The Great American Hoax Hoax

Perhaps the most obvious hoax on the American people is that which claims that most news reports that oppose their beliefs are hoaxes while none of the reports that reinforce their beliefs are hoaxes. There are many examples of this phenomenon, of course. One that continues to thrive in July of 2017 regards whether news reports of a Trump-Russia connection are a hoax. Whether we are labeling these reports as humorous deceptions or malicious deceptions, there are informative news reports that present verified facts; they are not "hoaxes."

I’m not sure whether many people are amenable to changing their mind about whether the news reporting on the Trump-Russia connection is factual. It’s extremely difficult to let go of a belief that any of us have embraced. If you aren’t interested in knowing information that might question the Russian-Trump "hoax" belief, I respect that. I know I have strongly held beliefs that I’d have a hard time giving up. I believe that direct statements and observable actions by politicians tell us what these people are saying or doing; anything else is a secondary source that is likely to cherry pick “facts” or is a theory about what we don’t actually know to be true. Sometimes those primary sources are telling the truth, but all you can say about what they’ve said is “this is what they said; this is what they observably did.” I’d have a difficult time changing that belief about primary “evidence” being the best source of information! I also believe that conspiracy theories are damaging the U.S. as a nation and that the Russians are exploiting this phenomenon. At least that’s what I’ve heard a Russian operative say in a recorded interview.

I’m thinking we might want to consider what Donald Trump, Jr. has shared directly of his email messages and his personal comments rather than citing the “reprobates” at CNN, for example. To wit: He tried to collude with Russian operatives to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton but (at least as of July 15th) claims he got nothing and instead was lobbied to lift sanctions on Russia. Both activities are illegal; neither attempt by the Russian operatives was reported to the CIA at the time. Someone left that room with a folder of papers that arrived with one of the Russian operatives who attended the meeting. Who took the papers had not been confessed as of July 15th. There should be no speculation but a lot of further investigation.

President Trump is now saying that, yes, the meeting took place; yes, his son and son-in-law (and others) were eager to know what dirt the Russians had on Clinton. However, Trump, Jr. did not do anything wrong. “Opposition research” is the name of the game in politics, and Trump, Jr. didn’t realize it was illegal to deal with the Russians on this. (The Trumps are new to politics, after all, say the apologists. For the rest of us, ignorance of the law does not confer innocence.) Jared Kushner has gradually added over 100 incidents in which he met with Russians when providing his security clearance application form. The additions have come after he was given a security clearance. Reports of these situations are not hoaxes. Trump, Jr. and Kushner have acknowledged these facts. That they did not report these facts in a timely way is not proof that they did or did not know it was wrong to deceive. Knowing the intent for the deception (or oversight) is extremely difficult to prove, so jumping to conclusions about innocence or guilt about intent is not appropriate. However, it's what they did that matters.

Back to one of my beliefs: Avoid all second-hand sources, whether it’s CNN or FOX, Hannity or Maddow. Look at the collection of email exchanges that Trump, Jr. released and clearly stated are what went on (including his “I love it!” statement regarding Russians interfering with U.S. elections). Listen to what Trump, Jr. and the others who attended that meeting are saying about what transpired. Even information about who was in that meeting has been released like a slowly dripping faucet that needs a new washer. There may be more details coming, but Trump, Jr. has already made it clear that there is a “Trump-Russia thing” (to quote Trump, Sr's term).

All of the intelligence agencies in the U.S. government had independent investigations regarding whether Russia (via operatives or directly with Putin’s leadership) interfered with the 2016 U.S. elections (not just with the presidential election). All of the intelligence agencies came to similar conclusions: Russia did interfere and they know many of the situations where this took place (e.g., state elections as well as federal). It is not a hoax that Russians interfered. It is almost surely not true that all federal agencies are in collusion against Trump and, therefore, are going after an innocent Russia or an innocent member of Trump's entourage. Look for transcripts of summaries of those reports; listen to the directors’ public comments on the subject.

