Over a year ago, I posted a list of Techniques of Municipal Distraction, the methods local government can use to shift-blame, avoid true accountability, and do pretty much what it pleases. I’ll add four more, and list the original techniques thereafter.

19. A Compliant Press Must Always Bolster Key Leaders. Every local bureaucrat and incumbent politician needs a compliant press. Newspapers may be in trouble, and circulation down, but that’s no reason to avoid making sure the local press flacks your line. If you still have independent reporters, radio stations, or bloggers in your town, it means that you haven’t tried hard enough.

Make sure they understand that you’re a big fish in your small pond, and that stories should always show respect to you. It’s fine if reporters question garden-variety politicians, or ordinary citizens, but they cannot question you. Ordinary citizens are always fair game; it allows the reporter to be critical and inquiring, yet not inquiring of you. That’s what matters — you’re what matters.

Besides, someone who shows up at a meeting to talk is probably someone who doesn’t count; all the important people are already permanent fixtures in the room (like you)!

20. A Compliant Press Must Always End a Story on a Positive Note. End happy! When there’s a story about a meeting that went long or wrong, make sure the reporter frames the story so that it ends positively. A quote from you, with your enlightened perspective, will make it all better.

21. For Reporters to Avoid Appearing Compliant, They Should Question Peripheral Matters. Look, lots of people spot a fawning story, and roll their eyes, moving on to coupons or comics for real value. That does you no good — they should be reading about you, a municipal bureaucrat or incumbent, in the most positive way possible. Make sure the reporter describes a scene — but not you! — with a sense of irony or apparent exasperation. It’s fine for the press to talk about how part of a meeting was tedious, incoherent, etc. Just make sure that you’re not on the receiving end of that irony.

This makes the story seem more authentic, truer to the tradition of an independent press. Always remember: if it looks genuine, it is genuine. It’s not your view, it’s the view.

22. Remember: Few People Fact-Check! If you’re going to be quoted in the press, make sure you say something bold and grand, about how your work is the only work, or best work, of its kind. Why say you’re doing what others do, when you can say that you invented the very idea of something? Claim everything you can as yours — conference calls, paper clips, light bulbs, automobiles, grand pianos – say you invented them all.

If someone points out that these things exist in other places, just say that others copied your work. If someone says that these things have existed for years, just say that others unfairly anticipated your ideas.

Once it’s in print, it must be true. At the very least, it’s as good as anything else in print. Forget reading, study, careful consideration — just make something up, get it in print, and you’re set. (WARNING: If the press is hostile, make sure you offer nothing quotable. See Technique Number 9, below.)

What are you waiting for?

Techniques of Municipal Distraction (Numbers 1-9)

Imagine that you’re a bureaucrat or long-term politician in a municipality with budget problems, failed police leadership, restrictive enforcement, or other embarrassments.

Yours could be one of countless towns in America.

What to do?

The easiest path, and the one that you’ll likely take, it is commit to techniques of distraction rather than acknowledge, let alone solve, any of your city’s problems.

These are among the most common tactics for a local CYA effort:

1. Admit No Wrongdoing or Fault. In almost all cases, it’s foolish to admit that you might have been wrong about something – it’s not whether you were wrong, but whether someone can prove it.

Relax – few people have good information, and most will neither know nor be inclined to look for independent information.

2. Deny Basic Facts. In most cases, you don’t want to deny anything. It’s too defensive.

If, however, you have to deny something, there are ways to deny effectively. If someone asks if you were somewhere, or said something unrecorded, tell them you weren’t there, or never made those statements. Deny big!

If you think they might be able to prove your conduct, say you can’t recall. They may never investigate further, or may come up empty despite the fundamental truth.

Always deny press inquiries indirectly, if you must, by answering as though you were posed a slightly different question. Never answer a difficult question with a direct, responsive, and candid answer.

You can answer minor questions honestly, but never serious, critical ones. This isn’t a confessional, after all. It’s politics and government, and your conduct is justified for higher ends. Never forget that you have a higher purpose that justifies so-called ‘misconduct.’ You’re above that – you’re practical in pursuit of the profound.

3. Cast Doubt Whenever Possible. If someone, unfortunately, gets word of a truth that you’d prefer remained concealed, you have some solid options: (1) question the accuracy of the information, even if it’s wholly accurate (2) the motivation of those who reveal it, and (3) insinuate there is other information – not yet revealed – that will make all clear, in time.

(Don’t worry about subpoint 3 – you need not have any other information – people will forget about missing the content of your offer, but will remember the offer itself. Say you wish you could say more, but you are unable to do so, based on some present limitation.)

BONUS TIP: Avoid worn-out expressions. For example, never, ever use the phrase “not at liberty to discuss,” as it’s so hackneyed it will be unpersuasive.

4. Forget Your State or Country – It’s All Local. Somewhere in your state legislature, or Washington, there’ll be legislators enacting laws that conflict with what you want. Some of these people are just self-interested politicians like you.

A few, though, are something far worse: do-good reformers who want “to make a difference,” or “make the world a better place.” Don’t be fooled — idealists like this just make it hard for you to conduct business as usual.

Don’t give in – you’re playing a local game, so why not play by local rules? It’s easy to ignore or to counter-interpret state and federal laws. The law is what you say it is, for goodness’ sake. No one checks up on those statutes, anyway.

5. Use the Language of Pop Psychology. Only a fool calls critics idiots – say they’re just confused, or misguided, or angry, and you should express disappointment rather than anger or hostility in reply. Say they “seem” a certain way, and you’re even better off. After all, who really knows?

BONUS TIP: Be careful not to condescend too blatantly. Never offer banal quotations, for example, about enlightenment, inner peace, etc. You’re a public official, not a swami.

Serious public officials – especially ones with career aspirations – never make the mistake of speaking as though they’re better than others. Besides, you’ll just be offering fodder for bloggers, who will hold up your trite remarks as evidence of your arrogance, or cluelessness, or both.

6. Get Your Story Straight. Make sure anyone who might be questioned has a common account and set of talking points. Contradictions in accounts will suggest your own dishonesty, or blame-shifting.

BONUS TIP: Never allow everyone in a chain to use the same peculiar phrase, especially if it’s uncommon, as it will be obvious that you’re on the defensive and huddling together.

7. Find Compliant Reporters. If you’re from a small town, then this should be easy. There will be a local reporter who’ll want access. Give it to him or her, on your terms. Cultivate their trust, and they’ll be less likely to present you with uncomfortable questions about your city’s performance.

8. Write Your Own Stories — Offer them Verbatim. You shouldn’t wait for real news; it’s your job to make good news.

9. Avoid Direct Quotations. When a reporter writes a story that might be unfavorable, but he or she is supportive of you, you should be able to make sure that you’re not quoted on the record. That way, if your statement is questioned, then you’ll be able to say that the reporter misunderstood what you “actually” said.

BONUS TIP: This technique is only likely to work with some reporters; others will see that you’re putting them at risk of blame-casting should the story become controversial.

Next — additional techniques for your assured success.

Techniques of Municipal Distraction (Numbers 10-18)

Here are numbers 10-18 of my list of Techniques of Municipal Distraction, suitable for self-interested politicians and bureaucrats in towns across America.

These are among the most common tactics for a local CYA effort:

10. When Policy is Questioned, Defend on Integrity. If someone questions your actions, then defend by insisting that you’re a good person. Shift the story away from policy. Fast!

11. When Integrity is Questioned, Defend on Policy. If someone questions your integrity, then insist that (1) you have lots of experience, (2) and you’ve always done things this way. (Most people won’t see the irony in this defense.)

12. Insist on the Importance of Prior, Specialized Experience or Knowledge. Always insist on your experience, tenure, and training if you’d think it will help you.

13. Speak to the Core. This isn’t just some hip business psychology mantra, it’s sound advice.

Forget most people – they’re nothing to someone like you, with a career and important responsibilities. The hoi polloi only matter if looking sympathetic to them will get you a few votes.

You should concern yourself with so-called insiders, people of influence, movers and shakers: your core constituency. They count.

It doesn’t matter if others think you’re wrong, or look foolish. They don’t count, especially if you’re unelected.

14. Line Up Toadies to Flack Your Line. Don’t let the truth get you down – fight back with your own version of events. That version needs a voice, and where better to look than a stable of willing sycophants? You should have people ready to comment in support of your views, on cue. Make sure they know how to divert attention from truthful, substantive issues to your town’s official (and admittedly asinine) positions.

