gamsat essay democracy

GAMSAT ® Courses

• UCAT ® Courses

GAMSAT ® OVERVIEW

• GAMSAT ® 2024
• What is GAMSAT ®
• GAMSAT ® Results Guide 2023

MEDICAL SCHOOLS

• Australian Medical Schools Overview
• Medical School Entry Requirements
• Pathways to Medicine
• Guide to Medicine Multiple Mini Interviews (MMIs)

GAMSAT ® Tips

• How to study for the GAMSAT ®
• GAMSAT ® Section 1 Prep
• GAMSAT ® Section 2 Prep
• GAMSAT ® Section 3 Prep
• GAMSAT ® Biology
• GAMSAT ® Chemistry
• GAMSAT ® Physics
• GAMSAT ® Preparation for a Non-Science Background

GAMSAT ® Resources

• Free GAMSAT ® Resources

GAMSAT ® Free Trial

• Free GAMSAT ® Practice Test
• GAMSAT ® Quote Generator
• GAMSAT ® Practice Questions
• GAMSAT ® Example Essays
• GAMSAT ® Study Syllabus
• GAMSAT ® Physics Formula Sheet
• GradReady GAMSAT ® Podcast

GAMSAT ® COURSES

• GET IN TOUCH
• GRADREADY PARTNERS
• Get In Touch
• GradReady Partners

Struggling with how to write the perfect GAMSAT Essay? Check out our free GAMSAT Example Essays with tips and corrections to master your preparation for the GAMSAT Section 2 Essays

GAMSAT® Courses are Now Open for Sept 2024 & Mar 2025 | Get access to our materials until March 2025!

Free GAMSAT Example Essays

12 min read

Read 134837 times

Writing GAMSAT ® practice essays is the most important aspect of preparing for Section 2 of the GAMSAT ® Exam. Regularly writing essays allows you to develop and practise your essay writing skills and is something you should aim to start from early on. It’s important to get into a routine: Whether you aim to type an essay once a week or once a day, every bit counts.

Writing regularly also helps develop your confidence, and prevents having that ‘writer’s block’ moment in the exam.

We’ve prepared a handy GAMSAT ® Essay Writing Guide you can download which includes all the information on this page, as well as some extra tips, some example essays to help you get a head start on your preparation for Section 2 of the GAMSAT ® Exam. Start preparing today!

• GAMSAT ® Essay Writing Tips
• GAMSATE ® Essay Qualities
• GAMSAT ® Essay Writing Guide
• GAMSAT ® Section 2 Essay Topics
• GAMSAT ® Section 2 Example Essays
• Further Free GAMSAT ® Preparation Materials

1178 downloads

Want more tips on how to ace GAMSAT ® Section 2 after reviewing our GAMSAT ® example essays? Our expert tutors, Nick and Caroline, provide further tips to help improve your essay writing skills in this Free GAMSAT ® Example Essays video guide.

GAMSAT Essay Writing Tips

Simply writing GAMSAT ® essays is not enough - It needs to be done in a structured fashion to ensure that you get the most out of your preparation. We recommend that you:

• Get feedback on your essays. It is vital that you get your friends, family, tutors and anyone else to read these essays - ask them to provide criticism and suggestions.
• Critique your own essays. After every essay you write, read it aloud to yourself and listen to see if it makes sense. Try to mark your own essays -use the list below as a useful guide
• Start gently. Don’t feel the need to write under time pressure from the word go. It’s more important that you develop and improve your essay writing skills before gradually applying realistic time pressure.
• Type your practice essays. It’s important that you get accustomed to typing your responses. There is no spell-check function in the GAMSAT ® exam , so practise typing responses into word processors without spelling and grammar corrections. You may also need to work on your typing speed. You will still be able to use provided sheets of paper for planning and brainstorming if necessary.
• Vary the type of essays that you write. You should make sure you try argumentative, personal reflective essays, fictional creative essays , poetry, and any other medium that can work in the GAMSAT ® exam. The GAMSAT ® exam can throw up unexpected prompts that might be difficult to write in a particular style: it’s important to give yourself the flexibility to deal with anything the exam might throw at you.

You can find more detailed GAMSAT ® Section 2 Essay Writing Tips and a Section 2 Reading List on our guide here: How to Prepare for GAMSAT ® Section 2.

Make sure you also sign up for our GAMSAT ® Free Trial to get a wealth of other free GAMSAT ® Resources including a recording of our GAMSAT ® Essay Writing Webinar:

Start Your GAMSAT ® Preparation Today!

Get a study buddy, upcoming events, gamsat essay qualities.

A strong GAMSAT ® essay, no matter what structure you choose, should:

• Be strongly related to the theme of the prompts. The GAMSAT ® is a test of reasoning skills: Your markers want to see how you think. In order to assess this, they need to see how you have thought about the prompts provided. GAMSAT ® essays that are unrelated give the impression of being ‘pre-written’, and are penalised quite heavily.
• Be well-written and well-structured. Sentences should be clear and concise. Paragraphs should only contain one main idea. Introductions and conclusions should summarise the essay, and not include any information that you do not analyse in your body paragraphs.
• Be interesting and original. Rather than simply arguing that the theme of the prompts is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, try to come up with something more specific. For example, for a set of prompts about research, rather than arguing that ‘research is good for the development of society’, you could take a more specific approach and argue that ‘research is a male-dominated field that suppresses female voices’.
• Include detailed critical analysis. Again, your writers want to see how you think, not ‘what you know’. This means pulling your examples apart in great detail. Ask yourself questions, and answer them in your response. What were the motivations behind it? Was there a driving ideology? What were the consequences? What does this show about human society?

GAMSAT Essay Writing Guide

How do you start writing a gamsat essay.

• Understand the Theme: Read the quote, identify the main theme, and any other related ideas. Your response needs to engage strongly with this - otherwise your markers cannot reward you.
• Brainstorm Ideas: Build a bank of ideas. Look over many essay prompts, and try to come up with three supporting examples that could be used for the theme. If you can’t think of any, do some research - current affairs, history, literature - anything that is relevant.
• Create a Thesis: What is your opinion on the theme? Make it clear, concise, and easy to understand.
• Choose a Structure: Consider what is most appropriate for the theme and explore your options. You might choose an argumentative response with concrete supporting examples, a more reflective response drawing on your own experience, or a fictional response that allows you to explore emotions and psychology.
• Plan Body Paragraphs: Each body paragraph needs to support your thesis, and go into detailed critical analysis. Support your thesis by referring back to your central idea at the beginning and end of each paragraph, and throughout your analysis.
• Be Clear & Succinct: Write in logical and well-phrased sentences that can be easily understood by a marker who will be reading your essay at a fast pace. Long sentences are not necessarily sophisticated sentences. Think of the great speech-makers. They use concise language. Simple writing is often the most powerful.
• Review your Essay: Review what you have written and ensure it makes sense. Check for typos and errors of grammar and punctuation. You want to give your marker the best impression possible.

For a further breakdown and more tips visit our guide: How to Prepare for GAMSAT ® Section 2.

Is GAMSAT Section 2 written or typed?

After the trial of a digital platform for the March and September GAMSAT ® in 2020, ACER decided that all future exams will be conducted digitally. Thus, GAMSAT ® Section 2 is typed, not written. Note that this change has not impacted the total allocated time, and you will still have 65 minutes to complete the two pieces of writing. However, students are now permitted to write in the 5 minutes that were previously allocated solely for planning.

Many students will be used to completing practice essays by hand, and it is important to tailor your practice to the exam context as closely as possible. Note that on the digital interface of the GAMSAT ® exam, there will be no autocorrect function or ‘copy and paste’ functions. Thus, it is important that when practising, you disable the autocorrect feature as well as any automated correction functions of your writing software. Programs with a simple interface like Notepad (and similar alternatives available online) are recommended.

How long are the essays in GAMSAT?

Another consideration with regards to Section 2 preparation is the paragraph/word count you are expected to reach. 400-600 words per essay has typically been used as a rough estimate of what students should aim to achieve under the previous handwritten condition. In contrast, a reasonably fast typers will be able to reach up to 1000 words in a 30-minute essay. Whilst the emphasis should still be on the quality of your writing and ideas, it is still important to keep in mind that you should be aiming for a longer essay than you would under handwritten conditions.

How to Practice for GAMSAT Essay Writing

• Get into the practice of typing. Whilst many students may be used to texting or typing out their assignments, typing under time pressure is a different skill altogether. The last thing you want is for your typing speed to limit the amount of content you can produce in the exam. Typing your essays under timed conditions will be the best practice in this regard.
• Make effective use of planning time. It is much easier to write-out and edit your plan on the digital interface. Whilst you’re now permitted to write during the 5-minute planning time at the start, it is advised that you use this time to plan out your essays and perhaps even write out your topic sentences to keep you on track during the writing process.
• Practice editing. As with planning, editing essays is much easier on a digital interface than in handwritten conditions. Nonetheless, it is important not to spend large chunks of writing time editing an incomplete essay. It is preferable that you aim to complete your essays a few minutes before the writing time ends so that you have time to edit. When editing, look for simple grammatical mistakes as well as changes to words and sentence structure that can increase the depth and clarity of your ideas. It is also a good idea to assess the flow of your essay, and integrate connecting words (thus, however, therefore, furthermore, etc.) to link your ideas and more clearly explicate the relationship between them.

For more information, check out our GAMSAT ® to Med School Podcast episode which specifically covers GAMSAT ® Section 2 advice and best practices.

GAMSAT Essay Structure

ACER does not provide any guidelines in regards to an essay structure, minimum word count, or how long your GAMSAT ® Section 2 essays should be. However, a maxim that holds true even for the GAMSAT ® Exam is 'quality over quantity'.

The quality of what you write is much more important than the quantity and as such, you should focus on what you write about and your expression and organisation of ideas. A basic guideline to your GAMSAT ® Essay Structure is:

• An Introduction
• 3 Body Paragraphs
• A Conclusion

Note however that this example structure is not necessarily applicable to every type of essay. If you were to write a creative piece, the structure of your GAMSAT ® Essay could certainly be more flexible. The main factor to take into account is how to best organise your ideas to ensure that your arguments are conveyed logically and coherently.You can practise using our Free GAMSAT ® Quote Generator which has over 90 Section 2 essay prompts, covering 40+ themes.

How many words should a GAMSAT essay be?

As mentioned above, a common piece of advice is to aim for about 400-600 words, but the most important point is to focus on the quality of your essay rather than the quantity. If you can express an idea clearly and effectively in fewer words then do it.

For tips on Section 2 of the GAMSAT ® exam, our study guide contains a 14 pg Section 2 Essay Writing Guide. Sign up here: GAMSAT ® Free Trial

For general tips and strategies on how you can prepare for the GAMSAT ® Exam, visit our Guide to GAMSAT ® Preparation.

How do you choose a GAMSAT essay style?

There are many GAMSAT ® essay styles to try, and each have their own advantages, disadvantages, and challenges. The list below is by no means exhaustive but may help provide you with some ideas and styles to trial. You should aim to test different styles and work out what works for you best.

Argumentative Essays

• Personal Reflective Essays
• Short Stories

These GAMSAT ® essays follow a basic structure, using an introduction, 2-3 body paragraphs, and a conclusion. You will take a strong central opinion, and introduce it in your introduction. Each body paragraph should contain one supporting example, and detailed critical analysis, in order to defend your argument. These essays:

• Are usually students’ preferred option.
• Allow you to analyse political and social themes very effectively.
• Require a good breadth of knowledge in order to provide three supporting examples.
• Follow a set structure or formula, and can therefore be easier to get the hang of if you are not as comfortable writing.
• However, argumentative essays can be difficult if the prompts are about something very personal or introspective, for example, ‘love’.
• They can also make it more difficult to be interesting and original in your response.

Personal reflective essays

These GAMSAT ® essays allow you to demonstrate your emotional intelligence, self-awareness, and empathy. These are vital qualities to demonstrate in the entrance exam for medical school. Try to avoid a hybrid of argumentative and personal styles: personal essays that take three short anecdotes and discuss them in an introduction/three body paragraphs/conclusion structure do not usually come across as sincere.

Taking one, strong personal experience that is related to the theme of the prompts, and analysing it in detail, is a great way to start. Show your marker what you felt and why you felt that way - demonstrate your emotional and psychological analytical skills. These essays:

• Are an excellent way of being interesting and original: your experience is your own.
• Make it easier to demonstrate emotional awareness - It is much easier to provide emotional insight into something with which you have personal experience.
• Can move your marker. Your marker is a human being! Giving them a personal response gives them a connection to you.
• Are the least challenging of the non-argumentative essays - most students like to start with these essays before branching into more creative writing.
• However, it can be difficult to write these essays if you have no experience related to the theme of the prompts. Collecting a ‘bank’ of personal experiences that can be used for various themes is a helpful way of knowing whether you can use a personal reflection for a set of prompts.

Short stories

Writing short stories is an excellent way of standing out. They allow you to show emotional and psychological insight, but without having the restraint of personal experience.

In a short story, try to stick within your own realm of experience. A short story does not have to be a Hollywood Blockbuster: often the simplest plots are those that are the most sincere, touching, and effective. Remember that the point of these essays is not to write a dramatic story. It is to demonstrate your social, emotional, or psychological reasoning skills to your marker. These essays:

• Require practice. Refine your writing style to be simple, sincere, and not far-fetched.
• Require creativity! Think of creative ways to describe emotions or situations. Avoid cliches in your descriptions.
• Should deal with one strong central idea that is related to the theme of the prompts.
• Can produce outstanding marks. Well-written and thoughtful short stories allow you to demonstrate the sophistication of your expression, your originality, and your analytical skills.

GAMSAT Section 2 Essay Topics

Section 2 of the GAMSAT ® Essay consists of two different essays (usually called Task A and Task B), each in response to their own set of stimuli. These prompts are presented as a set of quotes (usually 5), with each set centred around a common theme.

GAMSAT Section 2 Task A Themes:

Gamsat section 2 task b themes:.

