The article, "The Plot to Manage Democracy," published in *City Journal* raises complex issues around the integrity of American democratic processes, framing recent developments as deliberate attempts by elites to manage electoral outcomes. At its core, the piece suggests that certain high-ranking officials and influential entities in the United States, encompassing political, media, and corporate spheres, are collaborating to exert control over public discourse and shape electoral results to align with progressive interests. These claims focus particularly on the legal and institutional measures that are said to preemptively limit political adversaries and, implicitly, the full spectrum of democratic choice. While overt manipulation of elections is not claimed, the author suggests that the cumulative effect of these strategies borders on an engineered democracy, where voter influence is subordinated to elite agendas.
Central to the argument is the critique of the judiciary's impartiality in cases involving former President Donald Trump. The author posits that legal action against Trump has veered into territory that is not only politically motivated but also unprecedented in its selective targeting. This line of reasoning is supported by reference to Judge Juan Merchan's political contributions, which might compromise perceived neutrality, and other judicial moves interpreted as strategically timed to hamper Trump’s candidacy. By highlighting these judicial interventions, the article presents an image of the justice system as potentially co-opted for partisan purposes.
The article broadens this focus by analyzing how social media companies have responded to governmental pressure regarding "misinformation" on sensitive topics like COVID-19 and the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's admission to Congress that his platform faced sustained pressure from government officials to censor or limit certain content is a focal point, raising questions about state influence over private speech platforms and the implications for public access to unfiltered information. By demonstrating how governmental agencies like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have extended their mandates into digital content management, ostensibly in the name of national security, the article suggests a trend where government entities increasingly act to influence public opinion under the guise of regulating disinformation.
Further, the author explores financial influence in election outcomes, notably the $400 million spent by Mark Zuckerberg’s family to facilitate mail-in voting infrastructure in key battleground states. While defenders argue this funding filled a gap left by inadequate government funding, critics contend that the allocation of resources overwhelmingly favored Democratic strongholds, potentially skewing the election landscape. These funds, allocated through organizations such as the Center for Tech and Civic Life, also came with stipulations that guided their usage towards expanding mail-in voting—a point of contention in conservative circles given concerns about ballot integrity.
Another important facet of the discussion is the evolving censorship mechanisms in news and online media. The article contends that the rise of a networked censorship apparatus, incorporating fact-checking organizations and internet rating agencies like NewsGuard, has created an ecosystem that inherently biases content in favor of progressive narratives. This network, the author claims, functions through ostensibly neutral platforms that, in practice, limit the visibility of conservative viewpoints by categorizing them as less credible. The result is an internet landscape where particular ideological perspectives are systematically suppressed, curating public discourse in ways that bolster the positions of the progressive party-state.
A critical analysis of the article would note that, while it presents a cohesive narrative of elite control, it operates heavily through implication, often pointing to actions that may well be controversial or questionable but stopping short of providing clear evidence of collusion or explicit conspiratorial design. The article draws connections between varied events and policies, from local election funding to social media censorship, constructing an argument that they form part of an integrated approach to "manage" democracy. This interpretive method may appeal to those already skeptical of established power structures, but for others, it could seem speculative, as it frequently builds on inferences rather than hard documentation of coordinated action across these domains.
However, the article’s emphasis on the "whole-of-society" strategy used against Trump and conservative ideals is compelling in its demonstration of how aligned institutions—from media outlets to NGOs—can influence public opinion and policy in subtle but pervasive ways. By framing diverse organizations and government agencies as participants in a unified front, the article captures the sheer scope of influence wielded by these entities when they converge on issues central to electoral outcomes. This portrayal highlights the challenges facing a democracy in which citizens must navigate a landscape where much of the information they encounter is filtered through networks that may be subtly shaped by elite interests.
The commentary extends beyond Trump’s legal issues and highlights systemic changes that could have profound implications for how future elections are conducted. The push for "targeted policy" through legislation affecting voter registration, mail-in voting, and even immigration policy, is framed as one element in a broader toolkit used by elites to secure preferred outcomes. Such policy interventions are typically presented as enhancing voter access or securing democratic integrity, yet the article contends that they have a partisan dimension that fundamentally alters the electoral balance. This contention raises valid concerns about how ostensibly neutral policies may be harnessed to engineer political advantages.