15. Be Hypocritical. Look, it’s about time municipal officials realize terms like “hypocrisy,” or “inconsistency” are just bigoted assaults on local government. People who say these things are haters, the worst kind of haters, really: government haters.

If they understood how hard it was, they’d shut up and stay home.

Shift positions to your advantage – embrace a situational ethics. If some seek information, insist on confidentiality. If others seek confidentiality, insist on openness.

BONUS TIP: You don’t have to believe in principle, but you do have to convince others that you do.

16. Blame Outsiders. This works well in small towns with a local group that dislikes outsiders. If you have a small minority of outsiders who are different by ethnicity, or age, your prospects are even better.

The Russian Federation often blames its problems on ethnic minorities, e.g., “Our crops have failed. It must be the Uzbeks again!” Remember, some falsely believe that most of America’s problems are caused by radicals, agitators, students, misfits, vegetarians, Communists, ethnic advocacy groups, or the ACLU.

Make that false notion work for you — blaming any or all of them will seem reasonable to your core supporters. more >>

Today, under pressure from people from across the state, lawmakers withdrew a bill that would have allowed legislators to designate secretly their successors in the event that an attack or disaster should befall Wisconsin. I posted earlier today on the pending legislation. See, New Wisconsin Bill Would Allow Secretly Designated Legislative Successors.

It’s hard to overestimate how wrong and stupid this idea was. Wrong, because it was based on the idea that Wisconsin could only preserve representative government by undermining open and accountable representation. This bill disregards the very tradition of republican government, deriving from the people of this state, as the only legitimate source of political authority.

It is impossible — absolutely impossible — that a free people may have ‘secret’ representatives, unknown to them.

Even as a security measure, it was astonishingly stupid. The bill’s supporters would believe that after a disaster should befall Wisconsin’s sitting legislators, and countless residents, the survivors would support and find comfort in the authority of successors whose names none knew openly before the calamity.

Even the stupidest people, utter buffoons, would grasp that following a tragedy and threat to representative government, these successors would arouse only suspicion, a then-revealed cabal being of no use or confidence to a free, but suffering, state.

I see that Wisconsin State Senator Bob Jauch (D-Poplar) was one of the supporters of this bill (there was a senate version). He was a fool to do so. I have no idea how ignorant each of its supporters is, except to say that every moment anyone spent teaching them was wasted. Both morally and practically, this was a poor and detestable bill, about as shameful as anything our legislature has ever done.

There’s an online link to the legislative history of the bill; six state representatives supported it on July 24th in the Committee on State Affairs and Homeland Security: Young, Pope-Roberts, Roys, Ballweg, Kleefisch and Knodl. To his credit, only Rep. Fred Kessler opposed it.

Over at the Wisconsin State Journal’s fine Four Lakes Politics Blog, Jason Stein quotes Rep. Kessler (D-Milwaukee) as declaring that “[t]his whole thing has almost a banana republic part to it.” (Kessler offered an amendment to make the names of successors publicly known.)

Kessler’s right — this bill did have the stench of a banana republic about it. This is no vulgar hovel, no disgusting place of rule in the name of practicality and expediency. Let Jauch go somewhere else for that, to a foul monarchy, petty dictatorship, or comandante’s regime.

One could scarcely disgrace himself more than to offer the bill; others’ demanding its withdrawal is the least one could expect.

Hard to believe, but true – the Wisconsin legislature is set to consider a bill that would allow Wisconsin legislators to compile a secret list of potential successors in the event of an attack on the state. Should legislators be killed, those from the secret list would serve in a re-constituted legislature.

The bill’s solution to the collapse of representative government in Wisconsin would be a secret, unrepresentative government.

(There is an amendment pending that would make the successor list public.

Every person in our legislature supporting a secret successor list – every last one – is unworthy of representing the people of Wisconsin.

For those who might think all of this a joke, or rumor, it’s not.

Here’s a link to the Wisconsin Assembly bill:

Assembly Bill 317.

More on the story is available at: New Wisconsin Bill Would Allow Secretly Designated Successors.

