by Bradley Knockel
Scientific studies show that US citizens' policy beliefs have little to do with whether they identify as Democrat or Republican, yet they typically vote how they identify (not on their policy beliefs). Voting should not be like choosing a football team! Don't choose a team; choose your mind and the best candidate, and let's do our best to be independent thinkers. Reason is less extreme than the political parties, so let's help reduce extremism.
Scientific studies show that people who strongly identify as Democrat or Republican are far more likely to believe in many conspiracy theories (each party believes somewhat different conspiracies). Don't believe in conspiracies! That is, don't be an extremist who thinks based off of a label! Be an independent thinker instead. Trying to see fact and truth is hard enough without a pre-packaged ideology coloring your thinking.
Interestingly, the most "informed" people can be among the most ignorant/extreme. Many people fill their brains with irrelevant political facts. For example, debates are had, but often not a single commentator is concerned about the subtle logic of the arguments or their factual underpinnings, but about the show and the game as if the debate were a sporting event between your hometown and the rival team. Commentators talk and talk, but about such trivial things, yet people think that they are becoming informed by listening to all the spin. The media does this to get your views because substance, logic, and facts are not as sensationally entertaining. The worst thing for the media's views would be for them to explain to both parties how wrong they are and that they need to think independently based on policies! Personally, I find deep analysis to be deeply satisfying. The deeper you go, the more interesting things get!
Are debates bad? No. If you have already done deep research into the issues but are unfamiliar with the candidates, especially in a primary, you can learn about what each candidate believes. Things like confidence and charisma can be learned from a debate, and such qualities allow a leader to unify their constituents. If you find listening to an orange narcissistic bully and pathological liar entertaining, US presidential debates are at least entertainment.
Do I have an ideology? If you call trying not to make decisions based off of ideologies an ideology, than yes I do! I probably have others too, but I especially try to make very general words like Republican and Democrat not be them. Where has this "ideology" taken me? Well, when I talk to typical Republicans, I am regularly shocked at how they value their guts (or "common sense" as they call it) over a more detailed factual analysis, and how they can repeatedly push facts aside. When I talk to typical Democrats, I am regularly surprised at how much they value their bleeding hearts (or "empathy" as they call it) over the bottom line. I choose facts and science, especially in this complex interconnected world that we live in, a world that our brains did not evolve to handle! Our guts and empathy are very important for our small-scale daily interactions, but science and logic are needed to build countries!
In addition to ideologies, there are more reasons that people are terrible voters. People also tend to vote for who they would like to socialize with. This would be fine if you want to socialize with confident, competent, effective leaders who agree on your policy preferences. In the 2016 and 2024 US presidential elections, many people voted for Trump because he acted like he was as stupid as they were and that he actually cared about them. Every time he ate McDonald's and talked about it, he gained a bunch more voters. I'm more of a Wendy's guy, but voters are truly ignorant if they are voting based on trivial marketing such as this. This threat to democracy is called populism, and, perhaps due to always better media technologies, European countries and the US are now being weakened from within by it.
How do you think independently? Firstly, don't watch any 24-hour news network. Instead, look for facts. Google things like "Is it true that ______", especially if something sounds like a conspiracy theory, then click on as many diverse reputable sources as you can. If the topic is something that science can have a say, Google "What is the scientific consensus about ______". For an issue, you can often Google what other countries do and the pros and cons. If it's good, think about if/how the US could do it. Then try to figure out why we aren't doing it—it's likely due to the extremism caused by our two-party system, but could also be caused by the US's commitment to certain high-cost freedoms (guns and a poorly-regulated free market). Oh, and never get your news from social media. NEVER. Or TV or radio ads! Basically, avoid any source that will normalize bullshit conspiracy theories that even the best of us sometimes fall for. I feel that social media is the worst at creating echo chambers and filter bubbles.
Do you have reputable evidence that your country controls the media? If yes, you live under a dictator, and you should not believe the media. If not, you probably don't live under a dictator. Dictators need media control to gain the support of the population as the dictator "protects them" from fictional threats. Much of the media is crap (such as social media), but fact-based journalism is the good kind of media that is crucial for keeping a country free. When Russia invaded Ukraine, I was very surprised to learn that most Russians supported Putin because the state-controlled media portrayed Ukrainians as Nazis and was not reporting Russia's war crimes. Putin's support wasn't just for show! I was surprised because Russians have access to the Internet and can simply Google for independent journalism. I say to the majority of Russians: Putin is a dictator and you are lazy for not discovering that. And I say to many in the US: (1) you don't live under a dictatorship simply because your elected representatives make laws such as mask mandates that you don't like, and (2) don't be cocky about your freedom when you freely choose to believe in conspiracy theories planted in your social media by Russians.
When you are researching, find articles that list citations, authors, and publishing date. Trust .org, .gov, and .edu over .com websites. Keep in mind that the media often misunderstands science. A single scientific paper means nothing, so ignore all the many media stories about a single scientific study. Many sources agreeing on something means nothing, so the world is round even though lots of websites disagree. The majority of scientists agreeing on something is everything. We don't need to understand the details of the science behind what is true; we only need to understand that science is the best system we have of producing knowledge. Do not cherry pick, but look for reputable graphs and quantities instead. Do not fall for the appeal to authority fallacy by believing whatever Musk, Pelosi, or Trump says—do not give a crap about any single personality except when voting for them! Do not just try to attack the extremists that believe in the opposite type of extremism that you believe in! Horrible Google searches include the name of a politician (except when you are deciding if you should vote for them) or include words like liberal, conservative, Democrats, or Republicans.
Because everybody thinks their "facts" are reputable, there are actually reasonably good tests to see if you are believing in a conspiracy theory rather than the much more probable explanation. The first is from Carl Sagan: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Considering that nearly all conspiracy theories have all reputable evidence stacked against them, these conspiracies come no where close to meeting the extraordinary-evidence criterion. The other test has to do with the psychology of the people who believe the conspiracy theory: do the supporters (1) distrust most forms of establishment, (2) have a way of always spinning evidence against their ideas somehow into evidence for their ideas showing that they are unable to consider both sides, or (3) jump to conclusions based on "patterns" in a limited set of questionable data? For example, when a group of people start posting about some recent conspiracy theory on social media and their accounts are deleted, they take this not-extraordinary evidence of their accounts being deleted as "proof" that we shouldn't trust the social-media establishment instead of taking the deletion of their accounts as proof that you shouldn't be posting conspiracy theories on social media. All of this could have been avoided if they had just followed the golden rule: don't get (or share!) news using social media.
When should you Google good political questions? Start now! Seriously! Think of a few things you want to research and research them correctly. Right now. If we never start, we can never grow the extremely important habit of asking good questions and doing good research. It never gets easy to ask questions that could prove ourselves wrong, but we must.
Honestly, I don't often follow the news! We need to stay minimally informed so that we know which issues we need to research, but quality is my goal. The human brain is hungry for new information, and it can even get addicted to it (many people are addicted to checking their phones for the latest text or headline). To satisfy our need for sensational drama, the 24-hour news networks create their own reality claiming that crime is everywhere and regularly predicting the end of society as we know it. In this age of information, we can get distracted from the quality that really matters. Perhaps the age of information should be called the age of noise! Instead, I thoroughly research interesting things that I hear about. The people I know who believe the weirdest conspiracies are those who are most informed by the "reality show" media that focuses on individual personalities and the latest polls rather than the larger issues.
Next time you plan to vote, fill your brain with facts, then see which politician supports the science and the facts. Never vote for an extremist who cannot compromise or work with people of differing opinions. Compromising is especially important when the majority of Congress is the opposing party! Some politicians would rather keep the world broken to make the other side look bad than get messy and actually fix some things. Keep in mind that, sometimes, a politician doesn't need to be correct on a certain issue due to the limited powers of the specific position they are running for!
In general, try to avoid making decisions based on broad ideology. Instead, look at the details and facts of each issue. Ideologies are the brain's way of being lazy. An ideology I am careful to avoid is using religion to make decisions for a country because the religious founders of the US smartly wanted separation of church and state (look at the Middle East to see why this separation is still so important!). Just because you think your religion is against abortion, is it really against it when the baby's brain hasn't started forming? And does your religion require that the government enforce your morals on everyone? What gives you the right to control others? Just because you think your religion says to reject and hate homosexuals, does it really say to judge and be unkind? Even though you think that your religion says that sex education and birth control are evil, did you know that teaching safe sex reduces the amount of premarital sex? Even though you think that your religion thinks that all problems with society are caused by immorality, might it be true that fighting poverty and regulating guns can still help? Even though most Russians believe their state media because the Russian Orthodox Church supports the government, should Russians believe? Look into the facts and examine your religion with more detail and care!
Feel free to vote for one party more than other(s), but do it based on the facts, policies, and leadership skills. If you are viewed as a bit liberal in the US, you are moderate compared to many countries in the EU, but more liberal than various countries that still resort to acts of war between religious or ethnic groups.
The remainder of this webpage is examples of how facts differ from the extremism that results without them.
