Tag: 1984

Forty years ago today (August 16, 1984) the New York Times, the “national” paper of the USA (1) ran a piece of particularly crafty propaganda.  It was a paid full-page advert, on page 23, from the oil giant Mobil (2).  The title of this masterpiece was “Why are they lying to our children?”, and the sordid episode has a lot to tell today and tomorrow’s climate campaigners – and for that matter anyone else interested in how fossil fuel interests have, with enormous success, sought to shape ‘common sense’ in democratic societies.  

Short version:  they don’t do it with chemtrails, or subliminal advertising. They do it with brute force and with subtlety, with repetition and repetition and repetition.  And they’ve been doing it for a very long time (3).

Mobil had been running “editorial adverts” – a few hundred words of text about an issue du jour for over a decade at this point. These were the brainchild of a PR guru called Herb Schmerz, and you can learn more about them, and him, by going to this brilliant podcast by Drilled. There are some excellent spoofs of the ads by the German artist and provocateur Hans Haacke – for example MetroMobilitan.

The key point is that this is a really really clever form of propaganda, for several reasons. First because it doesn’t look like propaganda; it doesn’t deploy the crude and easily-spotted techniques of clapping seals, smiling dolphins and blue skies. Second, (and related) anyone who calls it propaganda can be accused of trying to refuse corporations a voice in public debate, since Mobil is at least trying to put a *rational* case, and isn’t that what liberals keep claiming they want, after all?  Third (and related to the second) any attempt to respond to the half-truths and elisions in the adverts (the creators of these adverts are too canny to indulge in outright falsehoods) will take up at least as much time and energy, exhausting a third-party’s patience.  This isn’t quite a Gish Gallop, but it is Gish Gallop-adjacent.  Fourth, by setting out a ‘reasoned’ argument, Mobil is consciously setting the frame of the debate. And as various people have said, if they can get you asking the wrong questions then it doesn’t matter what the answers are.  Finally, Mobil, through these ‘helpful’ adverts gets to claim a place as just another citizen in the ‘ideal speech community’, the term that the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas used to describe the situation where rich and poor, lion and lamb hash things out reasonably, arriving at agreed truths. Yeah, right.

So, this advert, forty years ago today, will have raised no eyebrows – it was just one of a very long line.  Indeed, the only reason I am focussing on it at all is that I saw it in a collection released by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes and was struck by the line about “why are they lying to our children” and its mention of a book by that name. I wanted to know more, and didn’t have to go down too many electronic rabbit holes to find out more.

Before I get to the specifics, there’s one more piece of historical context that will help you understand what this is all about. 

What is on the curriculum (overt and hidden) and how it is taught has always been a topic of contestation (and there’s nothing more political than who is allowed to learn to read – famously, slaves were forbidden from doing so in the American south).

However, matters had come to a head in the decade before this advert. You see, the aftermath of the 1960s and early 1970s was a period of serious concern to conservatives.  That period had seen the black civil rights struggle give birth to the anti-war movement, to second-wave feminism, to gay rights, latino rights, indigenous movements, and to ecology movements. The “settled” consensus of the 1950s – that elite heterosexual white men, with science as their handmaiden, would rule, with women in the kitchen, people of colour (the words they used were different then!) in their place, queers in the closet and nature under the DDT etc. thumb – all that was gone by the early 1970s (4). If you want to stay in charge, well, you rely on unthinking consent: it’s a nightmare when the people you are trying to control get an education and are able to create their own perceptions of the world, share those, refuse to believe what you want and need them to believe  (that this is the best of all possible worlds and that if they know their place everything will be okay, or at least tolerable).

The elites were alive to the threat, and were casting around for how to respond. There’s a key document that explains all this rather well.  Almost exactly thirteen years before the Mobil advert, a memo (August 23, 1971) landed on the desk of Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., , the Chairman of the “Education Committee” of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

 The memo was written by Lewis Powell (Wikipedia), soon to be nominated as a Supreme Court justice by President Richard Nixon.  It’s known as “the Powell Memorandum.”

Greenpeace USA describe it as “a corporate blueprint to dominate democracy”, and they’re not wrong. Here’s some of the sense of what the memo says

“Business must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination—without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.”

