Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

Mrs Harris Goes to Paris movie review: a sweet treat with a side order of socialism – Evening Standard

Review at a glance

Emily in Paris for geriatrics. Thats what cruel commentators may be inclined to label this Cinderella-ish tale, based on a 1958 Paul Gallico novella about a Battersea cleaning lady. Luckily, with the fantastic Lesley Manville as said charwoman, nothing is quite what it seems.

The books Ada Harris is a selfless and gutsy widow who falls in love with one of her clients Dior dresses. When she arrives in Paris, all set to buy a frock with her hard-earned cash, she impresses an open-minded Marquis, endears herself to practically every Dior employee she meets and is rewarded for her fairy godmother-ish ways with... flowers. She never gets to swan around in her gown. Its gutting!

In Mrs Arris goes to Paris, the spectacularly camp 90s TV movie, Angela Lansburys Ada has a bit more fun. She and the Marquis (Omar Sharif) scratch each others backs, albeit in a platonic way, and Ada gets to wear her beautiful dress, before returning to her dingy digs. The ballgown, dangling from a hanger in Adas London kitchen, performs a magical little jiggle. Thats the happy ending.

Isabelle Huppert stars as Claudine Colbert and Roxane Duran as Marguerite

This time around, its still the 1950s, but Ada, as well as being a talented seamstress, has a working libido (shes attracted to two men, including Lambert Wilsons Marquis de Chassagne, whos been royally screwed up by his upbringing). She also hangs out with fans of the left-wing intellectual, Jean-Paul Sartre, organises a workers strike, is defended by an out-and-proud communist and single-handedly circumvents the snobbery of Isabelle Hupperts Dior manager, Madame Colbert.

Mrs Harris Goes to Paris could never be mistaken for a Ken Loach polemic. But whilst showing us a lot of pretty frocks, it gets awfully close to giving the finger to feudalism.

Lesley Manville as Mrs. Harris with Lucas Bravo as Andr Fauvel

A note on the frocks. The majority of them (whether recreations of Dior New Look classics or originals designed by three-time Oscar-winner Jenny Beavan) are sublime. But one dresscoat resembles a tiny and poorly assembled tent. Or a giant tea cosy. Either way, its horrid. Ada, thank goodness, gravitates towards two outfits cut from a different cloth and, in the films suspenseful last third, everything works out in a way thats utterly delightful.

Years ago, when I told a friend I was naming my daughter, Ada, they were horrified and said, That sounds like the name of a cleaning lady! Heres to Manvilles Ada, a woman who knows youre never too old or too working class to be one of the happiest belles at the ball.

115mins, cert PG

In cinemas

More:
Mrs Harris Goes to Paris movie review: a sweet treat with a side order of socialism - Evening Standard

Modest Declines in Positive Views of ‘Socialism’ and ‘Capitalism’ in U.S. – Pew Research Center

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand how the public views socialism and capitalism. For this analysis, we surveyed 7,647 adults from Aug. 1-14, 2022. The survey was primarily conducted on the Centers nationally representative American Trends Panel, with an oversample of Hispanic adults from Ipsos KnowledgePanel.

Respondents on both panels are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. See the Methodology section for additional details. Read more about the ATPs methodology.

Here are the questions used for the report and its methodology.

The American public continues to express more positive opinions of capitalism than socialism, although the shares viewing each of the terms positively have declined modestly since 2019.

Today, 36% of U.S. adults say they view socialism somewhat (30%) or very (6%) positively, down from 42% who viewed the term positively in May 2019. Six-in-ten today say they view socialism negatively, including one-third who view it very negatively.

And while a majority of the public (57%) continues to view capitalism favorably, that is 8 percentage points lower than in 2019 (65%), according to a national survey from Pew Research Center conducted Aug. 1-14 among 7,647 adults.

Much of the decline in positive views of both socialism and capitalism has been driven by shifts in views among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.

In 2019, nearly two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic leaners (65%) had a positive view of socialism. Today a smaller majority of Democrats (57%) say they have a positive impression.

There has not been significant change among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents since 2019. Today, just 14% say they have a positive impression of socialism, while about four times as many say they have a very negative view of the term.

There is a similar pattern on views of capitalism. Today, fewer than half of Democrats (46%) have a positive view of capitalism, down 9 points from the 55% who said this in 2019.

