The Washington Post - 13.08.2019

TUESDAY, AUGUST 13 , 2019. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE A

TUESDAY Opinion

P

resident Trump will do just about

anything to get his daily, hypoder-

mic fix of attention, including the

spread of racist tropes and con-

spiracy theories. And no, I am not start-

ing a rumor that Trump is secretly a drug

addict. It is a metaphor. But if my editors

and their fact checkers were all on vaca-

tion, encouraging this lie would surely

kindle enthusiasm in portions of the left,

outrage on the populist right and tut-

tutting from centrists concerned about

damage to our democracy. With a large

enough dose of mendacity and malice, my

fabrication might even go viral.

Instead, I will just engage in my nor-

mal, non-viral tut-tutting, thereby aiding

Trump’s most recent attention grab — the

retweeted implication that a former pres-

ident was somehow involved in the ap-

parent suicide of disgraced financier Jef-

frey Epstein.

Conspiracy theories are not new to

American politics. They were arguably

more prevalent and powerful in the past.

Many Americans believed that the Feder-

alists were bought and sold by the British,

or that Catholic migration was really

papist infiltration, or that a Jewish cabal

sought to bring the United States into

World War II.

But contemporary conspiracy theories

are different in two ways. First, they are

carried widely and instantaneously on

the Internet, and often on social media

that echoes and exaggerates preexisting

convictions. Current technology gives be-

lievers in conspiracy theories the illusion

that their views are broadly shared. And

conspiracy theorists are early adopters of

new technologies, making innovation the

ally of deceit.

Second, the most prominent and visi-

ble American — Trump — regularly em-

ploys and legitimizes conspiracy think-

ing. Much of the social scientific litera-

ture related to conspiracy theories paints

their advocates as social outsiders, ex-

cluded from political power. But our

main problem is not Alex Jones or 8chan;

it is a president who is also a self-

interested fabulist. Trump employed con-

spiracy theories to question Barack

Obama’s legitimacy as president, and

then accused Obama of wiretapping

Trump Tower. Trump developed con-

spiracy theories about voter fraud in case

he needed to contest an unfavorable

outcome in the 2016 election. He cultivat-

ed conspiracy theories about the “deep

state” in an attempt to discredit Robert

S. Mueller III’s investigation. He asserted

that windmills cause cancer and that Sen.

Ted Cruz’s father was part of a conspiracy

to kill John F. Kennedy — because, well,

he prefers epistemological chaos.

Sometimes Trump has used conspira-

torial thinking to shape perceptions of

important issues. He accused the Mexi-

can government of purposely sending

criminals and rapists to the United

States. He accuses refugees, against all

evidence, of being a “Trojan horse” terror-

ist threat. The goal of these accusations

was clearly to whip up hatred of foreign-

ers and outsiders.

Conspiracy theories are a particularly

complex and malignant social challenge.

Studies have found that mere exposure to

anti-government conspiracy thinking re-

duces trust in governmental institutions

— even when accusations are refuted by

strong evidence. According to one study,

just being told about conspiracy theories

related to the death of Princess Diana

shifted people’s views, without them real-

izing their views had changed.

This presents a problem for social

scientists. Since they can’t even ask ques-

tions on this topic without influencing

the answers, how do they measure the

true influence of conspiracy thinking?

And this presents a problem for jour-

nalists, particularly opinion journalists.

What if the process of answering Trump’s

charges actually serves Trump’s purpos-

es? What if sunlight is actually not the

best disinfectant? And yet, doesn’t silence

in the face of lies imply concession?

Without fully understanding how to

deprive conspiracy theories of oxygen, we

have a good idea how they are hurting our

political system.

They sometimes have a direct influ-

ence on behavior — say, when conspiracy

theories about vaccines cause immuniza-

tion rates to fall.

They distract attention from other im-

portant issues — say, when a president

promotes a conspiracy theory to change

the topic from gun-related violence.

Conspiracy theories can encourage

cynicism and apathy about the political

enterprise.

They can undermine democratic dia-

logue. If our neighbor is wrong, we can try

to persuade him or her. If our neighbor is

part of an evil plot, there is no option but

to expose and defeat him or her.

And conspiracy theories can under-

mine a belief in truth itself. They elevate

the arguments that serve your side, no

matter how absurd or destructive they

become. They honor what is useful above

what is real and right.

All this might commend a different

response. Rather than refuting specific

conspiracy theories, perhaps we should

focus on the character of political leaders

who employ them. They are liars and

enemies of self-government.

michaelgerson@washpost.com

MICHAEL GERSON

A conspiracy

against

truth itself

E

very August, my mother and her

siblings host a family barbecue

under the enormous pecan tree at

the house where they grew up in

Severn, N.C. In the mix are great-aunts

and great-uncles, along with two or three

generations of cousins and folks who have

been friends of the family forever. In

short, a great focus group for the 2020

Democratic presidential contest.

