Introduction To American Politics
If you are new to politics and are confused about who to vote for, here are some general principles to keep in mind when watching the news:
Use Logic
When competing claims of truth exist, how is one to sort through it? I’ll tell you what I do.
First, I listen to all sides of a story and take note of the foundational facts that no one disputes. Are they even talking about the same story? These facts I assume to be true until someone calls them into question.
Second, I listen to the chain of logic people use to support their conclusions. I cannot tell when someone lies to me outright, but I can spot half-truth and spin miles away. Any conclusion not supported by the evidence is discarded and any speaker using faulty logic is rejected as unreliable. I may even begin to question their reported facts. So many people’s words are filled with non-sequiturs, circular reasoning, straw men, and other logical fallacies that it is impossible to take what they say as anything other than comedy.
Third, I check every claim against my personal experience and common sense. While it is theoretically possible for my experience to be atypical and for common sense to be wrong, it should still be reliable most of the time. The burden of proof is on those claiming otherwise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Those who make no effort to support claims they should know are dubious are ignored.
Fourth, anyone who conspicuously leaves out an important part of the story I deem less reliable than one who includes it. So often, I find one news outlet telling only half the story and another filling me in on the rest. While I do not accept everything the second outlet tells me uncritically, if I cannot find anyone countering their claims, I tend to believe them.
Fifth, those sources consistently proven right by the first four methods are accepted as reliable while those caught in lies are viewed with increasing skepticism. It is at this step that feedback bias can manifest, causing me to accept lies if coming from someone shown truthful in the past. Because I am aware of this phenomenon, I purposely keep an open mind.
It is always best to check multiple sources, but often I can tell just from reading one source that they are lying to me about something:
I once read a story about how Trump was giving citizens of El Salvador one year to go home. The article made it sound as if they could stay indefinitely if not for Trump. Only by reading the entire article very carefully did I understand that, because an earthquake had wrecked their country, many Salvadorians were allowed to come here by George W. Bush, who kept extending the deadline of when they had to leave. Obama further extended the deadline. Now Trump was giving them one year. In other words, Trump wasn’t sending them home; he was extending the deadline just as previous presidents had. So, Trump wasn’t sending anyone home. Gotcha!
I once read a story of how a change to the tax code by Trump and the congressional Republicans was likely to cause charitable giving to plummet, since people could no longer write-off all their donations. Carefully reading the entire article, I see that all they did was raise the standard deduction. This means that donations normally itemized and deducted separately were covered by the standard deduction so long as their sum fell below the new threshold. The donations were still covered; the taxpayers were simply spared a little bit of work. So, there was no reason for charitable giving to drop. Gotcha!
When the paper first announced that a whistleblower had accused Trump of asking Ukraine to help dig up dirt on Biden’s family for no valid reason, I read the transcript of the call and saw that Trump did no such thing. He had actually asked President Zelensky to look into claims Biden had been making about stopping a prosecutor. What claims? None of the news I was hearing even mentioned it. They conspicuously left out a very important part of the story. I had to do my own research. That’s how I found a YouTube video of Biden bragging about getting a prosecutor fired. This prosecutor was at that very same time investigating a company on the board of which was Biden’s son. So, there was a valid reason to look into it. Gotcha!
When someone shared a photo on FaceBook purporting to show rich and poor neighborhoods side by side, showing how unequal things had become, I clicked on it. There were several photographs, the top one from Brazil and the rest from the United States. Only in Brazil was there a large difference. The American neighborhoods were hard to tell apart. So, what’s the point? Were they trying to trick me, hoping that I wouldn’t read the captions or scroll past the first photo? Gotcha!
When I heard that it was revealed the Pentagon had invasion plans of Iraq long before 9/11, implying that Bush and his cronies were just looking for any excuse they could find for war, I immediately thought: Doesn’t the Pentagon have invasion plans ready for every country just in case – especially countries we’ve had trouble with for over a decade? Why is that surprising? They should have plans. Gotcha!
We need to start listening to each other and stop believing whatever our favorite politician/pundit tells us unquestioningly. The fate of the world rides on this.
First, I listen to all sides of a story and take note of the foundational facts that no one disputes. Are they even talking about the same story? These facts I assume to be true until someone calls them into question.
Second, I listen to the chain of logic people use to support their conclusions. I cannot tell when someone lies to me outright, but I can spot half-truth and spin miles away. Any conclusion not supported by the evidence is discarded and any speaker using faulty logic is rejected as unreliable. I may even begin to question their reported facts. So many people’s words are filled with non-sequiturs, circular reasoning, straw men, and other logical fallacies that it is impossible to take what they say as anything other than comedy.
Third, I check every claim against my personal experience and common sense. While it is theoretically possible for my experience to be atypical and for common sense to be wrong, it should still be reliable most of the time. The burden of proof is on those claiming otherwise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Those who make no effort to support claims they should know are dubious are ignored.
Fourth, anyone who conspicuously leaves out an important part of the story I deem less reliable than one who includes it. So often, I find one news outlet telling only half the story and another filling me in on the rest. While I do not accept everything the second outlet tells me uncritically, if I cannot find anyone countering their claims, I tend to believe them.
Fifth, those sources consistently proven right by the first four methods are accepted as reliable while those caught in lies are viewed with increasing skepticism. It is at this step that feedback bias can manifest, causing me to accept lies if coming from someone shown truthful in the past. Because I am aware of this phenomenon, I purposely keep an open mind.
