Critical Thinking & A Free Press

Somewhere in my top ten list of idiotic rejoinders is when someone discounts facts simply because said fact appeared in the mainstream press. I have seen information dismissed out of hand only because it appeared in The New York Times or Washington Post. While it would be foolish to uncritically accept everything printed or broadcast in any news source it would be equally, if not more, foolish to do the opposite and decide that everything a given source puts out is false. 

No news source is infallible. Newspapers and broadcast networks make mistakes, they have their own agendas. But since Donald Trump came on the scene it has become unremarkable to brand news that one disagrees with as "fake", and elevate the reporting from outlets that support one's confirmation bias. With the internet facilitating anyone and everyone with wi-fi thinking that they're reporters, it's easy to get lost in the sandstorm of information - but how does anyone decide what sources are trustworthy? 

A key to understanding the trustworthiness of the media is that there is no "The Media", or even "The Mainstream Media". Meaning that media isn't a monolithic entity that marches in lockstep. The various broadcast outlets and newspapers with national reach are competitors, not subsidiaries of the same uber-media. Another important aspect of what we call the mainstream media is that the various outlets are staffed by professionals. Reporters are people who have been trained to look for and disseminate facts. Editors will insist that a reporter has their facts straight and can substantiate them before going to press. This sometimes means that, while rumors are swirling around, and accusations are being bandied about, a national news outlet may be silent about "what everybody knows", while the keyboard warriors and partisan blogs and podcasts are shouting from the rooftops what later turns out to be false. All the while screaming that "the media won't report on this". If I had a choice between a newspaper with a decades-long reputation and track record for accuracy and a neophyte with an axe to grind, I'll take the track record. 

Another thing that confuses many people is the difference between the news and opinion sides of any news organization. "News" is what happened. "Opinion" (or editorial) is why it happened (according to the columnist) with some crystal ball gazing thrown in for good measure. Yes, sometimes they get the facts wrong or jump the gun before all the facts are in, but you would be hard-pressed to find an actual lies, or even major errors in the reporting of the big dogs of mainstream media. Editorial or opinion pieces are another story since they are presenting...opinion.  "Senator 'A' is a disgrace" is opinion. It's subjective and you could argue that Senator 'A'  isn't a disgrace. "Senator 'A' voted for XYZ legislation" would be an example of a fact. Various conclusions can be drawn from that fact, and those conclusions are...opinion. An argument can be made that a news outlet shows bias by spending time identifying problems with one politician while ignoring issues with another. It very well might be bias. Or it might just be that one of them has a lot more problems than the other. Showing bias doesn't mean that the information being presented is wrong, just that the choice of what to publish is a function of what the outlet believes is important. 

The confusion between news and opinion could be attributed to the popularity of the opinion side of Fox News. As much as I dislike Fox News, my dislike stems from the way their opinion shows have served to mild the thinking of much of the right wing in the last decade. Their news reporting is, in my opinion, as accurate and unbiased as anyone else's, but it's hosts like Hannity and Tucker Carlson who get the most attention, while the actual news team is virtually ignored. 

Speaking of bias - no one is free from bias. While a reporter or editor should recognize their own biases and work to minimize them, we as consumers of news should be aware of any bias present in a news organization's reporting and allow for that. I think you'll find that in a reputable news outlet bias manifests itself mainly in (1) The opinion columns and (2) The choice of what stories to cover. We already discussed the opinion pages. One might question why some things are covered and other things ignored, but that doesn't mean that what is covered is false. 

The proliferation of blogs and podcasts has become real competition for where people get their information. But is it information? Or is it just opinion? Are we to believe that Steve Bannon, who worked for Losin' Don and is a full-throated supporter of him, is an unbiased news source? Or any of the other podcasters whose mission seems to be to elevate Trump and get us to believe that President Biden wants to intentionally destroy the country? Should you listen to alternative sources of information? I think you should - and apply the same level of critical thinking you would apply to mainstream media sources. 

The advantage of having a vibrant and independent free press is that they have resources that most ordinary citizens do not. They often have access to political figures and have the time and ability to really "do the research" to determine if our government is telling us the truth. They have access to experts that they can interview in order to compare what the politicians are saying to what the data are saying. A disturbing trend over the last few years has not only been the denigration of the press and its characterization as "enemies of the people", but the habit of barring the press from events and meetings so that there is no independent set of eyes verifying what the government is telling us. 

We have organizations that are staffed with men and women whose mission in life is to shine a light on the shadows in the corners, it's foolishness to reflexively and without thought reject the wealth of information they bring us.  

Endorsements & Primaries

Not too long ago I wrote a post called "Absence of Thought", about how U.S. voters didn't think before choosing their representatives. Another example of lack of thinking in American elections is the importance that we attach to endorsements. 