 “Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.”

The book itself

One source (I will come back to this, promise!) tells the origin myth of the book itself;

“New York University Dean, Dr Herbert London learned [about the lack of ‘balance’ in school education the hard way. One day his 13-year-old daughter came home from school with tears in her eyes to say, “I don’t have a future.” She showed her farther a paper shed been given in school. It listed horrors that it claimed awaited her generation, Including air pollution so bad that everyone would have to wear a gas mask.

“Well, as a result of that incident, London wrote a book…”

The book was published by the Hudson Institute, a cold-war think tank set up in the 1961 by Herman Kahn (one of a few possible inspirations for Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Dr Strangelove’) and fellow nuclear war strategists. Its purpose was to argue for, in effect, ever-more nuclear weapons (it can be thought of as a precursor to the George C. Marshall Institute, set up at about the same time as this Mobil op-ed was published, to argue forReagan’s Space Defense Initiative aka “Star Wars” – for more on that, see Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s book “Merchants of Doubt”).

Its author, Herbert London, was at the time an academic at New York University  It was his first second solo book(5), and doubtless he was happy for the foreword from Herman Kahn (6). The book was published in 1984. You can borrow it here (please donate some money, on general principles, to the Internet Archives folks).

Before I hone in on what (little) it has to say specifically about climate change, we need to back up to the Powell Memorandum. There’s something in it that might put the sweet origin myth above, of a concerned dad simply trying to protect the mental health of his daughter – in a new light.

Evaluation of Textbooks 

The staff of scholars (or preferably a panel of independent scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks, especially in economics, political science and sociology. This should be a continuing program. The objective of such evaluation should be oriented toward restoring the balance essential to genuine academic freedom.

(Powell, 1971, p.16-7)

And what did London magically set out to do – why, exactly this.  What a coincidence…

 It’s also worth pausing to think about the clever rhetorical work being done by the very clever title. “Why are they lying to our children?”

Let’s take the third word first – there is a nefarious and identifiable “They“.  An alien force that needs to be combatted, defeated. This “they” are the communist eco-freaks, useful idiots of the Soviet Union seeking to undermine the Free West.  You know, all those never-do-wells in the good old days of the 1920s through early 1960s, would have been dealt with via Red Scares and the House Un American Activities Committee and so on (all pre-dating Senator Joseph McCarthy, by the way).

They are trying to wickedly deceive sweet innocent children.  Not “some” children (their own, for instance) but “our” – meaning the writers of this work are taking responsibility for ALL children, for everyone’s children  (the “They” do not get to have any children of their own in this, something akin to JD Vance’s attack on childless cat ladies). 

Finally (!!)  the book itself. I’ve not read the whole thing (life is short, and it is way later than you think).  Specifically on climate change, the book has little to say (6).   Ironically, London first finds himself having to correct scientific errors in the textbooks he is reviewing.

“Moreover, their analysis of environmental issues includes several egregious errors. For example, carbon dioxide does not have a cooling effect on the climate, as was suggested in silver Burdett’s geography text cited above” (emphasis in original) (London, 1984, page 64)

A few pages later London quotes from the 1981 edition of a classic textbook (first published in 1968) called  The Economic Problem by Heilbroner and Thurow, which mentions carbon dioxide build-up.

London is largely dismissive.  

“The ‘greenhouse effect’ to which the authors refer is caused not so much from combustion in general as from the combustion of fossil fuels in particular. Which does increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. If the effect is ‘the most serious threat’ we face, a concerted effort to cope with this threat to our environment would mean solving the problems associated with the generation of nuclear power, which is clean, and the manufacture of synthetic fuels that are low in carbon content. But Heilbroner and Thurow don’t make this point, nor does any other textbook that includes the issue.” (London , 1984, p.93-4).

And .. that’s it. 

If I can editorialise for a minute – for a book that sought to allay his thirteen year old daughter’s(7) fears, well – what a sloppy effort. He seems more interested in proving that he is smarter than some secondary school textbooks, and fulfilling the suggestion in the Powell Memorandum.