It is always best to check multiple sources, but often I can tell just from reading one source that they are lying to me about something:
I once read a story about how Trump was giving citizens of El Salvador one year to go home. The article made it sound as if they could stay indefinitely if not for Trump. Only by reading the entire article very carefully did I understand that, because an earthquake had wrecked their country, many Salvadorians were allowed to come here by George W. Bush, who kept extending the deadline of when they had to leave. Obama further extended the deadline. Now Trump was giving them one year. In other words, Trump wasn’t sending them home; he was extending the deadline just as previous presidents had. So, Trump wasn’t sending anyone home. Gotcha!
I once read a story of how a change to the tax code by Trump and the congressional Republicans was likely to cause charitable giving to plummet, since people could no longer write-off all their donations. Carefully reading the entire article, I see that all they did was raise the standard deduction. This means that donations normally itemized and deducted separately were covered by the standard deduction so long as their sum fell below the new threshold. The donations were still covered; the taxpayers were simply spared a little bit of work. So, there was no reason for charitable giving to drop. Gotcha!
When the paper first announced that a whistleblower had accused Trump of asking Ukraine to help dig up dirt on Biden’s family for no valid reason, I read the transcript of the call and saw that Trump did no such thing. He had actually asked President Zelensky to look into claims Biden had been making about stopping a prosecutor. What claims? None of the news I was hearing even mentioned it. They conspicuously left out a very important part of the story. I had to do my own research. That’s how I found a YouTube video of Biden bragging about getting a prosecutor fired. This prosecutor was at that very same time investigating a company on the board of which was Biden’s son. So, there was a valid reason to look into it. Gotcha!
When someone shared a photo on FaceBook purporting to show rich and poor neighborhoods side by side, showing how unequal things had become, I clicked on it. There were several photographs, the top one from Brazil and the rest from the United States. Only in Brazil was there a large difference. The American neighborhoods were hard to tell apart. So, what’s the point? Were they trying to trick me, hoping that I wouldn’t read the captions or scroll past the first photo? Gotcha!
When I heard that it was revealed the Pentagon had invasion plans of Iraq long before 9/11, implying that Bush and his cronies were just looking for any excuse they could find for war, I immediately thought: Doesn’t the Pentagon have invasion plans ready for every country just in case – especially countries we’ve had trouble with for over a decade? Why is that surprising? They should have plans. Gotcha!
We need to start listening to each other and stop believing whatever our favorite politician/pundit tells us unquestioningly. The fate of the world rides on this.
Don't Let Symbols Confuse You
One of the biggest obstacles to understanding those of other political persuasions are the symbols they use. Don’t get confused!
To some people, the confederate flag stands for slavery, racism, and oppression. To others, it stands for patriotic love of the place they live in and the people they live near, remembering the historical traditions that bind the generations, and most of all, the fight against the oppression and quasi-slavery of the north when it forced its will on the southern states on many issues and not just slavery. Don’t assume everyone that waves it is a racist, and don’t assume that everyone that wants to take it down hates freedom.
To some people, the American flag stands for all Americans and burning it is something akin to treason. To others, people and land come with no flags attached and it represents only the formal government institutions they wish to protest. Don’t assume that all flag-burners hate America, and don’t assume that those who wave it agree with everything that America has ever done.
To some people, the term “Happy Holidays” is a quick way of saying “Happy Halloween, Thanksgiving, Hanukah, Christmas, and New Year!” It refers to multiple holidays that take place in a relatively short period of time. To others, it is a way of avoiding mentioning Christ, and therefore a way of expressing anti-Christian sentiment. Don’t assume everyone who says “Happy Holidays” is trying to convert you to atheism, and don’t assume that everyone who says “Merry Christmas” is trying to convert you to Christianity.
To some people, writing “X-mas” is a shorter way to write Christmas that is very helpful when filling out hundreds of cards. To others, it is yet another way to avoid mentioning Christ. Don’t make assumptions!
It amazes me that statements never considered controversial before can trigger tantrums in people once someone they don’t like has started using it. “Make America Great Again” is a statement that everyone should be able to agree with, but wear this phrase on a red hat and you just might be physically attacked. Likewise, “Black Lives Matter” and “All Lives Matter” should be among the least controversial statements ever made in history, yet now they are some of the most controversial.
I have noticed that most people are programmed like robots. They respond in predictable ways when hearing certain phrases, whether their response fits the context or the way you used the phrase at all. At least three times I have been in a discussion of how widespread “liberal” ideas are and mentioned that a Democrat (either Al Gore or Hillary Clinton) had won the popular vote, only losing the election because of the way the voters are geographically distributed in the Electoral College. I had obviously brought up the vote only to support the idea that “liberalism” is very popular. All three times, my conversation partner interrupted me with a lecture on how we do not elect presidents by popular vote, even making inane statements such as, “There’s no such thing as the popular vote!”
When interpreting someone’s words, remember the context. Remember what they said before, what you said before, and the type of person they are. Remember the purpose of the conversation. Actually think. Don’t be a robot. Don’t be stupid.
In politics, we play with the lives of other people. Those we vote for will put in place policies that might make the difference between life and death, imprisonment and freedom, or poverty and riches. Voting without being fully informed is the worst form of negligence. Listen to as many different news sources as you have time for. Seek out contrary opinions. Check your bias. Read history. Read science. Find a trusted analyst to sift the news for you, explain it, and put it in context. Look for errors in their logic. Ask for supporting evidence. Most of all, actually think.
To some people, the confederate flag stands for slavery, racism, and oppression. To others, it stands for patriotic love of the place they live in and the people they live near, remembering the historical traditions that bind the generations, and most of all, the fight against the oppression and quasi-slavery of the north when it forced its will on the southern states on many issues and not just slavery. Don’t assume everyone that waves it is a racist, and don’t assume that everyone that wants to take it down hates freedom.
To some people, the American flag stands for all Americans and burning it is something akin to treason. To others, people and land come with no flags attached and it represents only the formal government institutions they wish to protest. Don’t assume that all flag-burners hate America, and don’t assume that those who wave it agree with everything that America has ever done.
To some people, the term “Happy Holidays” is a quick way of saying “Happy Halloween, Thanksgiving, Hanukah, Christmas, and New Year!” It refers to multiple holidays that take place in a relatively short period of time. To others, it is a way of avoiding mentioning Christ, and therefore a way of expressing anti-Christian sentiment. Don’t assume everyone who says “Happy Holidays” is trying to convert you to atheism, and don’t assume that everyone who says “Merry Christmas” is trying to convert you to Christianity.
To some people, writing “X-mas” is a shorter way to write Christmas that is very helpful when filling out hundreds of cards. To others, it is yet another way to avoid mentioning Christ. Don’t make assumptions!
It amazes me that statements never considered controversial before can trigger tantrums in people once someone they don’t like has started using it. “Make America Great Again” is a statement that everyone should be able to agree with, but wear this phrase on a red hat and you just might be physically attacked. Likewise, “Black Lives Matter” and “All Lives Matter” should be among the least controversial statements ever made in history, yet now they are some of the most controversial.
I have noticed that most people are programmed like robots. They respond in predictable ways when hearing certain phrases, whether their response fits the context or the way you used the phrase at all. At least three times I have been in a discussion of how widespread “liberal” ideas are and mentioned that a Democrat (either Al Gore or Hillary Clinton) had won the popular vote, only losing the election because of the way the voters are geographically distributed in the Electoral College. I had obviously brought up the vote only to support the idea that “liberalism” is very popular. All three times, my conversation partner interrupted me with a lecture on how we do not elect presidents by popular vote, even making inane statements such as, “There’s no such thing as the popular vote!”
When interpreting someone’s words, remember the context. Remember what they said before, what you said before, and the type of person they are. Remember the purpose of the conversation. Actually think. Don’t be a robot. Don’t be stupid.
In politics, we play with the lives of other people. Those we vote for will put in place policies that might make the difference between life and death, imprisonment and freedom, or poverty and riches. Voting without being fully informed is the worst form of negligence. Listen to as many different news sources as you have time for. Seek out contrary opinions. Check your bias. Read history. Read science. Find a trusted analyst to sift the news for you, explain it, and put it in context. Look for errors in their logic. Ask for supporting evidence. Most of all, actually think.
Truth, Lies, And Historical Narratives
History is complicated. With millions of people running around doing things, there is a lot happening at once. In order to tell a story that finite minds can comprehend, some facts must be left out. Events must be cherry-picked that fit the story. A narrative must be imposed. This does not necessarily make a lie; but it does make a partial truth.
It is true that some Americans used to own slaves and that most slaves were of African descent. It is also true that some people fought to keep slavery a viable institution, and that laws were enacted to keep slaves dependent (such as the anti-literacy laws). It is also true that when slavery officially ended, racial discrimination continued and new forms of exploitation arose, such as “wage slavery.” It is also true that white supremacists continue to live in America to this day. That America has long been a nation of white supremacy is one narrative.
It is also true that every human culture on every continent once had slavery in some form. Sometimes they were kin. Sometimes they were captured from enemy tribes. Africans bought and sold other Africans for thousands of years before Arab merchants carried them across the sea in crowded ships. It was Western civilization that first began to break the pattern. Christianity taught that God loved all people. The American Declaration of Independence claimed all men were created equal. Many American founders wanted to end slavery nationwide from the beginning, but for political expediency agreed to a compromise that allowed each state to decide for itself. Eventually a civil war was fought to end the practice. Since then, great strides have been made to end discrimination and segregation of all kinds. Cultural contributions from all over the world have mixed to give rise to a uniquely American culture copied around the world. Blacks have given us much of our trends in fashion, slang, and music, while Italians have given us culinary delights and Jews have given us comedy. Interracial marriage is common. That America has led the way in inclusiveness is another narrative.
Be careful not to jump to conclusions from only hearing one side of history. There’s a lot going on at once.
It is true that some Americans used to own slaves and that most slaves were of African descent. It is also true that some people fought to keep slavery a viable institution, and that laws were enacted to keep slaves dependent (such as the anti-literacy laws). It is also true that when slavery officially ended, racial discrimination continued and new forms of exploitation arose, such as “wage slavery.” It is also true that white supremacists continue to live in America to this day. That America has long been a nation of white supremacy is one narrative.
It is also true that every human culture on every continent once had slavery in some form. Sometimes they were kin. Sometimes they were captured from enemy tribes. Africans bought and sold other Africans for thousands of years before Arab merchants carried them across the sea in crowded ships. It was Western civilization that first began to break the pattern. Christianity taught that God loved all people. The American Declaration of Independence claimed all men were created equal. Many American founders wanted to end slavery nationwide from the beginning, but for political expediency agreed to a compromise that allowed each state to decide for itself. Eventually a civil war was fought to end the practice. Since then, great strides have been made to end discrimination and segregation of all kinds. Cultural contributions from all over the world have mixed to give rise to a uniquely American culture copied around the world. Blacks have given us much of our trends in fashion, slang, and music, while Italians have given us culinary delights and Jews have given us comedy. Interracial marriage is common. That America has led the way in inclusiveness is another narrative.
Be careful not to jump to conclusions from only hearing one side of history. There’s a lot going on at once.
Falsely Accused!
