CNN

Living on the planet means preparing for reactions from others that were not anticipated.

University students living in a states like Florida that officially shun the field of sociology will miss one of its most important lessons* First developed by Robert Merton, the idea of unintended consequences occurs when a result is the direct opposite of what was predicted.

When working with human groups, unintended effects are bound to occur frequently. Who hasn’t made a seemingly innocent comment to a friend that unintentionally created hurt feelings? My own field of communication was often a beat or two behind sociology. But we are indebted to the concept, which we often call the boomerang effect. Because they deal with humans in groups, sociological studies were among the first to identify effects that are more or less the opposite of what a theory predicted. These outcomes are not necessarily unhappy but, rather, chances for insights on the challenges of tracking and predicting the workings of the mind. One study I cited in my Sonic Imperative: Sound in the Age of Screens (2021) found that warnings to children about the dangers of earbuds that are dangerously loud often led them to actually increase the volume on their devices. Go figure.

We know the logic well because a boomerang can happen to all of us: rodeo ropers who end up tying themselves in knots, apologies that go astray and intensify rather than reduce ill-feeling, friends who say ostensibly nice things that we take as demeaning. And there are those surprises when individuals who were supposed to be laid low by official criticism actually have their resolve stiffened.

Part of what makes a good strategic thinker is the ability to anticipate possible unintended consequences. To be sure, even the most successful presidents have been blindsided by outcomes they did not anticipate. The Vietnam War under Lyndon Johnson is still a prime example of enabling a disaster that the nation sought to prevent. But in terms of the number of decisions that have gone off the rails, none come close to matching Donald Trump’s daily production of unwelcome surprises. The results would sometimes be laughable if the negative consequences weren’t so catastrophic for the nation.

The current stalemate and enhancement of Iranian power over the Strait of Hormuz is exactly the reverse of what he wanted. He surely did not intend to turn a second-rate power into a nation that could control a large segment of world trade. He also seemed to be the only one who was surprised by the decisions of the much-villified former allies for holding back on joining the ill-fated initial attack on Iran. Ditto for his efforts to woo Kim Jong Un, presumably to discourage North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. But after these kinds of overtures, the country invariably “test-launches” another long-range missile.

Or there are his attempts to encourage a dramatic rise in U.S. based manufacturing by raising tariffs on other nations. Yet government data indicates that spending on factory construction is actually falling. Trump seems the least capable of imagining how actions might unfold in ways that are not anticipated. This is probably because he won’t tolerate having genuine truth-tellers around him.

Trump’s tone deafness extends to the effects of his sometimes-caustic comments about groups or individuals. He may be the last to notice the growing hostility his denigration of woman reporters has triggered. To cite a familiar example, CNN’s much-maligned Caitlin Collins is now honored by many for her ability to ignore tasteless smears while asking the President challenging questions.

A more alert democracy would not tolerate a leader who so regularly demonstrates childish and gross incompetence. As in Britain, legal means replace failing leaders. Yet the President’s ossified congressional majority won’t use the constitutional tools available to them to remove him from office.

____________________

_{*For narrow political reasons, the states of Florida and Texas have decided to weaken opportunities to study “liberal” sociology at many of their universities, removing their courses from the core curriculum.}

Anyone in an open society has the advantage of seeing what Putin and his nation cannot. One of the glories of an open society is that information travels easily and mostly unencumbered.

American intelligence reports note that Vladimir Putin has functionally locked himself and his nation behind a media firewall, afraid to let his citizens hear what the world knows. The Russian dictator is notorious for keeping his own council. But it seems worse this time, with many of his aides apparently willing to be the bearer of bad news. So even though he has initiated the human catastrophe of the Ukraine war, he and many Russians may still know little of the horrors that have been unleashed. As the New York Times’ Tom Friedman recently noted, “Putin, it turns out, [has] no clue what world he was living in, no clue about the frailties of his own system, no clue how much the whole free, democratic world could and would join the fight against him in Ukraine, and no clue, most of all, about how many people would be watching.” Meanwhile, most of the gains Russia achieved in the last 20 years are being rolled back by sanctions imposed by the world’s democracies.

By contrast, ordinary citizens in most of the rest of the developed world could fill him about the aimless marauding of the Russian Army. Most anyone in an open society has the advantage of seeing what Putin and his nation cannot. One of the glories of free societies is that information travels freely and mostly unencumbered. The democracies of the world take access to a multitude of sources doing credible reporting as their birthright. Individual sources may not always be accurate. But without much effort, citizens can “triangulate” between multiple sources to find truths that seem to be reasonably solid. If a conservative-leaning source confirms the same conclusion as a more liberal outlet, we can judge that the news is probably accurate. If one outlet plays favorites, a thoughtful reader–and their are too few–will cross check with other sources before reaching a conclusion.

Now, imagine living in a prison where the only loudspeaker ever heard is controlled by the guards. Welcome to North Korea or Russia, trying to impose the medieval values of top-down control on their citizens.

In no particular order, here are some easily accessible news-gathering outlets, available mostly for free to Americans via their ubiquitous computers, and key websites like YouTube. All outlets on this partial list are doing original reporting in English from Ukraine and Eastern Europe: