Misinformation Finds Them

This project began long before the 2024 campaign was underway, and, like most observers looking down the tracks, we had almost no idea what to expect and all that would unfold. What we did know was that simple explanations regarding misinformation and polarization were insufficient and the nature of discourse—even within the academy—was shifting under our feet and in the world around us. In our view, there seemed to be more advocacy than ever before, and an accompanying retreat into media theorizing that recalled the hypodermic needle model and other powerful media effects models that had largely been disproven but were potent shorthand ways to explain the behavior of citizens in the face of misinformation—especially in the case of conservatives voters in more rural areas.

Ironically enough, this same population was less studied and, as a result, more weighted in surveys but simultaneously positioned as a crucial block of actors adopting more “radical” views in an increasingly polarized and divided nation. Here it is important to note that we began this project with the understanding of “radicalization” as the process of expanding parameters on political discussion and viewpoints that are generally unmoored to, and independent of, political elites and journalists in an undoing of what Bennett (1990) famously described as the indexing hypothesis. Thus, while we do not consider radicalization normatively, we were challenged to ask ourselves how we could better understand these phenomena and just what polarization has to do with misinformation, hybrid media, and radicalization, particularly in rural America. This book doesn’t answer all those questions, but we believe it shines light on assumptions and in the process hopefully diffuses the root of some debate, rather than pouring gasoline on a fire.

Again, in contemporary politics, the term “radical” simply refers to ideas, movements, or policies that seek significant, fundamental, and often structural change in society, rather than incremental reforms. The term can apply across the political spectrum, from left to right, depending on the context, and there has objectively been a wide range of radical politics in recent years. From the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021 to the widespread protests later that year seeking systemic racial justice and the downstream diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to individuals who refused the COVID-19 vaccines in the face of government and employer mandates to drastic reshaping of laws surrounding reproductive and gender identity issues, America has been awash in radicalization.

Radicalism is not inherently negative or positive, indeed, it depends on perspective, historical context, and the outcomes it produces. Bötticher (2017) argued that concepts of radicalism and extremism within a political context “both refer to socio-political forces that exist at the edges of liberal-democratic societies” (p. 76), and, although they are distinct, they are similar in terms of willingness to use violence and aggressive confrontation to achieve political goals derived from strong moral beliefs. Carter (2018) conducted a study looking at numerous definitions for radicalism and extremism. The research determined the two concepts are closely aligned. Different tines of the same pitchfork, if you will. Consequently, Carter (2018) developed a minimal definition for extremism and radicalism: “an ideology that encompasses authoritarianism, anti-democracy and exclusionary and/or holistic nationalism” (p. 174). Likewise, Frounfelker et al. (2021) discussed the overlap and synonymous depiction of these terms by highlighting the Radicalism Intention Scale (RIS), which is a subscale of the Activism and Radicalism Intention Scales (ARIS) developed by Moskalenko and McCauley (2009). Schmid (2013) proposed the following definition of radicalization:

an individual or collective (group) process whereby, usually in a situation of political polarisation, normal practices of dialogue, compromise and tolerance between political actors and groups with diverging interests are abandoned by one or both sides in a conflict dyad in favour of a growing commitment to engage in confrontational tactics of conflict-waging. These can include either (i) the use of (non-violent) pressure and coercion, (ii) various forms of political violence other than terrorism or (iii) acts of violent extremism in the form of terrorism and war crimes. The process is, on the side of rebel factions, generally accompanied by an ideological socialization away from mainstream or status quo-oriented positions towards more radical or extremist positions involving a dichotomous world view and the acceptance of an alternative focal point of political mobilization outside the dominant political order as the existing system is no longer recognized as appropriate or legitimate. (p. 18)

For the purposes of this book, we adopted this definition for the concept of being radical.