Featured

United States of Authoritarianism

People deprived of rights

Every day there are people being abducted by masked, armed men jumping out of minivans, trucks and cars. These people do not identify themselves; they do not show identification, badges, or last names. Their faces are hidden out of shame (while using the excuse of needing protection from the people they’re brutalizing). There is violence being brought against people who have done nothing wrong other than living their lives. We have rights, and they are being trampled on by the United States government. This is truly terrifying and a tidal shift, since if this can be done to anyone in the United States then it can be done to you. I realize that conservatives will say – “well that’s happening to people who aren’t citizens”. But those rights are supposed to apply to everyone, and we are all entitled to due process to prove it in a court of law, and are entitled to the presumption of innocence (innocent until proven guilty). Conservatives famously are unable to understand something until it happens to them. So let’s reframe it in terms they might be able to understand: What if it happened to you? What if some guy in fatigues, a mask, and weapon slam you to the ground and zip tie you despite your protest? If a person can just be targeted on the street and thrown into a van then it could happen to anyone. That means you, dear Republican – you, your spouse, or your children. They may also likely say that’s not going to happen to them because “I look like an American” (which translated from racist coding to English is: Americans are white, my skin is not brown/Americans don’t have an accent from another country). We’re just gonna ignore that white privileged and racist thought for now – but guess what? If ICE is being allowed to do this to anyone, then they can do it to you – there’s literally nothing stopping them. And since people are being assumed guilty and dragged away at a whim, we’ve already lost in a big way. Conservatives who disagree with this are being willfully ignorant.

Brainwashed

Conservatives have been brainwashed for decades which is in large part the reason they respond the way they do when they see people’s rights being trampled on or see the President sending in national guard to states to quell supposed “violence or insurrection”. The brainwashing capitalizes on their inherent racism they’ve refused to deal with. Conservatives have a comically over exaggerated sense of danger and crime regarding cities. This is just racial coding that exists generally as part of our culture of white supremacy but to those who watch Fox news and other conservative propaganda outlets it’s been weaponized to almost comically tragic proportions. They talk about cities as if they’re a literal war zone, clutching pearls at the thought of going anywhere near the city. And the targeting of cities is purposeful as it helps associate the places that vote overwhelmingly Democrat with negative associations like crime and corruption. When they see or hear of people abducted off the streets by government thugs they will immediately call on their brainwashed ideas that immigrants are mostly criminals or drug dealers. They are very much shielded from the visuals of normal everyday men, women, and children being dragged out of cars or grocery stores minding their own business. They are carefully shown by their media of choice only images of very selective video of someone fighting hard against being taken or someone who fits a stereotype that they commonly expect to see. I want to be clear – Republicans do not get a pass because they’ve been brainwashed. It’s easy enough to understand or figure out their beliefs are nonsense – the problem is that they choose to buy into it and don’t want to know any differently. You may wonder why people would engage in brainwashing – it’s simple really, it’s for the money. Conservative culture is ripe for grifting, just look at the fortunes amassed by Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Sean Hannity recently bought a 2nd multimillion dollar beachfront condo for $14 million to merge it with the one next door into a single residence. And this just after recently purchasing a different beachfront property for $23 million. Unfortunately, it pays to sell division and anger at the expense of your country – unfortunately for us capitalism happily rewards it.

Military in the streets

Trump has wanted to turn the military against citizens for a long time, ever since his first term. He once asked if he could have the military shoot protestors in the legs. To the brainwashed, this sounds unbelievable that their “great” leader would do something like that without someone deserving it. Besides the fact that no protester could “deserve” it, it betrays a difference in understanding of who Trump is versus who the brainwashed conservatives see him as. Trump has an extremely fragile ego and juvenile personality. He can’t stand to be told he’s wrong and can’t handle people challenging him – which is one reason he surrounds himself with yes men.

His goal is to have the military do his bidding in attacking and controlling the citizens of the United States. Trump has no concept or respect for the constitution or the government it has tried to define in America – if you recognize that he’s essentially a selfish toddler that thinks he’s entitled to absolute obedience as a king then you understand him and his motives.

Hell on earth – complements of the “followers” of Jesus

The fact is that ICE’s tactics, the devastation to public health through the CDC, the corruption of the department of justice among so many other things I won’t name here are all part of an unleashing of hell on earth, especially to the least of these. I personally know many people who truly try to be faithful to Jesus’ teachings, and they were absolutely thrilled when Trump won the election of 2024. If they still support Trump, then it’s my sincere hope for each and every one of them that they are made to endure the hell that they’ve unleashed on others. Despite their own efforts and self imposed piety, they are as far from Jesus as if they had no faith at all. They can go to church all they like, pray as much as they can, tithe faithfully, read their bible religiously but it doesn’t mean anything. There are legions of atheists and agnostics all over the country who represent Christ better than any of conservative Christian would on their best red letter day. May every Christian who supports Trump be shown for the absolutely morally bankrupt hypocrite they truly are and may they never know peace.

What you can do

We need to stand up for our neighbors, fellow citizens, and those abducted by our government. It’s so important to join the fight against Trump’s authoritarian overreach. The conservative leadership’s reaction to protests, especially the “No Kings” protest is telling as it shows their hand. Mike Johnson, speaker of the house/human-snake hybrid/Christian hypocrite extraordinaire is spinning shameful propaganda, equating protestors with terrorists, in concert with the rest of the Trump administration. The fact that they are bothering to address it and spin propaganda shows how dangerous the movement is to them. Consider that during all 4 years of President Biden’s term, there were no nationwide protests. We’re not even into the first year of Trump’s term and I personally have been to at least 6 protests (and there have been others I haven’t attended). Conservative anger ginned up by their propaganda outlets doesn’t have a basis in reality, and it shows by the general lack of action (except for the Jan 6, 2021 insurrection, of course). While their anger is real, it lacks substance or a basis in reality; it’s a general malaise of temperament that affects the brainwashed.

These protests which occur throughout the entire country make this point subconsciously and directly to conservatives driving by. Even if they flip off all the protestors as they drive by in their huge overcompensator trucks, they are faced with the cognitive dissonance that something unique is happening. This is something that we haven’t seen before – or at least haven’t seen in the 2 or 3 generations since the Vietnam war. The protests bypass the Fox “News” propaganda echo chamber that Trump uses to fool the fools. They may try to tell themselves all the people out there are “paid protestors”, but they know deep down it’s not true. They are forced to confront it and they know something is wrong – and Trump can’t control that. In fact he hates not being able to control it. Furthermore, our protests will encourage others that may want to get out there and stand up but need a little encouragement from seeing others who feel similarly to how they feel. This is our act of solidarity, our message of hope to those being mistreated and trampled on. This is goodness standing up against the forces of corruption and the worst impulses humanity brings to the table. I’m going to be out there on 10/18/2025 – I hope to see you there too! 

FDT

House Republicans phone list 2025

as of March 2, 2025

Please find the blog article at bottom of this phone list
List was sourced from here

Alabama

Moore, Barry – (202) 225-2901
Rogers, Mike – (202) 225-3261
Aderholt, Robert – (202) 225-4876
Strong, Dale – (202) 225-4801
Palmer, Gary – (202) 225-4921

Alaska

Begich, Nicholas – (202) 225-5765

American Samoa

Bicycle, Aumua Amata – (202) 225-8577

Arizona

Schweikert, David – (202) 225-2190
Crane, Elijah – (202) 225-3361
Biggs, Andy – (202) 225-2635
Ciscomani, Juan – (202) 225-2542
Hamed, Abraham – (202) 225-4576
Gosar, Paul – (202) 225-2315

Arkansas

Crawford, Eric – (202) 225-4076
Hill, J. – (202) 225-2506
Womack, Steve – (202) 225-4301
Westerman, Bruce – (202) 225-3772

California

LaMalfa, Doug – (202) 225-3076
Kiley, Kevin – (202) 225-2523
McClintock, Tom – (202) 225-2511
Fong, Vince – (202) 225-2915
Valadao, David – (202) 225-4695
Obernolte, Jay – (202) 225-5861
Kim, Young – (202) 225-4111
Calvert, Ken – (202) 225-1986
Issa, Darrell – (202) 225-5672

Colorado

Hurd, Jeff – (202) 225-4676
Boebert, Lauren – (202) 225-4761
Crank, Jeff – (202) 225-4422
Evans, Gabe – (202) 225-5625

Florida

Gaetz, Matt- Vacancy – (202) 225-4136
Dunn, Neal – (202) 225-5235
Cammack, Cat – (202) 225-5744
Bean, Aaron – (202) 225-0123
Rutherford, John – (202) 225-2501
Waltz, Michael- Vacancy – (202) 225-2706
Mills, Cory – (202) 225-4035
Haridopoulos, Mike – (202) 225-3671
Webster, Daniel – (202) 225-1002
Bilirakis, Gus – (202) 225-5755
Luna, Anna Paulina – (202) 225-5961
Lee, Laurel – (202) 225-5626
Buchanan, Vern – (202) 225-5015
Steube, W. – (202) 225-5792
Franklin, Scott – (202) 225-1252
Donalds, Byron – (202) 225-2536
Mast, Brian – (202) 225-3026
Diaz-Balart, Mario – (202) 225-4211
Salazar, Maria – (202) 225-3931
Gimenez, Carlos – (202) 225-2778

Georgia

Carter, Earl – (202) 225-5831
Jack, Brian – (202) 225-5901
McCormick, Richard – (202) 225-4272
Scott, Austin – (202) 225-6531
Clyde, Andrew – (202) 225-9893
Collins, Mike – (202) 225-4101
Loudermilk, Barry – (202) 225-2931
Allen, Rick – (202) 225-2823
Greene, Marjorie – (202) 225-5211

Guam

Moylan, James – (202) 225-1188

Idaho

Fulcher, Russ – (202) 225-6611
Simpson, Michael – (202) 225-5531

Illinois

Bost, Mike – (202) 225-5661
Miller, Mary – (202) 225-5271
LaHood, Darin – (202) 225-6201

Indiana

Yakym, Rudy – (202) 225-3915
Stutzman, Marlin – (202) 225-4436
Baird, James – (202) 225-5037
Spartz, Victoria – (202) 225-2276
Shreve, Jefferson – (202) 225-3021
Messmer, Mark – (202) 225-4636
Houchin, Erin – (202) 225-5315

Iowa

Miller-Meeks, Mariannette – (202) 225-6576
Hinson, Ashley – (202) 225-2911
Nunn, Zachary – (202) 225-5476
Feenstra, Randy – (202) 225-4426

Kansas

Mann, Tracey – (202) 225-2715
Schmidt, Derek – (202) 225-6601
Estes, Ron – (202) 225-6216

Kentucky

Eat, James – (202) 225-3115
Guthrie, Brett – (202) 225-3501
Massie, Thomas – (202) 225-3465
Rogers, Harold – (202) 225-4601
Barr, Andy – (202) 225-4706

Louisiana

Scalise, Steve – (202) 225-3015
Higgins, Clay – (202) 225-2031
Johnson, Mike – (202) 225-2777
Letlow, Julia – (202) 225-8490

Maryland

Harris, Andy – (202) 225-5311

Michigan

Bergman, Jack – (202) 225-4735
Moolenaar, John – (202) 225-3561
Huizenga, Bill – (202) 225-4401
Walberg, Tim – (202) 225-6276
Barrett, Tom – (202) 225-4872
McClain, Lisa – (202) 225-2106
James, John – (202) 225-4961

Minnesota

Finstad, Brad – (202) 225-2472
Emmer, Tom – (202) 225-2331
Fischbach, Michelle – (202) 225-2165
Stauber, Pete – (202) 225-6211

Mississippi

Kelly, Trent – (202) 225-4306
Guest, Michael – (202) 225-5031
Ezell, Mike – (202) 225-5772