It happens often in the news that someone is accused of some crime. Usually, they deny it. While cases of genuine mistakes do occur, most of the time denying one’s guilt is to accuse one’s accusers of the crime of false accusation. In other words, two parties have accused each other of wrongdoing.
What I find strangely inexplicable is how people are quick to believe one accusation and not the other. They are quick to believe one guilty of rape, murder, child pornography, embezzlement, fraud, or bribery, but so resistant to believe one capable of perjury. They do this without evidence and even in spite of strong evidence to the contrary. They do this when they do not know either party personally, were not witnesses, and only know of the story from the news. It happens not only with accusations of criminal infractions, but with social rule-breaking as well, such as using racist language or having secret motives in something they did. It is completely illogical.
People’s lives can be destroyed by false accusations even if they keep out of jail, making it hard for them to find a job or move freely in public, yet most people pile on. It’s evil.
Admit you don’t know when you don’t know. Don’t be quick to rush to judgment. Don’t uncritically accept one accusation and deny the other. Don’t be stupid.
What I find strangely inexplicable is how people are quick to believe one accusation and not the other. They are quick to believe one guilty of rape, murder, child pornography, embezzlement, fraud, or bribery, but so resistant to believe one capable of perjury. They do this without evidence and even in spite of strong evidence to the contrary. They do this when they do not know either party personally, were not witnesses, and only know of the story from the news. It happens not only with accusations of criminal infractions, but with social rule-breaking as well, such as using racist language or having secret motives in something they did. It is completely illogical.
People’s lives can be destroyed by false accusations even if they keep out of jail, making it hard for them to find a job or move freely in public, yet most people pile on. It’s evil.
Admit you don’t know when you don’t know. Don’t be quick to rush to judgment. Don’t uncritically accept one accusation and deny the other. Don’t be stupid.
Trust The Science
Not all of us have the time or resources to do experiments ourselves and not all of us have the education to understand how to interpret the results. This is why we have scientists to tell us what is true. Often, the best policy is to trust what they say.
Unfortunately, those with agendas good and bad have learned that they can convince people to believe them if they claim that scientists support their view. “Trust the science,” they say.
Don’t get confused! Scientists often do not all agree with each other and long-standing models of nature have been overturned before. Scientists are humans just like anyone else and can be blackmailed or bribed into lying. Those with the ability to give grant money set the tone. Scientists can hold on to long-discredited theories for ego, and scientists can rush to embrace a new, untested theory for the same reason. They can even make genuine mistakes. It has happened before.
Science is one of the best ways to learn truth because it involves challenging assumptions and holding all things tentatively. Only those theories surviving after every attempt to disprove them are considered probable. I trust the science; it’s the scientists I don’t trust.
Unfortunately, those with agendas good and bad have learned that they can convince people to believe them if they claim that scientists support their view. “Trust the science,” they say.
Don’t get confused! Scientists often do not all agree with each other and long-standing models of nature have been overturned before. Scientists are humans just like anyone else and can be blackmailed or bribed into lying. Those with the ability to give grant money set the tone. Scientists can hold on to long-discredited theories for ego, and scientists can rush to embrace a new, untested theory for the same reason. They can even make genuine mistakes. It has happened before.
Science is one of the best ways to learn truth because it involves challenging assumptions and holding all things tentatively. Only those theories surviving after every attempt to disprove them are considered probable. I trust the science; it’s the scientists I don’t trust.
Who Fact-Checks The Fact-Checkers?
There are numerous organizations out there that claim to expose hoaxes, rumors, and lies. They call themselves fact-checkers. Beware!
Fact-checkers are only as good as their sources, but not everyone agrees on which sources are reliable. Fact-checkers will also use bad logic. Sometimes they are biased in their selection of which statements get checked.
Fact-checkers that rate the severity of the lies can show other forms of bias. At Politifact, in years past, I noticed that when some fringe Republican said something in a way that wasn’t quite right, it was rated just as egregious as when Democratic leadership made wild accusations with clearly malicious intent that were the exact opposite of the truth.
Don’t trust fact-checkers. Listen to as many sources of news as you have time for. Listen to all sides of an issue. Then use logic to eliminate the most obvious lies. It’s okay not to know everything; it’s better than knowing falsehoods.
Fact-checkers are only as good as their sources, but not everyone agrees on which sources are reliable. Fact-checkers will also use bad logic. Sometimes they are biased in their selection of which statements get checked.
Fact-checkers that rate the severity of the lies can show other forms of bias. At Politifact, in years past, I noticed that when some fringe Republican said something in a way that wasn’t quite right, it was rated just as egregious as when Democratic leadership made wild accusations with clearly malicious intent that were the exact opposite of the truth.
Don’t trust fact-checkers. Listen to as many sources of news as you have time for. Listen to all sides of an issue. Then use logic to eliminate the most obvious lies. It’s okay not to know everything; it’s better than knowing falsehoods.
Imposters
Sometimes things are not as they seem. The news might report on something bad some group of people did, claim that they were part of some larger movement, and use the event to paint the whole movement as flawed. Don’t assume this is true!
Labor union leadership has been known to hire homeless people to hold signs and protest while pretending to be union members. Democrat operatives were exposed posing as Tea Party members and doing stupid things on camera. Antifa hijacked Black Lives Matter protests by initiating vandalism, getting some BLM activists to join them, and causing the whole BLM movement to be associated with violence. There were even rumors floated that it was actually undercover police doing these things. Antifa later stormed the capitol dome and got some Trump supporters to join them. It was reported by some media outlets to be only Trump supporters. When probably-Antifa later attacked a DNC office, it was rumored that these were actually Trump supporters looking to discredit Antifa. Who knows?
