Why I argue
My wife and I, like many people, were talking through some of our shock after going to bed on election night. Besides all the head-spinning statements and events of this election year, we kept coming back to one thing: the truth didn’t matter. Not at all, not even a little bit. I couldn’t shake it. How could anything improve, or any constructive dialogue be possible, if millions of people believed the outrageous lies put forth by Trump and the Republicans during this campaign? I awoke the next day with new purpose: I would not let anything blatantly false in my field of view, be it on social media or said in person, go unanswered. Whatever uncomfortable situations this may create with people I know, I just couldn’t take it anymore. There is a difference between disagreeing over ideology while debating solutions and utter denial of truth to fulfil your political aims, and we had far too much of the latter. Fast-forward to the first few weeks of Trump’s presidency and we see that the office has not tempered team Trump’s assault on reality.
That is what this election and this presidency truly are. This was not a discussion on the size and role of government or the positions the US should take in the world. Those traditional debates between right and left are healthy for our country. Rather, it was a complete and total abandonment of truth, the embrace of “alternative facts” by those in power, and the vilification of anyone who says otherwise. There is now ample evidence that fake news, including stories elevated directly by Trump via tweet, was targeted at conservatives because they were more receptive. Right-wing pundits, bloggers, and foreign actors, employing new tools like twitter bots to amplify their stories, aimed a concerted effort at this election to flood the mind with alarmist headlines bearing no connection to reality. As these stories bounced around the right’s impenetrable echo chamber, social media became the front line in a new war on truth. As a result, the conversation was pushed away from the issues and sanity. Team Trump embraced it all, and it stuck. A PPP poll conducted after the election showed large numbers of Trump supporters incorrectly believing unemployment was up and the stock market down under Obama. Some believe millions voted illegally, that Obama and Clinton founded ISIS, that all illegal immigrants or refugees are here to kill Americans, that the Clintons ran a sex-trafficking operation, the unemployment rate is really near 40%, or that global warming is a Chinese hoax because the President or his advisors told them so. Apparently, after voting against it due to years of “death panel” talk, many Trump supporters suddenly realize Obamacare is helping them and don’t want to lose it. Now we have Trump claiming that the judiciary doesn’t matter, any negative polls about his policies are fake, and we are still hearing about paid protesters. The war on reality rages on, intensified by the resources of the executive branch.
And who will stop it? The Democrats remain the minority and will be unable to prevent all legislation, nor should they unless they wish to go down the road of poor governance paved by the Republicans over the last eight years. At some point they will have to compromise to keep the machine running, at least a little. There is always hope from “establishment” Republicans, but for years the party has been nurturing the same ideas Trump has crassly espoused, and they are now afraid of and beholden to his supporters. Don’t look for a rescue here, their chance to stop Trump was during the campaign when they could have openly opposed him. The mealy-mouthed statements of “well I don’t agree with that idea” or “I won’t campaign with him but will still vote for him” were insufficient to save their integrity, it was abundantly clear who and what Trump was. Republicans now see an opportunity to have a useful fool in the white house creating plenty of distractions while they try to cram through proposals they’ve only dreamed about, knowing he’ll sign them with little thought.
The great distortion made it all possible, and so I embarked on my one-man quest for truth and sanity. I wasn’t going to follow every conservative pundit and answer every claim they make. But if anyone I know posted or said something false, I was going to answer. Status, article, meme, whatever, I was going to keep responding no matter what. I have no qualms with a conservative viewpoint, but outright lies, zany conspiracy theories, and false comparisons would be addressed. This became a bit of an obsession, and my friends began to ask why I bothered. What good could come from talking to people who believe this stuff? Spend your time calling representatives, get involved in local government, and effect change that way.
My friends are correct. It’s true that these things are important, are having an impact, and are the fastest way to influence the process. They are without a doubt the best means to the end. But they may not be enough. Trump and the Republicans are going to get their way for a while, and there is little anyone can do about it. Resisting along the way as much as possible is important, but the bigger picture points to 2018 and 2020. If reality doesn’t mean more by then, there’s no guarantee the results will be any different.
The systems that helped Trump to victory in 2016 are still going to be in place. While Trump and the GOP now have the pressure of delivering results, this election showed that their voters weren’t entirely aware of what they received from Obama, (such as a rescued auto industry, economy, and a little healthcare on the side). Trump voters believed what they were told, and the right’s spin machine isn’t getting any weaker. What will make 2018 and 2020 different? They bought what Trump was selling, and he’s selling in overdrive now. As long as he doesn’t burn the place down, and claims a few more false headlines about jobs he personally saved by bringing “the spirit and the hope,” what’s to stop them from buying it again? Many of the consequences of Trump’s proposals might not impact these voters economically for a few years. If everything “feels” about the same, they will have little reason to doubt their original decision. The fact that most of his promises were impossible lies didn’t matter before, and the opposition will face all of the same hurdles.
There are also the unpredictable events that can sway the electorate. We have seen fear employed by Republicans since 9/11 to justify everything up to an unnecessary war. One terrorist attack at the right time, even if it could not have been prevented by any administration’s policies, (such as ISIS “inspired” attackers that have had absolutely no communication with ISIS), could be shouted as evidence of a need for security only the “tough” GOP and Trump can provide.
Clinton’s 2.86 million popular vote lead, the massive amount of protest, and the projected demographics of future voters are all good news to those who oppose the Trump and the Republicans. However, they won’t amount to any substantive change in the near future. Trump won this election because the right eighty-thousand people, distributed exactly the right way amongst three states, believed what he said. And nothing is going to change unless that does. Clinton didn’t have the same turnout numbers Obama did, but this wasn’t just a turnout problem. She lost counties Obama had carried, and lost bigger in ones he did not. There is still a large portion of the population that does not vote, and trying to engage these voters could be helpful. It is also possible that these non-voters are geographically/demographically organized in roughly the same way as their voting counterparts. This could help state-wide elections, but might not improve the situation for the House or the Presidency. Because our electoral process favors rural areas and swing states, voters who wield disproportionate power by virtue of geography accepted what they heard and handed Trump a victory. They can do it again regardless of anything else.
So when looking at the big picture of the next two election cycles and deciding what to do now, I see three main obstacles:
Representation, encompassing the Electoral College and gerrymandering that give rural voters far more power than their urban counterparts, as well as the continued voter suppression efforts of the GOP in the form of voter ID laws fueled by the fabled “3–5 million” fraudulent votes.
Restrictions, such as any voting rights/civil rights issues that can be fought in the meantime. And…
Reality. Trump and his Republican enablers have created a journalism proof shield around their “truth” that allows them to control the message, the debate, and places them as the sole source of information to their supporters. It just proved its effectiveness in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.
We don’t need 100% of all three, but enough in some combination to overcome the forces that propelled Trump and the GOP in the first place. The representation end is going to be tough in the short term; Democrats would need to take back state houses, wait on a new census and redraw district lines, etc. A constitutional amendment to change the electoral college or enough states pledging their delegates to the popular vote winner are extremely unlikely. The inertia of the courts will hopefully hold some restrictions at bay, but they’re doing little about voter ID laws, especially in Republican states with GOP appointees on the bench. The situation is only going to get worse as Trump fills the judiciary up to the Supreme Court and directs his justice department as he sees fit. There are more people politically involved now than before the election, and that is a good thing. If this increases turnout only in the already blue counties of the country, it could not be enough to overtake the mechanism Trump used for victory.
So on balance, we might need a little more reality.
There was a lot of talk about echo chambers after the election. “Democrats lost because they were stuck in their own echo chamber.” Maybe, but I think that has more to do with why they didn’t see it coming than why they lost. Certainly, they missed the rust belt turning against them, but by every realistic assessment of the parties those people voted against their own interests. They are among the biggest beneficiaries of Obamacare, a rescued auto industry, union rights, or a strong minimum wage. Republicans have opposed all of these. As noted earlier many Trump voters are incorrect about economic facts, and the promise to bring back the economy of fifty years ago is fantasy. The amount of deception aimed at Clinton, who made mistakes but is hardly a criminal mastermind with dead bodies in the closet, whose financial information and that of the Clinton foundation is publicly available, and whose leaked emails don’t reveal any of the accusations the GOP has been leveling for years, was staggering. The total impenetrability of the right’s echo chamber made this possible, and reality has to matter to overcome it. Every reliable news outlet reported on these issues, and absolutely none of it made a difference. In 2018 or 2020, the same voters could make the same decisions and create the same results. Which brings us back to my truth crusade.
