Nothing demonstrates the realities of modern propaganda better than the Louisiana V. Callias Supreme Court case. The entire Democrat party has been mobilized to pound a simple message into the soft heads of their voters. “The racist Supreme Court has struck down the Voting Rights Act.” Social media algorithms are flooded with memes and videos depicting this idea, as millions of people are being brainwashed to believe that everyone, except the white male, is being denied the right to vote. It is an effective message because it resonates with people on the left. Propaganda is always more effective when it reflects the existing beliefs of the target audience. The unfortunate truth is that most people are completely unaware of the basic premise of the case and will not research it any further. A lawsuit was brought to a federal court claiming that the 2024 congressional map, which created two black majority districts, was unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering. This case was the result of an earlier case brought forth by a group of black voters, claiming that the congressional map resulting from the 2020 census only provided for one black majority district. They claimed this violated the Voting Rights Act and constituted racial discrimination. Louisiana V. Callias was a challenge to the federal court’s ruling in that case. In essence, all the court said was that congressional maps cannot be based on racial preferences. The message being propagated is the result of the liberal justice’s dissent to the majority opinion.
Although Wednesday’s ruling did not strike down a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, as Louisiana and the challengers had asked the court to do, Justice Elena Kagan suggested in her dissent (which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson) that the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito had rendered the provision “all but a dead letter.” (Scotusblog)
The message in this case is targeting an audience that uses peripheral cues in their decision-making processes. The message itself is an attempt to persuade the audience into believing that there is an attempt to disenfranchise minority voters. The end goal is getting these people to the polls in the midterm elections. What does it mean to say people are using peripheral cues? This comes from something called The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. This is a model that breaks people down into two categories. Those who have the ability to deeply elaborate on the message, and those who don’t. When it comes to accepting the premise of a message like “The court struck down the Voting Rights Act,” or even, “the ATF just changed 34 rules,” the ELM states that there are two routes to persuasion. The central route, based on cognitive theory, and the peripheral route, based on stimulus response theory. The former suggests that the recipient of a message has a deep need for cognition and can take the time to elaborate on what the message is promoting. The peripheral route, on the other hand, suggests that people are persuaded based on simple cues like the popularity of the persuader, or even the fact that the message itself aligns with preexisting ideas. This doesn’t necessarily suggest that those using the peripheral route lack intelligence altogether. They simply may not be interested in the message. It just means that the desire, or the likelihood to elaborate on the message, isn’t there. When it comes to the political left, they are easily corralled into an echo chamber over this message because they have been told for years that the Republican Party is trying to prevent minorities from voting. The message matches their emotional state, making it more likely that they will rely on peripheral cues and be swept away by the message before having time to think about it.
According to the book Psychology and Modern Warfare, most people are simply incapable of doing any meaningful research on their own. The authors state that blatant lies are easily accepted as fact simply because there is no real understanding of what the message says. There is no exposure to any competing information that contradicts the message because people tend to avoid researching anything beyond that which reflects their views. This doesn’t just apply to Democrats. Many Trump voters are getting wrapped up in the misleading idea that the ATF is undoing a bunch of Biden-era regulations. They are failing to ask any meaningful questions over this issue and instead, just going along. This is because there is a deep-rooted belief that Trump was going to save the Second Amendment. This isn’t to suggest that the undoing of some of these regulations isn’t a good thing, only that there are questions that need to be asked. The timing, after all, is very suspect. When it comes to the message, “The court struck down the Voting Rights Act,” most people have no idea what the case was even about. They are driven by the idea being propagated by the media, not only because it reflects their preexisting beliefs, but because they feel they are uniting for a common cause. It only takes a couple of minutes of research to see what the issue is.
We are being inundated with propaganda and persuasive messages meant to get us thinking emotionally. As a nation, we are highly susceptible to this because we are bombarded with one issue after the other, with no time to gather our thoughts on what is happening. Instead of taking the time to read, we form our opinions and beliefs from social media memes that reflect our preexisting biases. The constant exposure to stress-inducing news has made it all but impossible for most to go beyond what they are hearing, as it becomes too difficult to put forth the cognitive effort required to understand an alternative view. This is understood by persuasion researchers, and those who formulate the messages meant to grab your attention. Don’t be one that falls in the low elaboration category. Always be thinking about the message.
If you enjoyed this article, be sure to be looking out for my latest book, The Psychology of Persuasive Propaganda: The Things You Should Know. In the meantime, you can check out –
Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion.
and A Critical Look at CRT in Education, Research and Social Policy
Article posted with permission from David Risselada
