Question: How do governments use collective fear to expand in scope, scale, and size following disasters and major crises?
Aashish Reddy: The idea here is that governments seek their own propagation, and so they will capitalise on some disaster such as 9/11 in order to argue to the citizens that it will be necessary to restrict their freedoms and give themselves more power in order to make them safe and increase security for the future.
I'm suspicious of the cynical readings of such phenomena, at least in most Western contexts. Probably the government simply did think that there was a necessity to increase airport security, and there was no opposition to this either in politics or from the citizens. It's implemented by a bureaucracy (the TSA, in America) which naturally continues "going through the motions" for as long as it exists; it is not its job to decide if it remains necessary. The government for its part does not want to fire all those people, on the chance that if you disband it, you will be blamed for the next attack.
So perhaps there is a general tendency for such crises to cause an expansion in the scope, scale, and size of governmental responsibilities, and there's sometimes good reason to be against this potential "Road to Serfdom"; and sometimes, as with long and probably useless airport security, people will generally tend to be worse off along some dimensions; but the government won't automatically grow to crush the freedoms of the people.
The Propagandized
In this talk Professor Coyne further discusses the information asymmetries that allow the political elites within the democratic governments utilize their monopoly on classified national security information to propagandize the citizens while benefitting their political interests. He also talks about what it means to be a self-governing member of a free society as it relates to combating the pernicious effects of state-produced propaganda. Further, please read this article on the importance of the role of the whistleblowers in a democratic society. Finally, please read this paper by Christopher Coyne that lays out his view of the role of ordinary people in the peace-making process.
Question: What do the authors mean by "citizens inoculation"? How can that be achieved in practical terms? Additionally, can you think of an example in which the effectiveness of citizenry to withstand government-produced propaganda was successful? Please share your comments below.
Aashish Reddy: The notion that while a government is using the instruments of the state to monopolise the flow of information, citizens nevertheless use their reasoning in order to judge what is in their own interest, rather than the government's.
There have been many occasions when a citizenry has formed such a judgement against the flow of elite/governmental opinion: when, for instance, the UK voted to leave the European Union in spite of the incumbent government and both major political parties (officially) taking the Remain view.
Question: On page 180, authors write, "...ordinary members of society-those typically perceived as being powerless-possess significant power in their relationship with the state." The authors continue, "Because everyday people are both victims and supporters of the system, they possess the power to remove their support." The authors then offer an example of a grocer refraining from displaying the war propaganda poster in his shop as an act of non-support. How can individuals succeed in resisting propaganda when the collective will is in opposition?
Aashish Reddy: Unless I have misunderstood the question, probably I'm more pessimistic than the authors here; but (as evidenced by my previous answers) I'm less worried that this as an issue.
I think the way I'd put the point is that a democratically elected government has won the right (international law not withstanding) to put into practice the policies it deems best for its citizens. So in this sense, the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq (again, apart from questions of international law) was legitimate in a democracy. It would have been legitimate even if a majority of citizens had been against it. They had the right to enact the set of policies which they thought would be good for America, and at the next election would have faced the consequences if the citizenry disagreed.
In this sense, the way to resist propaganda, assuming you have your view and it is opposed to the official one, is simply to make plain that you disagree. The government believes X will be beneficial; I believe X will be a disaster. This will lend you legitimacy when your view is vindicated - a politician who expressed this would thus have gone some way to being successfully elected, for instance. I must remain agnostic on whether it was a priori possible to judge that the Iraq War would be a disaster (since I wasn't around); but after the fact, we can see that it was, and indeed it is an important fact that Trump expressed this view. The neoconservative hypothesis was legitimately tested, and found wanting. They may refine their view and attempt to secure further democratic legitimacy to put that into practice; but that failure created political knowledge on which future politicians can build.
Arnold von Engelbrechten: @Aashish Reddy, I do really value this contribution as it raises some really important questions and challenges some of my own assumptions. However, I find this perspective slightly reductionist, I must say.
I would push pack against the notion that actions taken by a democratically elected government are democratically legitimate by default. While a decision may be definitionally “democratic”, I would contend that decisions made under false pretences are, at best, in violation of spirit of constitutional democracy or, at worst, actually forbidden by the law/ judiciary.
I understand the necessity of election cycles and hence the ability of the citizenry to adjust their opinion based on the results of a given policy. However, I fear this perspective rides too close to Coyne and Hall’s “ideal model” of democracy and fails to account for the often deceitful nature of political action.
Imagine I was trying to convince you and your friends to come to my birthday party. I promise an open bar, great live music, and tons of interesting people but when you show up, you find a handful of people in my studio apartment with an UE boom. Even if I lied to you in good-faith (on the assumption that if everyone I had invited came, it actually would have been a good party), would you feel that my decision to lie was warranted and that your decision was made under fair conditions?