This was kind of an in-person reprise of

a totally unscientific Twitter poll I con-

ducted in May. The foursome then of

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.), Sen. Eliza-

beth Warren (Mass.), Mayor Pete Buttigieg

of South Bend, Ind., and former vice presi-

dent Joe Biden are still top of mind now.

Biden’s hold on African American support

was confirmed. I saw potential for Butt-

igieg to boost his support among black

voters. The enthusiasm for Warren was

palpable. And there was respect for Har-

ris, but there was also concern.

A family friend started things off when

he came to me and said he liked Warren.

He liked her directness and toughness.

Two others said the same thing. The en-

thusiasm was what stood out. They were

real-life examples of what I had been

reading a lot about lately: Warren is excit-

ing black voters because she talks to them

not as voters to whom she must pander

but as voters worth pursuing.

I couldn’t help but be surprised by how

many times Buttigieg was mentioned.

Many of them couldn’t say his name. One

said, “This other little fella.” Her face lit up

when I showed her a photograph of Butt-

igieg, “That’s him!” We’re talking African

Americans who are in their 60s, 70s and

older who mentioned him favorably. “I

like him because he was straightforward,”

one relative said. When I asked her what

Buttigieg was straightforward about, she

talked about how he handled questions

about the police-involved shooting in

South Bend in June. “He didn’t tell lies. He

didn’t embellish stuff.”

Another relative echoed that senti-

ment, saying Buttigieg “stands strong”

and is “not apologetic” — an implicit

reference to Buttigieg being openly gay.

More than one person said his being out

meant no one “could hold it over him” to

hurt his candidacy.

My mother likes Buttigieg. But her

heart is where the hearts of the over-

whelming majority of the people I talked

to are — with Biden. Biden was the first

choice of 20 of the 26 people at the bar-

beque. The No. 1 reason mentioned was

Biden’s experience. Not mentioned by

anyone was his former boss, former presi-

dent Barack Obama. So, you are mistaken

if you think black affection for Obama is

the wind beneath Biden’s wings. Nope.

They like Biden.

But there is also something else at work

here. It’s a belief that it’s going to take a

white man to straighten things out. “The

way the system is set up now, there is so

much racism that it’s going to have to be

an old white person to go after an old

white person,” my aunt told me. “Old-

school against old-school.”

Now, get this. Despite saying that about

Biden, guess who her favorite candidate

is? Harris. Yet, my aunt, like everyone else

at the barbecue, thought that Biden was

the one who could beat President Trump.

She thought this not only because Harris

is not “an old white person” but also

because Harris is a woman. “Nobody is

going to vote for a woman,” said another

female relative. “They didn’t vote for Hil-

lary [Clinton].... If she were a man, she

would have won.”

Another relative put it this way. “I’m not

concerned about color. I’m not worried

about [the nominee being] a woman,” she

said. “My concern is for the country.” Yet,

there is good news for Harris. Harris was

the person who was most mentioned as a

second choice for Democratic nominee.

Others mentioned were Sen. Bernie Sand-

ers (I-Vt.), Warren and Buttigieg. In fact,

one of my older female relatives said of

Buttigieg, “He may become my first

choice.” As for dream tickets, the most

mentioned was a Biden-Harris ticket.

Here are two other takeaways. I came

away with the distinct impression that

where Harris is with these black voters is

where Obama was with African American

voters about this time in 2007 when black

voters for the most part were with Clinton.

That is, until Obama won the Iowa cau-

cuses in 2008, a thunderclap moment

when black voters saw that Obama could

win. Harris needs a similar moment. She

just needs to clear two hurdles. There’s the

“a woman can’t win” refrain I heard all

afternoon. Then there’s the worry that it’s

still too soon to have another black person

as president.

The final takeaway is that my 26 rela-

tives and family friends want to win.

While they love Biden, they will vote for

the Democratic nominee next November,

thus making them part of the growing

“vote blue, no matter who” chorus among

Democrats. Defeating Trump is Priority

No. 1.

Twitter: @CapehartJ

JONATHAN CAPEHART

2020 thoughts

from a family

barbecue

BY BARBARA DURRANT

T

he San Diego Zoo Safari Park’s

99th baby southern white rhi-

noceros was born recently, but

the arrival of “Edward”

sparked much more widespread inter-

est than the previous 98 births of his

subspecies. That’s because Edward’s

conception occurred not through nat-

ural mating but via artificial insemina-

tion. He is the first southern white

rhino born through artificial repro-

duction in the United States.