• Originality

GAMSAT Section 2 Questions

Theme: truth.

• Gossip, as usual, was one-third right and two-thirds wrong. (L.M. Montgomery, Chronicles of Avonlea)
• The truth is rarely pure and never simple. (Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest)
• Truth is a matter of the imagination. (Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness)
• You don't destroy what you want to acquire in the future. (Suzanne Collins, Mockingjay)
• To be fully seen by somebody, then, and be loved anyhow - this is a human offering that can border on miraculous. (Elizabeth Gilbert, Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage)

Theme: Justice

• Being good is easy, what is difficult is being just. (Victor Hugo)
• I don't want tea, I want justice! (Ally Carter, Uncommon Criminals)
• It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one. (Voltaire, Zadig)
• Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it. (William Penn)
• Keep your language. Love its sounds, its modulation, its rhythm. But try to march together with men of different languages, remote from your own, who wish like you for a more just and human world. (Hélder Câmara, Spiral Of Violence)

You can find further essay topics using this free GAMSAT ® Section 2 Essay Quote Generator:

GAMSAT Section 2 Example Essays

Even with all of the above tips and topics, it can be difficult to start writing without an idea of what a GAMSAT ® Essay should look like. That’s why we’ve decided to provide an example essay below with feedback provided by our tutors to help you make a start on your preparation for Section 2 of the GAMSAT ® Exam.

GAMSAT Section 2 Task A Example Essay

Task a example essay question.

• Don’t forget your great guns, which are the most respectable argument for the rights of kings. (Frederick the Great)
• The people are that part of the state that does not know what it wants. (G W F Hegel)
• Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. (Joseph Stalin)
• Win or lose, we go shopping after the election. (Imelda Marcos)
• Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms which have been tried from time to time. (Winston Churchill)

Task A Example Essay: Medium Standard Essay

• The people are lead to believe that their votes decide the power, however the real power resides with those who count the votes. Whether the power is attained by corruption or manipulation, the people have little say even what they try to stage a backlash. Examples of corruption aren’t hard to find, but the frustrating case of Robert Mugabe is a strong example. Constant broken pre-election promises try to manipulate the people even at a staged constituency. Time and again tyrants pop up to demonstrate clearly how compromised the electoral process can sometimes become.
• The strings of bad decisions made by Robert Mugabe have devastated Zimbabwe, whilst somehow benefiting him and his family. In 200 President Mugabe enacted the removal of white ownership of farmland. His plan was to give the land to the native Zimbabwean’s to make them more successful and therefor give them more of the power. This was an important promise and made him very popular with his countrymen. During the crossover period, Mugabe’s family ended up with 39 farms, with the rest going to un-experienced Zimbabweans. The result was a complete slump in food production and in return a failing economy for Zimbabwe, forcing them to abandon their currency in 2009. Ironically the white farmers had been very effective in their farming and had bolstered the economy. In the 2010 election, despite being generally despised by many Zimbabweans, Robert Mugabe won another term by a giant 60% of the votes. It seems unlikely he would win reelection given the circumstances. Corruption among the voting officials who were under the control of Mugabe is suspected but few are willing to question his authority.
• It’s partially expected by citizens of democratic countries that pre-election promises are seldom kept. However when a candidate is making promises that would highly benefit you and your community, it’s hard not to jump on their bandwagon. In the 2013 election, the Labor party promised millions to rural communities to fund different community projects which would have provided stimulation for their economy. However since winning the election and releasing the budget, those promises have been revoked in order to cut costs. Resulting in thousands of rural citizens feeling manipulated by false promises made by the Labor party.
• Most recently in WA, an alleged 1800 people have voted multiple times at different polling stations in the 2013 election. Before this, thousands of votes had believed to have simply vanished so a new election was to be held, but in light of this new information an additional investigation is being held. This is an example of the people trying to take back the power. Although it is illegal, most would not consider it to be any less morally wrong than corruption or manipulation especially on a huge scales such as the examples of Robert Mugabe and the Labor party. Voting is only a human invention, and it can be easily manipulated just like any other human invention.
• Tactics of politics are harsh. With emotional and physical tries to power, its not a surprise that votes feel the need to use the same tactics in order to win back the power. Examples can be found all over the globe with Zimbabwe and Australia just scratching the surface. In the words of Joseph Stalin – “Those who cast the votes deiced nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”

Task A Example Essay Correction and Feedback

• This is a well-written essay and appears to make a sound argument by incorporating some well-informed examples.
• There is no major flaw with the written expression in this essay. While sentences in some cases can be shortened and written in a more direct manner, this is not a major criticism of the essay. There are, however, multiple small errors: ‘people are lead to believe’ should be ‘people are led to believe’; ‘the people have little say even what they try to stage a backlash’ should be ‘the people have little say even when they try to stage a backlash’, amongst others. Whilst these are small details, it’s important to give your marker a strong impression of the quality of your written expression.
• The structure of the essay also follows the basic argumentative essay structure. One of the main issues that prevents this essay from receiving a higher mark is that the quote that the writer has selected is not compatible with the second example that they have provided. This example talks about a political party changing its tune after an election. It is not clear how it furthers the argument that the electoral process itself is compromised in some way. In argumentative essays, every supporting example should be defending and strengthening the thesis. Irrelevant examples and analysis is very difficult for a marker to reward. In fact, they can actually weaken, rather than strengthen, an argument, as they distract the reader from the central idea.
• The content of this essay appears informed. The writer, however, has made a crucial mistake in saying that the Labour party won the 2013 election. It was the Liberal party. If this mistake were made once in the text it could be dismissed as a typographical error under the time pressure; however, it is repeated.
• This essay could also go to a more sophisticated level of critical analysis. The details of the examples could be teased out to further support the central example. For example, in the third body paragraph, what are the consequences of these votes being ‘lost’? Democracy is being compromised and people’s votes are being silenced: imagine living in a country where voting is compulsory, yet your vote is not counted. Is this a betrayal of the people? How is it an example of the people trying to take back power? Perhaps because they are demanding accountability from their democratic government. Is this, in itself, promising? Namely, whilst voting is open to corruption, in a true democracy, the people have a right to freedom of speech and to transparency of government. Does the true spirit of democracy, then, help to defeat the possible corruption of the voting process?
• Going into this level of detail would demonstrate stronger reasoning skills. Markers want to see how a candidate thinks, and how deeply they think - not simply ‘what they know’.
• This essay is quite good, and it has chosen a challenging argument to present. However, it can be improved by a better selection of content that goes directly to the argument that the writer is trying to make.

GAMSAT Section 2 Task B Example Essay

Task b example essay question.

• Creativity is the defeat of habit by originality. (Arthur Koestler)
• Create like a god; command like a king; work like a slave. (Constantin Brancusi)
• Truth and reality in art do not arise until you no longer understand what you are doing. (Henri Matisse)
• You are lost the instant you know what the result will be. (Juan Gris)
• An essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to fail. (Edwin Land)

Task B Example Essay - High Standard Essay

• Creation is a power no mortal man should be gifted with. And it’s exactly that. A gift. It can give rise to ugly life forms capable of destruction yet it can also wondrously design and improve our small insignificant lives. A gift not bestowed upon me and perhaps for good reason.
• The power of creation is given to those who sit on the outskirts of our society, like outcasts and the insane. These poor souls, if poor is the best fitting word, let their minds wander aimlessly and ironically discover and churn out fantastical and absurd ideas. How blissful.
• Desperation summons creative too. When we are pushed to the extremes and our normal ways fail, new ideas spawn almost spontaneously. When there is no other option but to be creative, we find ourselves stumble upon the new and the amazing.
• Regardless, there is a very good reason being creative is not easy. It's not for everyone. Chaos would conspire. Creativity is power. Power corrupts the mind. Corruption is fatal. But just for a minute, let's indulge and pretend we possessed the power of creation. What to do? What should I create? I would not create equality amongst equality amongst race or world peace or a cure for aids. That’s not out of the hexagon enough for me. It's not that I do not support world peace or todays real issues, but someone with a smaller capacity for creation can do that. A child. A dying war veteran. I’m going to create something unfathomable. It's my duty, my unspoken agreement to create something for more unimaginable. Good or evil? Black or white? The answers to these questions are never easy.
• Who knows. Let drugs and hallucinogens do their work there. Because I can’t create anything of such a nature. I’m skin and bone. Not god. Not even a demi-god. I’m not burdened by the gift of creation. But god knows someone is. What a frustration to wait for the day they realize, what a terror to see what follows.

Task B Example Essay Correction and Feedback

• This essay is challenging and different. The written expression in this essay, whilst simple, is powerful. It can be read as a form of dramatic monologue and the writer has carefully selected each word and sentence length to ensure that the essay is read in a dramatic tone. It resembles speeches by accomplished orators: simple and moving. The purpose of many essays is to convince the reader. It is much easier to convince someone if they can understand it; even easier to convince someone if they are moved by it.
• The structure of this essay is almost similar to a free verse poem in that there is no real structure; however, there is cohesion between paragraphs. The writer’s ideas on the issue are easy to follow.
• This essay is considered a high standard mainly because of the content and the original perspective on the theme. The writer reflects upon what creativity is, but in a way that is not often executed by students under strict exam conditions.
• Each paragraph of the essay covers a different twist on what creativity means. It challenges the reader to consider the writer’s opinions and stands out from other essays. Also note that although this essay is a high standard response, the length of the response is much shorter than the other examples. This is a good demonstration of how quality is more important than quantity.
• As with every essay, however, there are aspects that could be improved.
• There are simple errors throughout: these detract from the writer’s otherwise powerful and strong sense of voice.
• One other important way in which this essay could improve would be to have a stronger central idea. The essay clearly focussed on creativity, and different interpretations of it. However, unifying the essay behind one perspective, such as the danger of creativity, could make this response more effective.

Make sure to also sign up to our GAMSAT ® Free Trial to watch a recording of our GAMSAT ® Essay Writing Workshop! Check out the 10 minute excerpt below:

Further Free GAMSAT Preparation Materials

Free gamsat preparation materials.

The most comprehensive library of free GAMSAT Preparation materials available.

Understanding your GAMSAT ® Results

Covers everything you need to know about your GAMSAT ® Results - How the scoring works, result release dates and even GAMSAT ® score cutoffs.

How to study for the GAMSAT ® Exam

A breakdown of how to approach study effectively and how to set up a GAMSAT ® study schedule

How to prepare for GAMSAT ® Section 1

An overview of what to expect in Section 1 of the GAMSAT ® Exam, how to prepare.

How to prepare for GAMSAT ® Section 2

An overview of what to expect in Section 2 of the GAMSAT ® Exam, how to prepare and how to perfect your essay technique.

How to prepare for GAMSAT ® Section 3

An overview of what to expect in Section 3 of the GAMSAT ® Exam and how to prepare for each of the topics - Biology, Chemistry, & Physics.

GradReady GAMSAT Preparation Courses

To learn more about our GAMSAT ® Preparation courses and compare their different components, view an in depth comparison here: GradReady Course Comparison

If you’re not sure which course is best for you, try our Course Recommender.

If you’re after a single feature, such as our Textbook, or access to our 4000+ Intelligent MCQ Bank, or if you want to customise your preparation, you can do so here: GradReady GAMSAT ® Custom Course.

At GradReady, we pride ourselves on providing students with the Best Results at the Best Value:

• Our team is consistently reinvesting in our internal operational technology to ensure that we're constantly improving our efficiency and productivity. The end result for our students is that we stand head and shoulders above our competition in the comprehensiveness of the tools we offer and the effectiveness of our teachings – all at the best value .
• We believe in a data-driven approach: using student performance data to fine tune our practice questions, study content and teaching styles has allowed us to achieve unparalleled results for our students.
• We are the only provider with Statistically Significant Proven Results – our students achieved an average improvement of 20+ Percentile Points, 10+ years in a row, with an average improvement of 25 Percentile Points for the May 2020 GAMSAT ® exam.
• We achieve these results through our interactive teaching style and adaptive online learning technologies. Our classes are capped at 21 students, and taught by a specialist tutor for each subject, tutors who are themselves Medical Students who have sat the GAMSAT ® .
• Our online systems make learning into a science and we are the only provider with a proprietary online system that uses algorithmic-assisted, targeted learning. Unlike other providers who purchase a 3rd Party System, the targeted system that we've developed tracks your performance, quickly identifying your weaknesses and pointing you to the most relevant materials and even tutor assistance.

To learn more about our courses and compare us to the competition, visit: GradReady GAMSAT ® Preparation Courses

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy

General & Course Queries: (03) 9819 6696 10am - 5pm Melb Time

GAMSAT Queries: (03) 9885 0809 10am - 5pm Melb Time

Copyright © GradReady Pty. Ltd. All rights reserved

GradReady is not in any way affiliated with ACER, nor are any materials produced or services offered by it relating to the GAMSAT ® test endorsed or approved by ACER.

Got a Question?

Would you like to consult our faqs first, september 2024 gamsat® courses are now open enrol now for access up until march 2025.

Enrolments for our 15-Day Attendance Courses & Industry-Leading Online Courses are now open for the Sept 2024 and March 2025 GAMSAT® Exam! Enrol now to get access to our comprehensive GAMSAT® preparation materials until March 2025 ! Get access to 4000+ MCQs in our question bank, 12 GAMSAT® Practice Tests which mimic the official ACER GAMSAT® exam in detail, weekly 1-hour session with our experienced tutors from June, and one additional round of Virtual PBLs of your choosing free of charge . For instance, if you enrol for the August Course, you can choose to attend again in January.  You can also subscribe to our GAMSAT® Courses and get the flexibility to cancel anytime! Early subscribers enjoy lower monthly fees; prices for new enrolments increase as we approach the GAMSAT® exam. The prices are at their lowest now! Join 10,000+ GradReady Students who have improved their scores by 20+ Percentile Points on average, 10+ Years in a Row!