If the press couldn’t prevent this, what other options are there? These stories spread by constant likes and shares on social media, bouncing around in the right’s hemisphere, reinforcing themselves, and spilling into the mainstream. If they can propagate and thrive so effectively in that realm, perhaps the truth can too. Witnessing this over the years, many of us took the approach of “I don’t want to fight, it’s not worth it, I have to work with these people, they’re family,” etc. Well here we are. The lack of personal resistance allowed the lies of the fringe right to blossom, and those who shouted them to gain confidence. And so they kept shouting, they kept believing, and they grew. Not saying anything, even with the overwhelming evidence available, wasn’t enough. These voters are not going to start researching issues more carefully, not check multiple sources for their news, or take on a new mantle skepticism. Left to their own devices they will remain the same. The only way to interject some other material into their conversations and thought process is to do it on a personal level. So I might as well try.
I do not take the liberal position on every issue, there are times conservatives have a point. I am not on crusade against conservatives or conservatism. However, the abandonment of reality and the attack on its guardians has been a specialty of the right for years. With Trump it graduated to the mainstream in a big way. The left is guilty of it sometimes, but the scale does not compare. In my attempts to disrupt the feedback loop of those I encounter, I have found that when it is done the right way the results vary from the predictable to the surprising, but all serve a purpose. There are a few “guides” floating around for doing this that are worth checking out, but in brief, here is what has been most effective.
First, do not make this about left vs. right, make it about real vs. not, complex reality vs. oversimplification. Once reality has been established, we can delve into what we think would get the best outcome for the country.
No matter what, everything must be based on verifiable fact. Do the research, only use reputable sources, and be completely objective. Remain calm, remain obstinately polite and diplomatic, and acknowledge where your argument is weak. Point out where you agree. There are not two equivalent sides to every story, but make sure you are looking at all of it. Often, arguing about the solutions can be misconstrued as not mutually acknowledging the problem. (For example, we may all agree that people shouldn’t go broke or die due to lack of health insurance, but disagree on how to get there. I haven’t seen a realistic solution from Republicans yet, but the seven years they spent screaming about wrecking the economy and death panels didn’t help anyone.) If you’re not sure, research more, ask for help, but don’t leave a weak spot. It’s tedious but necessary. You’ll learn new things too.
Plan your responses. You’ve heard the typical answer or objection from Republicans for years. They may be correct on some things, they may not. Read up on this, listen to who you are talking to, and be ready to respond. Knowing where they are coming from makes your argument that much more effective. If it’s a discussion of real issues you can acknowledge their point, can agree that there is a problem, (and we all want it to be solved), and are arguing specifics instead of general political philosophy. For the complete fabrications you have a ready-made answer and evidence to counteract it. Save all of these somewhere to copy and paste later, you’ll have the same conversations over and over.
In my digital and physical travels, I encountered people who supported Trump for a variety of reasons. It is important to understand a few things about them. The first is to ascertain what “type” of voter you are dealing with, and where their motivations lie.
I know and work with many Trump voters. They are not the devil, and they are not racist or sexist. Voting for Trump gave tacit approval to plenty of sexist or racially based policies, there is no washing your hands of that, but these are not people who act that way in their own lives. I see them every day, and they have always been nothing but kind and generous to me and my family. They are friends. There are plenty of people who voted for Trump who did it because they were excited about his racial animus and sexist worldview. This is not up for debate. But there are not enough of these overt and aggressive racists to have handed him the victory.
