Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Up next, we consider whether reports about Congresswoman Nancy Mace running a bot army to boost her public perception indicates that she is winning or that we as a society are losing.
For our call out this week, we're looking at Nancy Mace and the extent to which she and her staff, and these are, you know, kind of leaks from her staff, have been using things like bot armies and burner social media accounts and other techniques to boost her public profile, profile and perception. And this isn't like while campaigning, this is while actually she's in office, like supposed to be governing. So Tunde, just what's your reaction to these revelations? You know, that Nancy Mace is so invested in the social media bots and controlling her online perception, you know, like, what's your thoughts on that?
[00:00:51] Speaker B: My thoughts, that's a good question.
My thoughts is it's absolute, you know, B.S. but I not surprised because we are in this age that we're at where the Internet is all abundant. And it, I would say this, it's interesting to hear this from her staffers because I think it's, she's probably more of an extreme example. She's like the tip of the iceberg, the one we can see. But I wonder like an iceberg underneath how many other people that are in Congress or the Senate that are, you know, we send as constituents to go do a job and represent us and our interest in, in Washington and not only themselves personally, but making all their staffers spend all this time and resources online to promote an individual and not to promote the interest of the constituents. So to me, that's why I say BS on a serious way because unfortunately, to me, it appears that the, the, the kind of entertainment side of our life and our culture has permeated everything and is now just fully permeated our political kind of world as well, where these people want to be celebrities and kind of looking, courting attention at all costs. So that to me is why it's BS and sad.
[00:02:08] Speaker A: Well, see, I would say neither one of those terms. I'm happy that she is doing this because ultimately this is, she is reacting to the incentives that she sees in front of her.
And the problem that we have is the incentives. And so if everybody, if people aren't actually doing things that many people may find objectionable or out of line in response to the incentives, then people won't ever look at the incentives and say, hey, should we change these incentives? And so like, to me, what she's doing is completely rational, like this perpetual campaign mode. Well, guess what? The current president of The United States just proved that that perpetual campaigning, even when you're not in office works, you know, and then that's how you can get back in, you know, and so the, the, the, the information game, so to speak, right now, is all about, well, not all about, but it's significantly about how much work you're willing to put in, on, in these, in these forums, on these, you know, social media platforms, you know, which, which, with your bot armies or your burner accounts or whatever. That is how you can actually influence people, get people on your side, get people to view you favorably. So if you're in the business of getting people to view you favorably, which politicians are, that it makes all the sense in the world that someone would do this. And so I think that it's important that we see someone do this and then if we don't want this to happen, it's not about she, it's not about saying, oh, we got to get rid of her. There are, she's laying a blueprint. She's, she's a trailblazer for all people that are wired like that. Hey, this is, you shouldn't be influencer, mere influencers. You should be a politician. If you're going to take the time to manage your social media kind of perception, hey, you might as well run for office too, because that is the skill that we value right now in our politicians. And until we change the incentives, this is the tip of the iceberg. Meaning there are more of her coming in that people that are more worried about their public perception than about trying to make the lives of their constituents better. And our only way to get to a place where we got more people wanting to make our people's lives better is to go through this, because this is the incentive structure that's set up right now.
[00:04:21] Speaker B: That's funny. So instead of shut up and dribble, we'll be, you know, we'll be seeing people telling celebrities, dribble your way into public office. Into that vote.
[00:04:31] Speaker A: Post your way into public office. And so that's, that's a new slogan, man. Post your way into public office.
[00:04:36] Speaker B: Yeah, but, but I mean, obviously I see your point and don't have an argument with it, but that's, that's my point is, yeah, I don't want to have to go through this pain of this society figuring this out, because also on a serious note, I don't think it's gonna, like, I'm fully accepted, we're not going back to the world I grew up in that I'm comfortable with. And that's okay. Like, I get it. We've lived already through a huge technological change that we've only seen so many times in human history. I mean, this is like the printing press, this whole Internet thing, not just the Internet itself from, let's say, 25 years ago, and the ability for us to communicate, you know, in the way we do now, but also now this, you know, generative AI and all this stuff. So it's just. It's just. I just think that, you know, we probably need to be prepared that the world is going to be more akin to a P.T. barnum or WWE type of feeling, at least for the next generation or two, as this, if the entropy of the world we grew up in, that this, the disorder that from that breakup of that reality figures out its new order of whatever, you know, it goes into in the future. And so I just, I just, you know, I, I'm. I'm prepared for this to get a lot worse. And I think what's going to come out of it is people like Nancy Mace that are in power.
