Anonymity can be a powerful tool, as well as a description of non-existence. “How effective would anonymity be as a punishment, compared with regular judicial punishment?” In other words, instead of sending errant public officials to jail, what would happen if we just completely ignored them, once they were convicted.
I am reminded of a description of group behavior, I read many years ago, in the book “Clan of the Cave Bear”, by Jean Auel. She describes the conviction of banishment for disobeying clan rules, by saying the punished individual simply did not exist any longer, as far as the group was concerned. I believe the phrase was “they didn’t see that person”. The person might have been there physically, but their existence was not acknowledged by any member of the clan. Anonymity. Today, the Amish religious communities practice a similar concept, which they call “shunning”. Even the bible, in Matthew 18:15-18, I Corinthians 5:13, and in other places advocates similar practices. Wouldn’t it be fun to turn the power of the evangelical movement against Donald Trump?
Now you may be wondering what on earth I am talking about, but put that punishment in the context of Donald Trump, or the idiot who almost single-handedly closed down the U.S. government last week, Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida. Can you imagine what would happen to Donald Trump if the media ignored him for even a few days? He would self-destruct. His ego couldn’t take anonymity. AND, therein lies a possible strategy/solution for his treasonous behavior, however practically impossible. It is also a solution for other ego-maniacs, such as Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson and Xi Jinping.
You could put them in jail, or shoot them, but their followers would make them martyrs. If they disappeared from the public consciousness, the problem disappears with them, and they are consigned to the hell (in their minds) of disappearing from public view. We all know that public memory is fleeting and very short, courtesy of the “sound-bite” world we have been trained to accept as normal, so anonymity would actually work, if it could be achieved.
I know that a strategy of anonymity sounds fanciful at best, and a little off-the-wall, or worse, but think about it for a minute.
It comes down to the media, and therein lies the problem with the whole idea. I have said many times that the first priority of the media is sensationalism. That driving force of all of their efforts outstrips any other consideration by miles; public responsibility, accuracy, facts, conscience, truth………etc. The idea that they could be persuaded not to report the antics of Donald Trump many times a day, is obviously a pipe dream. An intriguing one, but a pipe dream.
So why am I even bringing up the concept, if it’s obviously impossible to implement? I would suggest that even if it’s partially implemented, it could have a major positive effect for all of us. It could even act as a potential deterrent against destructive ego-maniacs like Trump. It could also be a very effective tool against all errant public behavior, probably more effective than the threat of judicial punishment.
So, let’s explore a little how it might work. How could we take away the “oxygen” from these individuals?
Television is the obvious key. How could we strip these clowns of their ego-driven cravings for media-time? The answer, in simplistic terms, is keep them off television: Radio and newspapers have far less appeal to them than their picture on everyone’s evening news screen. That takes us back to the problem of the media and sensationalism, so let’s start simply.
First, I welcome all suggestions on this topic from my readers. Maybe we can come up with a program that would effectively address the potential and the power of anonymity.
A few ideas to start:
1. No live cameras in court rooms. I know the media will scream, “the people have a right to know” to which I reply, yes but not in a circus environment that only serves the media’s craving for sensationalism, and the defendant’s need for publicity and “oxygen”.
2. Automatic, binding, “gag” orders on all defendants in court cases related to any comments they might make that could jeopardize the decisions of the judges or jurors. I would love to see an automatic doubling of the final sentence for violation of such orders, for example.
3. An automatic “gag” order on lawyers and defendants from commenting on court’s decisions after the event. They have the right to appeal but not the right to try and influence public opinion by catering to the media’s craving for sensationalism. This is where “free speech” can jeopardize the judicial process.
I’m sure there are many other, hopefully practical ideas out there. Let’s see if we can give “oxygen” to them!
a