When Joseph Stack flew his plane into an IRS office, left-wing media claimed he was a conservative and right-wing media claimed he was a liberal. When MSNBC played the 911 tape made by George Zimmerman, they edited it to make him sound racist. When a black woman’s car was surrounded and attacked by leftist rioters, with one of them climbing up her hood, the photograph of the event was claimed to be of a white supremacist running over peaceful protestors with his car.
Sometimes news outlets lie. Sometimes they don’t double-check their sources. Sometimes they make genuine mistakes. Sometimes they are duped themselves. Don’t believe everything you hear. Don’t believe everything you read.
Labor union leadership has been known to hire homeless people to hold signs and protest while pretending to be union members. Democrat operatives were exposed posing as Tea Party members and doing stupid things on camera. Antifa hijacked Black Lives Matter protests by initiating vandalism, getting some BLM activists to join them, and causing the whole BLM movement to be associated with violence. There were even rumors floated that it was actually undercover police doing these things. Antifa later stormed the capitol dome and got some Trump supporters to join them. It was reported by some media outlets to be only Trump supporters. When probably-Antifa later attacked a DNC office, it was rumored that these were actually Trump supporters looking to discredit Antifa. Who knows?
When Joseph Stack flew his plane into an IRS office, left-wing media claimed he was a conservative and right-wing media claimed he was a liberal. When MSNBC played the 911 tape made by George Zimmerman, they edited it to make him sound racist. When a black woman’s car was surrounded and attacked by leftist rioters, with one of them climbing up her hood, the photograph of the event was claimed to be of a white supremacist running over peaceful protestors with his car.
Sometimes news outlets lie. Sometimes they don’t double-check their sources. Sometimes they make genuine mistakes. Sometimes they are duped themselves. Don’t believe everything you hear. Don’t believe everything you read.
Context Is Key
One of the most common ways to discredit a politician is to take his/her words out of context and claim they meant something other than what they meant. Don’t be confused! Always look for the full video.
For example, Trump was cast as a racist because he allegedly called Mexicans rapists. Did he? Let’s look at the context: Trump was giving a speech about those who cross the border illegally. Many times, those who cross the border illegally do so because they cannot get through the usual channels or because they do not want to be traced. Many times, this is because they are involved in other illegal activity or have committed serious crimes in the past. Some of them are rapists.
In the original video, Trump opines that when Mexico sends its people, it does not send its best. In other words, the “good” Mexicans stay in Mexico (or come in legally) and the “bad” Mexicans sneak across the border illegally. Obviously, he recognizes that some Mexicans are better than others – just as in any people group. He does not lump all Mexicans together and all Americans together and imply one inferior to the other. That would be racism. What Trump said was the opposite of racism!
Then he says “they aren’t sending you,” apparently speaking to those he recognizes as good Mexicans, thus reinforcing the proof that he is not valuing people based on race.
He then lists some of the crimes committed by the criminal Mexicans (sneaking across the border illegally being by definition a criminal act), at one point saying, “They’re rapists,” following it up by saying, “and some, I assume, are good people,” again showing he is not only not being racist, but is not even going so far as assuming that those guilty of one criminal act must be guilty of other criminal acts. He goes out of his way to clearly dispel prejudice of all kinds.
After this, he goes on to say that a lot of those sneaking across the Mexican border are not even from Mexico, showing he is not picking on any one particular group. Again, this is the opposite of racism.
Next time news reporters tell you something is true, double-check the context. It might not be.
For example, Trump was cast as a racist because he allegedly called Mexicans rapists. Did he? Let’s look at the context: Trump was giving a speech about those who cross the border illegally. Many times, those who cross the border illegally do so because they cannot get through the usual channels or because they do not want to be traced. Many times, this is because they are involved in other illegal activity or have committed serious crimes in the past. Some of them are rapists.
In the original video, Trump opines that when Mexico sends its people, it does not send its best. In other words, the “good” Mexicans stay in Mexico (or come in legally) and the “bad” Mexicans sneak across the border illegally. Obviously, he recognizes that some Mexicans are better than others – just as in any people group. He does not lump all Mexicans together and all Americans together and imply one inferior to the other. That would be racism. What Trump said was the opposite of racism!
Then he says “they aren’t sending you,” apparently speaking to those he recognizes as good Mexicans, thus reinforcing the proof that he is not valuing people based on race.
He then lists some of the crimes committed by the criminal Mexicans (sneaking across the border illegally being by definition a criminal act), at one point saying, “They’re rapists,” following it up by saying, “and some, I assume, are good people,” again showing he is not only not being racist, but is not even going so far as assuming that those guilty of one criminal act must be guilty of other criminal acts. He goes out of his way to clearly dispel prejudice of all kinds.
After this, he goes on to say that a lot of those sneaking across the Mexican border are not even from Mexico, showing he is not picking on any one particular group. Again, this is the opposite of racism.
Next time news reporters tell you something is true, double-check the context. It might not be.
The Six American Parties
One of the ways politicians and news media types like to mislead the voters is with false framing. Don’t be confused!
So often, the words “liberal” and “conservative” are thrown around without being clearly defined. Everyone is assumed to be one or the other, as if there are no other possibilities. Then everyone pretends that the contest is a battle of ideas between two ideologies. Is it?
I have studied politics for a very long time and I believe there are at least five distinct ideologies with little in common that are unfairly lumped together under the label “conservative.” I call them the neoconservatives, the libertarians, the nationalists, the religious right, and the pragmatists.
Neoconservatives are globalists. They are quick to project military power into other countries to defend the world. They support maximizing trade across borders and entering into international agreements on regulations, subsidization, and monetary policy that erode national sovereignty and make us all more interdependent.