Similarly, when governments fabricate a “noble lie” to align the people with their perspective, can this really be seen as democratic? Although the American public was supportive of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, analysis has found that an overwhelming majority of Americans held glaring misperceptions about essential details, including: Iraq’s possession of WMDs, Iraqi ties with al Qaeda, and world opinion on US intervention. People do not develop misperceptions in a vacuum. Through various government channels, the Bush administration pushed a number of false claims into the public forum, most famously contending that there was ‘no doubt’ Iraq possessed WMDs. To help gather support for the Iraq War, Donald Rumsfeld helped establish the Office of Strategic Influence, a Pentagon body that "designed media" to win public support and to isolate and punish opponents of the war. After allegations of media manipulation were proven accurate, the department was terminated in 2005.
You say that a democratic government “has won the right to put into practice the policies it deems best for its citizens” and that they have the “right to enact the set of policies which they thought would be good for America”, however the ends do not always justify the means. I don’t think that a government has the right to deceive its people in order to pursue a policy it thinks would be best. In addition, I find the assumption dubious that the government is really working on behalf of the citizens (and therefore that bad policies are mostly honest mistakes). More frequently, policies are designed to benefit certain constituencies and interest groups, not the wider public.
Aashish Reddy: @Arnold von Engelbrechten, thanks for this well-reasoned response.
To be clear, I don't believe that "the ends justify the means" in relation to their use of propaganda.
The point I'd make is that the reason the government embarked on this propaganda campaign was because they felt it necessary to persuade the public of the rightness of their policy. This is not strictly true in a democracy: by being in office, they may enact any legal policy which they feel to be in the advantage of their country (which is to say, the citizens of their country), even if the population is presently against it. This does not happen often, both because politicians usually want to cater to the desires of the people and because the people usually have the best sense of what is in fact their interest. The point that some decisions may be illegal is well-taken, but largely goes without saying; I simply mean that the false pretext which persuaded most Americans it was a good idea is irrelevant, since it is compatible with a democracy that they could take the action even if most Americans thought at that time it was a bad idea.
However, politicians think it necessary to use propaganda in this way effectively because it is part of a campaign for re-election. They take the view that their policy is good for America. Of course, the full, nuanced picture of they came to view takes into account trade-offs and disadvantages. No politician could ever present this full story. Rather, they distort all evidence to seem to point to their conclusion; they don't offer the best counterarguments; they pretend that it is a pure good with no trade-offs. Do I think this is a "good" thing? Clearly not - I am, however, accepting of this reality. In this sense, at least, I don't think I'm advocating an "ideal model".
But in this model, they must take full responsibility for enacting what they believe to be good. Those who take the opposite view take responsibility for being wrong, if the policy succeeds; and credit for being right, if it is a failure. In the latter case, the incumbents who enacted the disastrous policy will be rejected. (Of course, I am isolating this to a particular policy; in reality, it is the broader program of government which is evaluated as a success or failure).
What I would fully concede, as I discuss in other answers, is that the use of the apparatus of the state - intelligence agencies, etc. - to push the particular policy proposal of the incumbent party is wrong. They should be advocating (in, doubtless, the flawed and biased way described above) for what they think is right, using only the apparatus and funds of their political party. Otherwise this introduces an unfairness into the political system that discriminates against the opposition.
So yes, the Bush administration lied to the people and this was bad. But they didn't need to lie - they could have turned off the news and gone ahead with their invasion (if it was in accordance with international law) without caring about public opinion. This in my view would be wholly legitimate, but very politically unwise. It would all but guarantee their being kicked out at the next election. Hence they made their case to get the public behind them. The issue is not that they'd lie and misrepresent things to make themselves seem more justified than they were (though this is ethically bad, we should expect this; the official or unofficial opposers of the policy will do the same in the other direction). It is that they used the devices of the state to secure an informational monopoly. This is bad.
Your party example, I think, misses the ongoing process of error-correction in both human interaction and democracies (compare optimal strategy in one-time vs. iterated Prisoners' Dilemma). In other respects, as I hope is clear from my elaboration, it isn't a great analogy for the process of democratic decision-making. I hope it also shows why I think that the question of how well-intentioned the government isn't that relevant.
Would appreciate any further response!
Arnold von Engelbrechten: @Aashish Reddy, it seems we may be talking past each other, as I prefer to focus on the ‘ought’ to be, while you seem more concerned with this “is”. However, the question here isn’t whether propaganda exists today, but what we should do about it. Your response surprised me because not only do you express a lack of concern about the threat of propaganda, but you also suggest that a government is authorised to use it as long as it is democratically elected (e.g., ‘the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq… was legitimate in a democracy’). At the beginning of your response, you assert that ‘the ends do not justify the means’ regarding the use of propaganda, yet much of what follows appears to imply otherwise.