Missouri

Wagner, Ann – (202) 225-1621
Below, Robert – (202) 225-2956
Alford, Mark – (202) 225-2876
Graves, Sam – (202) 225-7041
Burlison, Eric – (202) 225-6536
Smith, Jason – (202) 225-4404

Montana

Zinke, Ryan – (202) 225-5628
Downing, Troy – (202) 225-3211

Nebraska

Flood, Mike – (202) 225-4806
Bacon, Don – (202) 225-4155
Smith, Adrian – (202) 225-6435

Nevada

Amodei, Mark – (202) 225-6155

New Jersey

Van Drew, Jefferson – (202) 225-6572
Smith, Christopher – (202) 225-3765
Kean, Thomas – (202) 225-5361

New York

LaLota, Nick – (202) 225-3826
Garbarino, Andrew – (202) 225-7896
Malliotakis, Nicole – (202) 225-3371
Lawler, Michael – (202) 225-6506
Stefanik, Elise – (202) 225-4611
Langworthy, Nicholas – (202) 225-3161
Tenney, Claudia – (202) 225-3665

North Carolina

Murphy, Gregory – (202) 225-3415
Foxx, Virginia – (202) 225-2071
McDowell, Addison – (202) 225-3065
Rouzer, David – (202) 225-2731
Harris, Mark – (202) 225-1976
Hudson, Richard – (202) 225-3715
Harrigan, Pat – (202) 225-2576
Edwards, Chuck – (202) 225-6401
Knott, Brad – (202) 225-4531
Moore, Tim – (202) 225-5634

North Dakota

Fedorchak, Julie – (202) 225-2611

Northern Mariana Islands

King-Hinds, Kimberlyn – (202) 225-2646

Ohio

Taylor, David – (202) 225-3164
Jordan, Jim – (202) 225-2676
Latta, Robert – (202) 225-6405
Rollers, Michael A. – (202) 225-5705
Miller, Max – (202) 225-3876
Davidson, Warren – (202) 225-6205
Turner, Michael – (202) 225-6465
Balderson, Troy – (202) 225-5355
Joyce, David – (202) 225-5731
Carey, Mike – (202) 225-2015

Oklahoma

Hern, Kevin – (202) 225-2211
Brecheen, Josh – (202) 225-2701
Luke, Frank – (202) 225-5565
Cole, Tom – (202) 225-6165
Bice, Stephanie – (202) 225-2132

Oregon

Bentz, Cliff – (202) 225-6730

Pennsylvania

Fitzpatrick, Brian – (202) 225-4276
Mackenzie, Ryan – (202) 225-6411
Bresnahan, Robert – (202) 225-5546
Meuser, Daniel – (202) 225-6511
Perry, Scott – (202) 225-5836
Smucker, Lloyd – (202) 225-2411
Joyce, John – (202) 225-2431
Reschenthaler, Guy – (202) 225-2065
Thompson, Glenn – (202) 225-5121
Kelly, Mike – (202) 225-5406

South Carolina

Mace, Nancy – (202) 225-3176
Wilson, Joe – (202) 225-2452
Biggs, Sheri – (202) 225-5301
Timmons, William – (202) 225-6030
Norman, Ralph – (202) 225-5501
Fry, Russell – (202) 225-9895

South Dakota

Johnson, Dusty – (202) 225-2801

Tennessee

Harshbarger, Diana – (202) 225-6356
Burchett, Tim – (202) 225-5435
Fleischmann, Charles – (202) 225-3271
DesJarlais, Scott – (202) 225-6831
Coal, Andrew – (202) 225-4311
Rose, John – (202) 225-4231
Green, Mark – (202) 225-2811
Kustoff, David – (202) 225-4714

Texas

Moran, Nathaniel – (202) 225-3035
Crenshaw, Dan – (202) 225-6565
Self, Keith – (202) 225-4201
Fallon, Pat – (202) 225-6673
Gooden, Lance – (202) 225-3484
Ellzey, Jake – (202) 225-2002
Luttrell, Morgan – (202) 225-4901
McCaul, Michael – (202) 225-2401
Pfluger, August – (202) 225-3605
Goldman, Craig – (202) 225-5071
Jackson, Ronny – (202) 225-3706
Weber, Randy – (202) 225-2831
De La Cruz, Monica – (202) 225-9901
Sessions, Pete – (202) 225-6105
Arrington, Jodey – (202) 225-4005
Roy, Chip – (202) 225-4236
Nehls, Troy – (202) 225-5951
Gonzales, Tony – (202) 225-4511
Van Duyne, Beth – (202) 225-6605
Williams, Roger – (202) 225-9896
Gill, Brandon – (202) 225-7772
Cloud, Michael – (202) 225-7742
Carter, John – (202) 225-3864
Babin, Brian – (202) 225-1555
Hunt, Wesley – (202) 225-5646

Utah

Moore, Blake – (202) 225-0453
Maloy, Celeste – (202) 225-9730
Kennedy, Mike – (202) 225-7751
Owens, Burgess – (202) 225-3011

Virginia

Wittman, Robert – (202) 225-4261
Kiggans, Jennifer – (202) 225-4215
McGuire, John – (202) 225-4711
Cline, Ben – (202) 225-5431
Griffith, H. – (202) 225-3861

Washington

Newhouse, Dan – (202) 225-5816
Baumgartner, Michael – (202) 225-2006

West Virginia

Miller, Carol – (202) 225-3452
Moore, Riley – (202) 225-2711

Wisconsin

Steil, Bryan – (202) 225-3031
Van Orden, Derrick – (202) 225-5506
Fitzgerald, Scott – (202) 225-5101
Grothman, Glenn – (202) 225-2476
Tiffany, Thomas – (202) 225-3365
Wied, Tony – (202) 225-5665

Wyoming

Hageman, Harriet – (202) 225-2311

Today’s entry will be short and to the point. If you haven’t installed the app for or gone to the site 5Calls, do that first – it’s a higher priority than what I’m doing here. It lists the current issues at hand, gives you your representatives, and a script for what to say. However, if you’re feeling like there’s still more you want to do, then this article is for you. I’ve been going through the list of GOP representatives and making short phone calls to them during the week over portions of my lunch break. My goal is to be a Jiminy Cricket in their ear – politely request that they stand up for and do what is right. In this case, opposing Trump and Musk, and standing up for the oppressed in our society, as well as standing up for Ukraine. With the Republican numbers in the House, we only need around 3 of these people to grow a conscience or spine – let’s call them non-stop until a few of them break in favor of humanity. Also, because I’m lazy, I wanted a more convenient list which

a) features only Republicans
b) had clickable phone numbers, which makes it easier to start the call and gives a visual indicator that it’s been clicked already

I will be posting a Senate list as well. My hope in providing these lists is to make it even easier for people to get involved and call these representatives.

Quick points I’d like to make:

a) I’m an introvert, the prospect of making these calls makes me nervous each time – America is worth it though
b) Don’t limit to your own state – if they ask for your address, etc, be upfront and honest – they will still take your message
c) The call only takes about 40 sec – 1 min.
d) The staffers I’ve talked to are very polite and professional, they usually tell me to have a nice day at the end of the call
e) Just try to make 1 call a day. If it feels good, make another if you have time
f) Either pick them randomly or go down the list
g) I’ve left the US territories on here – they don’t have vote privileges, unfortunately, but maybe we can encourage them to have conversations with other members

What to say

Here are 3 sample scripts for what you can say when you call. Feel free to take or modify as you wish!

Option 1

Hi, I’m calling to urge the congressman/congresswoman Last name to stand up for the poor, the powerless, and the oppressed. I know many in Congress recognize that Trump is not a good leader and do not respect his actions. I ask that you do what is right—push back against his authoritarian tendencies and efforts to weaken our democracy. Please continue to support Ukraine in its fight for freedom. I understand that taking a stand can come with risks, but history, your constituents, and future generations will remember and honor your courage.

Option 2

Hello, I’m calling to ask the representative to stand up for those who are vulnerable and to resist Trump’s attacks on democracy. Many in Congress know he is unfit to lead, and I urge you to oppose his authoritarian actions. Please stand strong in support of Ukraine. Doing what’s right isn’t always easy, but history and future generations will remember those who chose principle over fear.

Option 3

Hi, I’m calling because I care deeply about the future of our country and the people who depend on leaders like you to do what’s right. The poor, the powerless, and the oppressed need champions in Congress—people who will stand up to injustice, even when it’s difficult. I know that many in Congress see Trump for who he truly is, and I ask you to have the courage to push back against his dangerous, authoritarian actions.

Please stand up for Ukraine in its fight for freedom. This moment in history matters. The choices you make now will define your legacy—not just in politics, but in the hearts of the people you represent. Doing the right thing is never easy, but it is always worth it. Your constituents, history, and future generations will remember your bravery.


So, you’re thinking of voting for Trump?

Can I ask you a question? Whose side are you on? It’s not intended to be a rhetorical question. I really want you to answer that for yourself. Are you on the side of democracy, the side that believes people should be free? The side that believes no one is above the law and that authoritarianism and fascism are evil? I can’t imagine anyone would answer no to that. But we are at a watershed moment right now. This is a chance to make a meaningful choice to determine the type of person and the type of legacy that you will leave on this earth. I’m 43 years old – for most of my life I have wondered about how Germany could possibly have supported Hitler, and how people could have actually been a part of Nazism and not understood that what they were doing was so evil and so wrong. I know that I’m not alone in that sentiment – in everything from movies to books to history lessons – in everything having to do with Nazis or Nazi Germany, it is always readily apparent and beyond obvious that Nazis are the bad guys and everyone roots for them to lose. I think this is one of the rare things that we can all agree on.  The idea that they deserve everything bad and are irredeemable and hopelessly awful – there is no debate about this point. Which brings me back to my original thought – I have always wondered how they came to be and have always found it inexplicable and unlike anything I could ever imagine a human being deciding to be a part of. Until now. You know what else I think? I think that if you would have asked them if they knew that they were the bad guys or if what they believed in or supported was evil they would have emphatically told you no. I think they would have believed wholeheartedly that they were in the right and justified in thinking so. Before we get to the watershed moment we need to address a different question. Is it possible to know which side we would have been on in Germany if we were alive in that era? Would you have been a Nazi supporter or would you have been someone that recognized that it was a vile and evil party? Your answer to this question will be the same as your answer to the next. And that question stands before you today, right now. You get to know what kind of person you would have been by answering one simple question. If the election has happened then that question will be behind us, which might even be sadder depending on the outcome of your answer.  This is your chance to test your metal, to make a decision for who you are. I imagine that in the years which followed the fall of the Nazis, those who supported Nazis felt shame and their children and grandchildren feel shame still for their relatives who had supported them. Conversely, pride and admiration for those who stood up to them. You don’t get many chances in this life to make this type of decision. Looking at the presidential campaigns, statements and actions of the two candidates Harris and Trump – one of those camps has a lot of scary things that map directly to what helped give life to Nazism through fascism. This is not just a partisan statement that could be turned around and just as easily said about the other party. There is actually only one party that is legitimately and wholeheartedly embracing aspects of fascism. The other one is not – full stop. I don’t say that lightly, and it’s easy enough to verify that claim – if you are brave enough and honest enough to look.