Nationalists are anti-globalists. Their highest principle is the good of the country. They neither want to interfere in the affairs of other countries nor allow those other countries to interfere in our affairs. They want to bring the troops home. They believe in regulated borders and are okay with tariffs.
Libertarians are in between. Their highest principle is liberty. Like the nationalists, they want to bring the troops home and not be so quick to go to war, but like the globalists, they believe in open borders and free trade with anyone and everyone.
The religious right sees the family unit as the foundation of society and politics as downstream from culture. They believe in some liberty, but unlike libertarians, are happy to use the power of the state to steer culture into valuing liberty – or anything else they deem healthy. They believe that politicians are looked up to as role models and so insist on public perfection from them even when unimportant to the job. That way, they won’t corrupt the impressionable youth.
Pragmatists might have some beliefs of their own, but their highest principle is having a peaceful, functioning society where we all get along. They pursue compromises that give everyone what they want. They protect the minority from the will of a tyrannical majority. They slow things down and resist change, wanting to test policies out at the state level first before jumping into something unproven. They believe strongly in civility even to the point of sometimes failing to challenge dangerous lies.
What these five ideologies have in common is almost nothing. They have profound disagreements with each other all the time. The only thing they have in common is that they are all ideologies. That is, there are underlying coherent principles from which one can derive positions on the issues, from which one can derive positions on specific policies, from which one can derive positions on events, candidates, and parties. The only thing “conservatives” have in common is the use of reason and a belief in objective truth, though they disagree on who is being reasonable and what the objective truth is.
In contrast, “liberals” have no ideology. They have no philosophy. They start with positions on candidates and parties without basis in reality and work backwards from there. Most of them mindlessly repeat slogans that they do not understand the meaning of. When asked questions, they refuse to explain, telling the questioner that they are hopeless. Often, they throw insults and threaten people. They label all those who are yet unconvinced as racists, Nazis, Fascists, sexists, homophobes, bigots, warmongers, and corporate shills. Rarely, when I have been able to engage one in conversation for more than a few seconds, I find that they use circular reasoning, make non-sequitur leaps of logic, include facts totally irrelevant, exclude facts totally relevant, hold to contradictions, and lie constantly about everything. They play mind games with me by moving the goalposts, gaslighting me, and changing the definitions of words in the middle of a sentence, ignoring the context, and twisting my words around into something they damn well know I didn’t mean. They are nothing but bullies.
Conservatives fight for their goals. If they win, they stop fighting. For liberals, fighting is the goal. If they win, they keep on fighting for the fun of it. Liberals have no goals or ideals other than causing as much chaos, confusion, destruction, and death as possible. Every debate I have ever had confirms this, and I have done more to reach out and understand people than anyone I have ever heard of, so when I say it, my words have some weight.
Because “liberals” have no ideology and are so difficult to get a straight answer from, they cannot be classified into different subsets. Different “conservative” ideologies are considered different because they contradict each other. “Liberals” contradict themselves so much that there would have to be more ideologies than there are people.
Those are the six American parties.
So often, the words “liberal” and “conservative” are thrown around without being clearly defined. Everyone is assumed to be one or the other, as if there are no other possibilities. Then everyone pretends that the contest is a battle of ideas between two ideologies. Is it?
I have studied politics for a very long time and I believe there are at least five distinct ideologies with little in common that are unfairly lumped together under the label “conservative.” I call them the neoconservatives, the libertarians, the nationalists, the religious right, and the pragmatists.
Neoconservatives are globalists. They are quick to project military power into other countries to defend the world. They support maximizing trade across borders and entering into international agreements on regulations, subsidization, and monetary policy that erode national sovereignty and make us all more interdependent.
Nationalists are anti-globalists. Their highest principle is the good of the country. They neither want to interfere in the affairs of other countries nor allow those other countries to interfere in our affairs. They want to bring the troops home. They believe in regulated borders and are okay with tariffs.
Libertarians are in between. Their highest principle is liberty. Like the nationalists, they want to bring the troops home and not be so quick to go to war, but like the globalists, they believe in open borders and free trade with anyone and everyone.
The religious right sees the family unit as the foundation of society and politics as downstream from culture. They believe in some liberty, but unlike libertarians, are happy to use the power of the state to steer culture into valuing liberty – or anything else they deem healthy. They believe that politicians are looked up to as role models and so insist on public perfection from them even when unimportant to the job. That way, they won’t corrupt the impressionable youth.
Pragmatists might have some beliefs of their own, but their highest principle is having a peaceful, functioning society where we all get along. They pursue compromises that give everyone what they want. They protect the minority from the will of a tyrannical majority. They slow things down and resist change, wanting to test policies out at the state level first before jumping into something unproven. They believe strongly in civility even to the point of sometimes failing to challenge dangerous lies.
What these five ideologies have in common is almost nothing. They have profound disagreements with each other all the time. The only thing they have in common is that they are all ideologies. That is, there are underlying coherent principles from which one can derive positions on the issues, from which one can derive positions on specific policies, from which one can derive positions on events, candidates, and parties. The only thing “conservatives” have in common is the use of reason and a belief in objective truth, though they disagree on who is being reasonable and what the objective truth is.