Because you make a good point about what type of person does this attract?
Because one thing I know when we talked offline about this, this, this was people like you or I who are a little bit. And I'm not saying this to knock someone like Nancy May, but I'm going to say a little bit more intellectual. We like to spend our time reading. We want to get in the weeds with information and detail.
So naturally, you and I wouldn't be spending five, six hours of our evening in our iPad or our laptop trying to control a bot army to make us look good, because that's just not how we're wired. We'd want to, we'd be in there saying, you know, with the responsibility, feeling like, you know, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people voted for me as their representative in D.C. as a congressperson, I need to be up here learning about what the legislation reading, you know, the legislation that's in front of me. I'm going to vote on figuring out why, maybe talking to experts, you know, calling the head of whatever agency tell. Explain how this works. That takes time. So we're going to elect people that instead of taking the time to do it traditionally the job called for, they're going to be taking time, like you said, to be in full campaign mode. And one thing I thought of in preparing for that, I was reading about it. The staff's time's taken up with that, too. So our staffer, like you said that Was quoted, said that I thought we should be doing things for our constituents. So that tells us he doesn't feel he was. And the second thing is this stuff isn't free, right? Like, to boost online.
I mean, we're on YouTube. To have a social media presence effectively and maybe hire the right digital media firm cost money. So where does that money come from?
Fundraising? Or you got a lobby, which means you're in someone's pocket. So this does create other laws of unintended consequences that I think will play out in how people govern.
[00:07:42] Speaker A: But what it illustrates, though, and again, you can't explain to someone, or it's harder to explain to someone that, hey, the way the system is set up right now, you are encouraging certain types of people to get involved. Your other types of people, you're making it so they would never get involved, you know, and that's kind of the point you were making, is that, well, a person who is more invested in social media would be. Would. Would defeat a person who was more invested in learning how to govern in an election. Like, it wouldn't be a contest. Like, the person who's more invested in social media, you could be the master of everything. But that's really difficult, you know, like, and in some things, just going the extra mile, a person may not be wired to do. And so we have to. I think we have to see it and then decide if we like it over time. You know, like, maybe we'll get into a situation where you have a bunch of people, like, something actually happens. Some of this is your Maslow's hierarchy stuff. Like, we feel like our government's pretty much on autopilot. We don't think that it matters if you have people that are.
It doesn't matter if your executives read.
Probably not. It's kind of how we feel right now, you know, like, so if that's the case, like, we kind of may need something to happen that would make people appreciate, like, oh, no, we actually do want to have people in power that are paying attention to stuff and that are trying to. To prevent things before they happen and so forth. Maybe, maybe not, you know, because that's. But that's the kind of thing that you kind of have to learn from experience, you know, and so that's the. To me, this is the experience, getting time, you know, like, and so. And we'll decide what we. We as a society will decide what, what it is that we like and what it is that we don't like. And. Or we may just be distracted and not Even really pay attention to what's happening and start to think that whatever is, is the only way that things could be. So, I mean, I just think that we should not look at her as like something's wrong with her necessarily. This is a reason to look at the system, the structure of the system and kind of the incentives that are in place and say, okay, well, what, why is it that someone who, if you don't, if you think, think that somebody like this operating in government is good, then, you know, double down, say, hey, we need to keep things going. If you think somebody operating like this in government is not in the best interest, then you need to figure out, necessarily not, not castigate them, but figure out, okay, well, why, why is this person in an advantageous situation in order, you know, in the current situation. And so now I will say this, though. Politics has always been about kind of managing one's image. You know, it goes back, you know, to like, at least in, you know, you know, American politics goes back to the very beginning, you know, in terms of, you know, how Washington's image was managed or, you know, I remember reading a story one time about how is.
[00:10:13] Speaker B: The best, one of the best examples, you know, FDR with the wheelchair.
[00:10:17] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, yeah, but here's one that I, that always stands out to me is about Thomas Jefferson and that at the beginning of the country, one of the, like, the public was turned off by people who brazenly sought power. And so you kind of had, in order to, to, to get in the position to run for election, you had to pretend like you, you didn't want to run. And so they played this little game.
[00:10:38] Speaker B: Everyone else talking about you.
[00:10:41] Speaker A: But so, but, but just. So that was something that Jefferson, you know, like, was, was particularly known for, that he had to play this thing like he didn't really want to run. And then, oh, they're making me run. So, okay, guys, like, so, but anyway, so managing your image has always been a part of this. So, you know, like, what do you think that what we're seeing now is just this, this is just happening more transparently. Maybe the tools are. Because you, you just point out FDR as well, you know, like, so presumably this has been happening all along and now the tools allow for it to more transparently or that there's people are happening, spending more time doing it. I don't know. But what do you think that this is?
No, no, no change at all. And this is just kind of, we're just seeing it now or we're just Hearing somebody leak something because they're upset about it. But you know, this is kind of just the way it's always been, I think.
[00:11:25] Speaker B: Well, there's probably a little bit of both. I think that the, the kind of human psychology part of it is probably the way it's always been. But I do think we're in a different place now. There's a lot more transparency I think in society than Thomas Jefferson's day. I mean, yeah, people didn't know he.
[00:11:40] Speaker A: Was running around, didn't know what the dude looked like. You know what I'm saying?
[00:11:42] Speaker B: Exactly. Well, I was gonna make a joke and say most people didn't know that he was running around with Sally Hemmings till them kids showed up. Right. And they look just like him. But they had me. And you complain.
[00:11:50] Speaker A: Hey, I'm pretty sure there's people running around right now that most people don't know though. So I don't think that's.
[00:11:54] Speaker B: No, but, but I'm just making a point that with paternity tests with cell phone cameras, being able to spot people out on the street, you know, if someone's famous, you know, there's a good chance that eventually, I mean we have some trials going on right now that'll name remain unnamed. But you know that, that famous people, eventually things can catch up, right?
[00:12:14] Speaker A: I don't know, man. I say there are a thousand that don't catch up for everyone that does.
[00:12:19] Speaker B: And that I'm sure. But I would say it's probably easier if you're not phase it famous to get it to not catch up with you. We mean just the more eyeballs on you, the more people will have it ability to bring you down in today's world.
[00:12:30] Speaker A: Well, but yeah, that's so continued.
[00:12:33] Speaker B: So that's. So that's part of the technology though is my point is saying that, that, that the technology allows for that. So the transparency. Yes, but I, I think you're right that we're in the middle of this experiment because you know, going back to the subject of the article, Mrs. Mace, I think the next election will be our answer. In her district in South Carolina. Will her constituents, will enough people in her district have seen this type of stuff and say, I, I don't want this person representing me because they appear to be more self interested about how they appear to the public than governing? Or is her, like you said, is her mastery of and savviness on the computer and social media enough of a marketing tool for the lack of governing to not matter? I think that is actually going to be the 2026 election test, her congressional election. It'll be interesting because this is so new to, to, to society.
[00:13:31] Speaker A: Well, it's such a revelation. I mean her staff, you know, all these leaks coming out of her staff talking about this is kind of embarrassing, you know, like even if it does happen, like I'd be one to think that we're probably seeing a greater emphasis, like maybe the facade is being dropped, so to speak.
[00:13:48] Speaker B: Yeah, I think so.
[00:13:48] Speaker A: Remember what stood out to me a couple of years ago? I think it was Gates, I think it was Matt Gates talking about how his, you know, he wanted a. Someone who to. To deal with the public more than he wanted a legislative aid. He wanted people to help him get on TV and what to say on TV and all that kind of stuff. Like he knew that, he felt that that was more important for him than knowing how to govern, you know, so this is, you know, I think that it's probably like in the past maybe there was a facade where you at least pretended in public. Maybe all you did care about was the publicity, but at least you felt like in public you had to pretend.