There are a couple of other watershed moments that we’ve been able to have in our lives, and it’s been on my mind to address them as well, which I will. Much like what I stated about Nazis, I’d had the same thoughts about the Confederacy that brought about the civil war. While I always knew that slavery was a part of America and that racism is an ongoing issue here, it was always obvious to me (and I’m sure to you) that slave holding, racism and the Confederacy were wrong and evil. I couldn’t imagine how any individual could possibly justify, stand up for or fight for such a vile cause that is so egregiously wrong. It took me an embarrassingly long time, until 2020 to finally understand the following idea: The racism that was responsible for the Confederacy and everything else is still alive today – because of that, we have an opportunity to see what kind of people we would have been back then. You might wonder how as things have changed so much, right? If you oppose DEI, affirmative action, roll your eyes at the idea of reparations, or think critical race theory makes someone hate America or makes people racist against white people, then congratulations – you would be a Confederate or Confederate sympathizer. You’re able to perform the same mental gymnastics that they did and still feel good about yourself at the end of the the day. It’s an uncomfortable thought exercise, but you can take this through the different eras in American history. Ever wondered what you would say about segregation? If you would just go along with it or stand up to it? The Civil Rights act? Whether you would have thought Martin Luther King Jr at the time was an inspiration or just a trouble maker stirring things up by talking about race? The same answer applies. It’s not fun to realize that you would have been the bad guy, and I’m pretty certain that if you are the bad guy you’re not going to agree with me and will write me off, just like those Nazis would have. The chances are that whatever side you fall on for one question, you’ll land consistently on the same side for every other I’ve posed. But just know for the rest of us, when we see a Trump sign or a MAGA hat, we don’t see something edgy or just a political party preference.

We see you.

We see you for what and who you are. It is always in the front of our minds when we interact with you and measure who you are as a person. You are probably a nice person to interact with in most/all circumstances. You probably go to church every Sunday. You probably say you “don’t see color” and treat everyone the same. But inside, you are full of anger and blame others unfairly for any hardships you have. You are ignorant and unwilling to listen to views which challenge yours. You consume information which only affirms what you already believe. You say racially charged things when everyone in the room looks like you because you think that makes it a safe place for you. I said earlier that we get a few chances at these watershed moments to decide who we are as a person. Those moments are decidedly important, they set the tone for the rest of our lives. But they also set the course to help us make the more routine decisions in our everyday lives. Decisions like when we decide to fight against our implicit bias, recognize what privilege we carry, use inclusive speech, and show kindness and love to others who are different than we are. I encourage you to start making those decisions today and make your way over to the side of history that you can be proud of and that your children and descendants will be proud of too.

2024 Presidential candidate worksheet

Image of weight scale with an apple on one side and an orange on the other generated with canva.com
Image of weight scale with an apple on one side and an orange on the other generated with canva.com

I’ve been hearing an idea for the past few months – people claiming that they don’t like either presidential candidate in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. They claim that neither one is a good choice, setting up the idea that somehow both are equally bad, or that they’re equivalent. While I have my own suspicions* (see end note) on this phenomena, assuming this is truly how people feel, I thought it would be helpful to create a candidate quiz to help educate those who view these two presidential candidates as equally bad choices. 

You’ll notice a pattern below, which I think will make clear that one candidate in particular is far worse than the other. I’m hopeful that this will make clear that the choice is not a toss up. At any rate, you may learn about some important aspects of these candidates that you didn’t previously know about.

Judicial

Which candidate has appointed judges (supreme court and federal) throughout the country who are against women’s right to choose and make decisions about their own bodies – judges who through their decisions uphold Christian nationalism and white supremacy?

Note: this seemingly boring and uninteresting privilege of Presidents is one of the most important considerations you as a voter need to remember – the judges who are appointed can change the meaning of laws, create and uphold systemic racism, change or otherwise influence elections unfairly, disenfranchise people of color and other minority groups from their ability to vote, prevent meaningful changes to gun reform laws, make it illegal to sell or mail ANY KIND OF BIRTH CONTROL and allow people in power (from President and down) to potentially be immune from prosecution. So this is kind of a big deal and more important than how much it might cost you to fill your car with gas. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Which candidate directed his attorney general to investigate and arrest his political opponents? 1, 2, 3

Foreign policy

Which candidate tanked a bill that would have increased border security and did it because he thought it would him win the next election? 1 

Which candidate appears to owe Putin a favor due to Putin helping interfere in a prior election for him via propaganda? 1

Who believed Putin’s word over the information given to him by our CIA, NSA, FBI, etc, and publicly said this in front of the world? 1, 2

Bonus: Who does Putin know can be manipulated by simply saying nice things about him? 1, 2, 3, 4

Which candidate is obsessed with what people say about him in public and which one is obsessed with crowd size and ratings?

Which candidate claims to be tough on dictators and tyrannical leaders but claims to also have a love for Kim Jong Un? 1, 2

Which candidate said that he’d like to be a dictator for the first day of his next term in the presidency? 1

Which one asked if some protestors could just be shot in the leg by our military to send a message? 1, 2

Which one was impeached for trying to withhold military assistance from a country in return for asking that country to try to start an investigation into his political opponent? 1, 2

A common “business” strategy of mobsters is to “offer” protection in return for payment of some sort: True or False

Yes men

Which candidate gets angry when they hear intelligence (gathered by our NSA, CIA, FBI, etc) that they disagree with or don’t want to hear . 1, 2, 3, 4

Which candidate drew on a map with a sharpie marker because he disagreed with the hurricane track predicted by NOAA scientists? 1, 2

Which candidate is having his sons find loyalist “yes men” to serve in his next administration because he’s too fragile to hear opinions which might not be exactly what he wants to hear? 1, 2

Extra credit assignment: why might someone get angry and refuse to listen to high value, top secret information?

Jan 6/election fraud

Which candidate was rebuked by his own cabinet members when they resigned in protest and due to the candidate’s responsibility for the January 6 attack, or more specifically, the candidate’s lack of action to quell it? 1, 2, 3

Which candidate told their vice president to break the law and not certify that someone else had lawfully won the election? 1

Which one’s vice president doesn’t think that the candidate should be president again? 1, 2

Which candidate called up two low level election officials in Michigan after having lost the election – causing them to refuse to certify the votes in their jurisdiction, despite this being a process which is supposed to be a formality in paperwork. A process which is normally taken for granted in the background of an election – the nitty gritty details of which are just dotting i’s and crossing t’s – which somehow became a sticking point for the national election of the President of the United States. 1

Which candidate fired the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) chief after the CISA chief said the election was the most secure in history? 1, 2

Which candidate’s attorney general (AG) resigned 1 month early, ostensibly after the public deterioration in his relationship with the candidate after the AG publicly stated there was no evidence of election fraud? 1

Which candidate seems to get rid of people who tell him hard truths he doesn’t want to hear

Does a good leader surround themselves with only yes men?

Which candidate filed over 60 lawsuits alleging election fraud but had all of them thrown out or withdrawn (that is, not even tried due to their ridiculousness) 1

Which candidate still gripes and whines like a petulant 3 year old toddler about having lost said election and pushes the same lies, despite having seen that these lies are directly responsible for killing and maiming American citizens? 1, 2

Which candidate took advice from the conspiracy believing extremists they surrounded themselves with while in office? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Which one tried to get fake sets of electors from multiple states to declare that he had won the presidency after he had in fact lost it? 1

Which one knowingly lied that there was election fraud to whip up their supporters into a frenzy after he had lost the election? 1

Which candidate was blamed by hundreds of people at their sentencing trials for having deceived them into thinking that the election was stolen, encouraging them to act on it and resulting in them now going to jail? 1, 2

Which candidate in a recorded phone call to Georgia’s secretary of state tried to pressure the secretary of state to “find” 10,000 votes for him so that he could flip the state and win the election for himself? 1

Which one now has a criminal trial in Georgia because of this phone call, among other indictments? 1

Which candidate is a convicted felon found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records as part of a cover up attempt to help him win the 2016 presidential election? 1

COVID-19 Response

Which candidate used the Dept. of health and human services to interfere with and modify COVID-19 messaging to downplay its impact and align with their politics? 1

Which candidate wouldn’t say if the COVID-19 vaccine they helped to develop worked?

Which candidate is responsible for 350K american lives during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Which candidate refused to wear a mask publicly during COVID-19 pandemic because he was afraid of how it would make him look to others? 1, 2

Criminal indictments

Which candidate allegedly hid classified documents at their residence and then told the FBI that there were no more there? 1

Which candidate has 4 separate criminal indictments against them? 1

Which candidate was found liable in 2024 for sexually abusing a woman in a clothes department dressing room? 1, 2

Which candidate has a business that was found guilty of defrauding the state of New York from tax revenue and required to pay over $300M in damages ? 1

General IQ

Which candidate thinks that magnets are deactivated by water? 1, 2

Which candidate thinks windmills cause cancer? 1

Which candidate thought COVID-19 could be cured by injecting a person with bleach. 1, 2

Which one wondered if a hurricane could be destroyed by dropping a nuclear bomb on it? 1

Which one worked with the National Inquirer to publish a false story about Ted Cruz’s father knowing Lee Harvey Oswald (the assassin of President John F Kennedy)? 1

Which one claims to respect and love the Bible but when asked for a favorite verse, says “it’s too personal to get into”, and when asked which “testament” is his favorite claims both testaments equally? Which candidate 6 months later then stated that their favorite verse was “eye for an eye”?

While not an exhaustive list, these are many of the points that come to mind when I hear people talk about the inadequacy of either candidate. The candidates are not equally bad but it’s clear they cannot be compared. I do hope this guide helps you in your decision.

*About those who believe both candidates are equally bad; I acknowledge that there are many people who are uninformed about politics in general, and so may truly hold the opinion that, to their extremely limited knowledge, both candidates are less than ideal. However, I believe there is a larger portion of this group of people who use this statement as cover to hold their toxic worldview while assuaging their conscience. They know that supporting and voting for a particular candidate is socially unacceptable and in opposition to their stated beliefs. But for some people, it can be more comfortable to convince themselves that the choice is a toss up, and as such, how can they be blamed for choosing one over the other? Consider if we flipped the premise to become “Both candidates are mediocre, I’m having a hard time figuring out which one to choose’. Comically, it doesn’t work, because one side knows that their only chance to hide is to drag the decent guy down to their level. There is another angle to consider in this, however. These people secretly support the cruel policies and views of their candidate. You might ask, why – why would they act with such obvious hypocrisy? One reason is that in a way, it gives them a safe way to test the waters, so to speak. It lets them see if they are in a safe space to show support for the malevolent candidate. By initially coming across as “neutral” ( in saying “I don’t think either candidate is good”™), they can gauge how their audience responds. If their audience immediately agrees that neither candidate is good, then they can feel free to reveal a little bit more of their true and cruel self. It lets them safely begin to discern if their conversational partner also supports the racist and dictatorial candidate. But if their audience protests how the awful one isn’t really a choice, their secret is still safe, as they haven’t revealed that they secretly hold a cruel worldview.

Why Republicans cherish the 1st amendment

Elephant burning 1st amendment, with American flag in the background. Generated with dreamstudio.ai

Frequently I hear conservatives going off about the attack on 1st amendment rights in America. But I’d like to cue my Republican readers into an open secret that most conservatives don’t realize: this is code for “I am being prevented from spreading a lie”. No doubt this statement will stir up some anger initially, but I challenge you to stick with me, as I’d like to share why I think this is true, and why understanding it can literally save American democracy. You should first know a little about myself; I grew up listening to Rush LImbaugh, and talking politics with my parents. I was raised an evangelical Christian with hard right values. I voted Republican down the ballot for 20 years and was through and through as Republican as you can get on any issue, from abortion, military support, faith in the police, and opposed to taxes at all costs. In 2016, I voted for the former president. I have argued the merits of conservatism for decades and really couldn’t understand why anyone would vote for the “other side”. I talk more about some of the things that have since changed my mind in other posts on this site, so please check them out if you are interested. My point in mentioning it here is to establish some credibility with you by showing that I’ve walked and lived in that conservative culture,  and am thoroughly familiar with it.

Things conservatives believe

As a former conservative Republican, I am well aware of the headspace that is common to the majority of that group. When I was conservative, there were many things I believed. See how many you identify with:

Democrats want to kill babies/don’t care about human life

Democrats want “illegals” [sic] to become citizens so they will vote for them [Democrats]

Democrats are socialists

Democrats don’t love this country/are ashamed of this country/hate this country/think other countries are better than us

Democrats are passivists who will always oppose war

Democrats want to take away our guns – this way we can be unarmed and can’t resist government overreach/authoritarianism/destruction of America

Democrats don’t care about election security – and so can’t be trusted to hold secure elections (because they don’t agree we need all the security processes advocated by Republicans, they must have nefarious motives with regard to holding fair elections)

Democrats want to tax the rich out of existence.