Many years ago someone with whom I was acquainted told me who he was going to vote for. His choice happened to be leading well ahead of his opponents in the polls. When I asked him why his reply was "I might as well vote for the winner". This person was not the brightest, and was definitely not politically aware, but aren't we doing the same thing when we pay attention to endorsements? The purpose of an endorsement is to induce voters to base their decision, not on who will be best for the job, but on who the endorser thinks is best for the job. Voila! Thinking-free decision making!

Related to this is way our primary/caucus system of choosing the presidential nominees of the major parties works. There are a number of things wrong with it, but first, let's look at the system it replaced:

A major point to remember is that political parties, despite the great influence the two major parties have in providing candidates, are not part of the government, but are private entities. Theoretically a political party can nominate whoever they choose for a government office without first finding out what "the people" want. They can throw their weight behind one candidate over another, like the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is alleged to have done in 2016, they can cancel primaries in some states, like the Republicans did in 2020 and there's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. In fact, the current system, where the results of primaries and caucuses were binding upon the parties only goes back to 1972. Until then varying methods of choosing nominees have been used. Initially the members of Congress in each party nominated their standard bearer. National conventions soon became the main venue where candidates were chosen by delegates sent by state and local parties. Party "bosses" held outsize power to decide who the candidates would be. After 1901 states began holding primaries, some primaries determined delegates, some locked those delegates into supporting a specific candidate, others were simply preferences that were not binding on the delegates. Starting in 1972 state primaries and caucuses determined who that state's delegates would vote for at the national convention. Of course each state party still set the rules on how delegates would be allocated. Some states were winner-take-all - all delegates went to whoever received a plurality of votes; other allocated delegates on a percentage. Then there are "superdelegates", i.e. elected officials and party leaders, who were not pledged to any candidate. Primaries and caucuses are spread out from January to June, with Iowa traditionally the first caucuses, currently in mid-January, and New Hampshire the first primary in February. 

Most people thought that this system was an improvement over the older methods of nominations, since it was more democratic. And, to a certain extent, it is. Except for the fact that by the time we get to the later primaries most of the hopefuls have dropped out and candidates who might be a voter's first choice are no longer running. It's a vicious circle. Whoever wins (and winning, in a crowded field, might mean a plurality significantly less than fifty percent) in the earliest contests (in states that are hardly representative of the nation as a whole) has perceived momentum. This results in donors reconsidering who they will be financially supporting, and those candidates who face shrinking war chests have to drop out. We have a situation similar to what I described about the influence of endorsements - donors are making decisions, not based on who is the best candidate, but on who other people think is the best candidate. 

The practice that has sprung up in the last few elections to conduct candidate "debates" in the months leading up to the first primary has made matters even worse. To start with, only the candidates whose poll numbers exceed a certain minimum percentage are allowed to be part of the debates. So we start off with candidates without immediate name recognition being kept out of consideration. Mainstream media contributes to this problem as the gatekeeper, deciding who is a serious candidate and who isn't. As the debates go on low-polling candidates are excluded, so we are only presented with "serious" candidates who other people have decided are the best to choose from. I'm sure we've all noticed how polls have become increasingly unreliable as people elect not to participate, or even lie to pollsters. Yet we still act as if polls mean something. These debates have been functioning as unofficial pre-primaries, weeding out an "excess" of choices, so that as the actual primaries and caucuses begin, we are left with the predetermined assumption that former president Trump will be the nominee and that Governor DeSantis and Ambassador Haley are his only viable challengers. All before one vote has been cast. Former Governor Christie, the only candidate who seemed brave enough to admit his error in supporting Trump, and who is possibly one of the few who could reasonably be expected to govern, dropped out. 

What's the solution? (However unlikely to be enacted)

One alternative would be a national primary day. That way, those of us at the end of the schedule get a voice. Anyone who meets the qualifications and fills out the requisite paperwork is on the ballot. Since this is a primary and not a nationwide general election, the Electoral College need not factor in. The total popular vote would determine the winner. What about the very real possibility that no one receives a majority of the vote, which is likely if there are 15-20 candidates in one or both major parties? Ranked choice would be my preference. In ranked choice voting each voter would pick a set number of choices from the candidate list and would rank them in order of preference. For example, let's say you could pick your top five. Once the votes are counted, if no one received a majority of "first choice" votes, then the candidate or candidates with the lowest vote totals are eliminated. The second choice votes for the remaining candidates are then added to the original totals. If there is still no candidate with over 50%, then we repeat the process with the third choice, fourth choice etc. until we have a clear winner. When the dust settles you'll have a nominee who may not be the first choice of the majority, but has some support from a majority of voters. The problem with this is that sometimes the candidate with the most votes, but not a majority, in the first round is not the ultimate winner. This happened in 2020 in Iowa. The caucuses had a setup similar to ranked choice voting and Senator Sanders had the most first round votes, but not a majority, however when the subsequent rounds were tallied up, he was no longer the winner. A second alternative is a national runoff, like Georgia does with its statewide elections. The top two vote getters face off one-on-one in a second election. It's like a playoff, but it's possible that neither of the top two received more than 20% of the votes. 