GAMSAT Section 2 Essay Examples

GAMSAT Section 2: Five Example Essays Ranging From Scores Of 50 To 80+

In order to perform well in Section 2 , it is important to understand the key features of a high scoring GAMSAT essay. When reviewing previous GAMSAT essay topics , you should know the main marking criteria to address.

This guide contains worked examples of GAMSAT essays to help you identify the major metrics looked for by Section 2 tutors and markers, using pieces discussing healthcare as examples. You can use the pertinent principles in this guide to create a stringent GAMSAT essay plan to maximise your performance in Section 2 . 

Inside the Section 2 Sample Essay Guide

• Sample Essays spanning scores from the low 50s to 80+
• Highlighted flaws in each essay to aid in self-assessment
• In-depth analysis and feedback from top tutors

Example Paragraph From An 80+ GAMSAT Essay 

“In the current polito-economic landscape of most nation-states, health and healthcare are contentious issues. It is this very discourse that leads me to both types of research the realities and explores my own values and beliefs in relation to the notion of health. This surveying of my mental landscape led me to one unwavering belief: “healthcare is not a privilege, it is a right.” When this statement became core to the way I understand the human condition, I started to question if the societies I live in have come to embody the opposite of this belief in practice.

This line of questioning led me to understand one of the most fundamental mechanisms in the way modern societies function. This mechanism is the domineering politico-economic ideology. Neoliberalism. Through observation, we can see it functions to commodify most aspects of the human experience and does so very drastically in the case of healthcare.”

‍ The Quotes Covered Are:

Health is not valued till sickness comes.

Take care of the patient and everything else will follow.

Control healthcare and you control the people.

Wherever the art of medicine is loved, there is also a love of humanity.

If you found this useful, kindly look at our free GAMSAT preparation resources: 

Related Articles

• Section 1: What to Expect & How to Study
• Section 2: How to Write High Scoring Essays
• Section 3: Tips & Strategy 
• What is the GAMSAT?

Free Resources

• Free Online Course with +200 Topics
• GAMSAT Topic Book
• Online Practice Test

GAMSAT Section 1

• Section 1 Question Log
• Tips on GAMSAT Poetry

GAMSAT Section 2

• Quote Generator

Related posts

Read more articles from our team

GAMSAT Biology for Section 3

GAMSAT 2022 March: What Did it Look Like?

GAMSAT & GPA Average Score Cutoffs

Can You Wing The GAMSAT Exam?

GAMSAT English Tutor

Specialist S1 and S2 | Australia

GAMSAT Theme Talk: Politics

The first step in writing a GAMSAT Section 2 essay is identifying the theme associated with the quotes presented. This blog post will go through potential ideas and sample essay structures.

• 1 Brainstorm Arguments & Ideas
• 2.1 Sample 1
• 2.2 Sample 2
• 2.3 Sample 3
• 3 Resources to improve your ideas and writing
• 4 Need Help?

Brainstorm Arguments & Ideas

• Same sex marriage bill, on Dec 2017, the right to marry in Australia was no longer determined by sex or gender, postal vote.
• This can be considered the correct course of action – equality, supporting love regardless of gender 
• Politics – make promises to get the popular vote, campaign promises made in good faith or do they hide more sinister intentions or cause division?
• E.g. Trump with the wall – pandering to right wing views? Create more divide in society 
• Kevin Rudd, promised to apologise for the wrongs that had been done and towards the Stolen Generation. → instigate movement towards reparations, acceptance, belonging, closing the gap → potential to create real societal change 
• Politics – manipulation, lies
• Removed from politics – direct, clear, unbiased, see the bigger picture → the common people are perhaps best to understand the issues that plague society, e.g. homelessness, poverty
• The true mark of a good government is able to listen and understand
• ‘Most removed’ –  Trump in terms of understanding the common man’s demise, their problems and pandering to this….’best politician’ provide a solution 
• ‘Most removed’ – Jacinda Ardern in terms of understanding the emotional state of the country
• Greta Thunberg – raising awareness of climate change, part of the grassroot initiating change, instigated multiple high school strikes across the world
• Compromise, gain support of other people
• E.g. Julia Gillard, allied herself with the Greens in order to gain leadership but had to introduce the Carbon tax 
• E.g. vaccine rollout, state and national leaders working together 
• 1917 Bolshevik revolution – Lenin/Trotsky to overthrow the Tsar (Soviet Union). In the aftermath of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution – Stalin learnt the art of compromise, use political rhetoric to oust Trotsky and gain leadership and the support of others → Five year plans disastrous for the economy, secret police, widespread poverty, famine
• Money = more resources, can get more involved 
• Power can help to enact change, e.g. Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi   
• Power can corrupt, e.g. Macbeth

Possible Essay Structures

• E.g. Sam Dastyari and murky links with Chinese businessman, potential for foreign powers to influence politics or trade relations.
• E.g. Clive Palmer and use of money to support his political campaign, implies that only those with money can garner adequate support. –> https://theconversation.com/mineral-wealth-clive-palmer-and-the-corruption-of-australian-politics-117248
• E.g. Malaysia’s former Prime Minister Najib Razak being found guilty in the corruption trial over the multi-billion dollar 1MDB scandal. Consider the money that could have gone to the people, in supporting infrastructure, economic growth and improving welfare.
• In Australia, we have a separation of powers between the parliament, executive and judiciary
• In democratic countries, potential for lobby groups and protests to raise awareness about important issues
• Role of media in keeping people accountable, e.g. Tony Abbott and not wearing a mask (Sept 2021) subjected to same fines as others
• Donald Trump – building a Wall, replacing Obamacare, personality more important than promises of actual change. Trump recognises this and uses this to his advantage, appealing to minority/isolated/disenfranchised members of society by discrediting the media and their propagation of ‘fake news’. Give examples of what he have said and analyse.
• Kevin Rudd – promises to unify/eliminate barriers between Aboriginal Australians in modern society
• If we are to make positive change within our society we must hold those we elect into power accountable.
• Politics is often turned into a popularity contest rather than a campaign for what is beneficial for communities.
• This is further exacerbated by the use of money and power to further political agendas
• However, a truly successful politician is one who is able to compromise and understand the concerns of the common people.

Resources to improve your ideas and writing

Click here to buy Part A Idea Bank

Click here to buy a step-by-step study guide to mastering GAMSAT essay writing

Contact me here

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from gamsat english tutor.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Section II Quote Generator

Test yourself with the worlds largest GAMSAT quote generator. Randomly select from over 100 quote sets modelled on previously tested ACER topics. 

Task Selection:

Press on the options below to practice upon GAMSAT-style prompts. Review your work to standards in line with our famous essay structure . Remember to practice under test conditions.

Timer (press to start)

Frequently Asked Questions

ask A usually revolves around geopolitical issues (war, democracy, crime) and Task B surrounding personal and social topics (friendship, trust, love). Yet, practicing a broad philosophical idea can be applicable to both.

When studying, try limiting yourself between 25-29 minutes per essay, this will give you some time to review your work. Remember, you can always come back to add in extra details if you have the time.

This number will vary between students. It is generally recommended that before sitting the GAMSAT, students will type up at least 4 essays under exam conditions. This will help students understanding timings and familiarise themselves with exam-style prompts.

Yes, we offer comprehensive essay guides and classes to help you improve your GAMSAT essay writing. Visit our products page under the 'Buy Now' tab.

• GAMSAT COURSES
• FREE GAMSAT RESOURCES
• LIKEMIKE AI

by Michael Sunderland  

How to ACE GAMSAT Section 2 Quote Interpretation – Task A

0  Comments

December 20, 2020 in  Free Chapters

How to ACE GAMSAT Section 2 Quote Interpretation

GAMSAT Section 2 writing is not normal essay writing. I’ve said this before, I’ll no doubt say it again. The origin of a 90+ Section 2 response is what is made from the task, or in other words how you approach quote interpretation. It’s very hard to write a poor response with quality, sophisticated ideas; and very hard to write a good response to simple, pedestrian, or reductive ideas.

I like to think of quote interpretation as the ceiling value of your writing. It sets the upper limit of what you can achieve. How you then deliver the thoughts you’ve had is the degree to which you capitalise on the potential you have created through your quote interpretation. In my experience, 95% of students turn that ceiling into a glass ceiling, and shoot themselves in the foot before they begin by approaching perhaps the most crucial element of the task in the most rushed, and pedestrian manner. This does not bode well for a high scoring response.

ACER’s words

Let’s begin first with ACER’s own words from the GAMSAT information booklet so we can be sure that I’m not pontificating about something I just made up. The underlining is my own, the rest is a direct quote.

“Written Communication is assessed on two criteria: the quality of the thinking about a topic and the control of language demonstrated in its development. Assessment focuses on the way in which ideas are integrated into a thoughtful response to the task. Control of language (grammatical structure and expression) is an integral component of a good piece of writing. However, it is only assessed insofar as it contributes to the overall effectiveness of the response to the task and not in isolation. “

There is an emphasis here on quality of thinking, and integration of ideas thoughtfully. That is, in part, to place the prompts in their broader cultural, psycho-social, politico-economic, or philosophical contexts; but also linearly and deliberately developing an argument or position (see my post The Ontology of Structure – Logic for more on this). Structure, language, and other things that traditionally are thought of as the foundations of a good essay are almost explicitly said here not to be assessed in isolation, and that they contribute only insofar as they contribute to the aforementioned criteria (quality of thinking). This is why traditional methods of approaching writing are only sufficient to get you to a 75. There seems to be a huge paucity of information and discussion about how to improve your quality of thinking, or how to telegraph an improved quality of thinking in a GAMSAT section 2 context.

ACER also explicitly says in their information book

“pre-prepared responses and responses that do not relate to the topic will receive a low score.”

Which, if this is what is being assessed, begs two questions..

1. How can I improve the quality of my thinking about the prompts 2. How can I be sure to be relevant to the topic

I come bearing gifts.

How not to approach quote interpretation

Let me first deal with what not to do. Almost everybody I come across conflates the prompts into a one word “theme.” They tell me, “oh the theme is conformity” (or “punishment”, or “government”, or “death”, or “space”, or “boredom” etc). This leads to simple and low level thinking responses which lack direct relevance; and therefore often score poorly. Here’s two reasons why.

It’s reductive

In the first instance you have reduced five incredibly complex, nuanced, sophisticated world views – which have arisen in many cases from 60+ years of expert experience and study, and if not, still from within a valid ontology and set of human experiences, thoughts, and ideas – into a simple world. You have reduced what could have a book, or hundreds of books in many cases, written about it to a word. It’s like thinking that the words “harry potter” is the same thing as everything that happens in those seven books (is it seven, idk?), plus the movies, plus the childhood experiences reading and interacting with those materials, plus the popular culture around it etc. There is a whole world behind it which is not conveyed in proper depth by its placeholder title.

And then, you’ve grabbed four other equally complex and nuanced and sophisticated world views, and conflated them – suggesting that they all more or less say the same thing when, in truth, this word does not adequately describe even one of the prompts, let alone all of them. And this is done simply based on the criteria that this word happened to have cropped up a number of times in the prompts. This is already to have made ten odd errors. Because it is to say that 1 is the same as 2, 3, 4, 5; and 2 is the same as 3, 4, 5 and so on.

Perhaps you’re thinking “no that’s not me,” and that you’re being really sophisticated because you contrast the ‘positive’ side of the theme, with the ‘negative’ side – which is still to have reduced a quote to one word: either ‘positive’ or ‘negative.’ Many of you will then flatly say that one of the prompts is false, or even relate to that view in a belittling manner suggesting it “is completely wrong” or “a ridiculous misinterpretation of the democratic foundations of modern life” (very fancy), and think you’re doing the right thing by arguing forcefully in an argumentative essay. I don’t blame or judge you, I’ve done the same thing. But what you’re really saying to the marker when you do that is that you, in a psychometric test on an unprepared topic, in thirty minutes, know better than someone who has dedicated their whole life to having that viewpoint. A major misstep.

Lastly you are then forced to generate a whole essay from a single word; rather than to focus highly nuanced and sophisticated ideas into a powerful single point (contention). It’s hard to write a bad essay from sophisticated ideas. And very hard to make a good essay from reductive or pedestrian ideas.

The reductive approach


single word theme < essay

A high scoring approach

Five highly complex ideas > focused in the introduction to a sharpened point (contention) > thrust forward and upward into the armor in Body Paragraph 1 > twisted in Body Paragraph 2 > graceful psychometric validation of the other sides and the contexts in which those truths arrive as you stand over the defeated opponent

It also lacks relevance

A reductive approach to quote interpretation often leads to writing that fails to “directly respond to one or more of the prompts” which is one of the only things ACER tell you explicitly that you are supposed to be doing.

This final error occurs not in the quote interpretation, but in the very next moment after it. Let us suppose you have thought to yourself “the theme is conformity.” You then think “hmm, what do I have to say about conformity.” You then come up with some idea and go off and write about it. Your writing will then be in the domain of conformity, but this will often lack relevance to conformity to begin with (as you’re under time pressure and writing whatever comes out); and furthermore, as we have established, ‘conformity’ wasn’t, in many cases, directly relevant to the prompts to begin with.

Ok, so what is the best way to approach quote interpretation?

What you make from the task, which essentially is what is being examined, arises from how you confront the ideas in front of you and situate them in their broader contexts.

I always recommend to re-write the five quotes in your own words. This takes some time, and needs to be practice, it’s also mentally draining. But the rest of the essay stems from this moment. In time you will be able to spot quotes that you think won’t lead to good outcomes, or may include traps you want to avoid, so you can save time by only re-writing/interpreting the quotes you eventually want to involve in your response. I wouldn’t recommend doing it in your head, it’s too hard to remember the other ones by the time you finish. But almost always when you see the five interpreted versions you can see links that weren’t evident before. I physically write 1 to 5 under every set of prompts. Towards the back end of my preparation I found time saving approaches, but to begin with it’s a good exercise.