Democrats want to increase my taxes to pay for their liberal programs/give it to poor/lazy/addicted citizens.

Democrats hate/don’t believe in God – this is why they often oppose things like school prayer, putting the 10 commands in public spaces/Christian statues/memorials in public spaces. This is also why they get upset when Islam and other religions are denigrated/treated less than in culture and media.

They want to destroy the family, as shown by their hatred of religion and embrace of LGBTQ+issues. They want to force everyone to accept things that they don’t agree with and want to limit people’s free speech to speak out about things that they disagree with.

Democrats don’t love their country / are not true Patriots. Evidence of this comes in the form of them criticizing the country for past wrongs which have lasting impact (slavery, colonialism) or holding the country to account for past wrongs. Also they don’t seem to encourage explicit displays of nationalistic pride and can be critical of wars we engage in. They also support leaders who prevent wars or utilize tools like NATO or the United Nations to hold countries to account instead of showing aggressors the sharp end of the spear.

Democrats, and especially Democratic politicians, despise this country, feel no pride or respect for its foundations, and want to erase what is and form a socialistic society, spurning the work of our founding fathers. Therefore, they cannot be trusted to govern at any cost, and must not be elected, no matter what.

Democrats are fine with racism against white people

I’m sure most, if not all of the above ideas resonate to some degree with you, if you are or have been a conservative at any point in your life. The list isn’t exhaustive, I know there’s more. Those are all things I have believed at some point in my life. And here’s the thing: Every single one of those things is a lie.

The lies are a feature, not a bug

Every single one of the false ideas presented above are categorically false. Leading up to the subject of the 1st amendment and its relationship to conservatives, we need to talk about the false ideas that conservatives share. And this is the part that will make you angry, but I ask that you stay with me for a short while so that you can judge whether there is any merit in my points. It’s not an accident that we all have believed many of these things. In fact, it’s required that we believe them if we want to remain a part of the Republican party. If your average voter were to question or cease believing these lies, they would have no reason to remain in the Republican party. The party needs the members to subscribe to the lies. I will say it another way: the Republican party as we know it would be destroyed if its members were to cease believing even some of those lies. Do you notice that I’ve not really said anything about Republican policy? It’s because their policies exist to serve the aforementioned lies. I can’t actually think of any policies which aren’t based on outright lies or are not built to drive a wedge between people. And that presents an enormous weak spot – as all those lies are easily proved false with an open mind, a lot of humility, and a little reading. As Stephen Colbert famously stated, “Reality has a well known liberal bias”. And so my proposition is that conservatism’s greatest weakness is the truth. Without these lies being used to justify their policy positions, the Republican value proposition drops to zero. There’d be no reason why someone should put a Republican in office, as everything they propose is to solve problems which don’t exist or have been twisted so much as to be unreliable to even try to engage with. Sounds kind of arrogant, I know. But let’s think a little more about what this might mean. If this is true, then we should expect that Republican leadership and media are well aware of this mortal danger. As such, we would expect them to do everything in their power to shore up support for and further these lies. I will show later how they do this. I will say upfront, they use some of the things that sets America apart as great (love of country, freedom of speech) and pervert them for their own gain to the detriment of the very country which gave it to them in the first place.

I am being prevented from spreading a lie

The 1st amendment is used by conservatives as a shield for misinformation. It’s a cynical tactic, for it pretends to love the things we have as citizens (the right to free speech), and then they abuse it to spread false information without regard for the truth. It’s cynical because rather than showing a love of country or freedom, it shows a willingness to abuse them for selfish gain. I will distinguish the leaders from the average citizens in how they utilize the lies. They both engage in it; but I believe that the leaders almost always do it intentionally, whereas the average citizens are more just repeaters of the nonsense they hear without discriminating whether what they are parrotting is true. But I think they all understand instinctively that unless they parrot the points, they’ll continue to lose people to more realistic positions. I’ll give a couple examples which follow a predictable pattern. It goes something like this: 

1. conservative says something untrue

2. Someone controverts it or limits its dissemination

3. Conservative claims 1st amendment right is being infringed

Take as an example the various misinformation that flew around on social media around covid-19, masks, and vaccines. Information spreads like wildfire, and in this case it impacts people’s health/lives. There were countless back and forths in social media from people fighting with one another over the veracity of claims. In response, many of the social media companies began trying to supplement posts with additional context, which oftentimes would show that a post was misinformation or at best, point the reader at a verified and truthful source of information. Conservatives then cried censorship. Average citizens would joke about going to “facebook jail”, a reference to them posting something that they knew would either be flagged for removal or supplemented with supporting context. I’ve had conversations with Republicans who will complain that this violates their 1st amendment right. They have the right to post whatever they want. I’ve asked if they think they should post something that isn’t true, to which I’ve been asked in retort, “What is truth?” (Sidenote, as this is what Pontius Pilate asked Jesus before he handed him over to be executed, I have to question why he would be anyone’s role model). This person’s point though was reflecting another conservative trope, which is distrust of sources of information which are reliable, try to be unbiased, or are generally scientifically accurate. Ironically, often in response to the pushback they receive when posting a lie, they are emboldened to continue to try to spread it by any means necessary. Which serves Republican aims nicely. A corollary to this is the following: the bigger the lie, the more explicitly conservatives will say the 1st amendment is under attack. Take the 2020 election. Lies and misinformation were utilized heavily before the election even took place. The former president began suggesting months before the election that he’d only lose if there was fraud. (Obviously knowing from advisors that there was a good chance he would lose, he began hedging his bets ahead of time) It was well discussed in normal news outlets that election results would be delayed due to the high number of mail in ballots, etc. We all know the suspicion that conservative outlets and the former president cast on the fact that it took several days for the election to be called. After President Biden was called as the winner then the lies really began to fly. I’ve detailed in other articles some examples of these election lies and the ways that stupid video clips taken out of context were promoted by Republicans high and low to sow confusion and doubt. But for our purpose it is enough to mention that these posts too were being “facebook jailed”, removed, or just given accurate context. Fox News took part in it as well, and they were taken to trial for allegations of defamation against Dominion voting systems, a frequent target of social media posts and conservative outlets. In their planned defense of allegations of publishing false information about Dominion voting systems, would you care to guess what the defense was to be? Yup, 1st amendment, freedom of press – they planned to say that they were just reporting on newsworthy things that newsworthy people were saying about a company. They ended up not going to trial; Fox News settled with Dominion for $787 million – they knew they wouldn’t be able to hold their own in court of law where actual facts come into play. The former president has been indicted by the federal government on charges of conspiracy against rights, conspiracy to defraud the United states, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. His defense, and the excuse continually stated in news cycles by the majority of congressional republicans and senators who support him? Freedom of speech. And they’re touting it more heavily than I’ve seen them do it before. The last thing they need is a public spectacle of their ecosystem of lies being dismantled in the courts. So it behooves them to cast as much doubt and stir up as much misplaced controversy as possible, lest their voters begin to understand the breadth of the lies that they’ve been led to believe. These are examples of the ways republicans will complain about their “right” to spread lies being infringed upon. 

These aren’t lies, you just listen to too much fake news

In response to what my conservative readers are thinking, I’d like to say – go find out for sure. It really is super simple to do. I know that the topics around covid-19 and election are highly charged, so start with the simple ones that I led the post with. Go down the list and actually find out what Democrat positions are. I’m not going to do it here or now, but my hope is that you’ll at least be interested to know how the things you believe about Democrats are actually not really accurate. In so many cases, I believe we probably think similarly on many issues – what gets in the way though is the Republican lies, and to me this is the ultimate cynicism and hatred of America; to create and maintain lies that make people think they are completely at odds with their friends, family, and fellow citizens, and that for the sake of gain. They don’t have to act this way, but they’ve created a monster which is already out of their control and I fear will destroy our country. They created this monster to help them get elected and stay elected. It is used to create a brand that helps them to stand apart from others, and the lies are what they use to create the market demand. Destroy the lies and you destroy the demand. Attempts to destroy the lie will bring accusations of trampling on free speech. This is a defensive mechanism, and it is understandable; no one likes having their very essence attacked. For republicans, free speech is a trojan by which lies are smuggled. You may doubt this and wonder why anyone would purposely utilize lies to drive a wedge between citizens – you may feel that this wedge is truly a result of vastly different morals and beliefs. The key here is trying to figure out if the things you believe about Democrats are actually true. You may wonder what a way forward might look like. The alternative way that Republicans could engage in politics might look something like this:
1) Agree that gun violence needs to be addressed in meaningful ways, ways that would impact but not eliminate gun sales

2) Agree that systemic racism plays a role in people’s lives and that’s not fair; what can we do address this

3) Agree that it is improper for a president who loses an election to stir up the base, refuse to concede, and allegedly conspire against the citizens of the United States

4) Agree that abortion is a medical and personal decision, religious texts don’t address it, and we need to give doctors and women the latitude to make decisions which they are best equipped to do. In the absence of this, we must at least engage fairly and understand that even within a religion, there are various positions and no “one” right perspective on it. Religion tells its adherents what they may do – it shouldn’t be used to tell everyone else what they should do.

5) Agree that all citizens should be allowed and encouraged to vote; cease from trying to discourage and and prevent people from voting. Change your policies to appeal to more voters rather than trying to prevent those with whom you disagree from voting.

6) Agree that truth matters, and maybe that means each party’s candidates have very similar positions but differ slightly on how they’d prefer to make rules and laws. This would also mean there is less to distinguish you from a field of candidates, making your chances at getting elected or reelected greatly reduced.

There are many other ways beyond what I listed, but those are just to give a taste at how Republicans could move forward. The good news is that it’s actually up to you. Republican leadership, candidates who win primaries, etc, are a function of what the base of Republican voters believe. This is a direct result of the lies that people create, spread, and consequently, believe. We are all in a position to affect the latter two. Will you continue to give oxygen to lies on social media, or will you thoughtfully pause, research, and consider whether what you are consuming is true? Will you learn to identify the hallmarks of conservative lies – memes that generate strong emotions like rage and anger. Will you try to understand what Democrats really propose for rules and policy in the country, even if they aren’t rage inducing or conspiracy laced? Will you refuse to vote for extremists who lie to win at all costs, even if that means Republicans might not win for a couple of cycles until we clear out the nut jobs? And when you hear a conservative pundit or social media influencer mention free speech, will you ask yourself whether they mean deceitful speech or truthful speech? To love this country requires no less.

Republican’s house of cards

Republicans in this country are facing a threat to the perceived reliability of an important echo chamber. Fox “News” was brought to court by Dominion Voting Systems for the alleged charge of defamation with regard to “the big lie”. The details which came to light during the case’s discovery process present an existential threat to the ability of many Republicans to live under the false pretense that they’re the good guys or are fighting a good fight. And while Fox settled with Dominion earlier last week for $787 million, there’s still much value to be gleaned from what came to light during the process.

