Preventing an American Pinochet
By
As I watch, I
see a chilling parallel to the rise of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.
Steve Stern’s
book Remembering Pinochet’s Chile opens with a
couple greeting the 1973 military coup that launched Pinochet’s dictatorship by
toasting the fighter jets with champagne. Decades later, they still remember
Pinochet fondly.
Their version of
their country’s history differs starkly with its reality — and they aren’t
alone.
They politically
opposed the leftist Allende government that Pinochet overthrew, but that alone
doesn’t explain why they would cheer a regime known for torturing and murdering
its political enemies.
So, why did they
support Pinochet? Because he provided an entirely false and easily disproved
story to justify his illegal coup and the brutality that followed — and they
believed it.
Pinochet falsely
claimed that the Allende government was planning murder on a vast scale.
Supporters believed Pinochet’s own crimes were justified because he was
preventing something worse.
It’s possible to
convince people to support a coup — and even mass murder — with phony evidence.
It’s crucial to the survival of our democracy that we prevent that.
The January 6 Commission will uncover new facts about the insurrection and the lies that underpinned it. But by itself, it won’t change many minds. People don’t easily give up strongly held beliefs — even false beliefs — that tie them to groups they identify with.
Simply presenting
the facts to someone who doesn’t want to believe them won’t work. But as a
sociologist, there’s another framework that helps me when I want to understand
multiple sides of a controversy without being clouded by my own biases.
To do this, I
set aside my own beliefs temporarily. This can be emotionally challenging when
engaging with viewpoints I believe are factually incorrect or immoral, but it’s
worth it.
First of all,
what does each side claim is factually true? Do
they provide any evidence to back up their claims? Can you verify their
evidence?
Second, what are
each side’s professed values? These are often based in morality, and they
cannot be proven true or false. “Most people believe murder is wrong” is a
factual claim — something that can be proven true or false — but “murder
is wrong” is a value.
Third, what does
each side have to gain from their position? In this case, consider both
partisan gain — raising campaign contributions and winning votes in the next
election — as well as the more serious issue of risking the foundations of
American democracy itself.
Often people
make factual and moral arguments when they’re advocating for a position that
advances their own interests. Do they really care about morality or are they just
out for their own gain?
The January 6 Commission offers us all an opportunity
to examine factual claims, values, interests, and language.
Look at all of
the evidence that emerges in its totality, not one or two cherry picked
tidbits. Pay attention to first person accounts from people who were there. Law
enforcement officers are testifying — and they’re not known for liberal bias.
In this case, I
believe the perspectives of Republicans like Liz Cheney are crucial to listen
to. Unlike Democrats in favor of the Commission and Republicans who oppose it, Cheney is paying a huge political price for her participation.
Why? She wouldn’t do that without a good reason
Our democracy is
too precious to throw away for partisan gain. The dictatorships of the 20th
century prove that it’s possible to manipulate public perception of reality
enough to enable a coup.
If you believe violence instead of voting is justified, I implore you to at least consider the alternative viewpoint. The costs of being wrong are too high.
OtherWords columnist
is pursuing a PhD in sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. This
op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.