Among Republicans, there has been a modest decline in the share who have positive views of capitalism, although a large majority still have a positive impression (78% in 2019, 74% today).

Americans see capitalism as giving people more opportunity and more freedom than socialism, while they see socialism as more likely to meet peoples basic needs, though these perceptions differ significantly by party.

While 36% of adults say gives all people an equal opportunity to be successful describes capitalism extremely or very well, fewer (23%) say that about socialism. And roughly twice as many say the phrase makes sure everyones basic needs, such as food, health care, and housing, are met describes socialism at least very well as say the same of capitalism (38% vs. 18%).

Consistent with the wide partisan differences in opinions of socialism and capitalism, Republicans and Democrats characterize the terms in very different ways. For example, Republicans widely think socialism restricts peoples individual freedoms 62% say this describes socialism extremely or very well, compared with 19% of Democrats. Democrats, by contrast, are far more likely than Republicans to say socialism meets peoples basic needs (56% extremely or very well vs. 19% of Republicans).

These differences echo findings from Americans open-ended descriptions of the terms in the 2019 study, which found that critics of socialism were more likely to mention stifled innovation and restrictions of freedom in their responses and to cite countries like Venezuela as examples. Those with a positive view of socialism were more likely to describe it as a fairer system and to mention countries like Finland and Denmark as examples.

Democrats and Republicans also have markedly different views of self-described democratic socialists. In a survey conducted this July, 33% of Democrats say they like political leaders who identify as democratic socialists, while 18% dislike such leaders; Republicans largely express a negative view of leaders who identify as democratic socialists (78% dislike).

There are sizable demographic differences in views of these terms especially capitalism.

Opinions of both terms differ widely by age. While younger adults are more likely than older adults to say they have positive impressions of socialism, the opposite is true for capitalism.

Just 40% of those ages 18 to 29 view capitalism positively; that is the lowest share in any age group and 33 percentage points lower than the share of those 65 and older.

Adults younger than 50 also are more likely than those 50 and older to have a positive impression of socialism (41% vs. 30%).

Men and women are about equally likely to have positive impressions of socialism. However, men are far more likely than women to have a favorable impression of capitalism: 68% of men have a positive impression of capitalism, compared with 48% of women. Men are also roughly twice as likely as women to say they have a very favorable impression of capitalism (28% vs. 15%).

About half of Black (52%) and Asian (49%) Americans have a positive impression of socialism, as do 41% of Hispanic Americans compared with just 31% of White Americans. About six-in-ten White (62%) and Asian (59%) adults and 54% of Hispanic adults have a positive impression of capitalism. By comparison, 40% of Black adults view capitalism positively.

People with higher family incomes are more likely than those in the lowest income tier to view capitalism positively (70% vs. 45%). By contrast, those with lower family incomes are more positive about socialism than are those with middle and upper incomes.

Both Democrats and Republicans differ by age and income in their opinions about these terms. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, there are stark differences in views of capitalism by age: 64% of Democrats 65 and older say they have a positive view of the term, as do about half of Democrats ages 50 to 64. By comparison, 42% of Democrats ages 30 to 49 and just 29% of those under 30 say the same.

There are more modest age differences among Democrats in views of socialism. Democrats under 50 are somewhat more likely to have a positive view of the term than those 50 and older (60% vs. 54%).

Lower-income Democrats are also less likely to have positive views of capitalism (39%) than middle- (47%) and upper-income Democrats (55%). Similar majorities of Democrats across income tiers view socialism positively.

Among Republicans and GOP leaners, majorities in all age groups have positive views toward capitalism, but younger Republicans are less likely to say this than older Republicans. Six-in-ten Republicans under the age of 30 say they have a positive view of capitalism. Among Republicans ages 30 to 49 71% say they have a positive view toward capitalism, as do eight-in-ten Republicans 50 and older.

And while just 6% of Republicans 65 and older say they have positive views toward socialism, a larger share of those under 30 (23%) say the same thing.

There are also income divides among Republicans: While a majority of lower-income Republicans (61%) have favorable views of capitalism, the share who say this is smaller than among middle- (75%) and upper-income Republicans (87%). About three-in-ten Republicans in the lower tier of household income (29%) have positive views toward socialism, compared with about one-in-ten who are middle (9%) and upper income (8%).

Among the public overall, roughly four-in-ten (39%) have a positive view of capitalism and a negative view of socialism. That is about double the share who have a positive view of socialism and a negative view of capitalism (18%). About one-in-five adults either have positive impressions of both terms (18%) or neither one (21%).