In contrast, “liberals” have no ideology. They have no philosophy. They start with positions on candidates and parties without basis in reality and work backwards from there. Most of them mindlessly repeat slogans that they do not understand the meaning of. When asked questions, they refuse to explain, telling the questioner that they are hopeless. Often, they throw insults and threaten people. They label all those who are yet unconvinced as racists, Nazis, Fascists, sexists, homophobes, bigots, warmongers, and corporate shills. Rarely, when I have been able to engage one in conversation for more than a few seconds, I find that they use circular reasoning, make non-sequitur leaps of logic, include facts totally irrelevant, exclude facts totally relevant, hold to contradictions, and lie constantly about everything. They play mind games with me by moving the goalposts, gaslighting me, and changing the definitions of words in the middle of a sentence, ignoring the context, and twisting my words around into something they damn well know I didn’t mean. They are nothing but bullies.
Conservatives fight for their goals. If they win, they stop fighting. For liberals, fighting is the goal. If they win, they keep on fighting for the fun of it. Liberals have no goals or ideals other than causing as much chaos, confusion, destruction, and death as possible. Every debate I have ever had confirms this, and I have done more to reach out and understand people than anyone I have ever heard of, so when I say it, my words have some weight.
Because “liberals” have no ideology and are so difficult to get a straight answer from, they cannot be classified into different subsets. Different “conservative” ideologies are considered different because they contradict each other. “Liberals” contradict themselves so much that there would have to be more ideologies than there are people.
Those are the six American parties.
Liberty Is Equality
Most often, the values of liberty and equality are presented as opposed to each other, forcing us to decide which is more important, but actually liberty is a form of equality – the most important form.
There are different forms of equality and they cannot always coexist. For example, equality of economic opportunity can lead to inequality in outcome, and equality in economic outcome can only be ensured by taking away equality of opportunity.
Liberty exists when no person has power over another. Power over others is called political power. When no one has any political power, everyone has an equal amount of political power. Liberty only exists when people are equal!
When one has political power, they have the power to ensure equality, but they also have the power to ensure inequality. History has shown the latter more likely than the former. Politicians will tend to use their positions for selfish material gain. This is why liberty is important.
Thus, it happens that politicians will argue against liberty in the name of equality, giving themselves more power, and then misusing it to take away all forms of equality. Don’t be confused!
There are different forms of equality and they cannot always coexist. For example, equality of economic opportunity can lead to inequality in outcome, and equality in economic outcome can only be ensured by taking away equality of opportunity.
Liberty exists when no person has power over another. Power over others is called political power. When no one has any political power, everyone has an equal amount of political power. Liberty only exists when people are equal!
When one has political power, they have the power to ensure equality, but they also have the power to ensure inequality. History has shown the latter more likely than the former. Politicians will tend to use their positions for selfish material gain. This is why liberty is important.
Thus, it happens that politicians will argue against liberty in the name of equality, giving themselves more power, and then misusing it to take away all forms of equality. Don’t be confused!
Liberty Is Compromise
Most often, liberty is presented as a right-wing position, while control is presented as a left-wing position. The moderate compromise between them is thus considered to be a little control, some light regulation. This is totally wrong.
People can have many different opinions on a variety of issues: what movies are best, which foods are most nutritious, how to raise children, which funds to invest savings in, and so on. None of these have anything to do with politics…until someone makes them political by suggesting the power of the state be used to force on people one choice over another.
There is an extreme leftist way to run the country, there is an extreme religious way to run the country, there is an extreme nationalist way to run the country, and there is an extreme neoconservative way to run the country. There are probably other ways to run the country. The moderate compromise between all these options is to allow each citizen to decide for themselves – liberty. Any regulation, no matter how light, is a deviation from the libertarian center towards the interests of either one group or another.
Just to make it more confusing, the media will often frame the left-wing position as more regulation and the right-wing position as holding the status quo of light regulation within the same leftist paradigm. Liberty isn’t even on the scale! All alternative ways to run the country are ignored! Don’t be tricked!
People can have many different opinions on a variety of issues: what movies are best, which foods are most nutritious, how to raise children, which funds to invest savings in, and so on. None of these have anything to do with politics…until someone makes them political by suggesting the power of the state be used to force on people one choice over another.
There is an extreme leftist way to run the country, there is an extreme religious way to run the country, there is an extreme nationalist way to run the country, and there is an extreme neoconservative way to run the country. There are probably other ways to run the country. The moderate compromise between all these options is to allow each citizen to decide for themselves – liberty. Any regulation, no matter how light, is a deviation from the libertarian center towards the interests of either one group or another.
Just to make it more confusing, the media will often frame the left-wing position as more regulation and the right-wing position as holding the status quo of light regulation within the same leftist paradigm. Liberty isn’t even on the scale! All alternative ways to run the country are ignored! Don’t be tricked!
Stealth Editing
Sometimes when debating, I imagine the other person might want sources. Most people don’t care because all they want to do is yell at me, but just in case I might meet someone reasonable, I’d like to be able to cite sources.
Sources are often hard to find. Even if I can remember where I heard something, it is not so easy to sift through hours of video (when I can even get access to the archives) from ten years ago to find what it is I’m talking about. When the original thing is never directly mentioned again, but countless sources confirm its existence by referring to it indirectly, something I consider common knowledge can be very hard to verify to a skeptic.
However, the biggest problem that sometimes happens is that when I look again at an old source to support my case, I find that it has changed! Then nobody believes me! Is this the Mandela effect in action?
Not necessarily. Sometimes news organizations will actually change old stories, as this video (if it still exists unedited) explains.
Let me tell you about the clearest case of story scrubbing I have ever experienced:
I once saw on YouTube a TEDtalk given by a young man who had a rough high school experience. He talked about being picked on, of having a rough home life, and of having absolutely no friends. He told the story of buying a gun from a gang member and planning a school shooting. Then he said that one person was nice to him and he decided not to go through with it. That was the focus of his whole talk. He wanted to promote the idea of reaching out to outcasts.