Conservative extremism: The police are amazing! Only a few are racist! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Liberal extremism: We should abolish the police! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Facts and common sense: Everyone is racist in that we all have implicit biases. There is a huge problem with racism and brutality in the police force. Up to 40% of police beat their wives (they are violent criminals) yet are trusted with carrying guns and handling sensitive racial disputes. Actual police are not the "savior" stereotype shown in movies and TV, though most are good, and some are even heroes. We greatly need a large healthy police force! Without the proper numbers, police must resort to more violent tactics. We must therefore agree that the goal is to fire (or, if you kill an unarmed person, perhaps imprison) the many bad apples in the police force so that good people will apply to give the necessary numbers. Any good cop should want the bad cops fired and have body cameras for all. And any educated person knows that prevention is best, so we must also fund education, social programs, and community programs. Then, we can help the police by reducing the two things that have been proven to increase crime: poverty and unregulated guns.
Speculation: Why is the US police much worse than police in other wealthy countries? Is it because of the gun laws in the US attracting a certain type of person to our police force? Or are the gun laws making the criminals that much worse? Is it because other countries train their police much more? Shouldn't police be highly trained in avoidance, cultural sensitivity, and martial arts rather than just guns?
Conservative extremism: Humans do not contribute to climate change. This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Liberal extremism: We should immediately stop the oil and gas industry. This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Facts and common sense: Al Gore is an idiot because nearly all politicians are. The media is also full of idiots (real journalists excluded). Luckily, we have scientists! Over 99% of climatologists believe that humans have greatly contributed to the recent greatly-accelerated climate change. Are scientists perfect? No! But science is by far the best way we have of knowing truth. Politics can affect which scientific topics get funding, and, to a much more rare extent, affect which conclusions get further funding, but the latter is nothing compared to scientific consensus.
Changing to renewable and/or nuclear alternatives will take years but must occur to prevent the displacement of billions of people. There are a lot of small things we can do as a world that can collectively build a safe future while creating new jobs in the process. Scientific research done by countries now will allow those countries to rise in power in the future.
If we immediately stop producing oil and gas, countries like China and India will just burn coal, and we will become dependent on various countries, and we can then never profit on selling other countries a better alternative to coal. The US must certainly slowly stop subsidizing fossil fuels so that the market will prevent people in the US from using the fossil fuels we might want to sell to others.
Conservative extremism: Having unwanted children is better than using birth control. Killing an embryo is worse than killing an adult, such as the 100,000s of innocent Iraqi civilians the US killed in the Iraq War. This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Bonus: Most of us agree that we should not judge men and women who choose to keep trying to have a baby after many consecutive miscarriages and even stillbirths, and that they are not committing manslaughter, implying that making choices that will likely kill an unborn baby is less severe than making choices that will will likely kill an adult. However, some of these same people feel that abortion is always murder. If you want abortion to be illegal, you should not be calling it murder if you want reasonable people to listen to you.
Liberal extremism: Late-term abortions that are not done to save a life are not morally questionable. This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Facts and common sense: Birth control and sex education reduce unwanted pregnancies and slightly reduce premarital sex (even more than abstinence-only education)! Birth control and sex education certainly reduce unsafe sex. Unwanted children are far more likely to end up in prison. The brain doesn't start developing until 5 weeks after conception, so there is no issue with the morning-after pill or very early-term abortion (though birth control is much nicer and cheaper!). Anti-abortion laws do not greatly reduce the rate of abortions because people end up doing them, just unsafely (often killing the mother too). About 50% of fertilized eggs are naturally "aborted" by the mother's body before reaching birth. Only 1% of abortions are performed after 21 (of 40) weeks, and these late-term abortions are usually done either for medical reasons or because the mother could not access an abortion earlier. Putting rape and health issues aside, I enjoy the idea of making unfit parents pay for their irresponsibility by forcing them to get off drugs, give birth, then give the baby up for adoption, but these people will usually choose abortion even if it's illegal, so you'd have to lock up anyone who got pregnant while addicted to drugs, which would just cause them to hide away from any resources that could help them.
Conservative extremism: Build a wall! Ban Muslims! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Liberal extremism: We should let everyone into the country who wants to come in! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Facts and common sense: Our immigration system desperately needs to be fixed to allow entrance for people that we want to emigrate (educated refugees, skilled workers, and seasonal workers) to do so. We must especially stop educating people on visas then kicking them out so that other countries now benefit from the fruits of our universities. Only then can we fairly criminalize people who break the rules. Border patrol agents are mostly happy with the border fence that we have and would rather get real help rather than an expensive political symbol in the form of a wall. Immigration from any country has no effect on crime, and refugees commit less crime, but illegal immigrants commit more crime (in addition to them immigrating illegal).