What happened next

Earlier I quoted a mystery guest on the subject of the origin myth of the book.  And that mystery guest is… drumroll please… take a bow… give it up for… President Ronald Wilson Reagan!  On February 28, 1985, shortly after his second inauguration (Morning in America) gave a speech at the Annual General Meeting of the National Association of Independent Schools.

The book was only mentioned in passing, though, as noted above, Reagan found time to include the heart-string-tugging origin myth. He said of the book that it “documents the myths that are taught in so many of our schools. Our children should know, London argues, that because our society decided to do something about pollution, our environment is getting better, not worse. Emissions of most conventional air pollutants, for example, have decreased significantly, while trout and other fish are returning to streams where they haven’t been seen for decades”

That’s a real sign of success, isn’t it? You know you’ve arrived when your book is getting a shout out from the President of the United States!

The book got a positive review (of course) in the neoconservative journal “Commentary” and popped up in the footnotes of various “anti-reflexive” (see McCright and Dunlap – and this video!)  texts seeking to minimise environmental issues and prosecute the curriculum wars over the following decades.

The last major citation (to date) came ten years ago, when the UK “Global Warming Policy Foundation” regurgitated the origin myth in a report called “Climate Control”, which claimed there was “brainwashing” in the UK’s classrooms. No, I am not linking to it, and really, think twice before wasting your time with their trash: like I said it’s a lot later than you think. By the way, most UK climate denial is like this – a pale imitation and outdated photocopy of better-funded American efforts.

Battles over climate change and US secondary school textbooks have continued.  They’ve involved famed scientists like James Hansen  (see this blog post about April 9, 2008.)

More recently, the Heartland Institute, a climate denialist outfit,  has been trying to muddy the waters by providing “alternative facts” in attractive format to secondary school teachers.

In the UK, Michael Gove, when Secretary of State for Education, tried to have climate removed from the curriculum in primary school. In this he was, ultimately, unsuccessful, thanks to … Ed Davey.

Oh, and London? Well, according to Wikipedia, font of all accurate information

The London Center for Policy Research (LCPR) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that was founded in 2012 by London in New York City and defines itself as a boutique think tank created to engage in research and advise on key policy issues of national security, international relations, energy, and risk analysis.^[32] The center claims to challenge conventional wisdom where appropriate, add texture to the current deliberations on policy issues and build support for positions that further the national interest and the interest of key allies.^[33] The London Center was influential in the staffing and policy direction of the Trump Administration with many of its senior fellows taking on both official and unofficial roles in the administration.^[34] The center counts these “Fellows” among its membership: Deroy Murdock, Gordon G. Chang, Monica Crowley, Jim Woolsey, Derk Jan Eppink, and Walid Phares.

[Hat-tip to a Bluesky chap for this]

What we learn

There is a forever war for the hearts and minds – especially of children. If you can shape their norms, their frames, then, well, that’s half the battle. But as TS Eliot wrote,”There is no such thing as a Lost Cause because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause.”  The conservatives know this, and are in a state of endless anxiety about this (in their way, they are as addicted to apocalypse narratives as the Hallamites, only with much less scientific justification).

So, for progressives, leftists etc, a crucial lesson is that “they” -the “other side” –  are diligent, relatively skilled, and extremely well-funded.  Just because you disagree with them, you shouldn’t under-estimate them. 

This tactic that London (among others) used will continue.  The “won’t someone think of the children”gambit is too useful not to be used again and again, no matter how ludicrous. It frames the anti-reflexives/status quo supporters etc as the good guys, responsible adults merely trying to stop the long-hairs from terrorising sweet innocent children.

In addition, the pattern of the conveyor belt and mutual amplification of influence is still there; of op-ed turning into longer article, into book, that then gets quoted in advertorial or speeches by CEOs.  Politicians then amplify it, it appears in Hansard, all the while gaining “credibility” through repetition, especially when “high status” people in think tanks (junk tanks), university departments etc. Thus are memes built. That’s what they want, anyway. It doesn’t always turn out like that, sometimes it doesn’t land/resonate, they get mugged by reality etc. Counter-memes can also be put forward by “the other side.”…

What to do

• Educate yourself (this is most effectively and efficiently done with others by the way) by reading widely (see some starters below) and acting in the real world. If you’re after podcasts, you cannot do better than start with Drilled.  Also, throw some money at them.
• Get involved in a sustainable group that is a rough fit for your politics, and stay involved (this is, for various reasons, really really hard).
• Don’t be surprised when everything goes sideways very quickly indeed. Instantaneously, on geological timescales.