I wrote a post about this video and linked to it from one of my old blogs. Much later, I saw that the link was gone. It was not a broken link; it was missing completely. There was only an empty space between the paragraphs. I searched on YouTube for the original talk, but it was nowhere to be found. I searched for the man’s name on multiple search engines, and found many articles written about him – but the story had changed. He was still almost a school shooter, but had failed ONLY because he was unable to get a gun, not because someone was nice to him. No mention was made of his successful purchase from the gang member. No mention was made of anyone being nice to him. He is now a crusader for gun control.
In this case, I know I remembered correctly because I wrote a post about the story while it was still fresh in my mind. The fact that the links disappeared off of my own blog also proves that something very strange was going on with this issue. How many other times has a story been altered, but I could not be certain I had remembered correctly?
It has happened that bloggers and pundits often have article links making wildly inflammatory claims, but when I follow them I find that the articles are very mild and humble in their speculations. In the past, this normally caused me to stop taking the pundits seriously – but what if the article they link to actually changed? What if it really was wild at one time? Who can tell?
Believe nothing.
Sources are often hard to find. Even if I can remember where I heard something, it is not so easy to sift through hours of video (when I can even get access to the archives) from ten years ago to find what it is I’m talking about. When the original thing is never directly mentioned again, but countless sources confirm its existence by referring to it indirectly, something I consider common knowledge can be very hard to verify to a skeptic.
However, the biggest problem that sometimes happens is that when I look again at an old source to support my case, I find that it has changed! Then nobody believes me! Is this the Mandela effect in action?
Not necessarily. Sometimes news organizations will actually change old stories, as this video (if it still exists unedited) explains.
Let me tell you about the clearest case of story scrubbing I have ever experienced:
I once saw on YouTube a TEDtalk given by a young man who had a rough high school experience. He talked about being picked on, of having a rough home life, and of having absolutely no friends. He told the story of buying a gun from a gang member and planning a school shooting. Then he said that one person was nice to him and he decided not to go through with it. That was the focus of his whole talk. He wanted to promote the idea of reaching out to outcasts.
I wrote a post about this video and linked to it from one of my old blogs. Much later, I saw that the link was gone. It was not a broken link; it was missing completely. There was only an empty space between the paragraphs. I searched on YouTube for the original talk, but it was nowhere to be found. I searched for the man’s name on multiple search engines, and found many articles written about him – but the story had changed. He was still almost a school shooter, but had failed ONLY because he was unable to get a gun, not because someone was nice to him. No mention was made of his successful purchase from the gang member. No mention was made of anyone being nice to him. He is now a crusader for gun control.
In this case, I know I remembered correctly because I wrote a post about the story while it was still fresh in my mind. The fact that the links disappeared off of my own blog also proves that something very strange was going on with this issue. How many other times has a story been altered, but I could not be certain I had remembered correctly?
It has happened that bloggers and pundits often have article links making wildly inflammatory claims, but when I follow them I find that the articles are very mild and humble in their speculations. In the past, this normally caused me to stop taking the pundits seriously – but what if the article they link to actually changed? What if it really was wild at one time? Who can tell?
Believe nothing.
Believe Nothing
There was a time that it was relatively easy to tell who was lying. No longer. Just as the mainstream scientific dogma on physics, biology, health, climate, and history is unraveling as new evidence is discovered, the crackpots and snakeoil salesmen are getting ever more refined to the point that they can trick even educated people. Just as the mainstream news reporters have been exposed as liars, conspiracy theorists are getting better at using the same rhetorical tricks and selective reporting to spread their own lies. Technology has allowed dishonest activists posing as journalists to produce deepfake videos and audio to discredit politicians of the opposing party. Social media algorithms keep those of differing opinions separate and those of the other party you might encounter could easily by AI chatbots who do not represent real people. If they write like robots with no real understanding of the conversation, maybe they are. If the articles you read seem like they were written by those following a program, maybe they are. Those spending all their time online away from real people are the most easily manipulated. When all shopping is done online, merchandise made at home on 3D printers, and packages delivered by drone, people lose the ability to read body language and start to assume the worst of strangers, especially those of different sexes or ethnicities. When even able-bodied people use neuralink to control machines, those who can hack into the system can halt everything. When our social credit score is based on what other people think of us, and what other people think of those people, feedback loops can make everything arbitrary.
Chances are running out. Those who never cared to learn the truth when they still could will soon be shut off from it. There will be parallel economies and some will be forever trapped in a cage of lies that no one inside or outside of the cage will be able to break through. Then, those fed the lies will be asked to act on them. Sometimes this will mean supporting a war. Sometimes it will mean condemning the innocent. There will be no way for them to know if they are going after the right people.
Believe nothing.
Chances are running out. Those who never cared to learn the truth when they still could will soon be shut off from it. There will be parallel economies and some will be forever trapped in a cage of lies that no one inside or outside of the cage will be able to break through. Then, those fed the lies will be asked to act on them. Sometimes this will mean supporting a war. Sometimes it will mean condemning the innocent. There will be no way for them to know if they are going after the right people.
Believe nothing.
In politics, we play with the lives of other people. Those we vote for will put in place policies that might make the difference between life and death, imprisonment and freedom, or poverty and riches. Voting without being fully informed is the worst form of negligence. Listen to as many different news sources as you have time for. Seek out contrary opinions. Check your bias. Read history. Read science. Find a trusted analyst to sift the news for you, explain it, and put it in context. Look for errors in their logic. Ask for supporting evidence. Most of all, actually think.
Logic. Love. Liberty.