Adults under the age of 30 are about as likely to only have a positive view of socialism (28%) as they are to have a positive view of only capitalism (24%). Among those 65 and older, a majority (53%) have a positive view of capitalism and not socialism, while just 9% only have a positive view of socialism.

Adults under 30 are about twice as likely as those 65 and older to have a positive view of neither term (27% vs. 14%).

A clear majority of Republicans (66%) have a positive impression of capitalism and a negative view of socialism.

Younger Republicans are less likely than older Republicans to view capitalism positively and also view socialism negatively: 47% of Republicans under the age of 30 hold this combination of views. By comparison, 79% of Republicans 65 and older and 71% of those ages 50 to 64 hold this combination of views.

Among Democrats, views are more mixed: Three-in-ten have a positive view toward socialism but not capitalism, 19% express a positive view toward capitalism only, 27% of Democrats view both socialism and capitalism positively, and about two-in-ten (21%) do not have a positive view of either term.

Views toward socialism and capitalism also differ across age groups among Democrats. About four-in-ten Democrats under the age of 30 express a positive view toward socialism and a negative view of capitalism (41%), while 21% of Democrats 50 and older hold this combination of views. Democrats under 30 are about twice as likely as those 65 and older to say they have negative views of both socialism and capitalism (28% vs. 15%).

Republicans and Democrats also have different impressions of the ways capitalism and socialism affect society.

While about a third of Democrats and Democratic leaners (34%) say the phrase gives all people an equal opportunity to be successful describes socialism extremely or very well, just 11% of Republicans and say the same. Nearly seven-in-ten Republicans and Republican leaners (69%) say this phrase does not describe socialism well, with 44% saying it does not describe socialism at all well.

Conversely, while a majority of Republicans (56%) associate capitalism with giving people an equal opportunity for success, just 20% of Democrats say this phrase describes capitalism extremely or very well. Nearly half of Democrats (48%) say it characterizes capitalism not too or not at all well.

The pattern of partisan responses to the phrase makes sure everyones basic needs, such as food, health care, and housing, are met is largely similar to that of equal opportunity. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say this phrase describes socialism extremely or very well (56% vs. 19%) and to say this does not describe capitalism (62% vs. 38%).

And Republicans are 43 percentage points more likely than Democrats to say restricts peoples individual freedoms describes socialism extremely or very well (62% vs. 19%). Partisan differences in the shares using this description for capitalism are more modest, with 14% of Republicans and 19% of Democrats saying it describes capitalism extremely or very well.

The majority of Democrats who view socialism positively (57% of all Democrats and Democratic leaners) are much more likely than those who view it negatively to say it gives all people a chance to succeed and ensure their needs are met.

Among Democrats with a positive impression of socialism, nearly half (48%) say the phrase gives all people an equal opportunity to be successful describes socialism extremely or very well, while just 10% say it describes socialism not too or not at all well.

By comparison, only 14% of those with a negative impression of socialism say this phrase characterizes socialism at least very well.

An even larger share of Democrats with a positive impression of socialism (71%) say makes sure everyones basic needs, such as food, health care, and housing, are met describes socialism extremely or very well. Only about a third of Democrats with a negative impression of socialism (34%) say the same.

Conversely, Democrats with a negative impression of socialism are more likely to say that socialism restricts peoples individuals freedoms. Roughly three-in-ten (29%) say this, compared with just 12% of Democrats who have a positive impression of socialism.

Overall, a third of Democrats and Democratic leaners say they like political leaders who identify as democratic socialists, while 18% dislike such leaders, a separate Pew Research Center survey conducted June 27-July 4 found. Nearly half of Democrats (47%) say they neither like nor dislike political leaders who call themselves democratic socialists. These shares are essentially unchanged over the past year.

Among Democrats, ideology and age are both closely associated with views of political leaders who identify as democratic socialists. This mirrors the pattern of opinion on the term socialism with younger Democrats and liberal Democrats more positive about both democratic socialists and the overall term socialism than older Democrats and conservative or moderate Democrats.

Half of liberal Democrats express favorable views of those who identify as democratic socialists, including 26% who like such leaders a lot. Only about one-in-ten liberal Democrats (12%) say they dislike leaders who say they are democratic socialists, while another 38% neither like nor dislike such leaders.

