Harry Geels: Rutte's NATO rhetoric fine example of ‘elite panicking’

December 17, 2024

^{This column was originally written in Dutch}

By Harry Geels

In his most recent speech as NATO's new secretary-general, Mark Rutte makes the case for a ‘wartime mindset’ and for spending more on military and arms. It is a familiar tactic: sow fear for one's own political agenda. The arms industry will benefit.

In his speech, Mark Rutte indicated that NATO needs to increase its ‘deterrence mechanisms’, that countries need to invest more in the military and in weapons, and that we live in a dangerous war era. When I heard this, two thoughts immediately bubbled up. First, the age-old saying ‘whose bread you eat, whose word you speak’. After all, this is a rather blatant departure from his 13-year policy as prime minister of the Netherlands, during which our country never adhered to the 2% NATO spending rule.

Second, that sowing panic is an equally infamous strategy to get things done, also known as ‘elite panicking’. Scaring people prepares their minds for changes that will usually also increase the power of the elite, defined as the group of most influential people. In this case, the more we invest in war, the more important Rutte becomes. Incidentally, it is not so much about the position, but more about how it is communicated.

Relationship politics, media and public

There is a vicious relationship between politics, media and public that contributes to the deliberate strategy of creating or making crises seem bigger, in order to achieve all kinds of goals. I have tried to depict the dynamics between the above three entities in Figure 1. In it, several dynamics of influence are visible. First, the one from the government to the public, through elite panicking and propaganda, for instance. The more ‘fearful’ people become, the better the politicians get a grip on the public.

Figure 1c

The second mechanism revolves between politics and media. It is an illusion to think that media are independent. There are close ties between the two, which have unfortunately grown stronger in recent decades as media oligopolies have emerged in most countries. The best-known media are now in the hands of only a few groups and all report the same news. Media benefit from ‘good’ links with politicians, including supranational organisations. This gives journalists the scoops and interviews they can ‘score’ with.

The third mechanism plays out between media and the public, with news having an almost destructive influence on people because of so-called ‘behavioural biases’. Our brain contains prehistoric structures. We have learned to be wary of dangers, for instance, which makes us sensitive to negative news (‘negativity bias’). The media capitalise on this by presenting much more negative than positive news (‘availability bias’). Nassim Taleb therefore advises us to take in very limited daily news (better to read good books).

Crisis amplification, with ‘the system’ to blame

At the intersection of the three mechanisms discussed lies crisis amplification, which usually leads to the implementation of all kinds of measures and new policies. For instance, in the 2010 euro crisis, the governments of Greece and Italy were temporarily sidelined, in the corona crisis, curfews and the corona passport were introduced, in the current climate crisis (No. 3 in my lifetime), climate targets were formulated, and so now, by fencing with all kinds of war threats, defence spending is being increased.

There is another salient detail. It is usually ‘the system’ that is seen as the main problem. For instance, free markets must be dismantled to solve the climate crisis, the euro system must be perfected to avoid another euro crisis, and we must build a war society because the geopolitical system would require it. Human beings are victims and must be ‘protected’, with the end result that with every crisis, the public's own responsibility and self-determination is further eroded.

War industry reaps rewards

What can we do with this analysis? The important thing is to understand the dynamics between politics, media and the public and perhaps protect ourselves from it a little on the one hand and, on the other, oppose it at appropriate times. Be a little stoic, laugh a little at Rutte's rhetoric, for instance, shut yourself off from mood making, read a little less news about yet another crisis and look for responsibility for fellow humans and nature primarily in yourself. And try, where possible, to avoid further restricting our freedom.

And of course, as investors, we should also understand society, its dynamics and changes. We may have to change course in the portfolio as a result. For instance, further rearmament of NATO countries is likely. Not only Rutte, but also the newly elected US president, Donald Trump, is pushing for this. Investing in the arms industry may be an option in this regard. Of course, this depends primarily on the investor's own responsibilities and self-determination.

This article contains a personal opinion by Harry Geels