[00:14:21] Speaker B: Like, yeah, you had to pretend, you.
[00:14:22] Speaker A: Know, like that wasn't what you were worried about. And so I think that you have that. But I also look at our system, you know, and in the way that our system has been changed over time, you know, with the gerrymandering and so forth like that, like if she's going to be held accountable, most likely it would have to be in a primary, you know, like, and that would mean that she'd have to get somebody from her own party to come take her out or to see her as vulnerable and to not be dissuaded because she has allies and for higher places saying no, no, you not allowed to come after that. If you come after that, we're going to come after you, yada, yada yada. And so we don't. We. We have lost some of the. Not.
What we want in our political system is not enemies. We want people in an adv. Adversarial system being able to point out where somebody else is flawed and so forth like that. But once you lose, once everything becomes intraparty and all you have all these districts that are just owned by one party and there's like the other party has no real shot. You lose a lot of the ability for someone to call somebody else out on stuff. You know, it's all becomes kind of a smoke filled room kind of game where whether you can run in the primary is determined or whether who runs in the primary is determined by some party head or whoever. And if they do, even they're playing kid gloves a lot of times. So I even wonder if our system is responsive enough for us to find out. Because she's not in some district where if someone wanted to go against her, it would be like, oh, okay, yeah, I'm coming from the other party, so I'm pulling no punches. And then she's pulling up punches and all that, not as enemies, but as adversaries trying to push each other, you know, like, and that's. That, that's kind of the design is like that. But the way it's implemented right now isn't even one that would allow us to seek accountability in a lot of ways.
[00:15:59] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, that's a good point. And let's see. I think, you know, there's, there's a lot more to be said to that. Let's say, like you're saying in senatorial races where it's the whole state and it's much more difficult to have this concentrated group of people that are so partisan. You know, goes back to other discussions we've had. The viewers can look in the library about partisanship and why it's dangerous. And you're right.
[00:16:21] Speaker A: Yeah. Because partisan encourages no accountability.
[00:16:24] Speaker B: Think about it, James. If she's out there manipulating and controlling bot armies. Right. I mean, think about where this is. Why I said this is. This is new to humanity. We're at this point where perception, we all know that perception is reality, that kind of stuff. But the ability for someone in her position, someone in a position of power and leadership within the government to, to shape perception which then becomes reality for people based on non human agents called bots. Right. And now you have the ability for the AI to begin to think on its own so she can program these things and then set it and forget it. She doesn't have to be there every, every night anymore on her couch, that the bots will just start going and talking to people and responding in the way she wants to, let's say critical posts, and begin to maybe change people's sentiments based on how they respond to criticisms or, sorry, how the bots respond to criticisms online, things like that. And so that's why I think we, we are. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out going forward in future elections. And I, I tend to think based on the way that we deal with a lot of things in our society, like the food and other things that kind of creeps into us, and then we accept it. I feel like we're going to be, you know, we joke. You and I have had this joke. Is it going to become like Aldous Huxley, brave New World, where we're kind of have a Somacoma will kind of lulled into the authoritarianism, or is it going to be the Orwellian, where it's a totalitarian that we see, like, Viva vendetta.
[00:17:54] Speaker A: And I'm not sure which direction from. From. We got to be fair, we got that from postman, you know, amusing ourselves to death was where we first got that from.
[00:18:01] Speaker B: But. Yes, well, but I'm just saying, is that kind of the concept of, you know, which one will it be? I think it's a little bit early, but I think the Internet may create us more like a brave new world. Like, I think that we're gonna have enough escapism, at least for now, that. Because I. I just think that there's so much going on in our society that just 30, 40 years ago, without the Internet, people would have been shocked. And just because of the Internet's ability to create these different realities, many people are okay with whatever they're seeing because they're being told it's okay.
[00:18:32] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. I mean, and I think that, you know, like, what it leads to, you know, like, you talk about that, like, conceivably there will just be this arms race, you know, like individual politicians even, and, you know, having, you know, their bots and having their, you know, their. Whatever it would be, and then they're going at each other trying to influence.