The world’s five rhino species all live

under severe threats to their survival,

including from poaching and shrink-

ing habitat. Some species, such as the

greater one-horned rhino, number in

the thousands and are considered

critically endangered. The Javan and

Sumatran rhinos of Asia, by contrast,

are near extinction.

Some rhinos in human care don’t

reproduce well, which complicates ef-

forts to sustain these important insur-

ance populations. Scientists have

worked for years to develop reliable

means of artificial reproduction, with

limited success. Examples are scarce:

A dozen years ago, a southern white

rhino was born through artificial in-

semination in Budapest, and a greater

one-horned rhino was born with such

help in Miami in April.

Southern white rhinos of Africa,

once close to extinction, have rebound-

ed in protected sanctuaries. Edward’s

arrival by artificial means thus would

not have been quite the heralded event

it was if not for one fact: His birth

holds out hope for saving the function-

ally extinct northern white rhino.

Only two northern white rhinos

remain in the world, and both are

female. The last male died in March

2018. The duo lives under protective
      guard from poachers at the Ol Pejeta
      Conservancy in Kenya. But there is
      hope, in the form of DNA from a dozen
      northern white rhinos banked at the
      San Diego Zoo Institute for Conserva-
      tion Research, in a facility called the
      Frozen Zoo. Over the past 44 years,
      tissues and cells from some of the
      world’s most endangered species have
      been stored in this cryobank.
      Analysis by my colleague Oliver
      Ryder, director of conservation genet-
      ics, has found that there is sufficient
      genetic variability in the frozen north-
      ern white rhino cell lines to theoreti-
      cally reestablish the population. By
      collaborating with scientists around
      the world, we envision a future north-
      ern white rhino baby born to a south-
      ern white rhino surrogate. Perhaps
      Edward’s mother, Victoria, will fill that
      role.
      Victoria and her new calf are doing
      well. Edward represents an important
      step in an effort to save a related white
      rhino subspecies, but what we learned
      from his birth could also help Suma-
      tran and Javan rhinos. At the moment,
      though, he is simply a baby rhino,
      staying close to his mother as she
      guards him, cuddles him (in rhino
      fashion, between her horns) and puts
      mud on his back to screen him from
      the summer sun.
      Edward is also a lesson to all of us, a
      reminder that humans, as stewards of
      Earth, must protect species at risk of
      extinction. The world faces an epic
      extinction crisis, outlined most recent-
      ly in a United Nations report in May
      that brought together three years of
      work by nearly 150 researchers from
      50 nations. Climate change, habitat
      loss, wildlife trafficking and other
      human-caused disturbances all play a

role in the rising threat.

Humanity must work to preserve

these species — in the wild and in

managed care. Ideally, protective ac-

tion will follow the guidelines of the

International Union for Conservation

of Nature’s One Plan Approach to

Conservation, which blends human

management with preservation in the

wild. But the world cannot wait until

each species, one by one, vanishes

before our eyes. Success will require

initiating conservation efforts when it

is possible to bolster and protect

existing populations.

Last year, San Diego Zoo Global

played a part in efforts to rebuild the

black rhino population in Africa by

sending a Safari Park-born 8-year-old

black rhino to be released into the wild

in Tanzania. He has joined a female

black rhino at Singita Grumeti Re-

serves, where we hope they will help

restore a rhino population that was

lost in the region, and unite four

scattered remnant populations of the

species. If they are successful, the

species will recover long before it gets

to the brink of extinction.

But the northern white rhino is

already teetering on the brink. Now we

are compelled to intervene using

banked frozen cells rather than pro-

tecting populations of living individu-

al animals. Saving individual animals

and family groups while fostering

sustainable populations is the ideal

conservation strategy. But sometimes

artificial reproductive intervention

may be the only way to avert extinc-

tion. With persistence leading to fur-

ther scientific advances, Edward’s ar-

rival will be living proof of that.

The writer is the director of reproductive

physiology at San Diego Zoo Global.

How a newborn rhino

could help save his cousins

KEN BOHN/SAN DIEGO ZOO SAFARI PARK VIA EPA-EFE/SHUTTERSTOCK

A day-old southern white rhino calf beside his mother at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park on July 29.

BY CASSANDRA CRIFASI,

HAROLD POLLACK

AND DANIEL WEBSTER

I

t’s naive to think that any single

policy or program can prevent every

form of gun violence, ranging from

intimate partner violence to gang

drive-by homicides, suicides and mall-

rampage atrocities. Yet each form of such

violence involves one common mecha-

nism: a gun.