By contrast, conservative or moderate Democrats are somewhat more likely to say they dislike (24%) than like (19%) such leaders; 55% neither like nor dislike leaders who use this term to describe themselves.

On balance, younger Democrats like leaders who describe themselves as democratic socialists: Among those under 50, 37% like such leaders while 15% dislike them. By comparison, opinion of democratic socialists is more divided among those 50 and older: 28% like political leaders who identify as democratic socialists, while 22% dislike such leaders.

Read more:
Modest Declines in Positive Views of 'Socialism' and 'Capitalism' in U.S. - Pew Research Center

Are we on the road to Socialism? | Letters To Editor | thesunchronicle.com – The Sun Chronicle

To the editor:

The following eight steps or level of control were written by Saul Alinsky who was born in 1909 and died in 1971. He was an American community activist.

President Barrack Obama quotes him often in his book and Hillary Clinton did her thesis on Alinsky in 1969 while a senior at Wellesley College.

The eight steps are needed to create a socialist state. Read them carefully and decide for yourself how many of these steps have already been achieved in this country. This should be extremely frightening to all Americans. President Joe Biden and the leftist Democrats have pushed and made tremendous progress on every single one of the eight steps. Should you prefer a socialist way of life, I suggest you research Venezuela and see first hand how socialism is working for their citizens. We can only hope and pray the country we love can survive the Biden administration and somehow get back on track before its to late.

Keep in mind these steps were written more than 50 years ago.

1) Health care: Control healthcare and you control the people.

2) Poverty: Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3) Debt: Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun control: Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare: Take control of every aspect of their lives (food, housing and income).

6) Education: Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion: Remove the belief in God from the government and schools.

8) Class warfare: Divide the people into wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with the support of the poor.

With the current people in power we should be afraid very afraid.

Kenneth Porter

Attleboro

More here:
Are we on the road to Socialism? | Letters To Editor | thesunchronicle.com - The Sun Chronicle

Xi’s article on socialism with Chinese characteristics to be published – Xinhua

BEIJING, Sept. 15 (Xinhua) -- An article on consistently upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics by Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, will be published.

The article by Xi, also Chinese president and chairman of the Central Military Commission, will be published on Friday in this year's 18th issue of the Qiushi Journal, a flagship magazine of the CPC Central Committee.

The article stresses that socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era is both the outcome and the continuation of the great social revolution by the people under the leadership of the Party.

This must be carried out consistently, it says.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics did not just fall from the sky. It is, in fact, a valuable result of the painstaking efforts made by the Party and the people at great cost, which is a hard-won achievement, it says.

The significant success of socialism with Chinese characteristics in China demonstrates that socialism did not collapse and will not collapse. On the contrary, it has thrived with vigor and vitality, reads the article.

The success of scientific socialism in China has a significant bearing on Marxism, scientific socialism and world socialism, it adds.

The Party's 19th National Congress reached a major political conclusion that socialism with Chinese characteristics had entered a new era. It should be acknowledged that this new era is a new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics rather than any other kind of new era, according to the article.

It is fundamental that the Party should hold high the banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics so as to realize its historic mission in the new era, the article says.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics is becoming a banner for the development of scientific socialism in the 21st century, as well as a mainstay for revitalizing world socialism, it says.

The article adds that the Party has the responsibility, confidence and capability to make greater contributions to the new development of scientific socialism.

Read this article:
Xi's article on socialism with Chinese characteristics to be published - Xinhua

Democrats Latino voter misinformation problem is only getting worse in 2022 ahead of the midterms – Vox.com

Part of The power and potential of Latino voters, from The Highlight, Voxs home for ambitious stories that explain our world.

Esta historia tambin est disponible en espaol.

The distortion begins by using Joe Bidens own words against him: Im going to go down as one of the most progressive presidents in American history, the then-presidential candidate says at the start of the video. Emblazoned across Biden for those three seconds is a Spanish translation of his statement: Ser uno de los presidentes ms progresistas de la historia Americana. Progresistas or progressives, in English remains onscreen.

But the next four people to invoke the word in this 30-second campaign ad for Donald Trumps 2020 reelection effort were meant to inspire fear: Hugo Chvez, the socialist former leader of Venezuela, his successor Nicols Maduro, the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, and the now-president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro. As the spot closes, the word remains but now its followed by progresistas=socialista.