[00:18:50] Speaker B: Yeah, you're right.
[00:18:50] Speaker A: What we have, though, is a smaller and smaller number of people that are even persuadable. And a lot of times it's about, okay, well, can I just get their people to sit home and not come out? Or can I get, you know, more of my people out? You know, a lot of times? And so. Because there isn't a lot of mind changing, you know, going on in our politics. So, you know, but nonetheless, you know, people would say, okay, well, nobody's minds are changing anyway, so none of this stuff matters. Well, the fact that somebody's putting so much energy into doing it means that it matters.
But, you know, like, I always look at these types of things and I'm like thinking, like, okay, well, to what end is ultimately this going to, you know, like. And so. And that's what I think is the more interesting part, is that, okay, so then if Nancy Mace is laying this groundwork and saying, hey, hey, everybody, the way everything is set up now, you're much better off. Or if Matt gates Matt's case, saying, hey, you're much better off with consultant media consultants than you are with legislative consultants. All right, so now we got another step Nancy made. Hey, you're much better off with a Twitter bot army and having your staff do burner accounts, you know, on social media, than you are, you know, reading up on the latest bill, having your.
[00:19:51] Speaker B: Staff read up on the bill.
[00:19:53] Speaker A: And so then what's the next step? You know, because then, you know, somebody's gonna try to take them out, then they're gonna have to, you know, go even further into this. And so. And this is the kind of amusing ourselves to death mindset now that was talking more about video on televisions. But, you know, now we've amplified it, you know, but. But nonetheless, it just seems like. Like, I don't think we've reached the end of this is kind of my point. Like, I think that this is the next step. And so now it's going to be another step that we're going to hear about in a year or two or six months where, you know, somebody else is. They don't even go to Washington anymore or whatever it is.
[00:20:25] Speaker B: Like, yeah, no, you're right. They come in on Zoom. That's it. They sit at home in their district and they just. And they'll argue that is some health issue, and they'll be the first one.
[00:20:33] Speaker A: They're just at some server farm.
[00:20:35] Speaker B: Yeah, and now. But look, they'll be the first one. And in two generations, you'll have three quarters of Congress not showing up to with deal Easy, you know, And I'm just saying, like, I think we like the imagine. That's what I mean. Like, you and I take a time machine 50 years, we're probably looking around, what the hell is going on here? And people will have just kind of slowly accepted it. And that's what I mean by, like, food.
60, 70 years ago, if you took a time machine today to see how many Americans are obese, you'll probably be like, what the hell's going on here? And then, welcome. You guys are eating like this. And it's just like, it kind of just crept up in our culture, and we just all accepted it.
[00:21:07] Speaker A: You know, we got conned also, though, and that's kind of what we've learned.
[00:21:10] Speaker B: Over the past, what's going on now, right?
[00:21:12] Speaker A: Yeah, I guess that's kind of the truth.
[00:21:14] Speaker B: Breaking up, breaking things, and we're being told it's okay. It's all good. Yeah.
[00:21:19] Speaker A: But I think we can wrap this from there. But I mean, I think that it's good, though. Again, this. It's good that we're seeing this, because right now, like, to your point, once things become relatively established, then it becomes the new norm. If we're seeing this now and it's kind of shocking to us, then we're still at a point where we can kind of adjust the trajectory of it now, whether we do or not.
[00:21:39] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:21:40] Speaker A: Whether we do see if everybody else cares.
How many views be worried is when you see something like this and it's not shocking, you know, because then it's like, all right, but then we're already there. Like, if you heard some story about a food company making some food addictive that wouldn't. People wouldn't bling an eye. It's like, oh, yeah, that's kind of what they do. Right. You know, So I think that, you know, like, again, the fact that it's shocking to us is of value. But we'll wrap what congress people do this.
[00:22:04] Speaker B: Spend all night on bots.
[00:22:05] Speaker A: Yeah. What are they. What else are they supposed to be doing?
But, yeah, I think we can wrap this. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this. Call out, subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. All right, till next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:22:18] Speaker B: I'm Tunde Galano.
[00:22:19] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk soon.