Through the discovery process, the public has learned about how Fox hosts and others behind the scenes have treated the ‘big lie’. It’s been shown beyond any doubt that many people at Fox “News”, like Tucker Carlson, Ruppert Murdoch, et al knew that the election fraud narrative was a myth, peddled to an audience all too willing to lap it up without question. Details from the case indicate that many at Fox “News” knew that the mass fraud claims were false, but also admitted to knowing that their audience would believe the nonsense they were peddling. To quote Carlson, regarding what Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powel were saying about the election at the time: “It’s unbelievably offensive to me. Our viewers are good people and they believe it.” Other choice texts include Carlson calling Powell a “nut job” and admitting that he knows she was lying about the things she was saying. There are a lot of really great gems that you can read about on your own if you’re not already familiar with the revelations regarding the case. Here is a good place to start – which should give the interested reader a great springboard for other fruitful searches. The main idea is that the people at Fox “News” knew what all reasonable people at the time knew – that the election fraud lie was a conspiracy theory packaged and served to an audience who wanted to believe it. To their credit, Republicans at the time knew there was something untoward happening, and wanted the truth to come out; finally, with the details from the Dominion case, their wish was granted. Unfortunately for them, however, the details are revealing the failure of their worldview to detect faulty information sources and their own susceptibility to being taken in by things they want to be true. It is these revelations which I believe can act to topple the house of cards which the Republican worldview is based upon.
It would be tempting to view the Fox “News” scandal as a one off – that it was a mistake that might be treated as any other which can be forgotten and moved past. Sure, it puts egg on their face, and the face of any other “News” organization who reported on and encouraged “the big lie” – that the 2020 election wasn’t fair, legit, or legal. But I believe it should be viewed as more than that, and here’s why. It has exposed in bright flashing lights that right wing “News” outlets peddle information that isn’t true in service to ratings and money. This is more than the typically misleading and rage-baiting tactics that Fox “News” often engages in – this is them being caught red-handed taking advantage of their viewers gullibility. With the information from the case, we are getting an inside view of what makes them who they are, and how they operate. And here’s what makes this so interesting to me. A common feature of Fox “News” is accusing other outlets of being biased, and implicitly showing themselves to be the trustworthy alternative – and this isn’t an accident. The conservative worldview is married to the idea that mainstream news is actually biased against them – a perception which is helped by the abundance of facts and information which challenge the fictional narratives they hold. So right wing networks coddle their viewers by trying to present stories and certain facts in a way which makes them feel safe and won’t cause them cognitive dissonance. Fox “News” offers shelter to beleaguered conservatives, suffering from a mythical persecution narrative, giving them an echo chamber which amplifies the perceived danger from the outside. And so they get to feel like they know the truth about the state of the world, while also feeling like they are the good guys in a fight with the mainstream media and all the liberals that it is composed of. If you have a conversation with a conservative about the news or politics, it doesn’t take long to hear them expose their contempt for any mainstream source of information. This is because of a feature in their worldview that only they know the truth, that only they are smart enough to discern a source’s reliability, and therefore only news sources they choose are reliable. And not only that, but any other news sources which might happen to report things that are antagonistic to or disprove what they believe (i.e., if it makes them feel uncomfortable) are vigorously mocked as “fake” news. In this way critical thinking can be outsourced to their “News” sources and truth can be determined by the amount of anger they feel after seeing a misleading headline. That is to say, a part of the conservative worldview is a completely upside down view of what is considered reliable information. This is what allows them, after hearing a news report that says something negative about something they cherish, to dismiss it without batting an eye because they’ve already primed themselves to believe that “fake news” or “liberal” news is out to get them. So having the secrets of Fox “News” coming out in the open actually has the potential to cut the supply of a conservative’s lifeblood – the echo chamber that feeds them and keeps them enraged. It is this echo chamber that tells them they are being persecuted and that evil liberals are out to destroy “their” country. But the Dominion revelations present conservatives with a strong signal about the true nature of conservative “News” outlets. It signals that they are being played – they are being manipulated by sources which tell them what they want to hear, truth be damned. It signals that these “News” sources cynically believe their viewers to be gullible and think they are resources which can continue to be manipulated for profit. Since mainstream media has continually been calling out and presenting the falsehoods involved in “the big lie”, it also signals that they are better sources of information than what conservatives typically use. They’ve called out this lie from the beginning. This simultaneously hits the echo chamber in two ways – the first is that it shows the echo chamber isn’t reliable, and second is that the refrain which is typically echoed by conservatives – that mainstream media is “fake” news – also takes a direct hit as a falsehood. The impact here is significant because it has the potential to disrupt the way conservatives think and it gives them a great exit opportunity. Due to how black and white the signals are, how easily it can be observed, all it would take would be a modicum of due diligence for any conservative to choose to exit the misinformation chamber. The evidence is easily accessible, and so stark that all it takes is a desire to do so. A desire to ask themselves the scary question – “Is what I believe correct?” and then a willingness to take a peek. A brief look, with eyes open is all it would take to potentially change their way of thinking. The question is, will they look – will they be willing to question whether they might be wrong? Will they take this amazing opportunity they’ve been presented with to possibly verify and correct their perspective and worldview? I hope they will.

A mandatory vaccine for Republicans

hand with syringe, poised to inject. A medicine bottle sits in the background.
Photo from http://www.rawpixel.com

One of the things that most frustrates me is the hold that conservative media has on the Republican base in this country. I realize that the media is not the entirety of the problem (there’s also just a general stubbornness and an obsession with “whataboutism”). I say this as a former hard core Republican – fully admitting that they had me for quite a while. I was kept captive in large part due to my own ignorance and upbringing – having been raised in that context. In what follows, I’d like to share some techniques that helped me begin to understand how the conservative media works and how to discern levels of trustworthiness in your media consumption.

Are there things that are blatantly false or misleading?

When you read or watch a story, take the main point and look it up in multiple places. But when you do the search, don’t use language that assumes the story is true, or use terms that are “leading” in the search query. For example, this 11/4/2020 article on Fox News describes a situation in Michigan just after the election. The situation, according to Fox News, is one in which Republican vote challenges were being prevented from entering the building to watch the vote counting process. In the article, there are several images from a user’s social media feed. In that feed, which shows prominently on the page, you can see the user’s captions of various images, saying things like “disgraceful”, “Republican poll challengers are still locked outside”. Republicans across the social media landscape at the time seized on this, and I saw plenty of angry posts citing this as evidence that the integrity of the election had been violated. What I’d first like to point out is that this Fox News article is very intentional in both making sure that an extensive number of Tweets show prominently in the article and also that those Tweets are from a person involved with a Trump PAC. The user’s statements say things like “Detroit election officials refusing to let the public observe the counting process” and “this is a disgrace to democracy”, and “The crowd is now chanting ’Let us in!’, as many Republican poll challengers are still locked outside”. Without any other context or sources, the outcome of reading this article would be a stirring of emotion – for Republicans, anger, desperation and fear that Trump would be cheated. For Democrats, fear and shock a situation could be developing which would cast doubt on Biden’s imminent win. The question at hand is how to know if what we’re reading is false or misleading? What I did at the time that I was initially exposed to this story was to pause, and take a breath. I knew at that moment that I needed to suppress the emotions, temporarily at least, so that I could find out more information. This is key, so don’t miss this – holding the emotional response to something like this will pay dividends in learning to discern the truth. By keeping yourself emotionally withdrawn, you give yourself the space to use your rational facilities for the next step: look up other angles to the story. In this case, I did a non-leading web search of the following: “detroit tcf vote observers 2020”. Note that I said non-leading. This means the following searches would be bad: “republicans blocked by democrats in tcf building”, “disgraceful vote counting in MI”. Non-leading should be objective statements and devoid of emotion. The results that show up when doing a non-leading search allow one to gain a broader context of the situation. In the subsequent articles that I found, I learned that the law allowed each party to have 134 poll challengers. But in the building at that time there were more than 200 for each party present – so there was actually a surplus of poll challengers. Those other poll challengers outside weren’t allowed in because there were already plenty in there – not due to nefarious motives. So with this we begin to understand that the initial representation of the situation was wrong, and plainly deceitful. Upon reading some of these other articles, we learn that there were also Democrat poll challengers who were prevented from entering as well – an interesting fact omitted from the Fox News article. This lends more support to the idea that Fox News was being intentionally misleading. Here are some of the articles that came up for me in my non-leading search (article 1, article 2, article 3). I recommend trying to do this search on your own for practice if you are skeptical. At any rate, with this added context we see that the situation is quite different from what was described on Fox News (or social media or wherever else we might have heard about this situation). We can now give ourselves permission to feel emotions; and those emotions, regardless of which side you are on, will be significantly reduced, if not totally gone. Multiple positive outcomes result from this technique; we’ve prevented ourselves from being emotionally manipulated, identified an attempt at manipulation, and have made good faith efforts to validate that what we think we know to be true is actually true. There is a greater challenge for Republicans here, however. The story above virally spread throughout social media because conservatives are predisposed to believe this type of narrative – it is built into their worldview that this is something that liberals typically do. So rather than question its veracity, it’s used as a data point to enforce their prior beliefs – that is, it’s used as a confirmation of a false belief. So the path of least resistance for the conservative is to accept the story/video/post at face value as confirmation of what they already think to be true. The challenge is two-fold: first, they must make the choice to practice the technique above. Second, if and when they find that a story is misleading, they have to purposely make a note, mental or otherwise, that goes something like this: “My initial assumption was wrong and even though I wanted this story to prove that my beliefs are correct, it doesn’t. Therefore, I should question this belief”. Part of making that mental note involves remembering it; it is very easy to go on to the next story or half truth and just brush this under the rug as a one off discrepancy. By remembering this incident, and remembering that you can be wrong sometimes, you can temper future judgments. It can serve as a reminder to engage your critical thinking facilities before jumping to an emotional conclusion.

Will the article look at multiple perspectives?

In our example article above, the only perspective given is that of the angry crowd outside the TCF building in Detroit. There are no tempering alternative perspectives shared from either Democrats, city officials, or those inside. Included was a statement from the Michigan attorney general, but the statement is a general press release, and not focused on nor specific to the TCF building situation. The article states at the start that only Republicans are outside, which our other articles showed to be false; there were people from both sides of the aisle there who were being blocked from entering. The lack of perspectives and absence of any attempts to try to explain why the situation was happening should be taken as a warning sign or clue that the author might have a motivation beyond merely informing the reader of what is happening. It should be a warning that the author might be trying to manipulate the reader’s emotions in a sly way by giving a one sided view into the situation, using dubious sources of information (a Twitter account from someone who was a director on a Michigan based Trump PAC). It’s clear that there was only 1 perspective in the article, and no attempt was made to correct any incorrect understandings that readers may have had about the article. This calls into question the motive of the author, as well as why they would so transparently omit any other sources of information or perspectives which would serve to temper the interpretation of the readers. Be on the lookout for this trick – it lets Fox News amplify things which are not true, while claiming plausible deniability. They can in effect say “We didn’t say these untrue things; we just reported what some person said”. So a naive viewer might take the “reporting” at face value, and miss the warning signs that they’re consuming a one sided and manipulative narrative.

The more provocative a headline/story is, the more you need refrain from emotion

Headlines can often cause extreme emotions very quickly – take the headline of my blog post for instance. I wanted to grab attention, and to illustrate my point, produce a strong emotion from my more conservative readers. Now the headline of our Fox News article is “Locked-out Detroit Republican vote challengers furious over lack of access”. There’s a lot there, but the headline betrays the author’s goal: they want you to be as furious as the Detroit Republicans. They want you to identify with them as fellow Republicans who are being unjustly treated. Be careful of these types of headlines. The author is showing their hand from the start that it is their intent to manipulate you into feeling what they want you to feel. It also seems to me that they are showing how little they respect their audience, by telegraphing their intent so transparently. It is reminiscent of the way a dog will try to slyly glance in the direction that they are planning on running before they actually make their move. So it is with conservative media; they can’t help themselves from writing manipulative headlines – and they do it because it works. So when you are reading headlines on new sources, especially the conservative ones, try to be extra self aware when you feel your emotions rising; in most cases this is a warning that you are encountering something which is a) designed to manipulate a certain emotion/reaction b) one sided or lacking multiple perspectives c) lacking a full context, and therefore requiring some footwork by you to get the full story.

When a media outlet presents stories in the fashion outlined above, it raises a host of other questions. How often do they craft stories like this? What else might be missing from other stories you’ve read or watched? If there is information or context which fundamentally changes the emotional thrust of a story or video, and it is omitted, can you really trust this news source? How many attempts at emotional manipulation are too many before you call an information source “untrustworthy”? Most importantly, what do you currently believe to be true which can trace its origin to a half truth from one of these media sources?