When debating someone like this, who is in every way a reasonable and good individual, (and I found many of them out there), their motivation usually comes down to general conservative principles, pure lack of information, or “I didn’t like Hillary.” Once again, the issue is not that they are conservative, but that they believed the many lies put forth by Trump and the GOP. Because they have been stuck in the right’s bubble, their views may have moved past their personality on the political spectrum. By providing a calm, rational, but utterly relentless argument against the outlandish claims they now find themselves aligned with, you force the conversation to continue. When someone sticks to their absolute falsehoods, ask them for the evidence. Listen to them, counter their claims but not their person. The nicer you are, the more they will be apt to talk, and that means they will have to keep reading what you say and research to attempt a rebuttal. This may be their only point of contact with non-right wing information, and could be the most meaningful dialogue they’ve had on it in years. These tend to be the longer encounters. Sooner or later they weaken substantially, they realize you have more in common than they thought, or they give up.
To be clear, I argued with several Trump voters holding legitimately hateful opinions. Even then I tried to remain objective and fact based in all of my debates, despite being called lots of not so nice things. I am under no illusions that there we be magical conversions to tolerance. Instead of arguing about what someone’s racial attitudes may be, I found that even when bigotry was painfully obvious, my argument was more effective if I framed it in terms of what was constitutional and objectively provable. There are some Trump supporters who were just begging me to call them racist so they could cry foul and move on, but I would not. There is no place for the kind of racism, sexism, and hatred brought by Trump to the campaign, but I hammered away at the legal argument to prove it was counter to American values instead of giving them the quick out. This meant the conversation had to continue, and I could produce more material for my position. After presenting counter evidence to all of their claims besides race, they almost had to say it themselves. They became much less confident and comfortable.
And of course, there are the real fringe jobs. The pizza-gate believers, the George Soros-as-super-criminal-FEMA-death-camp-Obama-wanted-to-take-over-Texas types. These are usually brief. Put up the evidence, let them try to insult you, (I was told I was a cross-dresser because…science I guess), remind them that that’s not really relevant, put up some more data, and it’s over. They lash out quickly, but one dent in their confidence and they shrink away.
With any of these voters, what did you accomplish? Did you suddenly make them switch their party allegiance? No, but you made them think, particularly in the longer conversations. By a persistent personal interaction, you forced more relevant information into their bubble. You forced them through dialogue to not only see objective information, but interact with it if they wanted to press their own claims. You made them read through each and every point, see all of your sources, and realize the greater complexity (or outright fallacy) of the issue at hand, even if they don’t admit it. The longer it goes on, the better. I always try to make the last post, not in “victory,” but to answer every objection and leave the option for the interaction to continue. If we are having an honest and useful debate about actual truths, excellent, I enjoy it. I have had plenty of those, and they are valuable and refreshing, never forget that those people exist. Regardless of their vote, not every Trump supporter is the archetype. However, if you are sticking to your falsehoods I will wear you down, I will bury you with facts, I will answer every single time, and I will outlast you.
Eventually, there is always just silence. I don’t consider it a win, but no one could walk away from our discussion and say that I was what they thought I was, (“cry baby loser”), or that there wasn’t more complexity to a situation than they might have realized. This proved time and again to be the most effective approach, and it’s easy to see why it fails as a political campaign. “There are many nuanced complexities that affect the reality of this situation and no solution will be perfect” is a lot harder to chant than “build the wall.”
Besides forcing a little information in front of their eyes, what does this do for the big picture? Once again this is not a problem with the idea of conservatism, only those that willingly accept reality according to Trump and the latest version of the GOP, the blatant lies that have been disproven time and again. Sure, there will always be pundits of extreme positions, but their publicity now grows like to like, tweet to retweet, share to share. Voters got far too comfortable aiding this nonsense because no one challenged them personally. And so these stories spread with a vicious arrogance throughout the campaign and into Trump’s presidency. I want to put a pinhole in that arrogance. If you are an acquaintance of mine and we are discussing real situations with liberal or conservative leaning solutions, that’s excellent. But if you aren’t grounded in reality, I want you to think twice before posting that ridiculous article or egregious meme. Even if it’s only because you don’t want to deal with me. I’m irritatingly kind, exhausting, and no one likes being publicly refuted. No one likes all of their claims debunked and a final ask for their evidence left unanswered because they can produce none. No one like surrendering the last word. And all of this will happen in full view of their friends and associates, over and over again. If you’re a true fringe nut-job, I know I won’t reach you, but I’m going to make you look foolish. And when you give up, or you hesitate in the future, I want it to bother you, I want you to remember that it’s not that simple. This discomfort, embarrassment, and the occasional silence that result mean the lies spread slower, feedback less, and return the fringe where they belong. We must impart a social cost for adhering to and promoting nonsense.
