Capitalizing Rage

 

Capitalizing Rage

It is interesting that most society-shifting major thought is emanating from the extreme right, and liberal America, standing for justice under the Constitution, is viewed simply as the same old/same old. As the House of Representatives embraces a vote against “socialism,” a slap at Zohran Mamdani the new “democratic socialist” mayor of New York City whom MAGA is attempting to paint as the new face of the Democratic Party, I am fairly confident that the majority of “yes” voters actually do not know what “socialism” even means. If you believe that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act – even universal healthcare – represent “creeping socialism,” you are one of many that needs a quick trip to the dictionary.

The encyclopedia Britannica defines socialism this way: “Socialism is a form of government in which most forms of property, including at least the major means of production and natural resources, are owned or controlled by the state.” So, as Donald Trump moves the nation to take increasing stakes in corporate America (e.g., Intel), isn’t that more of a move towards socialism than universal healthcare? It does come down to the root word “social,” which is easily conflated by ignorant or manipulative politicians with “socialism.” But if “social media” isn’t socialism, then why should Social Security be defined as socialism? Governmental “social” programs have existed in virtually every form of government in history. It’s hard to believe that the world’s most expensive luxury cars (symbols of extreme capitalism) – Rolls Royce, Mercedes Benz, Porsche, Bentley, Ferrari, etc. – are the product of European “socialism.” The bugaboo against socialism is a vestige of the post-WWII cold war, obsessed against the rise of a communist Soviet Union, an ideological rift that carries little emotional weight with today’s young.

So aside from manipulative politicians, who benefits from amping up “rage” and internal divisions? Who makes money by misusing and redefining our vocabulary to stir up anger, perhaps setting the tone where death threats and political violence against garden variety political rhetoric are normalized? Eric Schwartzman, a strategic advisor specializing in generative engine optimization and brand journalism, writing for the November 25th FastCompany.com, surveyed the landscape and looked for the underlying “who” and the “why,” perhaps redefining the real threat of artificial intelligence without guardrails:

“Media personalities and online influencers who sow social division for a living, blame the rise of assassination culture on Antifa [whatever that is] and MAGA. Meanwhile, tech CEOs gin up fears of an AI apocalypse. But they’re both smokescreens hiding a bigger problem. Algorithms decide what we see, and in trying to win their approval, we’re changing how we behave… Increasingly, that behavior is violent. The radicalization of young men on social networks isn’t new. But modern algorithms are accelerating it.

“Before Facebook and Twitter (X) switched from displaying the latest post from one of your friends at the top of your feed with crazy, outrageous posts from people you don’t know, Al Qaeda operatives were quietly recruiting isolated and disillusioned young men to join the Caliphate one by one. But the days of man-to-man proselytizing have long since been replaced by opaque algorithms that display whatever content gets the most likes, comments, and shares… Enrage to engage is a business model. Algorithmic design amplifies the most hysterical content, normalizing extremist views to the point where outrage feels like civic participation. It’s a kind of shell game… Here’s how it works:

• Politicians and CEOs spin apocalyptic narratives
• Online influencers chime in
• Algorithms spread the most outrageous content
• Public sentiment hardens
• Violence gains legitimacy
• Our democracy erodes

“The algorithms don’t just amplify—they also decide who sees what, creating parallel worlds that make it harder for us to understand our opposing tribe members. For example, Facebook’s News Feed algorithm prioritizes posts that generate emotional reactions. YouTube’s recommendation system steers viewers toward similar content that keeps them watching. And it’s a total mystery how TikTok’s For You Page keeps users glued to the app.

“You search for a yoga mat on your phone, and the ranking algorithms decide you’re a liberal. Your neighbor searches for trucks, and the system tags them as a conservative. Before long, your feed fills with mindfulness podcasts and climate headlines, while your neighbor’s features off-roading videos and political commentary about overregulation. Each of you thinks you’re just seeing ‘what’s out there,’ but you’re actually looking at customized realities…

“According to a report from safety research nonprofit FAR.AI, with artificial intelligence already more persuasive than humans, and frontier LLMs guiding political manipulation, disinformation, and terrorism recruitment efforts, the risks are already multiplying exponentially. Predictions of a dystopian, jobless AI future pale by comparison… The real threat is the erosion of human judgment itself. The existential risk of AI—first raised in 1975 by computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum in his prescient book Computer Power and the Human Reason—is not joblessness or humanity suspended in Matrix-style bio-pods. The danger isn’t sentient machines. It’s algorithms engineered to keep us engaged, enraged, and endlessly divided. The apocalypse won’t come from code, but from our surrender to it.” Eyeballs = money. Greed trumps morality.

The messages of tolerance, inclusion, kindness and charity – the hallmarks of liberalism – don’t do much to amp up emotional force and generate “sticky” viewership. Like this new “war on woke” that makes people’s blood boil, PBS reports (November 25th): “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s war on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies will reportedly result in the Pentagon turning its back on Scouting America, once known as the Boy Scouts or Scouting.. According to a leaked proposal obtained by NPR, Hegseth is unhappy with the organization and wants his Department of War to end a 100-year relationship, which would leave officials running the annual National Jamboree scrambling to fill the void.” Boy Scouts?!

Indeed, there is a new underlying philosophical rightwing tidal wave with no countervailing liberal reaction, as Lesley Abravanel, writing for the November 23rd Newsbreak.com, observes: “‘For the past decade or more, the intellectual energy in American politics has been on the right,’ writes George Packer [journalist for The Atlantic]… ‘The MAGA ideologues who provide America’s new ruling elite with any claim to having a world view should be understood as offspring of a shared parentage, not unlike the Lovestoneites, Trotskyites, and Shachtmanites of 1930s and ’40s communism,’ he continues.

“‘More reactionary than conservative, their political ancestry is in the underground of the American right — Strom Thurmond, Joseph McCarthy, Patrick Buchanan — rather than the forward-looking Reaganite libertarians who dominated the Republican Party for four decades,’ he adds… MAGA's modern hero, Packer says, aren't philosophers or even a Nazi theorist of authoritarianism… ‘They share a revulsion toward liberalism and pluralism, which, they believe, have corroded the moral and spiritual fiber of America by accommodating false ideologies and harmful groups. Their modern hero is Viktor Orbán,’ he writes, of the authoritarian Hungarian president.” With the unwavering, double-down leadership of Donald Trump, this new illiberalism has captured enough hearts and minds to take over the governance of the United States itself.

I’m Peter Dekom, and with the extreme and negative divisive state of the nation finally generating poll numbers reflecting a general rising rejection of this philosophy, will liberal America finally restate a new powerful counter definition that will resonate change?