If something makes you uncomfortable, it doesn’t mean it’s fake news

I think it’s really important to be upfront about something as you try to think through these issues and that is: this will feel uncomfortable. Sometimes it can feel devastating to learn that things you’ve thought were “for sure” are wrong or at least up for grabs. This is part of the process, and although it is tough, you will be better for it in the end. The reason I’m bringing this up is that for lots of conservatives, when they are confronted with something that doesn’t “feel” right, or goes completely opposite of what they thought they knew, the knee jerk reaction is to say that what they are reading is a lie, or more commonly, “fake news”. It has become something of a protective mechanism for people who are confronted with information they don’t like. But just because you don’t like some information doesn’t make it untrue or false! What you are feeling is your mind trying to make sense of conflicting information you are facing; your mind is trying desperately to find a reason to believe that what you formerly knew to be true actually still is. But it is your job to keep your emotions in check and keep your rational thinking in charge of things. It’s your job to look at the various angles, and decide when looking at the facts which narrative is most likely true (by seeing which narrative fits best with the given facts) regardless of where that leads. 

It’s ok to be wrong

It’s worth repeating: it’s ok to be wrong – it doesn’t mean you’re a bad person or unintelligent. (But the same is not true if you persist in your way of thinking even after becoming aware that you were wrong) Some people have worked very hard at manipulating the feelings you have while consuming conservative news. If you believed something previously, and realized that you were mistaken, or misled, it’s not too late to turn around. It has happened to everyone at some point – we’ve all believed something with absolute conviction and then later found out it wasn’t true, or was only half true. Speaking from personal experience, it feels bad; like humiliatingly bad. But there’s a freedom in turning around and heading in a different direction. There’s freedom, if you feel led, to say “I was wrong, but I know better now so I’ll try to do better”. What matters is that going forward, as you encounter information, you do your best to get at the truth. 

Be wary of emotional manipulation of various kinds. Sometimes it will attempt to goad you into feeling a certain way by trickery. Other times it will attempt to affirm your belief in a certain subject area. The article we discussed here did both: it attempted to make the reader feel fury, as well as confirm the reader’s suspicions about nefarious schemes to steal an election. Depending on your buy-in to conservative political views, it may feel disorienting as you begin to slowly notice the patterns of deception that are typically employed. You may also begin to wonder how you ever believed those things – in time this will be replaced with a feeling of relief (among others) – a relief in finally having a belief system which is more consistent with the truth.

The importance of being earnest (or how I learned to distrust Fox News)

During the fall of 2019, I was still a supporter of then President Trump. I had enthusiastically voted for him in 2016, and was excited by many of the things he talked about – it was thrilling to hear my viewpoint broadcast unfiltered to the masses, and there wasn’t anything the news media could do about it. Unfiltered and without any care to whether what he said was “politically correct”, it felt like a dream come true. I was so thrilled when he won the election, and laughed in derision at seeing liberals marching through the streets, with groups of people crying in despair. I was all in for Trump, and excited about his plans to Make America Great Again. I mostly downplayed the concerns that I heard in some corners of the internet – about his lack of experience, etc. I knew that presidents don’t necessarily have to be experts and that like business leaders, they know that in order to succeed they need to surround themselves with people who actually are experts. By surrounding themselves with people that they can trust they can effectively make wise and informed decisions. Besides, I figured he’d probably have the chance to add some conservative justices to the supreme court bench, and I knew that there was no chance I’d support any justices that Hilary Clinton might nominate. I typically enjoy consuming news – at the time I tried to more or less alternate between CNN and Fox news for my diet of news. For me, that reflects a change, because at earlier points in my life I tended to focus exclusively on sources like Fox News, only rarely making excursions elsewhere. I would usually do this when things I would read on Fox News would make me so mad or incredulous, I’d have to see how it was being reported elsewhere. I would wonder “how can people not care that the liberals want to do this or that? Don’t people care about this country?”. Often, the referenced articles wouldn’t have analogs on CNN, so I just assumed that CNN must be biased against the conservative viewpoint. 

Trump’s first impeachment 

By fall of 2019 I had started to read about undertones of an impeachment, and had heard about a phone call during which something inappropriate was allegedly done. I remember coming home from work one day and my wife wanting to know what I had heard about all this (she knows that I am a news enthusiast, and often asks me for “Reader’s Digest” versions of certain topics which she hasn’t had time to look into). I recall having to relay, with some sheepishness, that Trump had used his position of President of the United States, to withhold aid from Ukraine, and tried to leverage his power to get President Zelensky to bring about a prosecution of Joe Biden, Trump’s political foe. I felt embarrassed – this was someone who I supported, and he took the power and position that our country lent to him and used it to attempt to strongarm a country that needed our help. As an American, I was embarrassed, and as a believer, I was mortified. This was wrong, and there was no excuse for it. Interestingly, while I felt it was wrong, and felt impeachment would be a correct and good remedy if the allegations were true, it didn’t change my political affinity towards him; I would probably have no qualms about voting for him again in 2020. 

I remember when the transcript summary finally came out. I figured this would put to rest whether there was any weight behind the allegations. As I read the transcript, my heart sank – what President Trump said, along with the fact that he had recently blocked aid from going to Ukraine in the period leading up to the phone call made it clear to me that he was in the wrong. I mentioned that this didn’t change my political affinity at the time. However, it did start to affect me in various ways which I don’t think I was aware of at the time. For one, my ability to honestly admit to myself that Trump had committed wrongdoing, was significant. It was born from my faith and walk as a believer, and the idea that acting with integrity matters, and covering up the truth is not acceptable. I mentioned that during this time, I consumed Fox News as well as CNN. Fox news articles during this time period (9/20/19 – 9/27/19) consistently and vigorously downplayed and minimized the situation. The big headlines on Fox News during this timeframe ranged from “This is going nowhere”, “Rudy warns Dems Ukraine-whistleblower story about to backfire on ex-veep”, “SEAN HANNITY: Breathless media mob parrots WaPo Trump story”, to “Source under scrutiny”. Those are all primary headlines from different days that week for Fox News. When the phone call transcript finally came out, underneath the giant “This is going nowhere” headline, from 9/26/19, there was a small link underneath it to a separate article, “Read the full transcript of Trump’s Ukraine call”. In contrast, the CNN articles during this time featured headlines such as : “The President’s pushback on the whistleblower makes no sense”, “White House considers releasing transcripts”, “Trump put hold on military aid before call with Ukrainian President”, “House launches impeachment inquiry” 

Seeing the way that Fox News went out of its way to defend Trump rather than taking any of the allegations seriously served to erode my trust in them. You can see from the headlines that they try to deny the situation and shift blame to the accuser, rather than presenting the available information. It was clear that they had no interest in informing their readers of the facts, or of finding out whether or not the story was true. That demonstrated to me that for them, their preferred narrative and protection of their ideals were the most important concerns rather than informing people of the known facts around the situation.
I think it’s important to continually question and verify the things we believe. It’s even more important to be willing to admit when we’re wrong and to change course. There will always be room for different perspectives of a given topic, provided that the parties do so in good faith. I would argue that one element of arguing in good faith would be to consider other perspectives – but it must be done by you — it’s fine if you read/watch Fox New’s perspective on a situation or hear what they say someone has said – but once you do, you need to find the reporting from a different source – importantly, one that will not agree with your narrative. You cannot just take a summary – you need to verify that summary makes sense in light of the facts. For instance, say you become angry after being told what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said about something. Go find out what she said both before and after the excerpt that you care about. Context is king, and I can’t count how many times after finding out the context of public figures’ statements that I realized that I was upset for nothing. Also, I encourage you to use the tool that I’ve used above – it’s called WebArchive and it lets you go back in time to see what websites looked like on different dates. You will see multiple times associated with a date – this represents when people have requested that WebArchive records what was there at the time. Find an event that you know something about – then compare how different new sources decided to portray, or not portray something. The unfortunate thing that I’ve learned is that sites like Fox News, and many other sources from which conservatives gather their information do not argue in good faith. The case above is one example of it. But I continually see bad faith argumentation in the way that certain people are portrayed as villains. Next time you hear something that Nancy Pelosi has supposedly said that makes you mad, look it up from a different source – preferably from what you might consider a liberal source. Then check a more neutral source. I’m confident that if you do this, you will notice what I noticed – which is that your initial shock or anger at some reported content will dissipate. You will feel a little resentful or humbled, because you will realize that those with a differing opinion likely have at least one good point which you know is probably correct. You will also realize that what you initially read wasn’t 100% accurate. Most importantly, you will realize that just because something comes from a liberal source doesn’t mean that it can be discounted wholesale. I realize that you will now be asking whether I practice what I preach. My honest answer is: sometimes. Unfortunately, the conservative movement as it stands today makes this a waste of time, which is why I don’t do it very much anymore. I don’t believe in enlightened centrism; this only works when both sides agree to argue in good faith. What I’ve found is that the conservative mindset at large is uninterested in determining whether it is actually correct or in need of reform – rather it proceeds from the notion that it is already correct and any calls for change or introspection are to be resisted. The idea that “both sides” are not the same is a hard one to accept, and offensive to some, I’m sure. If you’re unfamiliar with this concept, I encourage you to do some reading on it. There are a lot of great discussions regarding enlightened centrism on the web. My summary of it is that just because there exists multiple opinions about an idea doesn’t mean that they are all equally valid, e.g., flat earth theory, confederate views on slavery, white supremecy, etc. Some ideas inherently have merit, and some are outrightly abhorrent. I believe that if a person is committed to arguing in good faith, it puts them in a position to speak more honestly because of the implicit goal to find the best, wisest, and most reasonable outcome. I do think that there is value to be found by engagement with conservative ideas; however, to do that, they must come to the table and agree to participate in reality over rhetoric. I hope and pray for the day when that can happen.

The school mask tragedy

cartoon head of angry man juxtaposed on a clenched fist

Recently where I live, a lawsuit brought by hundreds of parents against the governor’s policy of requiring children to be masked and teachers to submit to vaccination or testing won a temporary restraining order. Masking is now “optional”, despite all health authorities stating that it is vital to remain masked, especially for the case of higher risk environments, such as daycares and schools. I have children at both public and private schools, and I’ve written in a previous post about the private school’s folly and cavalier nature with which they have treated all things COVID-19 related. Despite being 2 years into the pandemic, I’m still utterly surprised by the level of vitriol that plague enthusiasts (PE) exhibit to all things mask related, and that’s leaving out the same toward basically any other type of mitigation, be it vaccinations, quarantines, or testing. If the consequences of the PE’s stubbornness didn’t actually impact the lives of others, their antics might actually be humorous. It is amusing that after 2 years of the pandemic, PE’s haven’t really been able to get on the same page as to why they hate masks so much. It’s amusing in the sense that it shows how foolish they are at heart, and the nature of their disagreement. Everything that they attempt to come up with is a thin pretext, a flimsy excuse, meant to cover the absolute stupidity of the core issue for them, which is this: they just don’t like the masks and just don’t like being told that they have to do it. That’s really all it is, sad to say. This makes the tragedy all the worse; the consequences of their obstinacy have real life and death effects on people’s lives, and it’s all due to “preferences”. They don’t want to wear a mask, and they realize how asinine the naked protest would be on it’s own; so they take to inventing reasons for not wearing it. This is where I find the humor; seeing the idiocy of millions of obstinate people, ashamed of the real reason for not wanting to wear masks, generating what they think are acceptable, intelligent, or at least socially passable reasons for being a selfish wretch of a person. Here are some examples of things I’ve heard in the past 2 years in no particular order:

  • They don’t want to breathe their own carbon monoxide[sic].
  • The mask is dirty and exposes them to filthy bacteria and germs (from their own body, ostensibly). 
  • They feel like they might pass out and or feel like they can’t breathe
  • They can’t sing/speak with it on.
  • They don’t want to be controlled
  • Don’t want to wear a face diaper.
  • God didn’t intend for us to cover our faces since we were made in His image.
  • Wearing a mask is bad for child development and emotional health.
  • It’s a personal choice for me and my family
  • It’s up to my level of comfort – you do you, and i’ll do me

These are some of the more common ones which I would imagine that most people are familiar with, and I’m sure there are plenty more which I’ve not heard. The point is that no one can get their story straight — and it is delicious! I just wish they could also appreciate the humor in this, and so that is partly my motivation for this post. 

