The study of propaganda is an interesting thing. While it seems easily defined as an attempt to manipulate the attitudes and opinions of the masses through lies and overexaggerations, it is more than that. Attitude change is just a limited function of propaganda. Sometimes, propaganda can be the truth, serving as a means to reinforce pre-existing public perceptions. A narrative meant to keep the masses following along so they don’t lose sight of whatever agenda happens to be on the menu. In my new book, The Psychology of Persuasive Propaganda, I offered some definitions from various sources, mostly Edward Bernays’ book, which described propaganda as an attempt to gain acceptance on issues that would otherwise be rejected. This is also a common definition of persuasion as well. In order to do this, persuaders or propagandists must have a keen understanding of the values, beliefs, and attitudes towards the issue at hand. Once this is understood, messages can be framed in a way that aligns with these attitudes yet effectively moves them to accept a different position. Propaganda can also serve as a means of integrating people into a certain movement or prompting them into some kind of political action. Every two years, the American public is inundated with political messages meant to stir up discontent and get people to the polls. For example, we always hear the same arguments from both parties concerning overspending, lack of jobs, gas prices, or whatever else they use to pander to voters. Neither party is completely lying; however, this is still propaganda meant to rub raw existing resentments and spark political action. Jacques Ellul would call this agitation propaganda. Another type of propaganda Ellul discusses is called integration propaganda. This is meant to “make people adjust to desired patterns” within a society, or even get them to follow along without question, to “prevent them from interfering,” or even rebelling. It could be theoretically argued that we see this type of propaganda being employed very successfully by the Trump administration, as many of his voters continue to hang on to the very misguided perception that he is draining the swamp and sticking it to the Democrats. Could the Trump administration’s current efforts to “defend the Second Amendment,” for example, be nothing more than an attempt to get his followers integrated into a certain way of thinking, or perhaps to ensure they get out to vote in the midterms? All propaganda, as Taillard and Giscoppa say, must be built on the emotional dispositions and pre-existing beliefs of the audience to be effective.

Trump started his second term with big promises to “undo all Biden era gun regulations.” This brought forth many questions, as Trump himself not only initiated the bump stock ban, which enabled the ATF to redefine the term machine gun, but is also an advocate for red flag laws. In fact, during his first term, William Barr used taxpayer money to bribe Republican states into passing some version of an extreme risk protection order. Red flag laws are unconstitutional in every sense as they deprive people of their rights without due process protections. In many instances, red flag petitions are filed on nothing more than very subjective suspicions that someone may be a danger because it is known they possess a firearm. These are facts that are still ignored by many Trump supporters. Interestingly, the Trump DOJ is currently signing on against semi-automatic rifle bans, calling them unconstitutional. Is this a sincere attempt to support the Second Amendment? Or is it a type of integration propaganda meant to win back the vote of many people who may have lost their faith in the administration? The timing is suspect as groceries, gas, the Iran war, and the Epstein issue are all weighing on the average voter’s mind. Still, the gun vote carries a lot of weight as many Second Amendment people are single-issue voters. With the fear of Democrat gun grabbers regaining a majority in Congress, the perception of being a Second Amendment hero is certainly useful. As is offering five-thousand-dollar checks if the Republicans win the House and Senate, but that is another issue.

One of the biggest problems with propaganda is that people simply do not know how susceptible they are to it. This is largely because our public education system has conditioned us to be responsive to authority. Little by little, over the past several decades, we have been trained to accept the government narrative in one form or another. While many people claim that education is the means by which propaganda can be best resisted, Ellul suggests education is little more than pre-propaganda. Largely because we spend twelve or more years being told what to accept as truth, and not how to critically think for ourselves. Another thing people don’t understand is their vulnerability to framing. For example, the gun issue, from the start of Trump’s presidency, was framed as an effort to undo Biden’s gun control. This worked as a trick on the mind, trapping people’s thought processes in a comparative mode of thought. They were unable to, as Sunstein and Thaler say in Nudge, think outside of the parameters set by the frame itself. This has led to an automatic acceptance that the Trump administration is fighting for the restoration of the Second Amendment. An article entitled Guns Culture or Mental Health: Framing Mass Shootings as a Public Health Crisis states that researchers deliberately targeted an audience that was smart enough to understand the message, but not smart enough to know why it needs to be questioned. This is very interesting as there are plenty of questions that need to be asked concerning the Trump administration’s attempts to defend the Second Amendment. Finally, and this is something I discuss in my new book, a great deal of propaganda research is done from a classical conditioning perspective. According to an article entitled Learning Theory Approaches to Persuasion, once a stimulus has provoked a desired response, it is likely to continue to do so. This is referred to as the recency and frequency principle. In other words, because Trump has already convinced his voters he is pro-gun, the idea that he is fighting for your rights holds more resonance and is likely to rein in compliant, non-questioning attitudes.