With the ridiculous debates now over and the first caucus in two days it will be interesting to see how this broken system serves the needs of the Republic.

Politicians

This week I listened to a local politician address the group that I was a part of. He started off by telling us that he wasn't a politician. "Ah", I thought, "starting off with a lie". Anyone who enters the electoral fray is, by definition, a politician. To get elected an office-seeker has to build a base, hustle for contributions, and tell people what they want to hear so that they will vote for him. So, if you're in any elected office higher up the ladder than town council in a small town, you'll have to be a politician. 

A mistake that many people make in evaluating office holders is that they believe that they are required to reflect the will of the people in their policies and positions and vote the way the majority of their constituents would like. Of course going too much against the will of the majority will result in not getting reelected, but there is no real guardrails to ensure that an elected representative will respect the majority's views, or even follow through on any promises made during the election campaign. It may have always been this way, but politicians lately seem to act as if the fact of their election, even if it's by a razor-thin margin, is a mandate to carry out whatever actions they want to. One Nebraska politician characterized his election, which admittedly was by a large margin, as "Nebraskans spoke with one voice". Unless he got 100% of the votes or close to it, Nebraskans spoke with at least two voices, since somebody voted for his opponent.  

The local politician that I listened to this week went on to boast about how much loved Nebraska, but followed that statement up with "I'm the [his title] and I'm going to do what I want". Maybe some folks in the room were shocked or surprised at that, but this politician's penchant for making decisions based on preconceived notions, religious beliefs, and homespun wisdom, rather than evidence and facts, was no surprise He went on to justify a decision that negatively affected many in the group present, not with any real world specifics, but with analogies and perhaps a weird reference to Mother Theresa. 

A true leader would make decisions based on what was best for the people, not force his own ideology on people, not cater to the faction that put him in office. I'm well aware that a leader like that is pretty rare, and that elected officials are going to make decisions that I don't agree with or like for a myriad of reasons. But I expect policies based on thinking, not dreams and hallucinations.

Third Anniversary

On the third anniversary of the attempt to violently overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, here's a post from last month, with a  few additions here and there: 

The January 6th Insurrection - when did it start? Without a doubt it started months before election day as Trump repeatedly alleged that the election would be rigged against him. He insisted that the only way he could lose would be if the election was stolen. He made false claims about the security of mail-in ballots among other things, and spent months priming his followers to be outraged if he lost. 

There's some doubt in my mind about whether Trump really believed what he was saying. Was he dazzled by the usually huge crowds that his rallies attracted, comparing them to Biden's campaigning from his home or appearing at sparsely attended events? Did he believe his own press releases? Was he truly surprised on election night as his early lead slipped away? Of course the phenomenon of early results skewing Republican while the later counted mail-in votes favored Democrats was predictable and was in fact predicted. Many states did not allow for mail-in and absentee ballots to be counted until election day votes had been tallied. Whether or not Trump believed what he was saying is irrelevant. Aside from the fact that what Trump believed about anything didn't always bear any resemblance to reality, there is a process to how we conduct our elections - refusing wholesale to accept the results of a national election is not part of that process.

(It is true that there have been challenges to electoral votes in the past, including by Democrats. The alternate slate of Hawaiian electors in 1960 for example. All of those challenges were pro forma and did not include the sustained attacks on the electoral system that we saw in 2020 and 2021. It is also true that Secretary Clinton, after her 2016 loss, complained about election interference, but did not engage in a sustained effort to reverse the results)

In order to understand how Trump's whining about his "landslide win" being stolen translated into an attack on the U.S. Capitol, you have to understand how Trumpism is indistinguishable from a religious cult. Like the typical follower of a religious cult leader, a Trumpist believes without question anything their leader says, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They excuse every and all wrongdoing by their leader. They ascribe to him qualities that he clearly does not have. He is viewed as a messianic figure. After Trump Myung Moon railed against "The Steal" for two months following the election, culminating in a speech railing against "The Steal" on the day that Congress would be certifying the electoral votes, the literal last chance to overturn the results of the election, with thousands of loyal Trumpists foaming at the mouth, what did he think would happen?