The other reason for this post is to speak to the other erroneous pretext that gets a lot more agreement from the PE crowd, and this is the subject of choice. It’s been a rally cry from almost the beginning of the pandemic. There is an idea, which is largely implied, that people just want the option to choose what to do, and that at the same time, we must trust that they will make the most responsible decision. It’s as if they are saying, “Just give us the chance to do what is right, and we will do it”. With the recent lessening of COVID-19 restrictions, and in my case, schools being forced into this situation of allowing “choice”, we can now see exactly how these people will act. And it’s really no surprise to anyone that their choice is to not wear a mask. I’d like to elaborate on two points based on this observation:

1) It’s about compassion, not choice

2) PE’s loss of all health related credibility 

It’s about compassion, not choice. From the beginning of the pandemic until now, it’s always been about compassion. Compassion in the sense of looking out for others, especially for those more vulnerable than ourselves. It’s been about realizing the interconnectedness of our country, not to mention our world – but let’s keep it simple and focus on our country. The idea was that we could work together, to get through this once in a lifetime pandemic. Each person had the opportunity and power to keep the virus from spreading from themselves to another. The ripple effects of all of us doing this could be so powerful. We could protect the most vulnerable from an untimely death, we could keep hospitals and ICU beds available – not only for COVID-19 patients, but for all the countless others who typically need access to hospitals for all the other reasons that are always in play. We might use our knowledge and technology to possibly end a pandemic, or at least get through it with a minimal loss of life. The desire for others to live, to have access to hospitals, to not be overworked at those hospitals, to be able to be in person for school is rooted in compassion. And that ethereal trait, compassion, was able to be demonstrated in a very real and practical way; wearing a mask, and keeping your distance. It’s so simple it’s almost ridiculous, but it is also such an incredible opportunity to show solidarity with our fellow citizens and to show that we care about them enough to take simple and practical measures to keep them safe. I don’t know that we will ever be presented with another opportunity to be able to show so many people that we don’t know that we care about them. When a PE says that they want the choice to wear a mask, it’s a pretext for their desire to not be inconvenienced to wear a mask, and so they try to take on the air of enlightenment, giving the rest of us “permission” to wear the mask if we so choose. Because it’s a facade, and not really at all interested in making sense, I waste my time trying to reason them out of their position – they didn’t come to their position using reason, so reason certainly won’t get them out of it. I also waste my time if I try to explain that masking is most effective if everyone does it, as it has a great deal more to do with you keeping the virus to yourself than it does to protecting me from getting it. But combining those different layers, you wearing yours, me wearing mine, is additive; together they give us all a better chance of slowing the spread. Trying to point them at scientific sources of information is also a waste for the same reason; that, and many of the PE crowd tend to prefer their info from 5 word memes on social media platforms, and asinine sound bites from politicians who see this as an opportunity to ride rage waves to their next term in office. A favorite refrain of these people when it comes to masks is “Well you do whatever your family is comfortable with and we’ll do whatever our is”. I’ve heard this from people who claim to be Christians, which is particularly disappointing; and even more disappointing is that it has been from Christians who one might consider mature or strong in the faith. For me the pandemic has shown how little wisdom and love there is in certain mainstream groups of Christians.

The loss of all credibility

One stark memory that will stay with me is just a few months into the pandemic, how there were certain states that had minimal to almost no COVID-19 precautions in place. They seemed to take pride in the fact that the virus wasn’t an issue there, and they acted and spoke as if because of that, they didn’t need to do anything or take any precautions. Beyond their disregard for the obvious fact that COVID-19 would be upon them imminently, they shared one other common trait: their governors were Republicans. I, at the time, was Republican as well. The news reports of the group of governors basically acting like fools was embarrassing to me; I really couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t understand what was wrong with them; I still don’t know. But it marked an important period; the rise of the Plague Enthusiasts. From that time on, the denial of COVID-19, its severity, danger, etc seemed to spread, faster than the virus could. People started creating and employing the aforementioned pretexts for why they shouldn’t have to wear masks, throwing tantrums when asked to put them on, and trying to equate their crusade of not having to wear a mask to all sorts of things that it shouldn’t be equated to (like the holocaust, communism, war for independence). The anger that parents of school children have shown about mask mandates has never made sense. The equation of anger with regard to the minor inconvenience of a mask does not balance with how overblown it has become in some circles. Even at my own school, a Christian principal couldn’t even bring himself to recommend vaccination to students and their families, trying to pass off his apathy using the misguided “both sides have equal points” reasoning. On a separate but related track, PE’ dealt in misinformation tropes about vaccines, conspiracies, and accusations about how the pandemic was being overhyped to make former President Trump look bad. (And yet, now that Trump is gone, those of us who took the pandemic seriously then still take it seriously) There’s a lot more that could be said on the tidal wave of misinformation that PE’s dealt in and amplified – and it would be good to learn about if you are not familiar with it. My point here is to remind us how from the outset, PE’s overarching goal was to oppose anything related to fighting or slowing the spread of the virus. Whether it was misinformation about the virus, vaccines, infection or death rates, or masks – nothing was safe from their collective surplus of ignorance and rage. From the time when we knew little, to now when we know so much more about the virus – the PE’s have shown intellectual immunity to the science surrounding it the entire time. What they’ve effectively shown is that they are unwilling to be informed by anything if they believe it might require the slightest inconvenience to them. It’s clear they picked their preferred outcome (believing there is not a pandemic) by disregarding all evidence – which is fine, to each their own. But because they’ve eschewed science and what it’s learned about pandemics in the last few hundred years, they have relinquished any rights to set public policy for it or to have their voice taken seriously. And what I mean by that is that as long as they choose to live in a fictional reality, they also lay down their claim to have a seat at the table with those of us who choose to live in reality. Nothing that they scream and yell about at a school board meeting needs to be taken seriously. What they post online, or yell at their representatives matters; they are living in a fantasy, and their ideas and thoughts on the pandemic are therefore untrustworthy. There are not “both sides” here; while there is room for debate about mitigation of COVID-19, and especially when and how we exit the pandemic phase, it should happen amongst those who take the science seriously. When we are trying to decide whether we drop mandatory masking, of what use is the angry Dad or Mom who never thought a child should be masked in the first place? Or who likewise never understood why a vaccine mandate or passport could be a good idea? These people offer nothing to a good faith discussion because by definition, they have not shown an interest in participating in good faith. This also applies to the senators, representatives, and judges who have tapped into the rage for their own political gain – their use of their positions of power to fight and weaken public health mitigations is harmful and shameful. It’s harmful to people’s health, and it’s harmful to democratic institutions, because it validates people’s ignorant mindsets that they deserve to be heard when they spout nonsense. It’s shameful because rather than seeking to correct the ignorant perspectives of their constituents, they’ve decided instead to go along with it, with a selfish eye to the next election.

As we move into what will hopefully be the post pandemic phase, when it comes to the idea of “choice”, especially in schools, your choice is between greater and lesser harm. The potential harm that comes from not wearing the mask is great, especially when compared to minor harm of wearing the mask. Administrators of schools can still in many cases make masks required; this has 2 advantages: first, it offers blanket protection, and is a choice that chooses on the side of protecting others. Second, it reduces conflict – a blanket policy removes the conflicts that arise from those who are at different places of comfort with masking, and chooses the lowest common denominator. And no matter what an angry parent may tell you, the kids really are ok wearing a mask during school. Those who would espouse choice would have you believe that the choices are somehow equal, and try to convey how great an inconvenience it is for them to put on a mask. They operate in a blissful ignorance of the multitude of ways that their behavior can impact others, and they do so at the expense of compassion and degradation of their own humanity. I would hope that going forward, those who espouse freedom and choice would see that to exercise one’s freedom doesn’t necessitate that all actions be self-serving; often the better use of freedom is choosing to exercise it in service of another.

Support for Trump is a bad Christian witness

Please know that this idea has been stewing in my mind for many years now. The idea wasn’t as well formed as it currently is, but it actually began during a time when I was a solid Republican voter. My church at the time had been focusing on reaching out to the community, primarily by trying to develop relationships with people outside the church, with the hope that it would offer opportunities to share the love of Christ organically. I was blessed with the opportunity to spend time with a neighbor, who happened to be liberal in his political leanings. I found myself during our conversations purposely steering away from political talk, or at least trying not to argue with him when he would bring things up to talk about. I focused more on really just trying to listen, knowing that the love of God was more important than politics, and that arguing might get in the way of building a relationship. I was given some great opportunities to share some of the ways that faith impacted my life, and learned about how his different faith impacted his own life. Just as impactful, by listening to his views and concerns, I realized how starkly opposite my own conservative views were to the very love that I was trying to share with him; I realized that for most of the conservative points I might want to argue, I would end up contradicting the same love that I was trying to prove was inherent in Christianity. These thoughts are firmly located in the timeframe of 2016 and beyond, and so very much tied up with Trump’s prominence and popularity within the conservative culture. With his presidency and legacy in the history books, my thoughts have now become more focused on what it is that truly is a bad witness: Christians who support the Trump brand. Just because he isn’t in office anymore doesn’t make this irrelevant; the Trump brand isn’t just about Trump – it applies to any politicians who act like or espouse values which align with the way that Trump operates. Before you close your browser in rage, let me just say – I’m not telling you that you shouldn’t vote for Trump. But what I am saying is that you should keep your support for him a secret – a deep dark secret. Take down any flags or paraphernalia, and knock off the stolen election nonsense. Hide it from your public life, if for no other reason than because you are a Christian. As a Christian, your desire is to lead the unsaved to Christ, and introduce them to His love. The unsaved, however, have a particular view of Trump, which I will be detailing below. The problem is that this view of Trump and your association with him sets up a paradox. So my argument is that if you’re going to vote for him, keep it hidden from the rest of the world. Otherwise you implicate Christianity as being just another meaningless exercise in hypocritical performance. In what follows, I will offer several points of evidence, which, when taken together, form a cohesive narrative of why the way Trump and his ilk act is contrary to the gospel and why public association with them is unjustifiable from a Christian perspective.

The bully

To validate whether I’m onto something, let’s consider how people generally view Trump. Even among his most ardent supporters, I’ve found that many agree that they “don’t like” what he says on social media (before he got himself banned). He routinely ridicules people he disagrees with, handing out highly personalized and offensive insults. This is bullying, plain and simple. I’ve heard some people explain to their children that what he says is bad but what he does is good. This is a dichotomy for sure, but I think it’s in line with the point of my post: if you’re going to support Trump style politics, keep it locked away, so that you can keep up good appearances while voting however you like privately. It’s a win-win really; God wins, you win. You might say, well, it’s just words, he doesn’t really mean it, it’s all hyperbole. He’s more than his Twitter feed, and to that I say, you’re absolutely right – he is more than his words.