Also, by “write them in your own words” I don’t mean repeat the exact thing the prompt says in different words. I mean to interpret what they are saying. Imagine a teacher said the prompt to one of your friends and then your friend turned to you after and said “that made no sense, what do they mean” and then you responded to explain it to your friend so they understood. That interpretation is what you need to be writing down. When you receive the real implications of what the quote is inviting you to consider, you will relate to the prompts very differently, and answer in a more embellished and insightful way. I will have a case study later in the chapter, so hold that thought for just a moment. First:

Do I respond to the one or all of the quotes; or do I interpret a theme and respond to that?

We’ve already discussed that reducing it to one word is not the thing to do. You are welcome to respond to complex, deeply, highly considered and thoughtfully interpreted theme if you think you are up to it. When I started I would interpret each quote, and then think to myself “if these five ideas were in a news article, what would the heading of that article be?” .. and it would often be something like “the relevance, function, and limitations of punishment in contemporary Western societies” or something to that effect. Now this was (is) high order thinking, however, it comes with some challenges.

This approach does lead to sophisticated responses, however the marker 9 times out of 10 won’t follow what you’re saying or the implied connection to the theme very easily. Because you are responding to something that took a great deal of thought, the marker can be left wondering which prompt you’re responding to. They won’t have engaged with it in the level of detail you have (or have interpreted the quotes in quite the same way), so it can lose points for relevance (even though it’s highly relevant). This circles back to earlier times when I’ve mentioned that it is crucial to be both generous to the marker, and aware of how you position yourself in their eyes (which I discussed in further detail here ).

So, I personally don’t recommend writing to a whole theme (either one word, or correctly interpreted) because it can fail to translate in a very generous, direct, and clear way. Or if you do write to the correctly interpreted theme, be prepared to be VERY explicit about what you’re saying, why you’re saying it, and how it relates to the theme (and how the theme you have interpreted relates to the prompts, and which one).

Regarding responding to all of the quotes. I’d encourage you guys to think of the five prompts as being facets of the same diamond. There is something that coheres them. Reality and truth is not absolute. All perspectives happen to tend toward, or converge from many directions on, an approximation of the truth. Knowing this is essential. The prompts are deliberately chosen for this reason. They look at issue from many directions. Early in my preparation, addressing each of these perspectives was essentially the essay written for me. I just made each point a paragraph (or lumped a couple together in one; and the others in another) etc. Again, fine, although I frustratingly had markers ask me “which prompt was this in response to?” which eventually annoyed me enough that I came to the final iteration of my prompt-addressing strategy.

I pick one prompt (or two if they happen to exist within the same ontological or epistemological frameworks) and I address it/them directly , and clearly . I don’t use the quotes from the prompts in my writing directly (you should have plenty of other examples and evidence to bring up such that you wouldn’t want to waste space on one from the prompts – when others zig; you zag!), but I do use key words or partial phrases from the prompt in my essay, especially in the introduction to make it clear what I am talking about. This greatly helped the concision and clarity of my writing.

A final note: it is essential to display a comprehension and respect for the complexity of the theme and how other, diverging, viewpoints contribute to it equally and validly (even if you disagree with them). You need to show that you have situated the prompts in their broader psycho-social or politico economic or philosophic contexts to show an appreciation for these contexts.

A case study

I’ve included below a case study of an analysis I did of a response to a set of Task A prompts. In this particular case the essay had written above it “against capitalism.”

The prompts were:

1. “Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I exist. Capitalism, by contrast, results in a sort of reality-forced altruism: I may not want to help you, I may dislike you, but if I don’t give you a product or service you want, I will starve. Voluntary exchange is more moral than forced redistribution. ” – Ben Shapiro 2. “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” – Alexis de Tocqueville 3. “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” – Winston Churchill 4. “Democracy is indispensable to socialism.” – Vladimir Lenin 5. “We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we;re going to fight it with socialism.” – Fred Hampton

You’ve left here “against capitalism.”

This suggests to me that there’s work to be done on how you confront the prompts before you begin writing. Most people look for the common word in these quotes (in this case socialism, or capitalism) and they say “ah, the theme is capitalism” and then they pick a side and off they go. The problem is that you will then only be writing in the domain of the prompts not in specific response to the prompts. You will lose marks for relevance and precision. The theme is not capitalism here.

The first quote says “capitalism is pragmatic, and more moral than socialism.” The second “democracy (an adjunct of capitalism) and socialism share only a desire for equality, but differ in approach.”

Note: we see already a link to first quote, a mini theme is developing here which is ‘the similarities between socialism and capitalist democracies in their attempt to provide equality or equitability.’ If you wrote an essay contrasting democracy and socialism in how they achieve equality, and to what extent they are successful/moral in this you would be not only scoring far more highly for relevance, but also for “what was made from the task.” Furthermore, this frames your essay to be of much higher sophistication and quality. If you have made a reductive or simple interpretation of the quotes you are forced to expand and write an essay from a small point. This can feel wavering, or unfocussed, or repetitive, and will always be elementary. If you, on the other hand, spend some time really looking at what each quote is saying (I re-write each quote in my own words and then examine them… i stopped doing this toward the end to save time, but the discipline of doing so for my first 30 essays was invaluable) you will have a complex and nuanced understanding of what is being said and the issue at large. The essay, then, becomes not an expansion from a small point (along with inevitable psychometric faults), but a narrowing and focus of a very large and complex issue (necessarily winning psychometrics points for you) into themes and components of that issue that you wish to discuss and give a focussed opinion on.

In this case, I think of the ontology of Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Zedong – who’s behaviour was illustrative of a utilitarian calculus wherein violence was justified in the name of achieving a socialist utopia. Suffering, the transgression of individual liberty, famine, even mass murder were all justified within the grand narrative of the promise of communist utopias in China, the Society Union, and Cambodia. Mao killed more than 5 times as many people than did Hitler. Humans were reduced to a number, or a flesh bag of chemicals and a physiological set of reactions as the body struggled to fight against emaciation due to poverty in gulags in the soviet union – each person’s unique individuality reduced to a cascading, brutal homogeneity. Where is the morality in this? Is this why Ben Shapiro (quote 1) says capitalism is more moral?

The third quote: a critique of socialism, so we have further re-enforcement for our suspected theme. These people do not think socialism is the most moral way of achieving equality, no matter its intentions.
The fourth: tbh I don’t get this. next. (although Lenin was a Bolshevik and was responsible for the Russian revolution and establishment of socialism in Russia pre-soviet union, so perhaps you could simply use that for support of the similarities between the two political ideologies) The fifth: I would skip this entirely. I doubt ACER would give you this prompt. It requires context, and it’s just a weird prompt. Using this would be a red herring in my view.

So, in short, if you dont correctly interpret the quote, and situate it in its broader historical, sociological, psychological, politico-economics contexts, you will struggle to make something profound of the task, and lose points on relevance. Everything that follows is necessarily going to flow from that initial reduction. Your essay is necessarily limited and framed by what you made (or failed to make) of the quotes. Most people go : 5 quotes > one word theme
you want to go
5 quotes < essay. Like the quotes are the thinnest part and you make them expansive by developing on them in insightful ways, rather than reducing them to one word and picking a side.

An 80+ essay requires partially agreeing or disagreeing with the obvious interpretation of the comments, rather than flatly. Qualify its limits or contexts in which it arises. Situate the comment in their wider cultural contexts . Body paragraphs are a logical analysis of these ideas. Don’t let this make you fence sit, though. Choose your viewpoint clearly and argue strongly for it, but try situating it off centre of one of the implications of the quotes.

See more writing on 90plusgamsat.com/blog/

or have a look at my existing resources for sale in the store 90plusgamsat.com/shop

Our 90+ Facebook group, where I work for free for ever is at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/419297965763290

About the author 

Michael Sunderland

My name's Michael, I achieved 91 in Section II, and 82 overall, in the September '20 sitting. I'm here to show you how I did it. Let's get to work :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Subscribe to get the latest updates

Gamsat Review Blog

Everything you need to know about GAMSAT by Dr Peter Griffiths

GAMSAT Essay Examples

Below we have reproduced one of our GAMSAT essay examples sent to us by a student for marking complete with the markers detailed comments.

100 marked essay examples like this are included in the Griffiths  GAMSAT Review Home Study Course together with our complete blueprint to writing high scoring Gamsat essays.

We include both high scoring and low scoring essays so you can see the characteristics of both.

For more help writing your GAMSAT essays and to get 100 marked examples like the above please check out Griffths GAMSAT Review

Search Gamsat Review Blog

Gamsat Notes

June 28, 2017, gamsat notes in essay examples | june 28, 2017, “the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter”.

Essay Title: Is democracy providing society with their wants and needs?

The question of whether society appreciates the role of government in providing them with their wants and needs is a controversial one.

On the one hand , government provides a wide range of benefits, such as; child benefits, government issued health cards – providing low cost/free heath care, pensions, among many more. These are clearly very beneficial for society as a whole.

On the other hand , the media will quickly have us believe that our government is a greedy, corporation like institution, where we must select the lesser of evil candidates to take office and run our country. It appears ever too often that we hear of shady government deals with large multinational corporations; costing many of the countries taxpayers, and benefiting only a select few of those closely related to the deal.

Ultimately , I believe society benefits more from our government than caveats. Firstly , our education system is highly desirable, especially when compared to that of the United States (tuition fees related). Although this is a popular topic of debate in the past number of years and should be watched closely. Secondly , society also benefits from our government being pro-disability focused. Regulations in building and construction require features such as wheelchair access as standard to ensure all able, and disable bodied people can gain access to any building. This flows generously into that of fire standards and fire safety. Our government has strict safety regulations that we almost unconsciously benefit from.

Finally, Ireland has an attractive corporate tax rate; which helps vastly in attaining corporations to set up their European headquarters (Google, Facebook, etc.); providing jobs, increasing pay standards, and overall improving the quality of life.

In conclusion, Democracy; at least in Ireland, is benefiting society as a whole in my opinion. A lot of work is needed to ensure improvements can be made in the future. Democracy does benefit society in comparison to other systems of government, but this does not mean it is the most appropriate either. Government system evolve over time along with everything else. I believe Democracy is a step in the right direction; but we are not there yet in terms of the perfect solution (which there may not be one).

Ozimed & Acer Exam Papers

Related Notes:

• Essay Example: “The Liberty of the Individual Must be thus far Limited; He must not Make Himself a Nuisance to Other People”
• Essay Example Rundown – How to Write Essays for the GAMSAT

Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

GAMSAT Essay Themes

From: acegamsat re: gamsat essay themes.

So, you are completing practice essays and perfecting your structure. You might also be (understandably!) wondering how you are meant to deal with the vast number of themes that might arise in section II, and considering how you should approach type A and B quotes (is there even difference, you ask?). If you are at this stage, then this is the guide for you!

Firstly, the difference between ‘type A’ and ‘type B’ sets of quotes…

Note here that I have referred to type A and B ‘sets of quotes’ rather than ‘essays.’ This was intentional! Sometimes there is the perception that there is a certain ‘type’ of essay that must be written in response to either type A or B quotes, but the reality is that you could craft an effective response for either styles of quotes using a variety of essay styles, including a persuasive essay style or reflective/ creative essay style. The most important thing is to find a style and structure that you understand and can utilise effectively.

Ok, back to the different between type A and B quotes! Type A tends to focus on an issue that is perhaps more ‘objective’ (in that is can be observed playing out in society) and is often a more political issue (think democracy, the environment, terrorism, the legal system etc.), whereas type B quotes usually refer to something that is more subjective (in that many people will have different, individual views on the matter that they have developed over their lives) (think trust, love, relationships, childhood, optimism etc.)

Ok great. Are there any ways of predicting what the theme will be?

The short answer is no! Unfortunately there is no way of predicting what kinds of themes will be included in section II in a given year. It would appear, however, that often at least one of the themes relates to something that is quite topical. This does not necessarily mean that the topic has been apparent in the media in the last week or month or even year. It might be something that has been going around for a while, and the assessors feel as though it would raise interesting ideas for candidates to consider. Currently, for example, you might consider democracy and its utility (in the wake of the US election), gender equality (pretty much always quite topical), or themes surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation (an area which is currently receiving a lot of attention, especially in the field of research). 

So, what are some examples of type A and B themes?

Note that the following lists are by no means exhaustive! They are simply suggestions in order to get your brain pumping and for you to build on!

Sample Type A GAMSAT Essay Themes:

• The scientific endeavor
• Human rights
• Conflict/ warfare
• Space exploration
• Stem cell research
• Multiculturalism
• The media and/or social media
• Bureaucracy

Sample Type B GAMSAT Essay Themes:

• Imagination
• Optimism/ attitude

Hopefully this post has left you feeling better prepared to deal with any theme thrown your way!

Happy essay writing!

FREE Resources

If you want your free GAMSAT Practice Test , then click below right now!

Published by acegamsat.com

Subscribe to our newsletter, how to master section ii of the gamsat.

The Only Prep You Need

Skip to content

• DAT-prep.com
• GAMSAT Preparation Courses
• GAMSAT Practice Tests
• GAMSAT Videos
• GAMSAT Scores
• Free GAMSAT
• Board index ‹ GAMSAT Preparation ‹ Discuss your strategies and experience with Section II
• Change font size

Sample Marked GAMSAT Essays on the Environment

Return to Discuss your strategies and experience with Section II

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

• Board index
• All times are UTC

The Atlantic’s June Cover Story: Anne Applebaum on How “Democracy Is Losing the Propaganda War”

F or The Atlantic ’s June cover story, “ Democracy Is Losing the Propaganda War ,” staff writer Anne Applebaum reports on how autocrats in China, Russia, and other places around the world are now making common cause with MAGA Republicans to discredit liberalism and freedom everywhere. Applebaum’s story is adapted from her forthcoming book, Autocracy Inc. (publishing July 23), and draws from her exceptional reporting for The Atlantic .