"The Plot to Manage Democracy" is a provocative article that tackles a vital issue—the potential erosion of truly democratic processes in the United States through mechanisms that, while legal, may serve partisan ends. It questions whether the country’s democratic institutions are evolving into tools for managing rather than reflecting public will. However, while the narrative is powerful, its interpretive lens, which relies on drawing connections between disparate actions and policy changes, could appear tenuous to readers seeking empirical evidence of an orchestrated elite effort. Nonetheless, the piece raises pertinent questions about the future of American democracy in an era where the influence of private capital, governmental intervention, and media curation are all factors in the shaping of public consciousness and voter behavior.
The article "The Plot to Manage Democracy" by Jacob Siegel argues that the progressive party-state—a term used to describe a coalition of political elites, tech corporations, mainstream media, and government agencies—is deploying a range of strategies to control elections and manage dissent. These methods aim to limit the influence of voters while reinforcing the power of a small group that defines acceptable discourse and political outcomes. According to the article, the consequences of this influence are profound, as these tactics threaten to reshape American democracy into a system more controlled by elite consensus than by public will.
**Strategies to Control Elections and Suppress Dissenting Voices**
A key strategy identified is the use of **lawfare**, or the selective application of legal proceedings, to neutralize political opponents. For instance, the article points to the multiple indictments and legal actions against former President Donald Trump, suggesting they are less about justice and more about encumbering his campaign efforts. This tactic is mirrored in the increased legal repercussions for those connected to Trump, such as participants in the January 6 protests, some of whom received harsher-than-usual sentences. This selective approach to law enforcement, argues the article, is intended to communicate that those who dissent from or oppose the ruling ideology face severe consequences.
**Censorship** is another cornerstone of the progressive party-state's strategy. The article details how social media companies like Facebook faced pressure from government officials to regulate and limit content related to COVID-19 and the Hunter Biden laptop story. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), within the Department of Homeland Security, played a notable role here, collaborating with private entities like the Election Integrity Partnership to flag and suppress "misinformation" or "malinformation"—even if the flagged content was factually accurate but presented from a dissenting perspective. This censorship model, the article argues, conditions public discourse by eliminating or de-prioritizing voices that challenge the dominant narrative, giving the impression of a public consensus that may not exist.
In addition, **financial interventions** have been used to shape election outcomes, particularly through privately funded election initiatives. For instance, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s grants to local election offices through the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) allegedly favored Democratic strongholds. The funds often came with stipulations for how they were to be used, such as promoting mail-in voting and implementing ballot dropboxes, which, according to the article, could complicate ballot tracking and thus increase the potential for manipulation in favor of a particular political outcome.
Lastly, **institutional interference** and targeted policy initiatives have shifted from being mere party-line strategies to an institutionalized part of election infrastructure. From proposed policies allowing non-citizen voting to executive orders encouraging voter registration in healthcare facilities, these changes expand the electorate in ways that may favor progressive candidates.
**Consequences for the Future of American Democracy**
The article suggests that these strategies collectively erode the foundations of American democracy by turning elections from expressions of public will into highly managed processes that favor one side. This managed democracy dilutes the agency of individual voters, particularly those outside the political and economic elite, and contributes to an increasing sense of disenfranchisement among large segments of the population. As a result, Americans may lose faith in the legitimacy of electoral processes and the idea that democratic participation can effect meaningful change.
This erosion of trust is compounded by the entrenchment of a single dominant ideology within key institutions, making it increasingly difficult for alternative perspectives to gain traction. When dissent is met with legal repercussions, censorship, and social exclusion, it fosters a political culture in which only a narrow range of ideas is considered "safe" or acceptable. Over time, the pressure to conform may reduce political diversity, shifting American democracy toward a more authoritarian or technocratic model where citizen input is effectively marginalized.
The article implies that this consolidation of power around a single ideological framework is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. It may provoke backlash and radicalize segments of the public who feel alienated by the party-state’s domination. The durability of the progressive coalition, therefore, may depend on its ability to continue managing public perception and dissent without triggering a crisis of legitimacy.
**Transformation of the Political Landscape through Information Operations and Censorship**
Information operations and censorship are among the most insidious changes to the American political landscape. The article traces this transformation to the rise of what it calls the “censorship industrial complex,” a coordinated network involving tech companies, fact-checking organizations, and government agencies that together monitor and control the flow of information. According to the article, platforms like NewsGuard, which rates media credibility, systematically downgrade conservative sites while promoting progressive outlets, shaping public perceptions by guiding users toward or away from certain narratives.
