GASLIGHTING, def. “manipulating citizens into thinking they are wrong, even when they’re right.”
Political gaslighting “is bad for politics because it contributes to a political system in which citizens’ attitudes are unmoored from the evidence about how things really are, and that is politically dangerous.”1.
This periodic newsletter will focus on political gaslighting intended to manipulate Republicans into thinking primaries choose their presidential nominee, not the Republican delegates to the quadrennial Republican National Convention.
MEDIA GASLIGHTERS THIS WEEK
This week’s media gaslighters of note: Politico, Washington Examiner, Associated Press, Des Moine Register, Gazette-Lee Des Moines Bureau and the Concord Monitor.
These headlines tell the story. GOP HOPEFULS CRANK UP THE “IF-TRUMP-DOESN’T-RUN” PRIMARY; IOWA GOP ‘DEFINITELY’ HOLDING 2024 CAUCUS AND EXPECTS CONTEST TO GO FIRST; ‘THE IOWA CAUCUSES ARE ON’: REPUBLICANS SAY EARLY POLITICAL TRIPS REINFORCE PLANS FOR 2024 CAUCUS; CAPITOL IDEAS: TRUMP LOOMS OVER GOP HOPEFULS’ TREKS TO IOWA; and ON THE TRAIL: FIGHTING TO STAY FIRST IN THE NATION.
Not a single article reviewed last week even mentioned the words “convention” or “delegates”, much less any discussion of the simple fact that a majority vote of the individual delegates at the Republican National Convention is the only way a Republican can become the party’s candidate for President of the United States.
The deliberate omission of any reference to the role of individual members of the Republican Party is disinformation which diverts attention from the party’s proper role in the nomination process and confuses voters as well by creating the impression that voters choose the nominee in primaries and not the party at its convention.
No amount of political gaslighting can destroy the truth; it simply hides it from view.
In fairness to the various authors of this media gaslighting, we acknowledge that each was assigned to write this propaganda in the first place, and none of it was likely published without being reviewed by superior editors.
FEATURED POLITICAL INDUSTRY GASLIGHTERS THIS WEEK
Other members of the Political Industry gaslighting this week are Jeff Kaufmann, Matt Moore, Wesley Enos, Stuart Spencer, Tony Fabrizio, John Thomas, Whit Ayers, Wayne MacDonald, Steve Scheffler, Jimmy Centers, Eric Woolson, Luke Martz, Doug Gross, and Steve Stepanek.
All of these individuals were quoted in the media gaslighting articles, speculating about the Republican Presidential nomination process for 2024, but none of them mentioned the Republican National Convention.
Several of them are current or former members of the Republican National Committee which invites several questions which, not surprisingly, the media failed to ask.
We will ask them.
1. What is the highest authority of the Republican Party?
2. How are the Rules of the Republican Party created?
3. Will the Rules of the Republican Party bind delegates at the national convention to vote according to the results of previously held primaries in 2024?
4. If so, which specific rules?
5. When were the current Rules of the Republican Party adopted. (Date)
Matt Moore and Steve Scheffler were members, as I was, of the Convention Rules Committee at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland. That shared experience informs me that each of them know the answer to the above questions.
Scheffler, Kaufmann, and Stepanek are current members of the Republican National Committee and MacDonald and Moore are former RNC members.
While the headlines belie the media motives in their articles, the sources they chose to interview magnify the gaslighting. Each of these sources is a bona fide member of the Political Industrial Complex. The sources with RNC credentials are all from “early states” and seem to feel that that is sufficient reason to trample on the rights of convention delegates.
The rest of the PIC sources are kindly referred to as “prominent Republican operative”, former party official, and “famed Republican strategist”. Numerous anonymous sources were also called Republican “strategists” or “operatives”. While they are actually pollsters, consultants or lawyers with economic interests in primaries, these “puff piece” articles seek to soften their image.
If you are reading this newsletter post you have most likely read the media articles discussed here. Hopefully, our insights will help you recognize political gaslighting when you see it.
Thanks for reading!
“Gaslighting Citizens”, NYU Law & Philosophy Colloquium. Eric Beerbohm and Ryan Davis