Even in authoritarian states where surveillance is almost total, Applebaum reports, “the experience of tyranny and injustice can radicalize people. Anger at arbitrary power will always lead someone to start thinking about another system, a better way to run society.” This has resulted in autocratic regimes slowly turning their repressive mechanisms outward, into the democratic world. Applebaum writes: “If people are naturally drawn to the image of human rights, to the language of democracy, to the dream of freedom, then those concepts have to be poisoned. That requires more than surveillance, more than close observation of the population, more than a political system that defends against liberal ideas. It also requires an offensive plan: a narrative that damages both the idea of democracy everywhere in the world and the tools to deliver it.”

To accomplish this, Applebaum reports, autocracies are now making systematic efforts to influence both popular and elite audiences, including via the use of state-controlled media—most notably China’s Xinhua news agency and Russia’s RT, but also Venezuela’s Telesur network and Iran’s Press TV, along with numerous others—to create stories, slogans, memes, and narratives promoting the worldview of the autocracies. These, in turn, are repeated and amplified in other countries, translated into multiple languages, and reshaped for local markets around the world.

When these stories make their way to the U.S., Applebaum reports, “a part of the American political spectrum is not merely a passive recipient of the combined authoritarian narratives that come from Russia, China, and their ilk, but an active participant in creating and spreading them. Like the leaders of those countries, the American MAGA right also wants Americans to believe that their democracy is degenerate, their elections illegitimate, their civilization dying. The MAGA movement’s leaders also have an interest in pumping nihilism and cynicism into the brains of their fellow citizens, and in convincing them that nothing they see is true. Their goals are so similar that it is hard to distinguish between the online American alt-right and its foreign amplifiers.” The State Department has in the past decade created a division to preemptively combat (or “prebunk”) foreign disinformation operations. But no such agency exists to combat the spread of Russian and Chinese propaganda within the United States.

“One could call this a secret authoritarian ‘plot’ to preserve the ability to spread antidemocratic conspiracy theories, except that it’s not a secret. It’s all visible, right on the surface,” Applebaum writes. “Russia, China, and sometimes other state actors—Venezuela, Iran, Hungary—work with Americans to discredit democracy, to undermine the credibility of democratic leaders, to mock the rule of law. They do so with the goal of electing Trump, whose second presidency would damage the image of democracy around the world, as well as the stability of democracy in America, even further.”

“ Democracy Is Losing the Propaganda War ” was published today in The Atlantic . Please reach out with any questions or requests: [email protected].

The New Propaganda War

Autocrats in China, Russia, and elsewhere are now making common cause with MAGA Republicans to discredit liberalism and freedom around the world.

Listen to this article

Listen to more stories on curio

This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here .

On June 4 , 1989 , the Polish Communist Party held partially free elections, setting in motion a series of events that ultimately removed the Communists from power. Not long afterward, street protests calling for free speech, due process, accountability, and democracy brought about the end of the Communist regimes in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. Within a few years, the Soviet Union itself would no longer exist.

Also on June 4, 1989, the Chinese Communist Party ordered the military to remove thousands of students from Tiananmen Square. The students were calling for free speech, due process, accountability, and democracy. Soldiers arrested and killed demonstrators in Beijing and around the country. Later, they systematically tracked down the leaders of the protest movement and forced them to confess and recant. Some spent years in jail. Others managed to elude their pursuers and flee the country forever.

Explore the June 2024 Issue

Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

In the aftermath of these events, the Chinese concluded that the physical elimination of dissenters was insufficient. To prevent the democratic wave then sweeping across Central Europe from reaching East Asia, the Chinese Communist Party eventually set out to eliminate not just the people but the ideas that had motivated the protests. In the years to come, this would require policing what the Chinese people could see online.

Nobody believed that this would work. In 2000, President Bill Clinton told an audience at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies that it was impossible. “In the knowledge economy,” he said, “economic innovation and political empowerment, whether anyone likes it or not, will inevitably go hand in hand.” The transcript records the audience reactions:

“Now, there’s no question China has been trying to crack down on the internet.” ( Chuckles. ) “Good luck!” ( Laughter. ) “That’s sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.” ( Laughter. )

While we were still rhapsodizing about the many ways in which the internet could spread democracy, the Chinese were designing what’s become known as the Great Firewall of China . That method of internet management—which is in effect conversation management—contains many different elements, beginning with an elaborate system of blocks and filters that prevent internet users from seeing particular words and phrases. Among them, famously, are Tiananmen , 1989 , and June 4 , but there are many more. In 2000, a directive called “ Measures for Managing Internet Information Services ” prohibited an extraordinarily wide range of content, including anything that “endangers national security, divulges state secrets, subverts the government, undermines national unification,” and “is detrimental to the honor and interests of the state”—anything, in other words, that the authorities didn’t like.

From the May 2022 issue: There is no liberal world order

The Chinese regime also combined online tracking methods with other tools of repression, including security cameras, police inspections, and arrests. In Xinjiang province, where China’s Uyghur Muslim population is concentrated, the state has forced people to install “nanny apps” that can scan phones for forbidden phrases and pick up unusual behavior: Anyone who downloads a virtual private network, anyone who stays offline altogether, and anyone whose home uses too much electricity (which could be evidence of a secret houseguest) can arouse suspicion. Voice-recognition technology and even DNA swabs are used to monitor where Uyghurs walk, drive, and shop. With every new breakthrough, with every AI advance, China has gotten closer to its holy grail: a system that can eliminate not just the words democracy and Tiananmen from the internet, but the thinking that leads people to become democracy activists or attend public protests in real life.

But along the way, the Chinese regime discovered a deeper problem: Surveillance, regardless of sophistication, provides no guarantees. During the coronavirus pandemic, the Chinese government imposed controls more severe than most of its citizens had ever experienced. Millions of people were locked into their homes. Untold numbers entered government quarantine camps. Yet the lockdown also produced the angriest and most energetic Chinese protests in many years. Young people who had never attended a demonstration and had no memory of Tiananmen gathered in the streets of Beijing and Shanghai in the autumn of 2022 to talk about freedom. In Xinjiang, where lockdowns were the longest and harshest, and where repression is most complete, people came out in public and sang the Chinese national anthem , emphasizing one line: “Rise up, those who refuse to be slaves!” Clips of their performance circulated widely, presumably because the spyware and filters didn’t identify the national anthem as dissent.

Even in a state where surveillance is almost total, the experience of tyranny and injustice can radicalize people. Anger at arbitrary power will always lead someone to start thinking about another system, a better way to run society. The strength of these demonstrations, and the broader anger they reflected, was enough to spook the Chinese Communist Party into lifting the quarantine and allowing the virus to spread. The deaths that resulted were preferable to public anger and protest.

Like the demonstrations against President Vladimir Putin in Russia that began in 2011, the 2014 street protests in Venezuela , and the 2019 Hong Kong protests , the 2022 protests in China help explain something else: why autocratic regimes have slowly turned their repressive mechanisms outward, into the democratic world. If people are naturally drawn to the image of human rights, to the language of democracy, to the dream of freedom, then those concepts have to be poisoned. That requires more than surveillance, more than close observation of the population, more than a political system that defends against liberal ideas. It also requires an offensive plan: a narrative that damages both the idea of democracy everywhere in the world and the tools to deliver it.

On February 24, 2022, as Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, fantastical tales of biological warfare began surging across the internet. Russian officials solemnly declared that secret U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine had been conducting experiments with bat viruses and claimed that U.S. officials had confessed to manipulating “dangerous pathogens.” The story was unfounded, not to say ridiculous, and was repeatedly debunked .

Nevertheless, an American Twitter account with links to the QAnon conspiracy network—@WarClandestine—began tweeting about the nonexistent biolabs , racking up thousands of retweets and views. The hashtag #biolab started trending on Twitter and reached more than 9 million views. Even after the account—later revealed to belong to a veteran of the Army National Guard—was suspended, people continued to post screenshots. A version of the story appeared on the Infowars website created by Alex Jones, best known for promoting conspiracy theories about the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and harassing families of the victims. Tucker Carlson, then still hosting a show on Fox News, played clips of a Russian general and a Chinese spokesperson repeating the biolab fantasy and demanded that the Biden administration “stop lying and [tell] us what’s going on here.”

Chinese state media also leaned hard into the story. A foreign-ministry spokesperson declared that the U.S. controlled 26 biolabs in Ukraine: “Russia has found during its military operations that the U.S. uses these facilities to conduct bio-military plans.” Xinhua, a Chinese state news agency, ran multiple headlines: “U.S.-Led Biolabs Pose Potential Threats to People of Ukraine and Beyond,” “Russia Urges U.S. to Explain Purpose of Biological Labs in Ukraine,” and so on. U.S. diplomats publicly refuted these fabrications. Nevertheless, the Chinese continued to spread them. So did the scores of Asian, African, and Latin American media outlets that have content-sharing agreements with Chinese state media. So did Telesur, the Venezuelan network; Press TV, the Iranian network; and Russia Today, in Spanish and Arabic, as well as on many Russia Today–linked websites around the world.

This joint propaganda effort worked. Globally, it helped undermine the U.S.-led effort to create solidarity with Ukraine and enforce sanctions against Russia. Inside the U.S., it helped undermine the Biden administration’s effort to consolidate American public opinion in support of providing aid to Ukraine. According to one poll, a quarter of Americans believed the biolabs conspiracy theory to be true. After the invasion, Russia and China—with, again, help from Venezuela, Iran, and far-right Europeans and Americans—successfully created an international echo chamber. Anyone inside this echo chamber heard the biolab conspiracy theory many times, from different sources, each one repeating and building on the others to create the impression of veracity. They also heard false descriptions of Ukrainians as Nazis, along with claims that Ukraine is a puppet state run by the CIA, and that NATO started the war.

Outside this echo chamber, few even know it exists. At a dinner in Munich in February 2023, I found myself seated across from a European diplomat who had just returned from Africa. He had met with some students there and had been shocked to discover how little they knew about the war in Ukraine, and how much of what they did know was wrong. They had repeated the Russian claims that the Ukrainians are Nazis, blamed NATO for the invasion, and generally used the same kind of language that can be heard every night on the Russian evening news. The diplomat was mystified. He grasped for explanations: Maybe the legacy of colonialism explained the spread of these conspiracy theories, or Western neglect of the global South, or the long shadow of the Cold War.

But the story of how Africans—as well as Latin Americans, Asians, and indeed many Europeans and Americans—have come to spout Russian propaganda about Ukraine is not primarily a story of European colonial history, Western policy, or the Cold War. Rather, it involves China’s systematic efforts to buy or influence both popular and elite audiences around the world; carefully curated Russian propaganda campaigns, some open, some clandestine, some amplified by the American and European far right; and other autocracies using their own networks to promote the same language.

To be fair to the European diplomat, the convergence of what had been disparate authoritarian influence projects is still new. Russian information-laundering and Chinese propaganda have long had different goals. Chinese propagandists mostly stayed out of the democratic world’s politics, except to promote Chinese achievements, Chinese economic success, and Chinese narratives about Tibet or Hong Kong. Their efforts in Africa and Latin America tended to feature dull, unwatchable announcements of investments and state visits. Russian efforts were more aggressive—sometimes in conjunction with the far right or the far left in the democratic world—and aimed to distort debates and elections in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and elsewhere. Still, they often seemed unfocused, as if computer hackers were throwing spaghetti at the wall, just to see which crazy story might stick. Venezuela and Iran were fringe players, not real sources of influence.

Slowly, though, these autocracies have come together, not around particular stories, but around a set of ideas, or rather in opposition to a set of ideas. Transparency, for example. And rule of law. And democracy. They have heard language about those ideas—which originate in the democratic world—coming from their own dissidents, and have concluded that they are dangerous to their regimes. Their own rhetoric makes this clear. In 2013, as Chinese President Xi Jinping was beginning his rise to power, an internal Chinese memo, known enigmatically as Document No. 9 —or, more formally, as the Communiqué on the Current State of the Ideological Sphere—listed “seven perils” faced by the Chinese Communist Party. “Western constitutional democracy” led the list, followed by “universal human rights,” “media independence,” “judicial independence,” and “civic participation.” The document concluded that “Western forces hostile to China,” together with dissidents inside the country, “are still constantly infiltrating the ideological sphere,” and instructed party leaders to push back against these ideas wherever they found them, especially online, inside China and around the world.

From the December 2021 issue: The bad guys are winning

Since at least 2004, the Russians have been focused on the same convergence of internal and external ideological threats. That was the year Ukrainians staged a popular revolt, known as the Orange Revolution —the name came from the orange T-shirts and flags of the protesters—against a clumsy attempt to steal a presidential election. The angry intervention of the Ukrainian public into what was meant to have been a carefully orchestrated victory for Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian candidate directly supported by Putin himself, profoundly unnerved the Russians. This was especially the case because a similarly unruly protest movement in Georgia had brought a pro-European politician, Mikheil Saakashvili, to power the year before.

Shaken by those two events, Putin put the bogeyman of “color revolution” at the center of Russian propaganda. Civic protest movements are now always described as color revolutions in Russia, and as the work of outsiders. Popular opposition leaders are always said to be puppets of foreign governments. Anti-corruption and prodemocracy slogans are linked to chaos and instability wherever they are used, whether in Tunisia, Syria, or the United States. In 2011, a year of mass protest against a manipulated election in Russia itself, Putin bitterly described the Orange Revolution as a “well-tested scheme for destabilizing society,” and he accused the Russian opposition of “transferring this practice to Russian soil,” where he feared a similar popular uprising intended to remove him from power.

Putin was wrong—no “scheme” had been “transferred.” Public discontent in Russia simply had no way to express itself except through street protest, and Putin’s opponents had no legal means to remove him from power. Like so many other people around the world, they talked about democracy and human rights because they recognized that these concepts represented their best hope for achieving justice, and freedom from autocratic power. The protests that led to democratic transitions in the Philippines, Taiwan, South Africa, South Korea, and Mexico; the “people’s revolutions” that washed across Central and Eastern Europe in 1989; the Arab Spring in 2011; and, yes, the color revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia—all were begun by those who had suffered injustice at the hands of the state, and who seized on the language of freedom and democracy to propose an alternative.