Biden, of course, is no socialist. And this ad, published on YouTube in August 2020, was a sampling of one of the Trump campaigns most successful political messages aimed at Latino voters. Painting Biden as a radical leftist by invoking the specter of Latin American socialism struck at the immigrant heritage of many voters in South Florida who had fled those countries. But the ad is also an example of a larger phenomenon Latino communities continue to face: the spread of misleading, exaggerated, and false information, online and in traditional media.

Some variation of the Trump socialism ad reached over 1.5 million people on Facebook, fueled WhatsApp group chats, and, inevitably, sparked fact-checks from liberals, activists, and journalists. In 2020, millions of Latinos living in the United States faced a deluge of false political and health information that they often had to vet on their own.

Now, as the 2022 midterm elections pick up, researchers and academics tell me that the problem of false and misleading information in the Latino community is becoming more widespread and that its getting harder to separate misinformation from standard political speech. Democrats, who have blamed misinformation for their partys recent underperformance with Latino voters, risk further misunderstanding Latino voters by confusing the problem of misinformation with their own lack of strategy. Republicans, meanwhile, have been happy to weaponize misinformation and propagate these very same bogus claims.

Throughout 2020 and 2021, researchers and academics tracked lies, conspiracy theories, and false information as they spread across social media, local and mainstream news sources, and through statements from politicians and influencers. Their conclusion? A wave of misinformation enveloped Latino communities and Spanish-language spaces in 2020, reaching prospective voters and Covid-anxious Americans during a year of crisis, and potentially affected the results of the 2020 election by boosting Trump and Republican candidates.

Many of these researchers tell me they are already seeing new conspiracy theories, claims, and distortions spreading among Latino communities. The latest wave of misinfo, they say, has been fueled by culture war battles about gender identity and abortion, economic fears pegged to inflation and climate policy, voter fraud conspiracy theories, and, more recently, investigations into Trumps post-election conduct.

Many millions of Latinos voted for the first time in 2020, and 2022 is going to be the first time that many millions more will vote, Jernimo Cortina, a political science professor at the University of Houston, told me. You have the perfect storm for Latinos to be involved in this whole misinformation aspect, and they represent a new constituency that can be swayed toward one political party.

Democrats are especially worried, given the signs of weakening Latino support in 2020. But for Democrats in campaign mode, tackling misinformation may be less about policy and regulation, and more about winning the age-old persuasion game of politics.

Misinformation has come to mean a lot of things, but a consensus academic definition is a good place to start: the sharing of inaccurate and misleading information in an unintentional way, Misinformation is the most all-encompassing term for misleading, hyperpartisan, or incorrect statements.

Intent isnt required to make something misinformation; some of it spreads organically, through social media memes and satire, misreporting of real news, and polarized and politically charged speech. It is different from disinformation, information that is false and deliberately created to harm a person, social group, organization or country. The Trump campaigns Biden-is-a-socialist ad is an example of how disinformation or something thats intentionally wrong or misleading can turn into misinformation as it spreads through social feeds and becomes something people believe.

The story of misinformation in 2020 can be divided into two general categories: lies and conspiracy theories about the coronavirus pandemic, and political misinformation around the 2020 presidential election. False and misleading information about the coronavirus, masking and vaccines, and the severity of Covid-19 continued to spread well into 2021, but researchers told me that these kinds of falsehoods have since died down a bit as the country has moved into a new phase of the pandemic.

Political misinformation is harder to identify and refute because of the intrinsic link between politics, persuasion, and some degree of stretching the truth. Even though its provably false, its hard to classify political speech like the Biden is a socialist line that the Trump campaign used so effectively, partially because that claim suggests a moral judgment about Biden and liberal politics. That kind of claim is harder to disprove to many conservative-minded Latino voters.

These kinds of politically charged, misleading speech continue to abound on social media, on television, and from public figures in the Latino community. In 2020, falsehoods flowed about divisive political and social issues: fearmongering about Black Lives Matter protests, conspiracy theories about illegal immigration and Bidens progressive politics, and lies about voter fraud and mail-in voting. They spread to the Latino community through tweets, doctored photos and viral video clips, out-of-context quotes, and radio and YouTube broadcasts, and were shared in encrypted text apps like WhatsApp and Telegram, Facebook groups, and TikTok videos.

