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.

How Can Liberals Understand Conservative Thinking?

The greatest imperative in understanding someone with political ideologies other than yours is to listen without interruption.

Right now, Republicans are having difficulty “understanding” each other. So, “the other party” is, for now, not so easy to characterize. However, the basic tenets of political ideologies in the U.S. answer just a few questions (that you can ask of Conservatives whom you know). For each question, understanding comes from asking the follow-up question, “What reasons do you have for believing your position?” Listen. Don’t even think about using a tone of voice that could be interpreted as accusatory.

• Is federal government or state government where the seat of governance and the provision of services best located? This is the argument of federalism vs. confederalism that has been part of U.S. history since states were trying to decide whether or not to sign the Declaration of Independence. This was the essential question of the U.S. Civil War. It is a war that is still being fought.
• How much of social welfare is the responsibility of the government (either federal or state)? Conservatives rightly point out that at the founding of the U.S., social services were not central to the U.S. Constitution and the responsibility of the government. However, the U.S. Constitution speaks to the rights and freedoms of individuals, starting with freedom of the press, of speech, and of religion. Major events over the past 240 years, such as economic disasters, have taught us that national security and national stability are strongly linked to economic stability— of institutions and individuals. Most social services came about as a result of economic disasters, like the Great Depression, or the impact of national and foreign wars.
• Do people in certain demographics of the United States have inherent obstacles to achieving economic well-being? If so, is there an obligation on the part of government to lessen these obstacles? There is the Horatio Alger portrayal of disadvantaged Americans as people who just need tenacity and hard work to achieve “success.” There is the cultural belief in the right to achieve “The American Dream” (owning a home, having food security, being able to take vacations away from home, etc.).
• Who is deserving of legal protection against biased treatment? This starts with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause. But most Conservatives believe the law has gone too far. Protecting people in the LGBTQ community? Muslims? Hmmm.
• How much should the government regulate? For national regulations pertaining to the financial industry, the same economic disasters have driven the addition of regulations. The most recent motivation for asking this question was the Great Recession of 2007–2010. Sub-prime mortgages and other forms of very loose lending— not just in the United States— are credited/blamed for this recession (from which some industries and individuals have not yet recovered). In 2017, there seems to be a difference in interpretation of what happened in 2007. Get past those interpretations and understand a Conservative’s belief about if and when the government (and the semi-independent Federal Reserve) should assert itself into the economy.
• Which alternative to free trade is best for the U.S. in the long-/short-term? For international agreements, all political ideologies talk about “free trade” and no party actually wants it. The question requires some understanding of the global economy and the ways that trade agreements and trade, itself, are tied to political foreign affairs. So, the question to a Conservative is to understand which alternative to free trade they think the U.S. should pursue (and why).
• What are the pros and cons of the separation of Church and State? It’s difficult to understand at least the majority of Conservatives without understanding their beliefs about how religion (especially, Christianity) should influence such things as Supreme Court decisions and Acts of Congress. Noting the preponderance of pros vs. cons will tell you a lot.

In my experience and as a fundamental belief, there is no better way to understand the thinking of “Conservatives” than to talk with then (not at them). “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” (Steven Covey, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People)