This is the core problem for autocracies: The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and others all know that the language of transparency, accountability, justice, and democracy appeals to some of their citizens, as it does to many people who live in dictatorships. Even the most sophisticated surveillance can’t wholly suppress it. The very ideas of democracy and freedom must be discredited—especially in the places where they have historically flourished.

In the 20th century, Communist Party propaganda was overwhelming and inspiring, or at least it was meant to be. The future it portrayed was shiny and idealized, a vision of clean factories, abundant produce, and healthy tractor drivers with large muscles and square jaws. The architecture was designed to overpower, the music to intimidate, the public spectacles to awe. In theory, citizens were meant to feel enthusiasm, inspiration, and hope. In practice, this kind of propaganda backfired, because people could compare what they saw on posters and in movies with a far more impoverished reality.

A few autocracies still portray themselves to their citizens as model states. The North Koreans continue to hold colossal military parades with elaborate gymnastics displays and huge portraits of their leader, very much in the Stalinist style. But most modern authoritarians have learned from the mistakes of the previous century. Freedom House, a nonprofit that advocates for democracy around the world, lists 56 countries as “not free.” Most don’t offer their fellow citizens a vision of utopia, and don’t inspire them to build a better world. Instead, they teach people to be cynical and passive, apathetic and afraid, because there is no better world to build. Their goal is to persuade their own people to stay out of politics, and above all to convince them that there is no democratic alternative: Our state may be corrupt, but everyone else is corrupt too. You may not like our leader, but the others are worse. You may not like our society, but at least we are strong. The democratic world is weak, degenerate, divided, dying.

Instead of portraying China as the perfect society, modern Chinese propaganda seeks to inculcate nationalist pride, based on China’s real experience of economic development, and to promote a Beijing model of progress through dictatorship and “order” that’s superior to the chaos and violence of democracy . Chinese media mocked the laxity of the American response to the pandemic with an animated film that ended with the Statue of Liberty on an intravenous drip . China’s Global Times wrote that Chinese people were mocking the January 6 insurrection as “karma” and “retribution”: “Seeing such scenarios,” the publication’s then-editor wrote in an op-ed , “many Chinese will naturally recall that Nancy Pelosi once praised the violence of Hong Kong protesters as ‘a beautiful sight to behold.’ ” (Pelosi, of course, had praised peaceful demonstrators , not violence.) The Chinese are told that these forces of chaos are out to disrupt their own lives, and they are encouraged to fight against them in a “people’s war” against foreign influence.

Read: I watched Russian TV so you don’t have to

Russians, although they hear very little about what happens in their own towns and cities, receive similar messages about the decline of places they don’t know and have mostly never visited: America, France, Britain, Sweden, Poland—countries apparently filled with degeneracy, hypocrisy, and Russophobia . A study of Russian television from 2014 to 2017 found that negative news about Europe appeared on the three main Russian channels, all state-controlled, an average of 18 times a day. Some of the stories were obviously invented ( European governments are stealing children from straight families and giving them to gay couples!  ), but even the true ones were cherry-picked to support the idea that daily life in Europe is frightening and chaotic, that Europeans are weak and immoral, and that the European Union is aggressive and interventionist. If anything, the portrayal of America has been more dramatic. Putin himself has displayed a surprisingly intimate acquaintance with American culture wars about transgender rights, and mockingly sympathized with people who he says have been “canceled.”

The goal is clear: to prevent Russians from identifying with Europe the way they once did, and to build alliances between Putin’s domestic audience and his supporters in Europe and North America, where some naive conservatives (or perhaps cynical, well-paid conservatives) seek to convince their followers that Russia is a “white Christian state.” In reality, Russia has very low church attendance, legal abortion, and a multiethnic population containing millions of Muslim citizens and migrants. The autonomous region of Chechnya, which is part of the Russian Federation, is governed, in practice, by elements of Sharia law . The Russian state harasses and represses many forms of religion outside the state-sanctioned Russian Orthodox Church, including evangelical Protestantism. Nevertheless, among the slogans shouted by white nationalists marching in the infamous Charlottesville, Virginia, demonstration in 2017 was “ Russia is our friend .” Putin sends periodic messages to this constituency: “I uphold the traditional approach that a woman is a woman, a man is a man, a mother is a mother, and a father is a father,” he told a press conference in December 2021, almost as if this “traditional approach” would be justification for invading Ukraine.

Michael Carpenter: Russia is co-opting angry young men

This manipulation of the strong emotions around gay rights and feminism has been widely copied throughout the autocratic world, often as a means of defending against criticism of the regime. Yoweri Museveni, who has been the president of Uganda for more than three decades, passed an “anti-homosexuality” bill in 2014, instituting a life sentence for gay people who have sex or marry and criminalizing the “promotion” of a homosexual lifestyle. By picking a fight over gay rights, he was able to consolidate his supporters at home while neutralizing foreign criticisms of his regime, describing them as “social imperialism”: “Outsiders cannot dictate to us; this is our country,” he declared. Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary, also ducks discussion of Hungarian corruption by hiding behind a culture war. He pretends that ongoing tension between his government and the U.S. ambassador to Hungary concerns religion and gender: During Tucker Carlson’s recent visit to Hungary , Carlson declared that the Biden administration “hates” Hungary because “it’s a Christian country,” when in fact it is Orbán’s deep financial and political ties to Russia and China that have badly damaged American-Hungarian relations.

The new authoritarians also have a different attitude toward reality. When Soviet leaders lied, they tried to make their falsehoods seem real. They became angry when anyone accused them of lying. But in Putin’s Russia, Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, and Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela, politicians and television personalities play a different game. They lie constantly, blatantly, obviously. But they don’t bother to offer counterarguments when their lies are exposed. After Russian-controlled forces shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine in 2014, the Russian government reacted not only with a denial, but with multiple stories, plausible and implausible: It blamed the Ukrainian army, and the CIA, and a nefarious plot in which dead people were placed on a plane in order to fake a crash and discredit Russia. This tactic—the so-called fire hose of falsehoods—ultimately produces not outrage but nihilism. Given so many explanations, how can you know what actually happened? What if you just can’t know? If you don’t know what happened, you’re not likely to join a great movement for democracy, or to listen when anyone speaks about positive political change. Instead, you are not going to participate in any politics at all.

Anne Applebaum: The American face of authoritarian propaganda

Fear, cynicism, nihilism, and apathy, coupled with disgust and disdain for democracy: This is the formula that modern autocrats, with some variations, sell to their citizens and to foreigners, all with the aim of destroying what they call “American hegemony.” In service of this idea, Russia, a colonial power, paints itself as a leader of the non-Western civilizations in what the analyst Ivan Klyszcz calls their struggle for “ messianic multipolarity ,” a battle against “the West’s imposition of ‘decadent,’ ‘globalist’ values.” In September 2022, when Putin held a ceremony to mark his illegal annexation of southern and eastern Ukraine, he claimed that he was protecting Russia from the “satanic” West and “perversions that lead to degradation and extinction.” He did not speak of the people he had tortured or the Ukrainian children he had kidnapped. A year later, Putin told a gathering in Sochi: “We are now fighting not just for Russia’s freedom but for the freedom of the whole world. We can frankly say that the dictatorship of one hegemon is becoming decrepit. We see it, and everyone sees it now. It is getting out of control and is simply dangerous for others.” The language of “hegemony” and “multipolarity” is now part of Chinese, Iranian, and Venezuelan narratives too.

In truth, Russia is a genuine danger to its neighbors, which is why most of them are re-arming and preparing to fight against a new colonial occupation. The irony is even greater in African countries like Mali, where Russian mercenaries from the Wagner Group have helped keep a military dictatorship in power, reportedly by conducting summary executions, committing atrocities against civilians, and looting property. In Mali, as in Ukraine, the battle against Western decadence means that white Russian thugs brutally terrorize people with impunity.

And yet Mali Actu, a pro-Russian website in Mali, solemnly explains to its readers that “in a world that is more and more multipolar, Africa will play a more and more important role.” Mali Actu is not alone; it’s just a small part of a propaganda network, created by the autocracies, that is now visible all over the world.

The infrastructure of antidemocratic propaganda takes many forms, some overt and some covert, some aimed at the public and some aimed at elites. The United Front, the fulcrum of the Chinese Communist Party’s most important influence strategy, seeks to shape perceptions of China around the world by creating educational and exchange programs, controlling Chinese exile communities, building Chinese chambers of commerce, and courting anyone willing to be a de facto spokesperson for China. The Confucius Institutes are probably the best-known elite Chinese influence project. Originally perceived as benign cultural bodies not unlike the Goethe-Institut, run by the German government, and the Alliance Française, they were welcomed by many universities because they provided cheap or even free Chinese-language classes and professors. Over time, the institutes aroused suspicion, policing Chinese students at American universities by restricting open discussions of Tibet and Taiwan, and in some cases altering the teaching of Chinese history and politics to suit Chinese narratives. They have now been mostly disbanded in the United States. But they are flourishing in many other places, including Africa, where there are several dozen.

These subtler operations are augmented by China’s enormous investment in international media. The Xinhua wire service, the China Global Television Network, China Radio International, and China Daily all receive significant state financing , have social-media accounts in multiple languages and regions, and sell, share, or otherwise promote their content. These Chinese outlets cover the entire world, and provide feeds of slickly produced news and video segments to their partners at low prices, sometimes for free, which makes them more than competitive with reputable Western newswires, such as Reuters and the Associated Press. Scores of news organizations in Europe and Asia use Chinese content, as do many in Africa, from Kenya and Nigeria to Egypt and Zambia. Chinese media maintain a regional hub in Nairobi, where they hire prominent local journalists and produce content in African languages. Building this media empire has been estimated to cost billions of dollars a year.

For the moment, viewership of many of these Chinese-owned channels remains low; their output can be predictable, even boring. But more popular forms of Chinese television are gradually becoming available. StarTimes, a satellite-television company that is tightly linked to the Chinese government, launched in Africa in 2008 and now has 13 million television subscribers in more than 30 African countries. StarTimes is cheap for consumers, costing just a few dollars a month. It prioritizes Chinese content—not just news but kung-fu movies, soap operas, and Chinese Super League football, with the dialogue and commentary all translated into Hausa, Swahili, and other African languages. In this way, even entertainment can carry China-positive messages.

This subtler shift is the real goal: to have the Chinese point of view appear in the local press, with local bylines. Chinese propagandists call this strategy “borrowing boats to reach the sea,” and it can be achieved in many ways. Unlike Western governments, China doesn’t think of propaganda, censorship, diplomacy, and media as separate activities. Legal pressure on news organizations, online trolling operations aimed at journalists, cyberattacks—all of these can be deployed as part of a single operation designed to promulgate or undermine a given narrative. China also offers training courses or stipends for local journalists across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, sometimes providing phones and laptops in exchange for what the regime hopes will be favorable coverage.

The Chinese also cooperate, both openly and discreetly, with the media outlets of other autocracies. Telesur, a Hugo Chávez project launched in 2005, is headquartered in Caracas and led by Venezuela in partnership with Cuba and Nicaragua. Selectively culled bits of foreign news make it onto Telesur from its partners, including headlines that presumably have limited appeal in Latin America: “US-Armenia Joint Military Drills Undermine Regional Stability,” for example, and “Russia Has No Expansionist Plans in Europe.” Both of these stories, from 2023, were lifted directly from the Xinhua wire.

Iran, for its part, offers HispanTV, the Spanish-language version of Press TV, the Iranian international service. HispanTV leans heavily into open anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial: One March 2020 headline declared that the “New Coronavirus Is the Result of a Zionist Plot.” Spain banned HispanTV and Google blocked it from its YouTube and Gmail accounts, but the service is easily available across Latin America, just as Al-Alam, the Arabic version of Press TV, is widely available in the Middle East. After the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, an international group dedicated to fighting disinformation, found that Iran was creating additional hacking groups to target digital, physical, and electoral infrastructure in Israel (where it went after electoral rolls) and the United States. In the future, these hacking operations may be combined with propaganda campaigns.

RT—Russia Today—has a bigger profile than either Telesur or Press TV; in Africa, it has close links to China . Following the invasion of Ukraine, some satellite networks dropped RT. But China’s StarTimes satellite picked it up, and RT immediately began building offices and relationships across Africa, especially in countries run by autocrats who echo its anti-Western, anti-LGBTQ messages, and who appreciate its lack of critical or investigative reporting.

RT—like Press TV, Telesur, and even CGTN—also functions as a production facility, a source of video clips that can be spread online, repurposed and reused in targeted campaigns. Americans got a firsthand view of how the clandestine versions work in 2016, when the Internet Research Agency—now disbanded but based then in St. Petersburg and led by the late Yevgeny Prigozhin, more famous as the mercenary boss of the Wagner Group who staged an aborted march on Moscow—pumped out fake material via fake Facebook and Twitter accounts, designed to confuse American voters. Examples ranged from virulently anti-immigration accounts aimed at benefiting Donald Trump to fake Black Lives Matter accounts that attacked Hillary Clinton from the left.

Since 2016, these tactics have been applied across the globe. The Xinhua and RT offices in Africa and around the world—along with Telesur and HispanTV—create stories, slogans, memes, and narratives promoting the worldview of the autocracies; these, in turn, are repeated and amplified in many countries, translated into many languages, and reshaped for many local markets. The material produced is mostly unsophisticated, but it is inexpensive and can change quickly, according to the needs of the moment. After the October 7 Hamas attack, for example, official and unofficial Russian sources immediately began putting out both anti-Israel and anti-Semitic material, and messages calling American and Western support for Ukraine hypocritical in light of the Gaza conflict. The data-analytics company Alto Intelligence found posts smearing both Ukrainians and Israelis as “Nazis,” part of what appears to be a campaign to bring far-left and far-right communities closer together in opposition to U.S.-allied democracies. Anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas messages also increased inside China, as well as on Chinese-linked accounts around the world. Joshua Eisenman, a professor at Notre Dame and the author of a new book on China’s relations with Africa, told me that during a recent trip to Beijing, he was astonished by how quickly the previous Chinese line on the Middle East—“China-Israel relations are stronger than ever”—changed. “It was a complete 180 in just a few days.”