Further suggested reading

Barley, S. R. (2010). Building an institutional field to corral a government: A case to set an agenda for organization studies. Organization studies, 31(6), 777-805.

Beder, S. 1997. Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism

Carey, A. 1997. Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: 

Chomsky, N. 1993. World Orders, Old and New.

George, S Learning from the Gramscian Right

Kurmelovs, R 2024. Slick

McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-reflexivity. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2-3), 100-133.

Williamson, J. 1978. Decoding Advertisements: ideology and meaning in advertising

that one from the 1970s by two (French?) authors – can’t remember title

On Herman Kahn

Christopher Hollis, (1964) Dr Strangelove and Dr Kahn The Spectator, February 28, p.11 (21 years to the day before Reagan’s speech, btw)

Casper Skovgaard Petersen (2023) The Eccentric World of Herman Kahn.

On the Powell Memorandum

In this excerpt from Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer — and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, authors Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson explain the significance of the Powell Memorandum, a call-to-arms for American corporations written by Virginia lawyer (and future U.S. Supreme Court justice) Lewis Powell to a neighbor working with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. LINK

Powell Memorandum: Attack On American Free Enterprise System

Ford, D. (2023). The “Powell Memo” and the Supreme Court: A Counteroffensive Against the Many. Politics.

On Mobil and so on

Drilled Media – How Oil Companies Manipulate Journalists

Footnotes

(1) There’s a highly entertaining speech by Noam Chomsky, from 1985 that talks about the NYT in, ah, “somewhat unflattering” terms, to do with its “first draft of history function.” Watch this space – or perhaps marchudson.net – for more.

(2) In November 1998 Exxon and Mobil merged.

(3) See the collection of essays by Australian social scientist Alex Carey, under the title “Taking the RIsk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty”

(4) In his 1994 book World Orders, Old and New, Noam Chomsky writes about the perceived  “crisis of democracy” in the mid-1970s.  This served as the title of the first book published by the Trilateral Commission.  If you don’t have access to World Orders, Old and New, that’s alright, it’s a topic Chomsky has spoken of many times. There’s this interview in India in January 1996. And here’s something from the Boston Review in 2017 that gives the same flavour

What particularly troubled the Trilateral scholars was the “excess of democracy” during the time of troubles, the 1960s, when normally passive and apathetic parts of the population entered the political arena to advance their concerns: minorities, women, the young, the old, working people . . . in short, the population, sometimes called the “special interests.” They are to be distinguished from those whom Adam Smith called the “masters of mankind,” who are “the principal architects” of government policy and pursue their “vile maxim”: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people.” The role of the masters in the political arena is not deplored, or discussed, in the Trilateral volume, presumably because the masters represent “the national interest,” like those who applauded themselves for leading the country to war “after the utmost deliberation by the more thoughtful members of the community” had reached its “moral verdict.”

To overcome the excessive burden imposed on the state by the special interests, the Trilateralists called for more “moderation in democracy,” a return to passivity on the part of the less deserving, perhaps even a return to the happy days when “Truman had been able to govern the country with the cooperation of a relatively small number of Wall Street lawyers and bankers,” and democracy therefore flourished.

(5) In 1981 London had co-authored “Myths that Rule America.” A googlebooks search suggests it made no mention of carbon dioxide.

(6) Given the internal evidence, it was mostly completed before the September 1983 “battle of the reports”, where the Environmental Protection Agency released a report called “Can we delay a greenhouse warming?” (spoiler, the authors thought “probably not by very much”) and two days later the National Academies of Science released a report saying, in effect “nothing to see here.”

(7) The daughter in question is Stacy London, who most definitely does not share her father’s politics..