The narcissist

Take for instance his documented dislike for the military veteran, former POW Senator John McCain. Despite Trump not serving in the military himself, he made fun of McCain for being captured and imprisoned as a soldier – saying “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured”. Someone from Trump’s  staff also asked to have the warship with Senator McCain’s name on it hidden from his view during a visit to a naval base. Or take Trump’s resistance to, upon the passing of the senator, fly the White House flags at half staff, and his reluctance to acknowledge his passing and legacy. It took an outpouring of criticism from all sides to finally give Trump the cue that his behavior was so egregious that even his staunchest supporters couldn’t stomach it. So two days after Senator McCain’s passing he stubbornly did acknowledge him, while making sure to bring focus on himself first, with a statement which begins with: “Despite our differences in policy and politics…”. Taken individually, you might say that each example by itself doesn’t amount to much, but you are missing crucial context unless you consider all evidence together. I imagine that some people might be able to explain away the prior example, so I’ll offer another. Consider the first 6 months of 2020, when we were all learning about the Coronavirus and the impact it would have on our lives. Dr. Fauci rose to public prominence, and became the face of information about the virus, its spread and prevention. His carefully nuanced explanations and insistence on focusing on science and research, refusing to make statements unless backed up by data allowed him to gain the trust of the general public. Trump very awkwardly and publicly showed his jealousy of this trust, and it was very plain that it bothered him that people liked Fauci more than himself.  I don’t know how such petty behavior can be justified, except maybe by ignoring the fact that Trump was president at the time – for you might be inclined to say, on a deeply personal level, how it might feel for someone who works for you to be more “popular” than you, and you might empathize with that feeling. We, however, are talking about the President of the United States – a leadership position if there ever was any. If you work in a corporate environment, consider those leaders or managers you might think are good (or even bad). It would be an appalling lack of decorum for someone in a meeting to bemoan that they are not “liked” as much as one of their subordinates. But let’s hear what Trump said: “Nobody likes me. It can only be my personality, that’s all”.  And: “Remember, he’s [Fauci] working for this administration, he’s working with us. We could’ve gotten other people. We could’ve gotten somebody else. It didn’t have to be Dr. Fauci”. Also: “He’s got this high approval rating, so why don’t I have a high approval rating and the administration with respect to the virus?” It’s really a cringeworthy set of statements that cause both pity and disdain: on a personal level, I pity the man for this rare moment of cogent reflection; I also have disdain for it, because it offers insight into how he thinks and operates as a person. 

Trump also has a history of undermining those who work for him. Being familiar with who Trump is, this might not come as much of a surprise, but I think it is important to take a step back here, and think about how out of the ordinary this is, and try to think about it in the context of a corporate office environment. (We too often get caught up in the emotionally charged subjects of national politics and forget to think about the fact that at bottom, it is really about management, and is a bureaucracy, much like an office environment). In a corporate environment, it would be highly unprofessional and shocking, if someone were to give a presentation and then have their boss or someone higher berate them or contradict something they have said. Besides humiliating the employee, it would indicate a toxic environment because the leader is showing that they don’t trust their employees, or worse, think that they know better than the people actually doing the work. A true leader would be expected to preserve their subordinates’ dignity, and speak privately with them at a different time to find out why they weren’t on the same page. A leader would also have the humility and wisdom to trust that their people know what they are talking about. This article gives a great timeline of the ways that the former President consistently undermined Dr. Fauci publicly. I believe that this continual undermining is to blame for the demonization of Dr. Fauci in the conservative media bubble. Dr. Fauci isn’t an exception either; Trump has denigrated, and in some cases, fired his own appointees for merely stating opinions which differed from himself. (Again, please consider how contrary this is to your own job; you should be able to do your job and express job related opinions to your manager without fear of reprisal). Consider CDC director Redfield, who Trump said was confused regarding some statements he made about when the vaccine would be available, and on the effectiveness of masks – Trump seemed to think that he knew better than the director of the CDC. Or consider Chris Krebs, the director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Mr. Krebs was fired by Trump, publicly via Twitter, in response to the agency which Mr. Krebs headed stating that the 2020 election was the most secure in American history, as well as there being no evidence that any system changed or deleted votes. The agency had also recently published this helpful FAQ regarding common rumors and misinformation regarding election security (If you are partial to believing election fraud stories, I’d encourage you to check it out). Again, Trump seemed to think he knew better than a cybersecurity expert on what highly technical exploits are possible. (Please pause for a moment to appreciate the deep irony of a senior citizen telling an expert on cybersecurity that they don’t know what they are talking about) And finally, let’s consider William Barr, the man Trump appointed as the attorney general of the United States. If anyone was in camp Trump, it was him. After the 2020 election, however, despite dutifully looking for evidence of election fraud, Barr finally made a public statement about what was found: “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election”. By this point of the Trump administration, most people expected Barr to be fired. We know that Trump was extremely upset with him for stating the truth as he did (Trump: “How the fuck could you do this to me? Why did you say it?”) While he wasn’t fired, it was very clear he was on thin ice, and submitted his resignation barely 2 weeks later. The pattern here is that Trump is not to be trifled with, and if you have something to say which doesn’t align with his reality, you will be let go or moved out. This all points to the kind of leader that Trump is – having a boss like this is a nightmare, and calls into question their ability to make wise decisions. In order to make wise decisions, you have to expose yourself to opinions and ideas which differ from your own, so that you can be informed about the issues of the day – issues which are complex and multifaceted. If you chill the speech of those around you by silencing unpopular views or opinions, you’ll wind up only hearing those opinions and ideas which align with what you already think. To be a wise leader, you must be willing to listen to and process opinions and truths which are uncomfortable – this is especially true for the leader of the free world.

The racist

When discussing immigration during a meeting, Trump wanted to know why we have to take people from Africa and Haiti. Actually, he said “immigrants from shithole countries”. You might say, well, that’s probably taken out of context, maybe he just meant their governments suck? Fine, except that he also said he’d rather have more people coming from Norway. Oops. One more from Trump: “Why do we need more Haitians, take them out”. An aide to Trump: “Because if you do, it will be obvious why”. I know that some people’s immediate reaction will be to cast this as another one off, something said which is taken out of context. That’s fair. So before painting Trump as something he might not be, we should gather more evidence. Let’s talk about racehorse theory. If, like me, you’ve never heard of it, it may come as a bit of a surprise that this is something that Trump believes in. He’s mentioned it multiple times. It is the idea that you can breed people, as is commonly done with racehorses, to produce better or more superior results. But, that’s my own take on it. Let’s hear from Trump what he believes about it. On 9/18/2020 at a rally in Minnesota: ”You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we’re so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.” And in an interview with Larry King in 2007: “You can absolutely be taught things. Absolutely. You can get a lot better. But there is something. You know, the racehorse theory, there is something to the genes. And I mean, when I say something, I mean a lot.”  And in 2010 to CNN: “I’m a gene believer… hey when you connect two race horses you get usually end up with a fast horse”. These sentiments reek of Nazism and indicate a racist belief system that is part of how he thinks and operates in the world. More importantly, these ideas serve to create the perception of Trump as a racist among many people who are not currently Christians.

The antagonizer/divider

The other aspect of Trump that I don’t think anyone would really contest, is his drive to divide and antagonize any and all who would disagree with him. And while I briefly describe this, please remember that my purpose is to give examples and reasons for the perceptions that people in general, and specifically, unbelievers will hold about Trump. My primary point isn’t to get you to change your mind regarding the man. The first example is when Trump was upset with something that a reporter had written – Trump then mocked the reporter’s disability, publicly putting on a cringeworthy and appalling display. Please watch it if you haven’t seen it. He also shows his divisive brand of politics in the way he seeks vengeance on those in his own party with whom he disagrees. Brad Raffensperger (R), the secretary of state for Georgia, wouldn’t toe the line for Trump with regard to the supposed voter fraud in Georgia. And despite Trump’s high pressure attempts to get Mr. Raffensperger to throw away his integrity, he held fast. Trump’s instinct was to punish him by endorsing a different Republican to unseat him. When many Republicans worked with Democrats to pass the Infrastructure bill in 2021, he threatened that all Republicans that took part would now be facing primaries. Because apparently, the Trump brand doesn’t allow room for differences of opinions, negotiations, or compromise – all hallmarks of what it means to be a good human. Of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach him in January of 2020, Trump has endorsed 4 primary challengers of the group, and many others are now retiring due to the party’s intolerance of anyone who doesn’t show complete loyalty to Trump. While it is understandable that Trump might not have positive feelings for these people, the instinct to actually go after those who disagree with him indicates a unique brand of politics that we might label the Trump brand. It espouses that any who disagree must be kicked out of power – that there’s no room within a party for differences of opinion. This is clearly wrong headed thinking, and a dangerous precedent to begin setting. This marks a change in politics from what I’ve been used to seeing for the last 30 years. Also included in this brand of politics, is Trump’s constant labeling of politicians with whom he disagrees as a ‘RINO’. If you disagree with Trump, you are apparently a RINO, regardless of your history in politics, and no one is safe from this charge, neither Mitt Romney nor the late Colin Powell, according to Trump. 
With all this in mind, then, we can outline what people generally think about Trump, and why the points above serve to give reasons for these beliefs. Trump is viewed as a bully, who is obsessed with himself and how people view him. He will not tolerate anyone who expresses anything that is outside of his agenda, and he believes he is above the law. He believes that it is ok to destroy any political enemies, who are most often defined as not being 100% loyal or subservient to everything that he wants to accomplish, regardless of whether the means to accomplish it are illegal, immoral, or dishonest. He frequently says things which for all practical purposes, sound racist or at best, Nazi adjacent. He believes that power can and should be used to further his own personal political aspirations, as noted by the reasons for both his 1st and 2nd impeachments, the use of the DOJ to investigate absurd claims of vote fraud, the firings/alienation of experts who work for him, as well as the many questionable pardons he issued in the final hours of his presidency. When an unbeliever sees a Christian who is supportive of Trump, they will bring all these things to bear in analyzing what it might mean to be a Christian. First and foremost, because of the Christian claim that we are commanded to love one another, the seeker will wonder if this Christian they observe supporting Trump will advocate for or approve of treating others as Trump treats others. They will wonder if this Christian approves of the personal attacks and ridicule that Trump directs at others. They will wonder whether this Christian perhaps, feels similarly to Trump with regard to racehorse theory, or whether they also feel our country would be better off with immigrants from countries with larger white populations. They will wonder if this Christian will be tolerant of any opinions that the unbeliever might express which might differ from their own – or if they can even be friends with this Christian if they hold different political perspectives, especially any which are not 100% loyal to Trump. They will wonder if this Christian is a reasonable or wise person, who can take correction, or is thoughtful or kind – for all these things run contrary to the Trump brand which is so prevalent in conservative politics these days. They will wonder if being a Christian means you have to embrace conspiratorial vote theories. So as a good Christian, who maybe supports Trump, how or why are you different from Trump? How or why should an unbeliever who sees a sign in your yard or sticker on your bumper think you are any different than him? Will they believe that the Christian vision for relationships with others is harmonious with the Trump brand? Is it even a proper expectation that a Christian Trump supporter should act or think any differently than Trump? If there is, it is not obvious how or why, since the Trump brand is so tightly coupled to his behavior. Recall that we’ve seen that the Trump brand encompasses not only some of the things which are typically associated with conservatism, but it also includes a vindictive, scorched earth retribution model, which dehumanizes those with different opinions, those we disagree with, those who have different skin or genes than us, and those who are not completely 100% on board with every single little thing that we believe. The problem for Christians is that this is how Trump and his supporters are viewed, for better or worse. So when you associate yourself with Trump, you get a whole lot of associated baggage, most of which is contradictory to Christianity. This hampers your ability to witness to others, because it gives a salient impression (right or wrong) of hypocrisy. This is how you will be perceived, even if you don’t act like Trump, are kind to everyone, and never take revenge – support of Trump lumps you in with his behavior, and more so than politicians of the past – because as I’ve stated, the Trump brand is different than the politics of the past, and has a 100% loyalty litmus test that comes along it with. When you cast your lot with Trump, you signal to the world that you and he are compatible, 100%. So my answer is that no, for a Christian that supports Trump, it is not clear how loyalty to Trump and Christ can co-exist – for as we’ve seen with Trump, you’re in or you’re out – anything less than 100% might as well be zero. I will leave you with this: my point hasn’t been to get you to change your mind on Trump, that is between you and Christ. However, by signalling support for him and those like him, you create a terrible witness for Christ, and I believe cause others to view Christianity as an exercise in hypocrisy. If you care about your witness, hide your loyalty to the Trump brand, and all those who eagerly take up his mantle.