Not that everyone hearing these messages will necessarily know where they come from, because they often appear in forums that conceal their origins. Most people probably did not hear the American-biolabs conspiracy theory on a television news program, for example. Instead, they heard it thanks to organizations like Pressenza and Yala News. Pressenza, a website founded in Milan and relocated to Ecuador in 2014, publishes in eight languages, describes itself as “an international news agency dedicated to news about peace and nonviolence,” and featured an article on biolabs in Ukraine. According to the U.S. State Department, Pressenza is part of a project, run by three Russian companies, that planned to create articles in Moscow and then translate them for these “native” sites, following Chinese practice, to make them seem “local.” Pressenza denied the allegations; one of its journalists, Oleg Yasinsky, who says he is of Ukrainian origin, responded by denouncing America’s “planetary propaganda machine” and quoting Che Guevara.

Like Pressenza, Yala News also markets itself as independent. This U.K.-registered, Arabic-language news operation provides slickly produced videos, including celebrity interviews, to its 3 million followers every day. In March 2022, as the biolabs allegation was being promoted by other outlets, the site posted a video that echoed one of the most sensational versions: Ukraine was planning to use migratory birds as a delivery vehicle for bioweapons, infecting the birds and then sending them into Russia to spread disease.

Yala did not invent this ludicrous tale: Russian state media, such as the Sputnik news agency, published it in Russian first, followed by Sputnik’s Arabic website and RT Arabic. Russia’s United Nations ambassador addressed the UN Security Council about the biobird scandal, warning of the “real biological danger to the people in European countries, which can result from an uncontrolled spread of bioagents from Ukraine.” In an April 2022 interview in Kyiv , Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told The Atlantic ’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, and me that the biobirds story reminded him of a Monty Python sketch. If Yala were truly an “independent” publication, as it describes itself, it would have fact-checked this story, which, like the other biolab conspiracies, was widely debunked.

Read: Anne Applebaum and Jeffrey Goldberg interview Volodymyr Zelensky

But Yala News is not a news organization at all. As the BBC has reported , it’s an information laundromat, a site that exists to spread and propagate material produced by RT and other Russian facilities. Yala News has posted claims that the Russian massacre of Ukrainian civilians at Bucha was staged, that Zelensky appeared drunk on television, and that Ukrainian soldiers were running away from the front lines. Although the company is registered to an address in London—a mail drop shared by 65,000 other companies—its “news team” is based in a suburb of Damascus. The company’s CEO is a Syrian businessman based in Dubai who, when asked by the BBC, insisted on the organization’s “impartiality.”

Another strange actor in this field is RRN—the company’s name is an acronym, originally for Reliable Russian News, later changed to Reliable Recent News. Created in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, RRN, part of a bigger information-laundering operation known to investigators as Doppelganger, is primarily a “typosquatter”: a company that registers domain names that look similar to real media domain names—Reuters.cfd instead of Reuters.com, for example—as well as websites with names that sound authentic (like Notre Pays , or “Our Country”) but are created to deceive. RRN is prolific. During its short existence, it has created more than 300 sites targeting Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. Links to these sites are then used to make Facebook, Twitter, and other social-media posts appear credible. When someone is quickly scrolling, they might not notice that a headline links to a fake Spiegel.pro website, say, rather than to the authentic German-magazine website Spiegel.de.

Doppelganger’s efforts, run by a clutch of companies in Russia, have varied widely, and seem to have included fake NATO press releases , with the same fonts and design as the genuine releases, “revealing” that NATO leaders were planning to deploy Ukrainian paramilitary troops to France to quell pension protests. In November, operatives who the French government believes are linked to Doppelganger spray-painted Stars of David around Paris and posted them on social media, hoping to amplify French divisions over the Gaza war. Russian operatives built a social-media network to spread the false stories and the photographs of anti-Semitic graffiti. The goal is to make sure that the people encountering this content have little clue as to who created it, or where or why.

Russia and China are not the only parties in this space. Both real and automated social-media accounts geolocated to Venezuela played a small role in the 2018 Mexican presidential election, for example, boosting the campaign of Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Notable were two kinds of messages: those that promoted images of Mexican violence and chaos—images that might make people feel they need an autocrat to restore order—and those that were angrily opposed to NAFTA and the U.S. more broadly. This tiny social-media investment must have been deemed successful. After he became president, López Obrador engaged in the same kinds of smear campaigns as unelected politicians in autocracies, empowered and corrupted the military, undermined the independence of the judiciary, and otherwise degraded Mexican democracy. In office, he has promoted Russian narratives about the war in Ukraine along with Chinese narratives about the repression of the Uyghurs. Mexico’s relationship with the United States has become more difficult—and that, surely, was part of the point.

None of these efforts would succeed without local actors who share the autocratic world’s goals. Russia, China, and Venezuela did not invent anti-Americanism in Mexico. They did not invent Catalan separatism, to name another movement that both Russian and Venezuelan social-media accounts supported, or the German far right, or France’s Marine Le Pen. All they do is amplify existing people and movements—whether anti-LGBTQ, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-Ukrainian, or, above all, antidemocratic. Sometimes they provide a social-media echo. Sometimes they employ reporters and spokespeople. Sometimes they use the media networks they built for this purpose. And sometimes, they just rely on Americans to do it for them.

Here is a difficult truth: A part of the American political spectrum is not merely a passive recipient of the combined authoritarian narratives that come from Russia, China, and their ilk, but an active participant in creating and spreading them. Like the leaders of those countries, the American MAGA right also wants Americans to believe that their democracy is degenerate, their elections illegitimate, their civilization dying. The MAGA movement’s leaders also have an interest in pumping nihilism and cynicism into the brains of their fellow citizens, and in convincing them that nothing they see is true. Their goals are so similar that it is hard to distinguish between the online American alt-right and its foreign amplifiers, who have multiplied since the days when this was solely a Russian project. Tucker Carlson has even promoted the fear of a color revolution in America, lifting the phrase directly from Russian propaganda. The Chinese have joined in too: Earlier this year, a group of Chinese accounts that had previously been posting pro-Chinese material in Mandarin began posting in English, using MAGA symbols and attacking President Joe Biden. They showed fake images of Biden in prison garb, made fun of his age, and called him a satanist pedophile. One Chinese-linked account reposted an RT video repeating the lie that Biden had sent a neo-Nazi criminal to fight in Ukraine. Alex Jones’s reposting of the lie on social media reached some 400,000 people.

Given that both Russian and Chinese actors now blend in so easily with the MAGA messaging operation, it is hardly surprising that the American government has difficulty responding to the newly interlinked autocratic propaganda network. American-government-backed foreign broadcasters—Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Farda, Radio Martí—still exist, but neither their mandate nor their funding has changed much in recent years. The intelligence agencies continue to observe what happens—there is a Foreign Malign Influence Center under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—but they are by definition not part of the public debate. The only relatively new government institution fighting antidemocratic propaganda is the Global Engagement Center, but it is in the State Department, and its mandate is to focus on authoritarian propaganda outside the United States. Established in 2016, it replaced the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, which sought to foil the Islamic State and other jihadist groups that were recruiting young people online. In 2014–15, as the scale of Russian disinformation campaigns in Europe were becoming better known, Congress designated the GEC to deal with Russian as well as Chinese, Iranian, and other propaganda campaigns around the world—although not, again, inside the United States. Throughout the Trump administration, the organization languished under the direction of a president who himself repeated Russian propaganda lines during the 2016 campaign—“Obama founded ISIS,” for example, and “Hillary will start World War III.”

Today the GEC is run by James Rubin, a former State Department spokesperson from the Bill Clinton era. It employs 125 people and has a budget of $61 million—hardly a match for the many billions that China and Russia spend building their media networks. But it is beginning to find its footing, handing out small grants to international groups that track and reveal foreign disinformation operations. It’s now specializing in identifying covert propaganda campaigns before they begin, with the help of U.S. intelligence agencies. Rubin calls this “prebunking” and describes it as a kind of “inoculation”: “If journalists and governments know that this is coming, then when it comes, they will recognize it.”

The revelation in November of the Russian ties to seemingly native left-wing websites in Latin America, including Pressenza, was one such effort. More recently, the GEC published a report on the African Initiative, an agency that had planned a huge campaign to discredit Western health philanthropy, starting with rumors about a new virus supposedly spread by mosquitoes. The idea was to smear Western doctors, clinics, and philanthropists, and to build a climate of distrust around Western medicine, much as Russian efforts helped build a climate of distrust around Western vaccines during the pandemic. The GEC identified the Russian leader of the project, Artem Sergeyevich Kureyev; noted that several employees had come to the African Initiative from the Wagner Group; and located two of its offices, in Mali and Burkina Faso. Rubin and others subsequently spent a lot of time talking with regional reporters about the African Initiative’s plans so that “people will recognize them” when they launch. Dozens of articles in English, Spanish, and other languages have described these operations, as have thousands of social-media posts. Eventually, the goal is to create an alliance of other nations who also want to share information about planned and ongoing information operations so that everyone knows they are coming.

It’s a great idea, but no equivalent agency functions inside the United States. Some social-media companies have made purely voluntary efforts to remove foreign-government propaganda, sometimes after being tipped off by the U.S. government but mostly on their own. In the U.S., Facebook created a security-policy unit that still regularly announces when it discovers “coordinated inauthentic behavior”—meaning accounts that are automated and/or evidently part of a planned operation from (usually) Russian, Iranian, or Chinese sources—and then takes down the posts. It is difficult for outsiders to monitor this activity, because the company restricts access to its data, and even controls the tools that can be used to examine the data. In March, Meta announced that by August, it would phase out CrowdTangle, a tool used to analyze Facebook data, and replace it with a tool that analysts fear will be harder to use.

X (formerly Twitter) also used to look for foreign propaganda activity, but under the ownership of Elon Musk, that voluntary effort has been badly weakened. The new blue-check “verification” process allows users—including anonymous, pro-Russian users—to pay to have their posts amplified; the old “safety team” no longer exists. The result: After the collapse of the Kakhovka dam in Ukraine last summer, a major environmental and humanitarian disaster caused by Russian bombing over many weeks, the false narrative that Ukraine had destroyed it appeared hundreds of thousands of times on X. After the ISIS terrorist attack on a concert hall in Moscow in March, David Sacks, the former PayPal entrepreneur and a close associate of Musk’s, posted on X, with no evidence, that “if the Ukrainian government was behind the terrorist attack, as looks increasingly likely, the U.S. must renounce it.” His completely unfounded post was viewed 2.5 million times. This spring, some Republican congressional leaders finally began speaking about the Russian propaganda that had “infected” their base and their colleagues. Most of that “Russian propaganda” is not coming from inside Russia.

Over the past several years, universities and think tanks have used their own data analytics to try to identify inauthentic networks on the largest websites—but they are also now meeting resistance from MAGA-affiliated Republican politicians. In 2020, teams at Stanford University and the University of Washington, together with the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council and Graphika, a company that specializes in social-media analytics, decided to join forces to monitor false election information. Renée DiResta, one of the leaders of what became the Election Integrity Partnership, told me that an early concern was Russian and Chinese campaigns. DiResta assumed that these foreign interventions wouldn’t matter much, but she thought it would be useful and academically interesting to understand their scope. “Lo and behold,” she said, “the entity that becomes the most persistent in alleging that American elections are fraudulent, fake, rigged, and everything else turns out to be the president of the United States.” The Election Integrity Partnership tracked election rumors coming from across the political spectrum, but observed that the MAGA right was far more prolific and significant than any other source.

The Election Integrity Partnership was not organized or directed by the U.S. government. It occasionally reached out to platforms, but had no power to compel them to act, DiResta told me. Nevertheless, the project became the focus of a complicated MAGA-world conspiracy theory about alleged government suppression of free speech, and it led to legal and personal attacks on many of those involved. The project has been smeared and mischaracterized by some of the journalists attached to Musk’s “Twitter Files” investigation , and by Representative Jim Jordan’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. A series of lawsuits alleging that the U.S. government sought to suppress conservative speech, including one launched by Missouri and Louisiana that has now reached the Supreme Court, has effectively tried to silence organizations that investigate both domestic and foreign disinformation campaigns, overt and covert. To state baldly what is happening: The Republican Party’s right wing is actively harassing legitimate, good-faith efforts to track the production and dissemination of autocratic disinformation here in the United States.

Over time, the attack on the Election Integrity Partnership has itself acquired some of the characteristics of a classic information-laundering operation. The most notorious example concerns a reference, on page 183 of the project’s final post-2020-election report, to the 21,897,364 tweets gathered after the election, in an effort to catalog the most viral false rumors. That simple statement of the size of the database has been twisted into another false and yet constantly repeated rumor: the spurious claim that the Department of Homeland Security somehow conspired with the Election Integrity Partnership to censor 22 million tweets. This never happened, and yet DiResta said that “this nonsense about the 22 million tweets pops up constantly as evidence of the sheer volume of our duplicity”; it has even appeared in the Congressional Record .

The same tactics have been used against the Global Engagement Center. In 2021, the GEC gave a grant to another organization, the Global Disinformation Index, which helped develop a technical tool to track online campaigns in East Asia and Europe. For a completely unrelated, separately funded project, the Global Disinformation Index also conducted a study, aimed at advertisers, that identified websites at risk for publishing false stories. Two conservative organizations, finding their names on that latter list, sued the GEC, although it had nothing to do with creating the list. Musk posted, again without any evidence, “The worst offender in US government censorship & media manipulation is an obscure agency called GEC,” and that organization also became caught up in the endless whirlwind of conspiracy and congressional investigations.