Conservative extremism: Undetected voter fraud is a thing that happens in a statistically significant way! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Liberal extremism: Everyone should be able to vote! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Facts and common sense: Very young people and un-rehabilitated felons clearly should not be able to vote. For the rest of us, being armed in or around voting places should be illegal. Even though many people will loudly tell you that voter fraud is possible, studies show that voter fraud is statistically not significant at all. Some politicians will resort to gerrymandering to stay in power, and Republicans will scare people with lies of fraud to make laws that make it much harder for poor people to vote. Lastly, we all need to do our research then vote to prevent the majority of votes coming from the extremists who get all of their information from social media!
Conservative extremism: We should fill prisons with people who sell and do drugs! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Liberal extremism: Maybe I'm an extremist because I can't think of an example of liberal extremism here. Regularly using LSD maybe?
Facts and common sense: Yes, people who sell drugs are the worst, and people doing them is harmful and depressing, but the war on drugs doesn't work (Google it!). Just as alcohol prohibition pushed alcohol into the black market leading to violent gangs and poisoning, drug prohibition has created cartels and addicts who are stigmatized from getting the help they need. Like alcohol, drugs need to be highly regulated depending on the nature of the drug. Our prisons are full (0.7% of our population is in prison) due to this war on drugs (half of people in federal prisons are there due to drugs).
Conservative extremism: 88% of Americans and even the majority of Republicans want the Citizens United v. FEC decision reversed, but the most extreme Republicans (perhaps such as those on the 2010 Supreme Court) do not.
Liberal extremism: Let me know if you encounter any!
Facts and common sense: The Citizens United case decided that is was legal for corporations to fund candidates and give an unlimited amount of money to their Super PACs, even though corporate financial interference causes huge amounts of corruption in our laws that favor the very rich, causes economic recessions, and ruins the environment. Systems are made intentionally very complex with various unnecessary middlemen that essentially steal money for the rich. The rich can now indirectly make the laws and systems to make themselves even richer, which is partly why income inequality is surging. Unlike many places in Europe, the US literally allows corporations to fund elections with an unlimited amount of money to have the politicians make laws and to hire industry people to regulate their own industries. Foreign countries can funnel money through US organizations. The best the US can do until something like a constitutional amendment allows us to restore limits is try to fix the lack of transparency of the donations, so we at least will know where the money is coming from (to end dark money). Only allowing small donations or using only public funding is complicated because this actually gives a higher ratio of money to extremist groups because a lot of the population is extreme, so why don't we just restore donation limits while increasing transparency? We must also not allow donations from people outside the voting district.
2024 update: Even though corruption is one of the most destructive forces, recent Supreme Court rulings, Snyder v. United States and Trump v. United States (2024), are certainly not taking a strong stand against corruption, and for what?
Conservative extremism: YEEHAW bang bang! In many countries, being more traditional means valuing the culture and society over one's own liberties, but, in the US, being more traditional often means pretending you're a cowboy with your open-carry guns, right to hate people who are different, and right to kill people and economies with COVID by not wearing a mask or getting a vaccine. Bump stocks are automatic weapons but should not be regulated. This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Liberal extremism: Pure socialism is better than a mix of capitalism and socialism! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Facts and common sense: The often-dangerous levels of certain freedoms in the US allows for more interesting individuals and stories, and the US exports its stories and culture via movies, shows, and music giving it a strong cultural influence in the world that is unifying the culture of the world, allowing for businesses (and scientists) to work together. English is now the most spoken language in the world (though Mandarin Chinese has the most native speakers) allowing for a universal language! However, we must understand the great cost of our gun laws: much more violent crime and deaths per capita. Some people argue that gun regulation does not help the states that have tried it, but that is because there are still many guns in that state (including new guns trafficked from other non-regulated states). Any responsible gun owner should hate the "good guy with a gun" fantasy because it is not based in facts and statistics and is an irresponsible response to gun violence (the facts show that even responsibly stored guns are more likely to cause harm than good). Instead, responsible gun owners want background checks required before being able to obtain a gun, and they especially want people to get and carry permits before carrying guns in public. Certainly, to save many police and public lives, we must never allow anyone who has been convicted of domestic violence to own guns. I and the police were very glad that I do not own guns (I was asked many times) when they came to my house due to someone experiencing manic psychosis and did not have to arrive with hands on guns and could actually focus on helping (but I am also glad that I own pepper spray). We must all understand that freedom isn't free, so, during the war against COVID patients overflowing the hospitals, we should have all chosen to do our small part by either wearing masks or getting vaccinated.