Do I think I can single-handedly force the national dialogue back to reasonableness? Of course not. The social cost and pressure I’m speaking of means nothing from an individual, but I do have 65 million like-minded friends. Imagine if this polite but relentless wave of truth came from multiple acquaintances, every time someone tried to spread these lies? Imagine if it was always met with a resounding “no, this is not acceptable” on a “yuge” scale. The more those who share your views and frustrations see this, the more likely they may be to join in. I have had people come up to me in person and thank me for “finally answering that nonsense of so-and-so.” I’m glad, and I understand confrontation is not for everyone, but it needs to be employed by more of us. This election was a triumph of simplicity aided by years of complacency. Our reluctance to enter socially awkward debates allowed for the rise of a mentality that could now threaten many innocent people, including those we know and care about personally. While we did not vote for Trump, this small piece of responsibility is ours. We saw it, we heard it, and we did not speak up often or loudly enough. The object is not to create more Democratic voters or a circumstance that would have ensured a Clinton victory, that might be impossible. But what if a more reasonable attitude on the right, fostered and held accountable by these interactions on a personal basis, had prevented a Trump nomination?
This is not about eradication; it is about containment. Fringe conspiracy theories will always be out there, but they were adopted and promoted by too many people who don’t travel those circles. Conservatism has a place at the table and in the debate, but its vessel of Trump and the GOP has crossed the line of credulity. The best thing that could happen to this country would be the return of a realistic and responsible Republican party.
Activism, protest, and participation are all essential and will have the most influence. We should never allow ourselves to get complacent in these areas either. How many of us contacted members of Congress before this election? But the rules of the game have not changed and participation alone may not be enough. This is a time when “all of the above” is the best way to proceed.
We all know people who let fake headlines and false claims shape their view on this election. Traditional news coverage did not dissuade them of these beliefs, they have to hear it from people they know. Your acquaintances can turn on and off any news source they like, but they will have a harder time turning off you. You will find yourself in a debate with total strangers who don’t care about your opinion of them, but every time you place more research in their feed, they’re notified, they see it, and they must either read it or retreat. We must penetrate the echo-chamber of the right. When we frame the argument with the right tone and evidence, they are more likely to keep talking. If by refusing to do it any other way we force the dialogue back to a debate of facts, we will have made progress. Then we can steer those we are able back to the realm of the real, where they may disagree with us all they like.
The lies of Trump and company spread too easily, without challenge or cost at a personal level. It can no longer be comfortable or without social consequence for those who aided the process. I used to let things go because I felt it was not always worth the fight. Clearly, I was wrong. It is time for those who promote the nonsensical claims of Trump and the GOP to wonder if it’s worth it themselves. This is not “agree to disagree” territory, this is “what did and did not happen.” We can police our circles and try to push back with the truth. If we can influence the people we interact with to hesitate and dig just a little deeper before posting or speaking, because they’re getting frustrated with being publicly refuted or just don’t want to hear from us, we will have tipped the scales ever so slightly back in the right direction. We do not need to change the party people vote for, but we must not accept the type of conversation some are trying to have. Maybe, just maybe, if we can move towards realistic debate again, we can go back to doing what we have always done: accepting the stumbling, slow, compromised promise of America that made it great to begin with.
And for goodness sake, if Daryl Davis can do this:
You can handle it too.
The mechanisms of fake news:
Public Policy Polling shows large numbers of Trump voters incorrect on unemployment, stock market:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/12/trump-remains-unpopular-voters-prefer-obama-on-scotus-pick.html
Turnout data, it’s not all clear, it might help, it might not be enough:
