Wednesday, January 3, 2024

Rufo, Horse Racing, and Bullying

Christopher Rufo is on the dead bird app bragging that he took down the president of Harvard and announcing that he's going to start "plagiarism hunting," which sounds so much better than "going after liberal Black academics."

It is just the most recent demonstration of the Rufo technique, which is to announce the bad faith argument he's about to launch and how he plans to use it to pwn his chosen liberal target. And then various main stream media and other well-intentioned folks proceed to amplify and engage with that bad faith argument. Even now, social media features a bunch of folks arguing about the plagiarism piece of the Harvard take down ("Well, you know the president of Rufo's New College won't get caught plagiarizing because he's never published anything! Ha! Gotcha!!") as if the plagiarism is actually the point. And media outlets keep publishing their "Harvard president taken down by plagiarism" takes as if that's the real story here.

I do not particularly care what happens at Harvard, a school that is emblematic of very little of the vast bulk of higher education. But I am interested in how Ryfo pulls off this trick again and again, and I've come across a take that does a good job of explaining.

On his substack, Jamison Foser just put up "Christopoher Rufo & Elise Stefanik understand the New York Times" in which he offers a useful analysis of How Rufo Does It, quoting himself from earlier pieces, because Foser has been onto the game for a while.

From July:
The most perverse thing about all of this is that describing himself as a propagandist and announcing his intent to deceive didn’t hurt Christopher Rufo at all — to the contrary, news companies like The New York Times take him more seriously because of it. Describing himself as untrustworthy was a marketing ploy, and it worked on his intended audience: The nation’s leading journalists and editors. If Rufo was just some run-of-the-mill right-winger, the Times (probably) wouldn’t have published him. But because Rufo announced a grand strategy behind his lies, the Times views him as an important voice and hands him the world’s most valuable op-ed space.

In response to the amazement expressed by many (including me) that Rufo just tweets out his intent 

Those tweets are marketing tweets. They don’t endanger his success; they are central to it. Rufo uses them to brand himself a master strategist; the news media uses that brand to justify taking Rufo seriously and behaving the way he wants them to.

Foser attributes the NYT (and others) complicity to a desire to amplify right-wing talking points.

They want to inflate academic jaywalking by Harvard’s president into a massive scandal worthy of weeks of wall-to-wall coverage. But it obviously isn’t, and so they need an excuse, both for their readers and for themselves. Rufo and Stefanik provide that excuse: Influential conservatives are talking about this, so we have to cover it. And that’s where Rufo’s public announcements of his dishonest propaganda campaigns helps.

Maybe-- I'm not sure how far I go along with Foser on this. But what I believe may apply is that, by announcing his latest propaganda idea as an explicit strategy, Rufo is able to activate the press's horse race coverage mode,

We know this mode. A candidate or politician announces a particular idea, and rather than examine the idea's accuracy or merit, the media focuses on the question of whether or not that idea is helping the team win. Don't ask if it's a good idea; ask if it's a winning idea. What Rufo understands is that part of winning is getting the media to talk about it. 

So when Rufo announces that X is his new strategy, he's just cutting to the chase, signaling the media to gather around and watch to see how this lands (rather than, say, checking to see if Rufo is actually full of shit). "Remember that time I made got everyone to freak out over critical race theory? Come watch me do the same thing over DEI!"

Rufo has adapted classic bullying tactics, a simple process. 

First, pick a target. Second, pick a thing to bully them about. Yes, that's the order. Kids in school are rarely targeted because of the subject of their bullying. The bully picks a target for any number of reasons, and then they look for a point of vulnerability and go after it. You don't get the bully to leave you alone by getting contacts so that he won't call you "Four Eyes" any more; he will simply switch to some other point of attack. Nor do you get him to stop by mounting a considered rational explanation of why glasses are reasonable and by the way, doesn't his best friend wear glasses, too?

The bully has targeted you for reasons of his own, maybe as simple as feeling that he can raise his own standing and acquire more power and attention if he knocks you down. And when he announces on the playground, "Watch me make this kid lick the swings," the crowd that he draws to watch are not there because they have strong feelings or thoughts about swing-licking, but because they want to see how this attempt to overpower someone else works out. 

Because bullying also involves the principle of the First Follower. The idea of the First Follower is that leaders don't really become leaders until the first person falls in behind them, encouraging the rest of the crowd to join in. 

Bullies need an audience. "Watch this," is a critical part of bullying language; imagine your bully announces "I'm going to go make him lick the swing" and everyone on the playground shrugs and ignores him. He would be done.

Chris Rufo says, "Hey, watch this. I am going to use charges of plagiarism to make Harvard lick the swing," and everyone comes running because they've allowed themselves to become convinced that if Rufo can pull this off, that's an Important Story, a horse race worthy of attention. Worse, now that they've fallen for his "Hey, watch this" for crt and transparency and DEI et al, they have to believe this is an important horse race because they've covered all his other horse races. 

Rufo's no genius, but he is patient. If his plagiarism hunt doesn't draw a crowd, he'll just throw something else at the wall, because sooner or later the press will show up again. I wish his confidence were misplaced.

No comments:

Post a Comment