Conservative extremism: Every soldier is a hero protecting the greatest nation on Earth! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Liberal extremism: Make love not war! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Facts and common sense: The US is a great nation in that we have many freedoms that are worth defending! Foreign terrorism is not a statistically significant issue (unless nukes get involved in the future). Domestic terrorism (bombings and mass shootings) is more likely to kill you than foreign terrorism, and any type of terrorism is far less likely to kill you than a car accident or gun. Interfering in foreign countries by trying to make them more democratic doesn't help them unless they ask for it (Google it!). In fact, it usually just makes things worse, and makes people want to attack the US, so why did we invade Vietnam and Iraq and kill 100,000s of Iraqi civilians? We spend more on our military than the next seven countries combined. A military is necessary, and the US does help establish peace in places in the world using it, but are we overcompensating for something? Without first asking how we can help a country, our military has regularly arrogantly gotten too involved and caused far worse situations than before we stepped in. When we do send our citizens to fight our wars, even if those wars are questionable, we must respect their service by taking care of their physical and mental injuries, but we often forget about them! As I see it, the main purpose of having a strong military from a unified democratic country is to keep countries like North Korea, Russia, and China in check.
Conservative extremism: The unregulated free market must rule all! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Liberal extremism: Finally, I can get my fine arts or literature degree using other people's money, then still live in my parents' basement forever! It's okay to use other people's money like this because it makes me happy! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Facts and common sense: Politicians will never blame you for the problems in the country for fear of losing your vote (the media won't either because they want your views). If you are unskilled, you cannot be upset when globalization takes your factory job or manual-labor job, because there is always some other place in this world that is willing to exploit workers enough to do the job cheaper. A role of the US is to help lead the world in skilled jobs. Before you vote, think about how you as an independent human being could be helping fix the problems in our country and help it lead. For example, are you educated in a way that can help you participate in our modern economy? What would you need to gain the necessary knowledge and skills? The US greatly needs people in technical trades, nursing, and computers! Should a country help pay people for what it greatly needs such as education in these skills? Should the government help pay for literature or fine-arts degrees? Also, there is a strong correlation, especially in poor countries, between a more educated population and a healthier functioning less-extreme democracy, which is the most essential goal of politics.
Conservative extremism: The free market should have few regulations! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Liberal extremism: The government should run everything! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Facts and common sense: The US is trading its leadership in science for factory jobs putting our hope to be a future economic leader at great risk (other countries will design the future for the world, and the US will manufacture what they tell us to). The countries that are investing in science today (the EU, China, and India) will lead the world tomorrow! If we don't change things soon, I see China and the EU as being the future world leaders (unless the Chinese people revolt against their authoritarian government and the revolt ends in the chaos that results from a lack of unity). In general, it is well known scientifically that capitalism must be well regulated to allow a country and its people to succeed. A country investing in children is the best way to get a return on an investment, and giving money to corporations (aside from bailing them out when they fail) has no return on investment.
Speculation: If Earth can get its population growth under control and invest in science, I hope to see a future where the majority of work is done by robots and computers so that we can all follow our passions! In the present, if you give people money who need it, most use it to invest in their or their children's future, and some use it to buy things they cannot afford to maintain, but I hope that, if the prosperity allows everyone to be raised well, nearly all people would use the prosperity to better themselves and the world. Like in Star Trek: The Next Generation! We would likely all have to work part-time at least, but we wouldn't have to do anything tedious. Scientists and engineers could then freely focus on things like going to Mars! The majority of people who don't want to live in big cities can finally choose to not live in huge human-infested mega cities. I mention this because the mixture of capitalism and socialism must start leaning towards socialism if this future starts to come about. If this future were to unfold, small steps are all that would needed in the near future: giving weeks of vacation time every year, giving leave when you have a child (up to two or three children maybe), etc.