As it happens, I was caught up in it too, because I was listed online as an “adviser” to the Global Disinformation Index, even though I had not spoken with anyone at the organization for several years and was not aware that it even had a website. A predictable, and wearisome, pattern followed: false accusations (no, I was not advising anyone to censor anyone) and the obligatory death threats. Of course, my experience was mild compared with the experience of DiResta, who has been accused of being, as she put it, “the head of a censorship-industrial complex that does not exist.”

These stories are symptomatic of a larger problem: Because the American extreme right and (more rarely) the extreme left benefit from the spread of antidemocratic narratives, they have an interest in silencing or hobbling any group that wants to stop, or even identify, foreign campaigns. Senator Mark Warner, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told me that “we are actually less prepared today than we were four years ago” for foreign attempts to influence the 2024 election. This is not only because authoritarian propaganda campaigns have become more sophisticated as they begin to use AI, or because “you obviously have a political environment here where there’s a lot more Americans who are more distrustful of all institutions.” It’s also because the lawsuits, threats, and smear tactics have chilled government, academic, and tech-company responses.

One could call this a secret authoritarian “plot” to preserve the ability to spread antidemocratic conspiracy theories, except that it’s not a secret. It’s all visible, right on the surface. Russia, China, and sometimes other state actors—Venezuela, Iran, Hungary—work with Americans to discredit democracy, to undermine the credibility of democratic leaders, to mock the rule of law. They do so with the goal of electing Trump, whose second presidency would damage the image of democracy around the world, as well as the stability of democracy in America, even further.

This article appears in the June 2024 print edition with the headline “Democracy Is Losing the Propaganda War.” Anne Applebaum’s new book, Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World , will be published in July.

​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Trump Knows Dominance Wins. Someone Tell Democrats.

By M. Steven Fish

Mr. Fish is the author of “Comeback: Routing Trumpism, Reclaiming the Nation, and Restoring Democracy’s Edge.”

Donald Trump once called Bill Barr, his former attorney general, “Weak, Slow Moving, Lethargic, Gutless, and Lazy.” When Mr. Barr recently endorsed Mr. Trump, rather than express gratitude or graciousness, the former president said , “Based on the fact that I greatly appreciate his wholehearted Endorsement, I am removing the word ‘Lethargic’ from my statement. Thank you Bill. MAGA2024!”

This is the sort of thing Mr. Trump is known for, even with people who came around and bent the knee . It is a critical part of his politics — and it’s an area that pollsters aren’t fully measuring and Democratic strategists rarely take into consideration.

Politics is a dominance competition, and Mr. Trump is an avid and ruthless practitioner of it . He offers a striking contrast with most Democrats, who are more likely to fret over focus-group data and issue ever more solemn pledges to control prescription drug prices .

What these Democrats seem to have forgotten is that they have their own liberal tradition of dominance politics — and if they embrace it, they would improve their chances of defeating Trumpism. But unlike Mr. Trump, whose lies and conduct after the 2020 election were damaging to democracy, leaders like Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. exerted dominance in liberal ways and to prodemocratic ends. They obeyed the law, told the truth, and honored liberal values.

Psychologists have noted the effectiveness of dominance in elections and governing . My recent research also finds that what I call Mr. Trump’s “high-dominance strategy” is far and away his most formidable asset.

High-dominance leaders shape reality. They embrace conflict, chafe at playing defense and exhibit self-assurance even in pursuit of unpopular goals . By contrast, low-dominance leaders accept reality as it is and shun conflict. They tell people what they think they want to hear and prefer mollification to confrontation.

Today’s Republicans are all about dominance. They embrace us-versus-them framing, double down on controversial statements and take risks . Today’s Democrats often recoil from “othering” opponents and back down after ruffling feathers . They have grown obsessively risk-averse , poll-driven , allergic to engaging on hot-button issues (except perhaps abortion) — and more than a little boring.

Polling even dictates whether Democrats proclaim their own good news. Republicans never quit crowing about the economy on their watch. Democrats tend to fear doing so unless surveys show that everyone is already feeling the benefits. So in defiance of much of the evidence , voters think Mr. Trump’s economy was better than Barack Obama’s and Mr. Biden’s.

Politicians’ language reflects their dominance orientations. Mr. Trump uses entertaining and provocative parlance and calls opponents — and even allies — weak , gutless and pathetic . Still, neuroscientists monitoring listeners’ brain activity while they watched televised debates found that audiences — not just Mr. Trump’s followers — delighted in the belittling nicknames he uses for his opponents. His boldness and provocations held audience attention at a much higher level than his opponents’ play-it-safe recitations of their policy stances and résumés.

Mr. Trump is also often crude and regularly injects falsehoods into his comments. But these are not in and of themselves signs of dominance; it’s just that the Democrats’ inability to effectively respond makes them appear weak by comparison.

For their own part, Democrats typically refrain from transgressive language and often present themselves as vulnerable and menaced . When Kamala Harris was asked in January if she was scared of a second Trump term, she said , “I am scared as heck!” and added that “we should all be scared.”

To voters, that fear smells like weakness. In a 2022 CBS News survey on parties’ traits, the most frequently cited description of the Democratic Party was “weak.” In a recent Gallup poll , 38 percent regarded Mr. Biden as “a strong and decisive leader,” compared with 57 percent for Mr. Trump.

A reputation for weakness may be a singularly damaging liability. In a 2016 exit poll , more than twice as many voters said they wanted a “strong leader” than one who “shares my values” or “cares about people like me.” In another poll, Mr. Trump was regarded as the “ stronger leader .”

The American National Elections Studies has polled voters on presidential candidates’ traits since the 1980s, and the candidate who rated higher on “strong leadership” has never lost. The one who more people agree “really cares about people like you” loses about half the time.

High-dominance messaging necessitates unfailingly asserting your side’s moral superiority. But the psychologists John Jost and Orsolya Hunyady find that liberals feel compelled to give equal credence to conservative intuitions. They struggle to adopt the us-versus-them framing that is crucial to rousing supporters and confronting opponents who decidedly do not honor the legitimacy of liberals’ opinions — or even necessarily the results of free elections. Psychologists have also shown that Democrats are conflicted about the appropriate use of aggression.

Such crippling qualms are recent problems. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson and King owned the Republicans. Their high-dominance styles enabled the creation of every progressive program their low-dominance successors are struggling to salvage today.

On the eve of his first re-election, Roosevelt thundered : “I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.” Kennedy hammered home that the Republicans’ limp social welfare policies and tepid approach to civil rights failed to show the world what America was made of , and he never hesitated to aggressively trumpet triumphs .

Johnson mixed bigot-busting rhetoric with ferocious arm-twisting to muscle voting rights , colorblind immigration policy and Medicare into law. He did enjoy Democratic congressional majorities, but he also faced the necessity of bringing around the segregationist wing of his party, and his high-dominance style was key to his legislative victories.

Few were less solicitous of prevailing opinion than King. With reference to the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, King said that he could “go halfway with Brother Goldwater” on the idea that legislation couldn’t solve racism. With tongue planted firmly in cheek, he then smoothly eviscerated Goldwater’s stance: “It may be true that the law can’t make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me.” King’s reference to “Brother Goldwater,” who opposed all manner of civil rights legislation, bore no hint of sarcasm. But he also knew that he was owning his opponent by wielding what he always called “the weapon of love” and using language that expressed self-assurance and faith in the nation to establish moral superiority.

There are contemporary Democrats with a high-dominance style. Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky stands up for trans and abortion rights , proclaimed June Pride Month in the state, and chided the unvaccinated during the pandemic. When a Republican lawmaker displayed a photo of Mr. Beshear with drag queens at a gay rights rally and accused him of corrupting kids, the governor shot back that the participants “are as much Kentuckians as anybody else.”

The Republican tucked his tail between his legs, whimpering: “My problem is not with the gay movement. I didn’t say anything about the ‘Pride Celebration.’” Mr. Beshear won re-election by five points in a state Mr. Trump carried by 26 points in 2020.

Mr. Biden’s Republican-owning 2024 State of the Union address and the briny language he uses to describe Mr. Trump in private delighted the Democrats — and won rare kudos from Republican strategists. But these are just flashes of dominance — and flashes aren’t nearly enough.

A dominance advantage is no guarantee of victory, as Mr. Trump’s 2020 loss to Mr. Biden showed. What’s more, Mr. Trump may sometimes pay a price for his extreme dominance style, whether it’s by turning off some voters or incurring the wrath of impatient judges in his seemingly endless court cases.

Still, Mr. Trump’s high-dominance style remains the most formidable tool in his arsenal. Taking on Mr. Trump’s party in its area of greatest strength would leave it beatable in national elections.

Mr. Biden could even counter the perception that his age has rendered him feeble by taking a page from his higher-dominance predecessors, the mighty leaders who mobilized dominance to promote freedom, equality and progress.

M. Steven Fish, a political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of “Comeback: Routing Trumpism, Reclaiming the Nation, and Restoring Democracy’s Edge.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Stormy Daniels’s stormiest cross-examination moments, from the trial transcript

Daniels faced hours of aggressive questioning from Trump’s attorney, Susan Necheles.

Adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and an attorney for former president Donald Trump engaged in a fiery, hours-long cross-examination Thursday, bringing an end to Daniels’s testimony during Trump’s criminal trial.

Since Daniels took the stand Tuesday, she has testified about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, at times seeming to describe it as nonconsensual. Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal hush money paid to Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.

Here are key moments from Thursday’s trial in New York, based on an early transcript and lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

Trump hush money trial

Daniels questioned over earnings

Trump’s attorney Susan Necheles questioned Daniels about what she described as the actress’s attempts to “sell” the story of her alleged evening with Trump and capitalize on her connections to him.

Necheles asked about Daniels’s 2018 tour of strip clubs, named “ Make America Horny Again ,” her memoir “Full Disclosure” and her social media posts about the former president.

Necheles: But, you to this day continue making money to sell a story that you promised will put President Trump in jail, right?

Daniels: No.

Necheles: Well, isn’t it a fact that you keep posting on social media how you’re going to be instrumental in putting President Trump in jail?

Daniels: Show me where I said I would be “instrumental in putting President Trump in jail.”

Here, Necheles entered into evidence a response Daniels made to a social media post that referred to her as a “human toilet,” to which she responded that the description made her the best person to “flush” Trump down. Necheles then asked Daniels if she was saying she would be instrumental in causing Trump to be convicted of a crime.

Daniels: I don’t see “instrumental” or “jail” there. You’re putting words in my mouth.

Necheles presses Daniels about her books

In another exchange, Necheles asked Daniels about two books the actress has in progress.

Necheles: And what are those books about?

Daniels: One is called “Rock Star Porn Star.” It is about my partner. He’s a musician who became a porn star. And the other one is a novel about a girl who grew up in New Orleans. It’s nonfiction — I’m sorry, it is fiction.

Necheles: And did that person, that girl in the novel, have an affair with a presidential candidate?

Necheles: And do you plan to continue to make money off the selling of your story?

Daniels: I plan to continue to do my job. And to fund my extraordinary legal bills.

Prosecution has Daniels describe NDA

In the morning, a significant portion of Necheles’s questions for Daniels revolved around the 2016 nondisclosure agreement she signed to stay silent about the alleged relationship with Trump.

Necheles pushed Daniels on whether the agreement had been her choice and if she had spoken with a reporter during that time, at one point asking: “You said that as an alternative to be paid for your silence, you wanted to be paid for your story; right?” Daniels responded that she didn’t remember.

Later in the day, prosecutor Susan Hoffinger began her questions by referencing back to Necheles’s probes about why Daniels signed the agreement.

At the time the agreement came into play, Daniels told the court, her friend had advised her to hide “in plain view.”

Daniels: And it just means, if you are out in the open, you are safer; hiding in plain sight, being out in the open. That something won't happen to you if everyone is looking at you.

Hoffinger: Okay. And so, part of your motivation to enter into the NDA was to make sure this was all documented to keep you safe?

Daniels: Yes.

Hoffinger then asked Daniels about the payment she received from Trump’s former lawyer.

Hoffinger: And you were also happy to take the money, you are not saying that you were not happy to take the money, right?

Daniels: No. We are all happy to take money. It was just a bonus.

Daniels describes hiring security, moving

Hoffinger also asked Daniels whether she had made money from interviews, merchandise and other items based on her affiliation with Trump.

Hoffinger: Have you been telling lies about Mr. Trump or the truth about Mr. Trump?

Daniels: The truth.

Hoffinger: And, now, Ms. Necheles asked you about whether your telling your account of what happened with Mr. Trump has made you money, and I think you said it also cost you a lot of money. Do you remember saying that?

Hoffinger: Can you explain that?

Daniels: I have had to hire security, take extra precautions, tutors for my daughter, had to move my daughter to a safe place to live. I had to move a couple of times. And I lost — I didn’t — I lost — had a judgment on automatic attorney fees because my case from the NDA was thrown out. And I appealed it, and it was dismissed again. So attorney’s fees are automatically awarded in those kinds of instances.

Hoffinger: Let me ask you a question: Ms. Daniels, on balance, has your publicly telling the truth about your experiences with Mr. Trump had a net positive or a net negative in your life?

Necheles: Objection, your Honor.

Justice Juan Merchan: Overruled.

Daniels: Negative.

Hoffinger: Nothing further. Thank you.

Trump New York hush money case

Former president Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial is underway in New York. Follow live updates from the trial .

Key witnesses: Several key witnesses, including David Pecker and Stormy Daniels, have taken the stand. Here’s what Daniels said during her testimony . Read full transcripts from the trial .

Gag order: New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has twice ruled that Trump violated his gag order , which prohibits him from commenting on jurors and witnesses in the case, among others. Here are all of the times Trump has violated the gag order .

The case: The investigation involves a $130,000 payment made to Daniels, an adult-film actress , during the 2016 presidential campaign. It’s one of many ongoing investigations involving Trump . Here are some of the key people in the case .

The charges: Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Falsifying business records is a felony in New York when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” another crime. He has pleaded not guilty . Here’s what to know about the charges — and any potential sentence .