Today marks the birthday of the British writer, H.G. Wells. Like so many others, I grew up reading Wells’s science fiction, with War of the Worlds as my favorite. It’s still one of my favorite stories. To commemorate his birth, Google added a small picture (that they call a ‘doodle’) based on War of the Worlds. It shows Martian tripods menacing an English village, perhaps not far from the Martians’ first landing at Horsell Common. It’s a kind gesture.

Here’s the doodle:

Later, in my early twenties, I stumbled upon an essay from George Orwell, entitled, “Wells, Hitler and the World State.” In the essay, Orwell takes on Wells’s unrealistic view of the Nazi threat. (A pdf link to the essay is available from Google Scholar.)

That’s right — even in 1941, after the Third Reich had subjected all Europe to savage conquest and murder, Wells still deprecated the Nazi threat:

In March or April, say the wiseacres, there is to be a stupendous knockout blow at Britain… . What Hitler has to do it with, I can- not imagine. His ebbing and dispersed military resources are now probably not so very much greater than the Italians’ before they were put to the test in Greece and Africa.

The German air power has been largely spent. It is behind the times and its first-rate men are mostly dead or disheartened or worn out.

In 1914 the Hohenzollern army was the best in the world. Behind that screaming little defective in Berlin there is nothing of the sort… . Yet our military ‘experts’ discuss the waiting phantom. In their imaginations it is perfect in its equipment and invincible in discipline. Sometimes it is to strike a decisive ‘blow’ through Spain and North Africa and on, or march through the Balkans, march from the Danube to Ankara, to Persia, to India, or ‘crush Russia’, or ‘pour’ over the Brenner into Italy. The weeks pass and the phantom does none of these things—for one excellent reason. It does not exist to that extent. Most of such inadequate guns and munitions as it possessed must have been taken away from it and fooled away in Hitler’s silly feints to invade Britain. And its raw jerry-built discipline is wilting under the creeping realisation that the Blitzkrieg is spent, and the war is coming home to roost.

Wells was a pacifist, and as one can see from his remarks, he looked upon Hitler in 1941 as a fading threat.

Orwell, not nearly so famous at the time, saw the foolishness in Wells’s remarks, and was willing to say as much:

All sensible men for decades past have been substantially in agreement with what Mr Wells says; but the sensible men have no power and, in too many cases, no disposition to sacrifice themselves. Hitler is a criminal lunatic, and Hitler has an army of millions of men, aeroplanes in thousands, tanks in tens of thousands. For his sake a great nation has been willing to overwork itself for six years and then to fight for two years more, whereas for the commonsense, essentially hedonistic world-view which Mr Wells puts forward, hardly a human creature is willing to shed a pint of blood.

Before you can even talk of world reconstruction, or even of peace, you have got to eliminate Hitler, which means bringing into being a dynamic not necessarily the same as that of the Nazis, but probably quite as unacceptable to “enlightened” and hedonistic people…..

Hitler is all the war-lords and witchdoctors in history rolled into one. Therefore, argues Wells, he is an absurdity, a ghost from the past, a creature doomed to disappear almost immediately. But unfortunately the equation of science with common sense does not really hold good. The aeroplane, which was looked forward to as a civilising influence but in practice has hardly been used except for dropping bombs, is the symbol of that fact. Modern Germany is far more scientific than England, and far more barbarous. Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany. The order, the planning, the State encouragement of science, the steel, the concrete, the aeroplanes, are all there, but all in the service of ideas appropriate to the Stone Age. Science is fighting on the side of superstition….

I’m a libertarian, and with all like-minded Americans, I would very much prefer a world of liberty, free exchange in capital and labor, and peace with other nations. We have a right to live this way. I doubt very much, though, that any of these things will endure in America without vigilance.

We face no deadly threat in this beautiful state, so far from danger abroad. We are fortunate in a way of which Europeans in 1941 could only dream.

We need only conserve what we have, and assure its free and natural evolution.

There will be any number of people who’ll ask you to trust them, rely on their opinions, accept that they have others’ best intentions at heart. That, ultimately, they know better than you, because they’re so kind, evolved, enlightened, etc. They may describe themselves as they wish. When they say it, though, I am sometimes reminded of men like Wells, so right about everything except what threatened everything.

I very much enjoy Wells’s stories, as much as I did when I was a boy. For judgment, though, in politics or international affairs, I would readily choose Orwell’s instincts over Wells’s.