Democracy faces an unprecedented threat from an authoritarian movement built on lies and contempt for the rule of law.

Above is the same first sentence as the one on The Contrarian's About Page. However, after that we take a different approach. The Contrarian’s next sentence is: “The first and most critical defense of democracy—a robust, independent free press—has been missing in action.”

While a free press plays a fundamental role in the health of a democracy, it is not “The first and most critical defense of democracy.” That would depend on what the root causes of a particular democracy’s susceptibility to “an unprecedented threat from an authoritarian movement built on lies and contempt for the rule of law” are. What has been missing in action is a rigorous analysis to find those root causes.

Or let’s put it another way. What has been missing is a doctor’s diagnosis of why the patient, Ms. Democracy, is ill. Once the doctor has a diagnosis, then and only then can they proceed to design a treatment. The more correct the diagnosis, the higher the probability the treatment will work. This is standard procedure because it works.

This diagnosis-first-and-then-design-the-treatment-second approach is what we have used to perform a root cause analysis of why democracies around the world are presently backsliding from democracy to authoritarianism. How root cause analysis works is summarized in this diagram:

Analysis results are too complex to summarize here without oversimplification. But we can summarize the key finding: The main root cause of the democratic backsliding problem is low political truth literacy. It is not a free press that has been missing in action. Nor is it people with authoritarian tendencies who lust for power over a nation and will stop at nothing to get it. Nor is it a compliant judicial or congressional branch. All those conditions are intermediate causes that result from the unresolved main root cause.

Let’s return to The Contrarian’s premise that “Democracy faces an unprecedented threat from an authoritarian movement built on lies and contempt for the rule of law.” Notice how the authoritarian movement is “built on lies.” Lies work when political truth literacy is low, as it is now. But they don’t work when the components of political truth literacy are raised to medium, which resolves the root cause. The doctor has cured the patient. We’ve measured this with a controlled experiment. This shows the root cause exists and can be resolved with a solution element named Truth Literacy Training, though much further research is required.

Please note that many organizations and writers say about what The Contrarian says. They attribute authoritarian success to adroit use of deliberate lies combined with power, money, and other things. The Contrarian is used as an example because they are a site that those reading this site are likely to be familiar with.

We have written up analysis results in a 19-page paper titled: Finding and Resolving the Main Root Cause of the Democratic Backsliding Problem. The paper is not yet published. But if you really want to dive deep into the analysis, this is the place to do it.

Fortunately, there is much more to read here than the above paper, or there soon will be. We have a lot of work to do together.

What is an analytical activist?

Here’s the short answer. An analytical activist is someone who uses analysis instead of intuition and trial and error to solve difficult activist problems. This site will demonstrate how that can be done. It’s not that hard to learn, once you’ve seen how it works.

Here’s the long answer.

We though we’d start off the innovative approach The Analytical Activist is all about by asking Google AI what is “the analytical activist”? Below is its exact answer. Not one word has been changed. Bolding is in the original.

"The Analytical Activist" refers to an activist who approaches public interest activism with a systematic, analytical, and problem-solving mindset, focusing on understanding root causes and implementing effective, long-term solutions rather than just addressing immediate symptoms. Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Analytical Mindset:
This activist type doesn't just react to problems but actively seeks to understand the underlying structures and causes of issues.

Problem Solving:
They approach activism as a problem-solving process, using tools and strategies to identify root causes and high-leverage points for change.

Focus on Solutions:
They prioritize finding fundamental solutions that address the core problems rather than just focusing on temporary fixes or symptomatic solutions.

Systematic Approach:
They use a systematic approach to analyze problems, following the causal chain of cause and effect from symptoms to root causes.

Distinction from Traditional Activists:
The analytical activist differs from traditional activists who might focus on intermediate causes or symptomatic solutions, potentially missing the root causes and the opportunity for lasting change.

Example:
Imagine an activist addressing homelessness. A traditional activist might focus on providing immediate shelter or food. An analytical activist would investigate the root causes (e.g., lack of affordable housing, systemic unemployment) and work towards solutions that address these fundamental issues.

The concept of "The Analytical Activist" is associated with the Thwink.org website, which uses a "Problem Solving Map" to guide activists in identifying and addressing problems.

That’s 100% accurate and complete. The only notable addition is a little more about “Distinction from Traditional Activists.” A 2010 Thwink.org paper studied the process traditional activism uses, diagrammed it, modeled it, and labeled it Classic Activism. The process has four main steps:

1. Identify the problem to be solved.

2. Find the proper practices that must be followed to solve the problem.

3. Tell people the truth about the problem and the proper practices.

4. If that doesn’t work, exhort, inspire, and bargain with people to support the proper practices.

Steps 2, 3, and 4 can be summarized as find the truth, promote the truth, and magnify the truth. Classic Activism is essentially a “more of the truth” process, which is essentially what journalism is. Journalists tell truth to power. This is why The Contrarian’s About page says: “Americans need an alternative. The Contrarian is that alternative: unflinching, unapologetic, and unwavering in its commitment to truth-telling.”

Classic activists find the truth. They publish and promote the truth. They magnify the truth with demonstrations, marches, boycotts, lawsuits (to promote the legal truth), in-depth investigations, powerful wording, eye-popping exposés and photographs, Pulitzer Prize winning articles and books, and more. It’s a compelling approach that works on easy problems, where root causes are easy to find. But it fails on more difficult problems (such as democratic backsliding, environmental sustainability, war, recurring large recessions, and high inequality of wealth) because none of the four steps of Classic Activism explicitly finds the root causes. That requires adding Step 1.5. Find the root causes and their high leverage points. That step works for doctors. It will work for activists.

Subscribe to be notified about new posts and so on. We are starting out with free subscriptions. Perhaps this will continue indefinitely, but that depends on analysis. :-)

For posterity, on March 19, 2005 the first two paragraph’s of The Contrarian’s About Page were:

Democracy faces an unprecedented threat from an authoritarian movement built on lies and contempt for the rule of law. The first and most critical defense of democracy—a robust, independent free press—has been missing in action. Corporate and billionaire media owners have shied away from confrontation, engaged in false equivalence, and sought to curry favor with Donald Trump. It is hardly surprising that readers and viewers are fleeing from these outlets. Americans need an alternative.

The Contrarian is that alternative: unflinching, unapologetic, and unwavering in its commitment to truth-telling. The Contrarian contributors may not agree on all issues (and, in fact, enjoy lively debate), but we share an unequivocal determination to defend our fundamental freedoms and the values essential to a pluralistic democracy.