So, what is the purpose of Trump’s renewed support for the Second Amendment if not to win the midterms? Looking at the definition of integrative propaganda, I would argue it is to infuse an idea into the minds of Second Amendment supporters. What idea? That government is the decider of what your rights should be. We are already watching a group of people, whose sole mantra is “shall not be infringed,” gleefully wait for nine people to decide whether a semi-automatic rifle is legal or not. The narrative around gun rights and the Supreme Court always suggests that the court is being asked to uphold the Second Amendment. We have already been conditioned, to some degree, to accept that the court can rule on this issue. If the government can decide what your rights are, they can decide if you have them at all. The whole idea behind the Bill of Rights is to put restraints on government power. The Second Amendment says the government has zero influence over the naturally inherent right to self-preservation. Another way that integration propaganda could be explained is through QAnon. This was undoubtedly a psychological operation targeting the pre-existing emotional dispositions of the targeted conservative audience. All of the messages were carefully crafted to reflect what the voters already believed. That a Trump victory in 2016 meant the end of the deep state. There was a secret plan underway, and the only thing conservatives had to do was sit down, shut up, and trust that plan. This is eerily similar to what Anatoliy Golitsyn discussed in New Lies for Old. An operation simply called Trust was meant to discourage the Russian peasants from fighting back against the Bolsheviks under the guise that the government had it all under control. They were supposed to “trust the plan.”

Is it possible that the Trump administration wholeheartedly believes in the Second Amendment, and is genuinely fighting for your rights? Sure, anything’s possible; however, defending the right of the people to keep and bear arms requires unshakable principles. Donald Trump, and the current Republican Party, for that matter, are anything but principled statesmen. Trump just promised to give everyone in the country five thousand dollars if the Republicans retain the House and Senate. He is trying to buy your vote, which is a crime. The bigger problem isn’t even Trump. It is gun groups like Gun Owners of America, who normally deserve a great deal of respect, promoting the narrative that we need to vote for Republicans in order to save the Second Amendment. The same Republicans that allowed the redaction of the Epstein files? The same people who sat back and allowed the president to engage in an unconstitutional, unnecessary war? The same Republicans who attack Thomas Massie when he is one of the few who displays any principle at all? The same Republicans who let Donald Trump increase the debt to forty trillion dollars? Finally, the same Republican Party advancing the ever-encroaching surveillance state? No one wants to see gun-grabbing Democrats win the elections. Unfortunately, Trump and the Republicans have blown a huge opportunity to advance the conservative movement. Trump lost a lot of voters when he said he no longer wanted their support if they believed in the Epstein issue. Whether there is any truth to Epstein or not, the government released over a million files with his name appearing thousands of times. One of his biggest campaign promises was to bring justice to the victims, and instead, his supporters were mocked for believing him.

The Second Amendment is perhaps the most important issue of our time. It is unfortunate that we are being asked to put our faith in people who have demonstrated themselves time and time again to be liars. If Trump is willing to stand in front of the Republican Convention and lie about giving everyone five thousand dollars if they win, wouldn’t he just as easily feign his support for gun rights to do the same? The answer is pretty self-evident.

Enjoy this content?

Check out David’s site
Grab David’s books, including his latest The Psychology Of Persuasive Propaganda: The Things You Should Know

Article posted with permission from David Risselada