Conservative extremism: How dare poor people own phones! They must be living off the government! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Liberal extremism: We must give money to all poor people to spend as they wish without needing any capitalism to motivate them! This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Facts and common sense: The main idea is that people need a way out of poverty. If the way out (renting a home and getting an education) is too expensive, you are trapped in either poverty or crime. The entire country benefits by not having to support a poor population's healthcare, imprisonment, and food, and the entire country benefits by having more people who can meaningfully contribute to the economy. Free community college (2-year programs after already paying for 13 years of a person's education), free pre-school, smaller class sizes, and free GED programs would therefore greatly help! Curing a problem is often cheaper than paying for treating the symptoms. The US does not give much to poor people other than food and sometimes gives small tax credits, both of which are significantly effective at reducing childhood hunger. Family planning is very necessary for being successful, so free birth control would also greatly help. By the way, to help those in poverty, you actually have to help those in poverty—the "trickle down" hypothesis has been thoroughly scientifically discredited! Even though lots of money goes to corporate subsidies and bailouts and corporations often pay no taxes, people say, "How will we pay for helping poverty?" Even if some of the cures end up being more expensive than treating the symptoms, the US can always go back to the tax rates from before 1980 when the rich were taxed more (much more actually) than the relatively tiny amount in 2020. Money spent ending childhood hunger is money well spent. Taxing the extremely rich also helps fix the problem of income inequality! For solving this complex problem, there needs to be many tactics. Other necessary tactics for helping people out of poverty are scattered-site subsidized housing, actually helping prisoners learn real skills and rehabilitate, giving more money to high-need schools (not the current policies of giving less!), raising the federal minimum wage to at least $10 an hour (in 2020), etc. Certainly, a great way of helping those in poverty is to pay for their healthcare! With programs like Medicaid, people will get preventative treatment, which is cheaper and safer than the alternative. Are there people living off of the government? Yes, certain disabled and elderly people do, often with money that they paid into the system. Is there currently a significant amount of money going to helping poverty? If you compare it to the amount going out via Social Security and Medicare to the elderly, no. Should there be significantly more? Keeping in mind that small amounts of directed help goes a long way, let's try doing some basic things like not letting effective tax credits expire!
Conservative extremism: The mostly religious founders of the US strongly wanted separation of church and state. The message of Jesus is to give away everything to follow God. Jesus would eat with sinners. When asked about politics (specifically taxes), Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Nonetheless, some self proclaimed Christians turn their religion towards politics to control others on various social and moral issues. This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Liberal extremism: Are intentionally extreme parody religions such as Pastafarianism and Satanism extreme in a harmful way? They usually don't show up except to fight when things get really bad, like when Pastafarians fought the government's forcing of science teachers to say that intelligent design is a scientific theory or when Satanists fight statues of the 10 Commandments in front of courthouses. Despite what they said to try to win their legal cases, we can all be sure that no one literally believes Pastafarianism. Also, the Satanic Temple (and even the more bizarre Church of Satan) is an atheistic group who don't actually worship Satan.
Facts and common sense: Religious institutions wield great power to control others. The original message of a religious text can easily become corrupted in favor of power, money, and controlling the media, schools, and laws. Things become awkward when self proclaimed Christian businesspeople illegally refuse to bake cakes for a same-sex weddings. Certainly, no one can legally be forced to perform the same-sex wedding, but we cannot allow what is often the majority of society (or even part of society) to legally discriminate against people for what is scientifically not their choice. Certainly, as long as churches do not get involved in politics or business, they should be able to do whatever they want within their walls other than harming children or non-consenting adults, and its members should be able to personally express themselves however they like as long as it does not interfere with their job. Freedom is highly valuable, so let's give people the freedom to be religious or not, but governments cannot become involved with religion, which is why the 2022 Supreme Court's ruling that states can pay tuition for students attending religious schools is a concerning precedent.
Conservative extremism: It's fine that he says horrible things about people who are handicapped, female, war veterans, Mexican, Muslim, Black, etc. and bullies anyone who disagrees with him by using a barrage of lies and conspiracy theories to confuse the voters knowing that several of his lies will stick. This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Liberal extremism: Trump's opponent isn't an extremist Democrat, so Democrats should vote 3rd party instead of for the "Democrat". This extremist denial of basic facts stops any progress towards a solution.
Facts and common sense: Most of the things he says are lies, insults, and conspiracy theories (Google it!). He lies for his own benefit even though it tears the country apart and increases the extremism in the country (extremism is the largest enemy to getting anything done in a democracy). Most psychologists believe Trump is a textbook case of narcissistic personality disorder, perhaps also having paranoid personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. He has made a career of profiting from loopholes, not paying contractors, and his many bankruptcies. He gets away with it because he is skilled at twisting up the legal system with noise until he gets his way most of the time. He strongly needs to learn when to keep his mouth shut for the sake of young people in this country who might want somebody to look up to. Unlike con men and reality TV stars, professional adults cannot just say whatever horrible thing pops into their head, but our president should? Uneducated white males are the main backers of Trump even though Trump doesn't want to give them the education needed to make it fine for immigrants to take the most unpleasant jobs. Trump rarely supported wearing a mask before and during Trump getting and giving COVID from not wearing a mask! He threatens riots if he is not elected. He won't say who he owes $400,000,000 to. When asked on stage, he won't publicly denounce white supremacy (only sometimes when he's far from a stage). His current wife is 24 years younger, he has slept with prostitutes, and he has often bragged about all the beautiful women that are nice to him because "he's the king." He is literally a reality TV star. Seriously! He was seriously voted to lead a country that once led the world by example.