CNN has been accused (and found guilty) many times of rushing forward with a story that is unconfirmed in order to have a larger audience. That they pushed forward with a Trump-Russia story before we had the facts we have now would not surprise me, but the timeline suggests that CNN’s Van Jones spoke before having the facts that were revealed the week after his sidewalk comment that there was little substance to reports of the Trump, Jr. meeting with Russian operatives and less substance in Democrats’ response to what was known at that time.

Many Americans believed that those closest to Trump and his campaign would not have met directly with Russian operatives, but now know they were wrong. CNN’s Van Jones could have been post-rationalizing about his nothing-burger comment on the day after O’Keefe published his edited version of Jones’s dialogue. However, the nothing-burger comment and its post-rationalizing was made before all the factual revelations came to light. At the time of the nothing-burger comment, a lot of people thought that Liberals were attempting to light a bonfire without any wood. Jones was apparently one of those people. And, let’s face it, the Democrats are not getting out a coherent message that people are listening to.

Believing this hoax theory after the Trump entourage's confessed activities were made public is amazing, but not surprising. It’s a belief that some Americans are holding on to, though fewer since Trump, Jr's statements indicate that there’s a lot of burger in that sandwich.

Political Tribes

I was asked why the U.S. can't have a "logical combination" of liberalism and conservatism rather than turning politics into only these two political ideology choices.

As in many countries where people have a say in their government, there’s a tendency for people in the U.S. to identify with a political “tribe.” To do that, they have to overlook some differences and focus more on commonalities. In fact, different people have different priorities; for example, they might seek out commonalities on fiscal policy and shut their eyes to social policies that don’t match their values.

I don’t think it matters whether there can be a logical combination because a lot of politics is driven by emotions. Perhaps we could think of that as “emotional logic.” Voters’ reasoning definitely doesn’t adhere to principles of analytic logic! At the very least, in analytic logic, self-contradiction is not allowed. In emotional logic, cognitive dissonance is common. You can actually hear or read people who say opposite things within the span of a few minutes or paragraphs. And there are other people who reason analytically after making some very emotional decisions, in other words, post-rationalization.

In countries where elections involve the formation of alliances among political parties, it can be pretty difficult to figure out what the “logical combination” is. There are behind-doors negotiations of the nature of I’ll-go-along-with-this-thing-that-you-want-if-you-go-along-with-this-other-thing-that-I-want. Negotiation used to be the way the U.S. Congress worked. I think you’re asking why it isn’t that way now.

In the U.S. I think it’s all about the tribe mentality. Humans are not bonobos. Tribes fight to keep their territory. Tribes work to distinguish their identity from that of other tribes, who can be seen as enemies. In 2010, it was tribal rhetoric that resulted in a fairly dramatic change in the way politics are conducted at the national level. There’s a tribe that has the power to give no quarter to the other tribes. In fact, there’s a splintering of tribes, with some tribal members now being “enemies.”

This splintering is evidence that U.S. politics is not binary. People argue over ownership of the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” Those to the left of what used to be the center of the U.S. political spectrum are now splintered into Moderate Liberals, Progressives, fiscal Liberals, social Liberals, etc. Those to the right of what used to be the center are now splintered into Moderate Conservatives, Tea Party Conservatives, the Freedom Caucus (very conservative representatives in the U.S. House), the Christian Right, White Nationalists, etc.

Therefore, the U.S. appears not to have reduced politics to a binary choice but rather to have created many splinter groups. Those further to the extremes of the political spectrum are more intransigent than those who are more moderate. And those groups, especially among more radical Conservatives, are very loud. If one only listens to them or their counterparts at the left end of the spectrum (beyond “Progressives”), you’d think that there is zero possibility of a “logical combination.” Practically speaking, that’s right. But not because there cannot be a balance between federalism and confederalism or between free college for all Americans vs. pay-or-don’t-go education “opportunities.”

Until the tribal leaders recognize that their war-at-all-costs is costing their tribe too much, they will not be amenable to negotiating a logical combination of political policies.