Let me address a few points:
Democratic legitimacy goes beyond elections. It involves continuous checks on power and ongoing public trust. If governments can manipulate public opinion without consequence between election cycles (e.g., with propaganda), then the democratic process is fundamentally compromised. Legitimacy hinges on an honest relationship between the government and the governed. Without transparency, democracy risks devolving into mere electoral formalism, losing the ethical substance that gives it meaning. When elections become a façade for actions carried out in secrecy or deceit, voting loses its power and thus its meaning. If citizens are deliberately misled, their consent also becomes meaningless, and a government that perpetually lies to its people loses its legitimacy. Even if deception is ‘just the way it is,’ how can a policy be considered democratically legitimate if the government knowingly deceives its citizens?
You mentioned that ‘some decisions may be illegal, but that largely goes without saying.’ However, I think we both recognise that the legal/illegal distinction isn’t the key issue here. The real discussion revolves around what democratic governments should and shouldn’t do and what limitations the people ought to impose on their leaders.
A government that systematically gains consent through deceit is not fulfilling its democratic obligations, even if its actions are technically within the bounds of law. If we agree that the propaganda campaign used to justify the Iraq War was wrong, shouldn’t we impose measures (e.g., constitutional amendments, legal statutes, legislative oversight, or education programs) to prevent this from happening again? It is concerning to hear that you are ‘less worried that this is an issue’ when propaganda played a significant role in subverting American democracy.
The issue here isn’t legality but constitutionality. A government can pass laws that are unethical and violate citizens' rights. During the War on Terror, the U.S. government legally spied on millions of innocent Americans, detained and tortured people without trial, suppressed whistleblowers, and, as we know, manipulated the public through misinformation campaigns. Where do we draw the line? What should a democratically elected government not be able to do? Surely, these measures should be prohibited in a democracy.
You stated that ‘the false pretext which persuaded most Americans it was a good idea is irrelevant, since it is compatible with a democracy that they could take the action even if most Americans thought at that time it was a bad idea.’ This seems to contradict your assertion that the ends don’t justify the means. Moreover, you see to conflate persuasion and manipulation. There is a crucial distinction between a government that persuades the public with compelling arguments (while omitting the possible negative consequences) and a goverment that manipulates the public through propaganda. Manipulating the public under false pretences is not persuasion, it’s deception.
Finally, your argument rests on the assumption that politicians act in good faith, believing their policies are ‘good for America.’ However, this assumption overlooks public choice theory, which suggests that politicians more often pursue the interest of specific voter blocks or special interest groups.
I understand your point about electoral democracy and the government's right to act within an election cycle, but true legitimacy goes beyond that. It requires a commitment to honesty, transparency, and accountability—without which democracy risks devolving into a mere political mechanism rather than a government of, by, and for the people.
Question: Why do governments, both autocratic and democratic, hugely invest in propaganda? Toward the end of the talk, Professor Coyne addresses the audience with the following: "Ask yourself why do governments invest so much in propagandising the people? Why do they invest so much in shaping and providing information and trying to frame information and shift the frame of this to the people both under authoritarian governments but also in democracies?." Professor Coyne then proceeds to share one answer to this question. What was his answer? What are your own reflections on this answer? And, can you possibly think of other reasons in response to the question posed by Professor Coyne?
Aashish Reddy: Professor Coyne believes there's principle-agent problem: the interests of the government diverges from the interests of the citizens, and thus the government invests in propaganda in order to persuade the citizen that self-interested governmental actions are actually in the interest of the citizenry; this gives them a cover to pursue the actions they anyway want to undertake.
I'm suspicious of this claim. I think that in most cases, the government likely believes that what it's doing is right (for instance, the reason the neo-conservatives invaded Iraq probably was because they had a theory of foreign policy in which the so-called liberation of Iraq would lead to widespread democratisation in the Middle East and the propagation of American values); and seeks to make its case to the public in order to gain consent for its actions.
This is how politics should work: politicians have beliefs about what will be good, they get elected to government to enact those beliefs, and they're voted out if the people do not feel better off. Of course, all policies have their downside; but a government which believes they are good will elide these. It is the responsibility of those who take the opposite view to make their political argument that what is happening is bad, and then they take responsibility for their mistake if it turns out to be good.
So: it's because they have beliefs about a course of action which they believe will be good; that isn't self-evidently true; so they make their case for it, sometimes using propaganda. The issue here arises when they do so using the apparatus of the state, rather than through the same means which are available to an opposition.
Ask the Author
As we continue discussions of the book, please use this space to ask Dr. Christopher Coyne your questions.
Question: Please use this thread to ask the author of the book further questions.
Aashish Reddy: If the same techniques of propaganda were used, but through (i.e., funded by, etc.) the political parties, how much happier would you be? Presumably this greatly limits the scope/extent of such propaganda, eliminates the monopoly of information (since they can't use the apparatus of government to accomplish their ends); but many of the same issues which your book takes to be salient - untruthfulness, putative principle-agent problems, etc. - are maintained.