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.

Mitt Romney’s character and lack of the same from evangelicals

Mitt Romney chose to impeach a fellow Republican — twice. He also chose to speak out against Trump’s Big Lie (the idea that the election was stolen and was riddled with fraud).  Rather than stay silent like some have, or promote conspiracy theories or half baked ideas about the 2020 election, he chose to stand by his principles, even if that meant a loss of power for his preferred political party or popularity for himself.  I recognize that sort of determined character; it is the sort that comes from faith and desires to do what is right even if that means experiencing near term loss. It is no secret that Trump finds overwhelming support from evangelical Christians, specifically White evangelical Christians, and this was true for both presidential elections.  Even now, 75% of evangelical Republicans view the election as having widespread fraud (compared to about 55% of Republicans). 81% of Republicans still view him favorably. It is safe to assume then, given Trump’s widespread appeal to evangelicals, that they make up a large proportion of these numbers.  Evangelicals should look to Mr. Romney for lessons on how live out their faith and character more consistently. Because right now, they are completely failing at it with their continued support of Trump. Mr. Romney cares more about his own personal righteousness and character than the many who so proudly wear theirs on their sleeves. To Mr. Romney I would say, thank you – you are a credit to your faith, and an encouragement to mine.  After a year in which my own faith was shaken through observing the spectacular and creative ways in which many followers of Christ acted in opposition to the gospel – your willingness to stand for truth and to engage in reality is a breath of fresh air.