The normalization of censorship means that public discourse is increasingly curated by private and state actors, which limits citizens’ ability to form opinions based on a full range of viewpoints. As a result, the political landscape has become a controlled space where political narratives are crafted and maintained by a select few rather than arising organically from public debate. This dominance of curated information conditions citizens to depend on “trusted sources” or government-approved narratives, and, as the article suggests, it generates a collective amnesia around recent political manipulations. Instances like the Russia-collusion investigation, which were widely promoted but later discredited, are memory-holed, while new narratives are rapidly constructed to guide public opinion.
The shift to this controlled information environment may deepen the divisions in American society. Those who buy into the curated narratives may view their dissenting peers as misinformed or malicious, increasing polarization. This atmosphere, dominated by “current things”—urgent and often alarmist narratives designed to incite or distract—contributes to a collective state of reactivity, where individuals react to the latest political emergency without retaining a stable framework for evaluating these events.
Ultimately, the transformation brought about by these information operations and censorship efforts risks creating a society in which public opinion and political engagement are scripted and closely regulated. This evolution of the American political landscape toward controlled discourse undermines the liberal democratic ideal of a marketplace of ideas, replacing it with a controlled marketplace where dissent is managed, and public awareness is manipulated to align with elite interests. The long-term effect of such management could reshape the nature of democratic participation in the United States, reducing it to a ceremonial act within a tightly circumscribed ideological framework.
Saved response
Saved responses are view only
close_fullscreen
Timeline of Events:
2016:
November: Donald Trump is elected president, defeating Hillary Clinton.
December: The Obama White House and the Clinton campaign begin working with U.S. intelligence agencies to portray Trump as a Russian agent. This marks the beginning of the strategy to manage democracy by undermining Trump and his supporters.
2017:
January 6: Jeh Johnson, head of the Department of Homeland Security, places control over the entire U.S. electoral system under the DHS, a move met with objections from state election officials.
2018:
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is established within the DHS. Its mission includes defending U.S. election systems from foreign attacks, including those targeting the internet.
2019:
The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) is launched under the auspices of Protect Democracy, a group founded by former Obama White House counsels. The project wargames scenarios resulting from a contested election, with some participants expressing concern over the potential for manipulating the electoral process.
2020:
July: The Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) is launched as a consortium of private and non-governmental groups, ostensibly to police the internet for disinformation. It works closely with CISA to flag and remove content, including constitutionally protected speech.
August: The EIP begins classifying millions of social media posts as “misinformation incidents.” It works with CISA to pressure social media companies to remove content and suspend users.
November:The 2020 election is heavily censored, with the EIP playing a key role in suppressing information.
Mark Zuckerberg and his family donate over $400 million to the election, largely through the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). This money is disproportionately spent in battleground states that Democrats needed to win.
CTCL uses the funds to influence local election procedures, including promoting universal mail-in voting and expanding ballot curing opportunities.
Post-Election:CISA director Christopher Krebs declares the 2020 election “the most secure in American history” and is subsequently fired by President Trump.
Two months later, Krebs partners with EIP director Alex Stamos to launch a cybersecurity consulting firm.
2021:
January:CISA adopts a broader mandate, allowing it to monitor and police domestic speech on a wider range of political issues, including COVID-19 origins, vaccine efficacy, racial justice, and U.S. foreign policy.
Joe Biden is inaugurated as president. He implements policies that allow for a surge in illegal immigration and supports sanctuary cities.
Vot-ER, a progressive nonprofit, is founded and begins working to register low-income patients, including those in psychiatric facilities, to vote.
Summer: A leaked recording reveals a plot by a bipartisan coalition of anti-Trump groups to block the independent organization No Labels from running a third-party candidate in the 2024 election.
2022:
August:The FBI raids Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, searching for classified documents.
A DHS report reveals that CISA is focusing on countering misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, including information deemed "true but misleading."
October: A leaked draft of a DHS report outlines plans to target “inaccurate information” on a range of topics, including COVID-19, racial justice, and U.S. foreign policy.
2023:
November: Microsoft integrates NewsGuard’s “Misinformation Fingerprints” tool across its products, including browsers, search engines, and news aggregators. This tool, partially funded by the U.S. government, is designed to identify and flag allegedly false claims online.
Ongoing:Lawfare is used against Donald Trump, with multiple prosecutions at the state and federal level, aiming to disqualify him from running for president.