We can reduce these risks through a

suite of evidence-based policies that do

two things — create more careful licens-

ing for gun purchasers and more effec-

tively regulate teenage and young adult

gun buyers.

Better background checks for all sales

provide the foundation for any effective

gun policy. These measures are most

effective when paired with a system that

requires purchasers to obtain a license

from law enforcement. Most states with

purchaser licensing require applicants to

submit fingerprints, as people must do

when applying for occupational licens-

ing. Fingerprint-based background

checks are less likely to miss people who

are legally barred from buying guns.

Licensing also creates greater account-

ability, whereby sellers, both licensed and

private, can sell a gun only to someone

with a valid license. Many studies have

found that purchaser licensing reduces

homicide and suicide, as well as the

number of guns available in an under-

ground market. Sixty-three percent of

current gun owners and 81 percent of

non-owners support such requirements.

We should also provide more stringent

oversight of young people who wish to

buy powerful weapons.

The risk of committing a homicide

peaks between the ages of 18 and 24;

offending rates do not decline until the

mid-to-late-20s. Fully 38 percent of mur-

derers with known ages are below age 25.

This is due in part to ongoing develop-

ment of brain domains that regulate im-

pulse control, judgment and long-term

planning. Yet people in this age range

frequently provide little actionable infor-

mation about their well-being or trust-

worthiness to medical or law enforce-

ment authorities.

The angry 20-year-old loner who posts

racist or misogynist Reddit manifestos

probably hasn’t been convicted of any

crime. He’s even less likely to have been

involuntarily committed to a mental in-

stitution. From the perspective of an ad-

ministrative system, he’s just another guy

who lives at home with his parents, taking

part-time classes at community college.

Within the past two weeks, young

adults used legally purchased firearms to

perpetrate several atrocities across the

nation. A 21-year-old suspect is charged

with killing 22 people in El Paso on Aug. 3.

A 24-year-old gunman killed nine people

in Dayton, Ohio, the next day. Only a week

before, a 19-year-old killed three people at

California’s Gilroy Garlic Festival.

These are just three dramatic exam-

ples. They are not typical, but they do

underscore gun violence that is occurring

among young adults every day in our

country. Young adults ages 18 to 24 ac-

count for only 9 percent of the popula-

tion, yet they accounted for 23 percent of

all firearm homicide victims in 2017. This

increased risk for both perpetration and

victimization of gun violence requires us

to consider additional oversight of young

gun purchasers.

Avis, Hertz and their competitors in

the rental car business have figured out

that young drivers are greater safety risks

than their older friends and relatives,

and, consequently, implement more rig-

orous standards before renting out a car.

Why not do the same for guns?

We are not suggesting that individuals

under the age of 25 should be barred from

buying weapons. But more oversight is

warranted. For example, youthful gun

purchasers might need to meet higher

standards for gun ownership (e.g., no

criminal history at all) and additional

safety training. There could be a more

rigorous licensing process through law

enforcement, such as requirements that

parents or others provide supporting ref-

erences.

Or we could take a lesson from motor

vehicle safety and create a graduated

licensing system for guns. Graduated

driver’s licensing has reduced rates of

motor vehicle deaths among young driv-

ers by limiting exposure to risky situa-

tions that could lead to harm for them-

selves and others. Of course, exemptions

could be extended to those serving in the

military or law enforcement.

Our patchwork of state laws makes it

far too easy for people who are dangerous

to themselves or others to obtain fire-

arms. Coupled with anger and hate, these

individuals can cause harm, even when

they don’t make the news. The problem is

particularly clear regarding assault-style

weaponry. As long as assault weapons are

legal, licensing standards for purchasing

these guns should be higher, including

age-based restrictions and oversight.

Again, we issue special driver’s licenses

for 18-wheelers; more powerful guns

should face similar requirements.

These solutions can help reduce gun

violence without infringing upon lawful

gun owners’ interests and rights. The

American public is crying out for effective

action.

No single policy will prevent all mass

shootings or eliminate everyday acts of

gun violence. That’s no reason to be

passive. A portfolio of feasible efforts

such as these is a great place to start.

Cassandra Crifasi is an assistant professor

and deputy director at the Johns Hopkins

Center for Gun Policy and Research. Harold

Pollack is Helen Ross professor of social

service administration at the University of

Chicago. Daniel Webster is Bloomberg

professor of American health at the Johns

Hopkins Bloomberg School and director of the

Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and

Research.

Where to start on preventing gun violence

Biden was the first choice of

20 of the 26 people I talked to.