Politics in the Quiet Hours

American Thinker 

It is still a common experience, spending time with friends and family despite opposing political views. There may be mutual consideration, with acceptable topics of conversation around shared interests. There may be the occasional proclamation, intended harmlessly for the ears of kindred spirits, that is met nonetheless with a small inner groan or eye roll. No doubt, it is easier to speak freely when all are of like mind, but supposing at least that we still love one another, it is worth examining the gulf between us and how it came about.           

I have pool-shooting friends who would not necessarily call themselves liberals, or “on the Left,” but rather see themselves as independent-minded. We get together on many evenings, and it has long been apparent that they do not like Donald Trump, as they themselves would concede and perhaps state in even stronger words. They know that I would rather shoot pool than argue over politics; as a result, I suspect that they would describe me as “on the Right” in some fashion.

My friends get their information through traditional mainstream media, through CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox, NPR, the Wall Street Journal, through local newspapers and radio, as we all did, once upon a time. In contrast, my information (what they would consider disinformation or misinformation) is mostly gleaned from internet sources and some podcasts.           

The other night, Bob asked how I thought “people on the Right” would react if something happened to Trump, and JD Vance were to become president; or, with Trump’s term in office ending, if Vance were to become the Republican nominee. I felt that most people who voted for Trump had very favorable views of Vance, possibly liking him even more than Trump himself. Bob found the assessment very surprising! The conversation continued civilly, following a logical path Bob was exploring: did Trump have any accomplishments at all? I took the bait and said that at least he had pardoned the J6 people. Well, it wasn’t long following that thread, before Charlie, listening on, could take it no longer and cried out, “These are conspiracy theories!”         

My friends agree that we all tend to seek out news and information from sources we find trustworthy and rational, and that we are all subject to some confirmation bias. There was a time, not so long ago, when we shared a similar sense of reality. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman, Nixon was a crook, the two-party system was a rigged game. We saw the world through the same lens, and could openly question anything, because we were like minded. Did Roosevelt know ahead of time that an attack was coming on Pearl Harbor? Did the State Department green-light Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait? Was there really a hole on the ozone layer? Such topics never set us on either side of a divide; after all, we didn’t have access to boundless information, so it was mostly conjecture for its own sake. Even if some conspiracy theory or other were true, it wouldn’t have had any great bearing on how we saw the world overall. Some things may been unsettling, but we weren’t living in the Matrix.

The Internet has changed things. These days, our view of reality itself creates a gulf between us. Each of our clear lenses becomes a kaleidoscope, when the other looks through it.           

We would have opposing answers to the following examples:

• Are humans causing a crisis of global warming?
• Is there a “deep state” within the U.S. executive branch?
• Do intelligence agencies spy on everyone?
• Was there a coup against Trump in his first term?
• Is there widespread censorship of conservative viewpoints?
• Are many protests and activists funded through NGOs?
• Did the FBI stage the attempted kidnapping of Governor Gretchen Whitmer?
• Was the 2020 election stolen with fraudulent ballots?
• Were peaceful J6 protesters set up by federal assets and capital police?
• Was the government weaponized against conservatives?
• Has the country been intentionally flooded with millions of alien foreigners?
• Was Epstein working for foreign and domestic intelligence agencies?
• Did the U.S. provoke the war between Russia and Ukraine?
• Were state actors involved in the assassination attempt in Butler?
• Have childhood vaccines been harming people?

The list could go on and on.        

Occam's razor is double-sided. For my friends, the simplest explanation is that all the conspiracy theories have been debunked, that their own sources of information are telling them the truth, and that people who believe such nonsense have fallen prey to various forms of malinformation. The alternative is that there is some deep-state cabal and everyone’s in on it, from government to tech companies, to a widespread media, to a multitude of public and private organizations: it doesn’t even seem possible. For the other side, the machinery is in plain view, once you see it: forces are controlling the narratives, and that is the simplest explanation for otherwise inexplicable events. What was really more believable, that there was no natural immunity after COVID, or that people like Fauci wanted to ensure that everyone was vaccinated? A complex system can rise from simple interactions: personal interests around money, greed, and fear.

In his famous Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke noticed that belief becomes a question of probability. Does some proposition conform with what people already know? Who is testifying about it? How many people? Are they reliable? Do they know what they’re talking about? Why are they talking about it? What are their motives? Is there counter testimony? We may not have the information we need to weigh the odds, “and yet we are forced to determine ourselves on the one side or other.”

For my friends, anyone believing such conspiracy theories must be gullible, putting trust in unreliable sources. In the interest of protecting conservatives from the kind of predatory information that put Trump in office, they even embrace more censorship. In the past, we used to agree on freedom of speech and expression, at least.

Our beliefs have certainly diverged. I do not trust government, big tech, or the mainstream media. It started with censorship, sneaky algorithms at first. Now censorship has been embraced, not just by freedom-loving friends, but by the Supreme Court. How could I choose anything but the red pill?

In time, my friends may realize that the conservative viewpoint isn’t some cult of personality around Trump but instead has its roots in national pride and fiscal policy. They may even backtrack on some of their convictions, as they catch COVID despite the vaccines and boosters. But still, they want to live in an optimistic world. They make the appeal, that it would be better to pursue happiness in their blue-pill reality.

Admittedly, the conservative view is dark. But it’s not insurmountable, so long as friends can find common ground. So long as we notice, at the very least, that forces continually pit us against each other.