NewsGuard, a website rating agency, continues to exert influence by blacklisting and whitelisting websites based on its assessment of their credibility, with a demonstrable bias against conservative outlets.
Fact-checking organizations, heavily funded by left-leaning donors, become increasingly powerful in shaping public discourse and silencing dissent.
Vot-ER continues to register vulnerable populations to vote, raising concerns about potential manipulation and coercion.
2024:
May: Donald Trump is convicted in a politically motivated trial in Manhattan. The judge, Juan Merchan, had previously violated ethics rules by donating to Joe Biden's campaign and to a group called Stop Republicans.
June: The Washington Post publishes a “fact checker” article denouncing speculation about Biden’s declining mental acuity. Weeks later, Biden’s poor performance in a debate leads to his withdrawal from the presidential race.
July:The case against Trump in Florida is dismissed on constitutional grounds.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who had challenged Biden for the Democratic nomination, criticizes the party for using lawfare and dirty tricks against him, ultimately endorsing Donald Trump.
August: Trump is re-indicted on election-subversion charges by special counsel Jack Smith.
September: Judge Merchan postpones Trump's sentencing, originally scheduled for September 18.
October: The article "The Plot to Manage Democracy" is published in City Journal.
Cast of Characters:
Donald Trump: Former U.S. president, subject of ongoing lawfare and information operations aimed at preventing him from regaining the presidency.
Joe Biden: Former U.S. president, replaced as the Democratic nominee for the 2024 election by Kamala Harris due to concerns about his age and declining mental acuity.
Kamala Harris: Vice President and current Democratic nominee for president in the 2024 election.
Barack Obama: Former U.S. president. His administration played a key role in establishing the infrastructure for managing democracy, particularly through the expansion of DHS powers and the creation of CISA.
Hillary Clinton: Former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential nominee in 2016. Actively involved in efforts to portray Trump as a Russian agent and undermine his presidency.
John Podesta: Hillary Clinton's campaign chief in 2016. Participated in the Transition Integrity Project war games, where he suggested a strategy of secession for Democratic-leaning states in the event of a Trump victory.
Jeh Johnson: Former head of the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama. Responsible for placing control over the U.S. electoral system under the DHS.
Christopher Krebs: Former director of CISA. Fired by Trump after declaring the 2020 election “the most secure in American history.” Subsequently partnered with Alex Stamos to launch a cybersecurity consulting firm.
Alex Stamos: Former director of the Election Integrity Partnership. Worked closely with CISA to censor online content and suppress dissenting voices. Co-founded a cybersecurity consulting firm with Christopher Krebs.
Mark Zuckerberg: CEO of Meta (formerly Facebook). Donated heavily to the 2020 election through CTCL and faced pressure from the Biden administration to censor content on Facebook.
Rob Flaherty: Former Biden White House director of digital strategy and current deputy campaign manager for Kamala Harris. Key figure in the administration’s efforts to pressure social media companies to censor content.
Alvin Bragg: Manhattan District Attorney who brought politically motivated charges against Donald Trump.
Juan Merchan: Judge presiding over Donald Trump's trial in Manhattan. Violated ethics rules by donating to Joe Biden’s campaign and expressing bias against Republicans.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Former Democratic presidential candidate who challenged Joe Biden for the 2024 nomination. Criticized the party for using lawfare and dirty tricks against him and ultimately endorsed Donald Trump.
Alister Martin: Founder of Vot-ER, a progressive nonprofit focused on registering low-income patients to vote.
Gavin Newsom: Governor of California and potential future presidential candidate. Mocked the idea that the replacement of Biden with Harris was anything other than an “open and inclusive process.”
John Brennan: Former CIA director who played a key role in promoting the Russia-collusion hoax and inserting the Steele Dossier into the official record.
Reid Hoffman: Democratic billionaire and major party donor. Involved in the plot to discredit and prevent No Labels from running a third-party candidate in the 2024 election.
Newt Gingrich: Former Speaker of the House of Representatives. His tweet about potential election manipulation in Pennsylvania was flagged by the EIP as misinformation.
Jill Stein: Green Party candidate who has faced ballot opposition from both Democrats and Republicans.
This cast of characters represents a complex web of individuals and institutions working to manage American democracy and control the outcome of elections. Their actions have serious implications for the future of the country and its political system.
How to Control Elections: The Progressive Party-State and the Erosion of the Democratic Process