Trump is famous for implying things, suggesting them, rather than coming out and giving orders. It is well known that he avoids putting things in writing. Nowhere in his January 6th speech does he explicitly command (or even ask) his cultists to storm the Capitol or engage in violence in order to get Congress to not certify electoral votes that went to Biden. But Henry II didn't command any of his minions to kill the Archbishop of Canterbury when he said "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", yet his knights understood what he wanted and killed Beckett anyway. The Trumpists in Washington on January 6, 2021 sure believed that he wanted them to "Stop The Steal" by any means possible and believed that they were doing his will when they forced their way into the Capitol. His isolated phrase encouraging them to go to the Capitol "patriotically and peacefully" was clearly at odds with the mood of his followers. It's clear that he wanted to intimidate Congress into decertifying enough Biden votes to ensure his re-election. His tweet and video urging his followers to go home came hours into the attack and even though he told them to "go home in love and peace", he prefaced those words with references to an election "unceremoniously and viciously stripped away". 

Twice recently raw footage from security cameras and police bodycams on January 6th has been released. A limited amount of footage to Tucker Carlson and recently more complete footage released by Speaker of The House Johnson. Trump apologists are focusing on scenes showing Trumpists milling around the Capitol, peacefully interacting with police, and even shots of police holding the door for them as they entered. Trumpist media insists that this "proves" that January 6th was nothing more than a peaceful protest and that those who were inside the Capitol that day were guilty of nothing worse than trespassing. They claim that all those who were convicted and imprisoned are political prisoners. Those scenes of nonviolence are real. They aren't AI creations. They are accurate representations of some of what happened that day. Of course, not all. 

Before looking at actions, let's look at intent.

Everyone who was at Trump's speech that day, even those who did not march to the Capitol or go inside, was there because they believed that the democratically decided election should be overturned. It's clear that at least some in the crowd planed to use violence to achieve their aim, and some intended to track down Vice President Pence or Speaker Pelosi - fortunately Capitol Police were able to evacuate members of Congress to safety. Despite Trump's one line about being "peaceful and patriotic", most of his followers clearly didn't believe he was serious about that part, but that he was serious about "taking back our country" - and fighting to do it. They intended whether by violence or simple persuasion, to convince Congress to overturn an election. Several of those who were arrested testified that they believed that they were carrying out Trump's will in attacking and invading the capitol. 

Once they arrived at the Capitol grounds the violence began. The overran the barricades, attacking the  police officers manning them. They broke windows and doors to get into the Capitol itself, attacking more police officers who tried to keep them out. While there has been no evidence that any of them had firearms, many used flagpoles, truncheons and weapons taken from the police to batter their way in. There is video footage of all of this. Enough that hundreds of participants have been arrested, charged and convicted of various crimes. How to explain the apparent difference between the battle outside and the quiet inside? The apologists' stories have changed multiple times. It wasn't really Trump supporters, it was Antifa. Or it was the FBI. Or the ones inside were a different group than the ones outside. Or there were FBI or Antifa agents provocateurs riling people up. Or the whole thing was an FBI false flag "to take Trump down". 

Is it really that complicated? 

No, it's not.

Without a doubt the Trumpist mob was ready to do something, but they had no direction. Their cult leader, Trump, went back to The White House despite promising to march with them. Trump's legal strategy was disjointed and directionless, and his goals for January 6th were no less so. Some of his allies in Congress would challenge electoral votes in "blue" states, but that was about it. Trump got them excited about "taking back their country", but was vague about what that would entail, so they used their imaginations and envisioned themselves as uber-patriots. They knew that they had to get to the Capitol, so they crashed their way through the outer barricades. Some of them fought their way into the Capitol itself. The National Guard, which had been on hand during Black Lives Matter protests, was nowhere to be seen, so the police were outnumbered and overwhelmed. Once the mob got in, what did they do? Some of them engaged in petty theft and vandalism. Some of them went searching for members of Congress, but they and Vice President Pence had been successful evacuated. So what did they do? They meandered aimlessly through the halls of Congress, taking selfies. Why? Because they had no Plan B and their leader was nowhere to be found. 

The newly released video changes nothing. A mob invaded the Capitol while Congress was doing duty to certify the electoral votes, itself a largely symbolic, procedural, action. The election was over and their guy lost, but they couldn't accept it, because their cult leader wouldn't accept it. They had a vague goal that was not tied to an actual plan, and they were thwarted because what plan they did have was unrealistic; based on a fantasy of how things really were done. They foolishly listed to their false messiah and got crucified. 

The gaslighting and falsehoods continue three years after that fateful day. I was under the impression that there was no specific law prohibiting "insurrection". There is, however, 18 US Code § 2383, which sets the penalties for rebellion or insurrection. Most of the long sentences from January 6 were not for insurrection, but for "seditious conspiracy". Insurrection apologists love to point out that no one has been charged specifically with insurrection. The term "insurrection", however, was latched upon by the media, social media and various commentators quickly following the attack and stuck. I don't know why they think seditious conspiracy is better somehow than insurrection. 18 US Code § 2384 & 2385 defines seditious conspiracy as advocating the overthrow of the government, which when you include Trump, is exactly what these bastards did. 

The "Stop the Steal" movement was based on lies, built on lies and continues to thrive on lies.