Am I just focusing on the negative Trump facts? Yes. Apart from the very-destructive things he very frequently said, he was just a typical Republican president. A strength he has is attacking people he doesn't like from every angle in an overwhelming barrage of lies and half truths and media attention. Another strength is getting the average person to like him. However, there are a couple things in the negative list that alone make him unfit for the highest office or even any professional office! So who cares about the positives? I kind of understand why a Republican might vote for Trump over a Democrat, especially if that Democrat has their own problems, but I will never fully understand how Trump won a Republican primary out of many other candidates. It must be because uneducated/inexperienced people truly don't understand how to tell the difference between the truth and a shiny attention-grabbing lie/persona.
I have spoken to Trump fans who say "All politicians lie, and Trump isn't a politician", but Trump lies MUCH more than any real politician (Google the fact-check statistics!). I have spoken to Trump fans who say "Trump isn't a dirty politician", but Trump owes more money than anyone else, has more scandals, and tells way more lies than any real politician ever would. Just because he has his money does not mean that he is not corrupt because he is the corrupt corporate person without needing to be corrupted by any other rich corporation, but he still does accept donations. Other Trump fans say "The 'fake' news is making Trump look bad", but having prior knowledge or doing fact checking reveals that all of Trump's conspiracy theories are what is untrue! If I believed everything Trump and his fake-news conspiracy websites said, I would think he was sent from God to save us from his imagined existential threats to America, but, if you know anything about the topics that Trump talks about, you know that he is conning you with an attention grabbing arsenal of lies and conspiracies. His presidency isn't his first con, see: The Trump Network, Trump Institute, Trump University, etc.
Perhaps the core issue is that certain people are tired of being told what they should be doing their whole lives and feel rejected by main society, and Trump is an extremely confident and rich person in power who tells these people that, not only that they are wonderful just the way they are (which might be true), but also that they never need to learn more or grow and that they belong just the way they are without having to get more educated or wear a mask during a pandemic. What else could explain the deep allegiance people feel for Trump? In Nazi Germany, people would obey as long as they were told that they were the master race. In the world of Harry Potter, people followed a horrible person if they were told that they as pure-bloods were special. It is ironic that followers of Trump call the rest of us sheeple when they are the ones who are being manipulated.
2023 update: I thought that everyone knew that Trump was a sleazy criminal before he even went into politics. Now, half of the US are so shocked that he is being prosecuted for insurrection and his other crimes that they are believing Trump when he says that there are many conspiracies against him. Some experts are saying that the only thing that explains this allegiance is a cult personality, and other experts are saying that the correct way to describe people's allegiance is their racial unity from being white.
2024 update: Over a third of people thought that Trump won the debate against Kamala. Not only are they voting for him because they like him, but they actually believe that he won the debate. During the debate, he fell for Kamala's bait every time, but Trump's followers still think that he will be strong against the flattery of Putin. Trump even bragged about how Hungary's Viktor Orbán loves him, even though Viktor Orbán is an autocrat, proving how susceptible and weak Trump his to the flattery of autocrats. Dare I mention him talking about "immigrants abducting and eating pets", "transgender operations on illegal aliens", and "abortion after birth"? Shortly after the debate, Trump posted "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!" after she endorsed Kamala in response to him posting a fake AI video of her endorsing him. People still like this guy! When Biden performed poorly against Trump in a debate, 80% of people correctly thought that Trump won. I am proud of Democrats who admitted that Biden lost, which is very hard to do because Trump is a pathologically-lying, hateful demagogue who needs to be defeated. The inability for Trump supporters to admit even a single loss is terrifying.
The root cause: Clearly, people are not voting for Trump based on logic. For example, many people voted for him in 2024 because they thought he could make the price of eggs lower (Biden's only contribution to the COVID-caused inflation was a couple percent, but that was in giving people thousands of dollars of spending money during COVID, which had a large net benefit to their finances, especially the people who became employed as a result). The root problem is populism caused by at least three groups: some uneducated people, some white people, and some religious people. These groups are feeling that they are not being represented by the government.
- Some uneducated people have simply been tricked by conspiracy theories on social media into believing ridiculous things (the truth is that if you don't have a high-school degree and do not want any further education, your life will likely be very bad regardless of who is elected). While Trump's tariffs will help bring back some manufacturing jobs for the uneducated, it is a tax on the poor and will ignite inflation and, ironically, cost jobs (and why piss off China when we can just let them make our cheap stuff with essentially slave labor while we do better more educated things?). However, if Trump can get more apprenticeships in the US, this would actually help the uneducated as well as our economy.
- Some white people are terrified of their loss of the majority even though there is no chance that white people will lose power over themselves.
- Some religious people strangely believe that drag queens and trans people are ruining children, and would do anything to stop others from having abortions (while sometimes simultaneously blocking easy access to the birth control that would prevent abortions).