Democrats began to take the phenomenon more seriously after Election Day, when vote-counting and validated voter surveys revealed that Republicans had performed much better than expected among Latino voters across the country, especially in South Florida, and in the Rio Grande Valley region of Texas. In South Florida, where Trump ended up significantly improving on his 2016 showing, helping to win the state and flip two majority-Latino Democratic House seats, conspiracy theories and blatant lies had filled the Latino media ecosystem.

Those messages ramped up after Election Day. In December 2021, the Associated Press reported on misleading headlines and fabricated stories that spread in Spanish around the Virginia and New Jersey governor races, while anti-abortion messaging campaigns distorted Biden and Kamala Harriss positions on abortion after the leak of the Supreme Courts decision to overturn Roe v. Wade this summer.

Evelyn Prez-Verda, a longtime Democratic strategist who tracks Spanish misinformation, told me she was one of the first researchers to call out the severity of the problem, including the spread of QAnon conspiracies through text chains on WhatsApp and Telegram.

Shes since watched how those platforms have allowed newer waves of misinformation and conspiracy theories to spread. After the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, for example, Prez-Verda saw how rumors that the shooter was transgender or an undocumented immigrant lit up conservative Spanish-language chats on WhatsApp. It followed a theme: The right-wing culture war on gender identity that picked up earlier this year had made it to these Spanish-language internet platforms. And because so many Latino Americans use these forms of communication, these narratives could spread more easily.

Were seeing a religious perspective on many social issues, attacks of the LGBTQ community, and focused on specifically the transgender community and transgender children, she told me.

Of course, many of these narratives arent unique to Latino communities. Accusing opponents of being groomers or socialists, or distorting their political or policy views, affects just about every community in an extremely online nation. What has changed is how quickly some of these falsehoods and twisted stories spread through social media. And Latinos in the United States spend a disproportionate amount of time on social media like WhatsApp, Twitter, and YouTube, when compared to other demographic groups in the United States. Worse, the fact-checking, vetting, and content moderation resources that are already stretched thin on English-language platforms arent applied with the same rigor in Spanish-language media.

Though using encrypted text apps like WhatsApp and Telegram to spread political information and debate about American politics was relatively new in 2020, now politics is everywhere on these platforms, and so is misinformation. Inga Trauthig, a disinformation researcher at the University of Texas at Austin, told me that she and her team have tracked how election disinformation including misleading claims about where and how to vote, or how votes are counted, for example spreads through encrypted messaging apps in diaspora communities. Shes found that its Hispanic and Latino Americans who use these platforms the most, and are thus more likely to encounter misleading information.

In the beginning [of our research], we had much more that people would push back and say, No, this is a group that wasnt supposed to be for politics, why are we talking about Trump all of a sudden? she said. Because of the news-sharing features, WhatsApp has become more and more of a political platform.

Trauthigs team has also found that more misinformation is spreading organically through these feeds among family and friends, small-scale influencers, and grassroots networks.

One additional complication in understanding the political effect of misinformation is the fact that most research and tracking of the spread and effect of misinformation on Latino communities comes from left-leaning academics, liberal strategists, or progressive groups, who may have specific ideological frameworks and this can affect how they issue recommendations or conduct surveys. Right-leaning media personalities, consultants, and Republican politicians who often spread many of the very misleading narratives watchdogs and journalists are trying to identify, can categorically reject any attempt at improving public discourse because of liberal bias and political gain.

All of these difficulties in defining misinformation, following its spread, and seeing who believes it pose a challenge to researchers and journalists. But it also creates a big problem for the political party that seems to care about it. Democrats risk falling into a trap of blaming misinformation for inadequate campaigning and unpopular political stances.

Carlos Odio, the senior vice president of the Latino-focused Democratic firm Equis Research, says misinformation in Latino communities is often conflated with the Democratic Partys own missteps in outreach, communications, campaigning, and cultural competence.

What we dont want happening is that [misinformation] then crosses over into a purely political argument, Odio said. Its actually a challenge for campaigns and candidates and organizations that get caught up in thinking that they are only losing because of disinformation, or to blame any other kind of failings of communication on the idea that its all lies.

Equis recently released the results of a survey of 2,400 Latino adults, in which researchers looked at the prevalence of a set of false narratives that have taken root in both right-wing and left-leaning communities, and asked Latinos how and where they get their news and political knowledge.

It found plenty of Latinos have heard of the most common false narratives that spread in the last two years, and were likely to not believe them. It also uncovered a large persuadable middle who dont know what to think about this information and are simply uncertain about its accuracy and whether to believe it.

