Russian Active Measures:
How Can We Conclude that McCarthy Was Wrong?
Senator Joe McCarthy’s vicious pursuit in the 1950s of Americans that he believed were Russian Communists destroyed many of those suspected people’s careers and lives and it endangered the role of the United States on the world stage.* Over time it became apparent that he was pursuing his own agenda, and ultimately he became a symbol of the irrational anger and hatred associated with the anti-communist movement. At present, however, Russian Active Measures are a fact of life. It has been proven that for decades Russia has effectively weakened their adversaries by cultivating intermediaries within targeted countries and permeating other nations’ information systems to create false narratives that incite internal divisions.**
Abraham Lincoln was indeed correct when he said “a house divided cannot stand.” Apparently, no one knows this better than the Russians. The aim of the Russian Active Measures campaign is to spread false and misleading information in targeted countries, including the United States, with the express purpose of dividing those countries. Russia supports or instigates separatist movements around the world. Presently, for example, Russian Active Measures are quite evident in Spain and Iraq.
The Russians’ accusations stick so effectively because they address our most fundamental fears, confirming that what we are afraid of is “out there,” and that the problem is with “the other.” The Russians know very well how important attachment and kinship networks are to people’s psychological well-being and that many people cannot tolerate being around those who are outside their considered social group.
Russian Active Measures undermine the firm convictions of the most fair-minded of people, actually causing them to question themselves, so that forces for good become mistrusted, and forces for bad end up backfilling as substitute truth. Donald Trump became President in part because Russian Active Measures convinced people he was a viable, even desirable, candidate, capable of being an effective, take-charge President, who could “drain the swamp” in Washington DC. Information to the contrary was portrayed as “fake news,” put out by heinous people. Russians play a zero-sum game, polarizing target nations so that everything appears distinctly good or bad.
The tension created by the Russian Active Measures within and between other countries is a Type 3 conflict in my model. *** This means that one side is destructive, and seeks absolute control of the other, more rational party, by transforming them into a pariah. In this model, the attacking party is supported by the psychological defenses of projection, projective identification and dissociation, while foisting damaging labels onto the other. Eventually the perception of the honesty and accuracy of the subjugated party becomes eroded.
In this context of Russian Active Measures, was McCarthy right? Is Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel investigating the Russian interference in the US elections no better than McCarthy? It is critically important to distinguish between truth and myth, when exploring polarizing conflicts. Any fair, honest and sound evaluation depends on it.
One important way to help evaluate this situation is to see that these are qualitatively different pursuits: McCarthy was looking for individuals he suspected of disloyalty to the United States, based on their associations and work history. There was never any evidence other than his suspicions. Mueller is looking for actual behavior that may link certain individuals to Russian interference in America, based on a preponderance of evidence. One instance is based in fear, the other in fact.
Another important way to help evaluate this situation, and situations like it, is to see how McCarthy and Mueller prove their allegations. McCarthy made personal attacks and smeared people, often ruining their lives. He created a national crisis with considerable chaos, as no one was sure who to believe. At least one person committed suicide directly as a result of his accusations. He was a hot-head, and undoubtedly a cataclysmic narcissist, ruining any balanced discussion of the issues he investigated. Mueller on the other hand, is deliberative and thorough. He has made no premature accusations. He follows the facts. There has been no legitimate controversy around his investigation, as he has followed procedure and the law.
Our intuitions can serve us very poorly during polarizing conflicts. It may be likely that whatever you are absolutely certain is true, is in fact, false; and what you believe is false has a measure of truth. Base your opinion on facts that stand up to attacks from any side of the argument. Be open to debate, be humble and be willing to learn. Lose your righteous anger and remember the importance of love in all that we say and do.