The most widespread, well-known narratives (President Trump won the 2020 election and Democrats stole it for Joe Biden, The Covid-19 vaccine is more dangerous than the Covid-19 virus itself, and Donald Trump worked with the Russians to steal the presidency in 2016) were the most likely to be rejected by people when asked if they were true. Some of the claims that got the most mainstream attention, like the Biden is a socialist line that caused the most panic in Florida, had reached only about a quarter of Latinos and was only believed by about 7 percent of all those polled about the same as those who believed the Earth was flat. That so many people rejected the most popular lines of misinformation suggests some solutions, including the effectiveness of aggressive fact-checking and public challenges.

But the people who were most likely to believe this kind of misinformation were also the most politically engaged respondents not only were they the most educated, but they were also more likely to have a personal ideology, and be amenable to narratives that aligned with it. That explains why some liberal respondents in the survey were willing to believe false narratives from the left side of the political spectrum: More people were certain that Trump colluded with Russians to steal the 2016 election than the right-wing claim that Trump won the 2020 election, and more people believed that Trump faked his Covid infection than the Biden-socialism claim. Though some conservatives have pointed out some of these examples of left-wing misinformation, they tend to criticize media coverage as biased toward liberals, and attempts by social media companies to regulate speech as censorship, rather than associate it with the bigger phenomenon of modern misinformation.

The belief [in these falsehoods] comes from more college-educated, politically engaged consumers. Its the people who are already more partisan, who are more willing to believe anything said about the other side, Odio said. For everybody else in the middle, its more about a question of uncertainty.

People who encountered false narratives but treated them with skepticism made up at least a quarter of respondents in Equiss survey. They are people who might not be at risk of believing false information, but for whom false information makes determining truth in politics harder and may lead them to simply not engage with elections. That uncertain middle tends to not be hyperpartisan, skews female, and under the age of 50 the same profile of the average Latino voter and, it happens, of the swing voter in many battleground states.

But swing voters in the Latino electorate arent just deciding between political parties, Odio told me. Theyre deciding whether to vote at all. These peripheral voters are where you are seeing the movement, he said. There is an overlap here, a persuadable segment of the Latino vote, and it tends not to be the voters who are getting all the attention, [and] are already very highly engaged. It tends to be the ones who are more neglected.

The misinformation problem gets back to a central problem of modern American politics: a chronic lack of investment in, culturally competent engagement with, and nuanced understanding of Latino voters. Odio and other researchers told me that combating misinformation, especially the kind of right-wing misinformation that tends to dominate the digital and media space, requires work. Yes, social media companies, think tanks, and journalists should continue to aggressively moderate, fact-check, and debunk lies, and they should provide easier access to better sources of information. But Democrats and political campaigns who claim to care about the future of American democracy and are worried about losing Latino voters should be smarter and more understanding of why some of these political narratives stick. Many of the less outlandish, misleading narratives that are percolating now, about inflation, energy prices, climate policy, abortion, and gender identity, stick because they appeal to a core set of beliefs some Latinos hold and which a standard fact-check from a journalist cant remedy alone, Flavia Colangelo, the director of Bully Pulpit Interactive, a Democratic research firm, told me.

When you hear something like Biden wants to make it harder to eat meat, or Bidens climate policies are impacting our gas prices its about that core value that it threatens and usually is that of government control or fears of government overreach, Colangelo said. Weve found [whats] most impactful when we do our method of testing is to really treat and address that wound, rather than chasing after specific attacks and trying to debunk specific things. When the wound is really about what values are important to Hispanics, how can we connect to those instead of just offering alternative facts to a narrative?

The Trump campaigns progresista ad offers the same lesson: At a certain level, calling Biden a socialist could hurt his standing among communities that hold generational trauma and painful memories of economic impoverishment or political persecution. But it also appealed to a deeper set of ideological beliefs about the role of government in daily life, the sense of individualism and independence that some of these voters value, and distrust of a political candidate.

Theres still plenty of time for more political misinformation to spread between now and the November midterms. Campaigns are revving up for general elections, and the next presidential election is years away. That also means theres enough time to address both the policy and political challenges that misinformation creates and for Democrats worried about the specter of misinformation to do something about it.

Link:
Democrats Latino voter misinformation problem is only getting worse in 2022 ahead of the midterms - Vox.com