Populists are willing to tear apart the future of our country to correct their perceived injustices. The stupider Trump acts, the more the people associate him with themselves instead of with the experts. Before Trump, there was the Tea Party movement. After Trump, populism will have another name.
The main damage: In my opinion, the main damage is: to our culture, to our economy, etc. The US lacks decency. Go to Canada, and even the homeless people are (usually) very polite when you don't give them money. Go to Ireland on your honeymoon, and everyone will buy you beers, and every stupid thing you hear will be from an American visiting Ireland. As a teacher, I observe that the worst behaved students always have parents who are Trump followers. As a driver, I observe that most stupid or selfish action is by a vehicle with a Texas license plate (or just an oversized truck or SUV or a very young or very old driver). Bad behavior has been increasing since Trump, because he lets the worst of us feel comfortable with themselves. Education is the solution to our culture problem, but education and experts are no longer trusted. Instead of helping our poor and minorities, we attack and exclude them. Unless pockets of education, especially STEM education, remain, this further declining culture cannot fuel the economic progress we need to lead the world. To reduce the taxes on the rich, Trump quickly increases our national debt and removes regulations, which is dangerous, short-sighted, and frankly immoral. Of course, the list goes on, and Jimmy Kimmel reacted well to Trump getting reelected, as did this Scottish politician.
The solution: Populism can be reduced. (1) Of course, the groups that feel ignored cannot be ignored, but Trump's opponents were not ignoring the rights of white people, the right of religious people to not be gay or not get abortions, or the needs of the uneducated. Trump's opponents simply didn't talk about it more. Trump simply helped them feel that they were not being ignored (and that his policies wouldn't actually hurt them), and we need to not exclude them for following him. (2) People cannot just identify with a large group or political party, but should be allowed to have a voice in local real issues. (3) Social media needs fact checkers and to be hate-speech free. I have always said that the Internet makes smart people smarter and the other people the other way. (4) When talking with people, focus on what you believe in rather than the things that populism gets very wrong.
My change of mind: Some rich people often don't mind if the world burns as long as they have carved out a piece of the world for themselves (perhaps by creating or just using legal loopholes). I have never personally directly benefitted from an abortion, from ending the death penalty, from educating people, from caring about climate change, etc., but I still care about these issues. The world does not need more rich people except to have them share some of their money through taxation or otherwise (the top 20% of people in the US make a ton of money). However, educational resources are different than money. Unlike money, taking from the smartest to give to the least does actual harm. While needing many students to be as smart as possible so they can be the skilled labor this country needs, we also need the smartest people to be as smart as possible because they'll be the scientists and engineers who build the future of world and economy (just like NFL players need to practice football more than I should). Like money, there are only so many educational resources to go around, but the world and our future are starving for real talent, so we can't have the most promising kids mixed in with the least motivated. I am not worried about inclusion, which is when a small group of students with special needs are mixed in a general-education classroom, because, it is great for everyone if done correctly. I am worried about excellent minds being wasted in crap schools where there are not good programs. It is ironic that Trump followers worry about treating trans people equitably, but, since schools have to legally keep the worst most disruptive students in general education classes, it the educational system treating the worst of the Trump follower's kids equitably that is causing the real problem. I find myself wanting a three track public educational system: (1) a merit-based university track, (2) a merit-based trades track, and (3) the track for the general citizen. Money is of course tied to education because people with money can give their kids better environments, which is why the US spends so much on education (we have to feed, clothe, police, and counsel the students because there are not enough safety nets besides the educational system). My change of mind is that, even if it ends up benefitting the rich mostly and slightly harming the poor, we do need this 3-track system of education because education is so important for the future of our country, where we currently can't even find enough smart people to become electricians. Yes, it is hard for someone in a low track to get out, but having the smartest working very hard in the high track truly benefits society, and we can always tax the rich a bit more to get resources to provide opportunities for people in the low track. Maybe the high tracks will be full of entitled turds, or maybe they will still mostly go to private schools. Germany currently does something like these tracks, and note that vouchers in the US are not even merit-based. I believe that Track 2 is currently the most important because most educational programs in the US currently try to support Track 1, but Track 1 needs the support of Track 2 (and the government) before demand for Track 1 jobs can grow. Once Track 1 jobs grow, we are set to lead the world again with problem solving and innovation. Will the tracks be within schools (gifted programs, STEM programs, AP, etc.) or will they be between schools (magnet schools)? I am not suggesting rigid tracks where you can't move between programs or be in multiple programs, but parent choice is not enough because merit is what should matter (and parents are often idiots). To give everyone a fair shot, there should certainly be free academic pre-school for everyone and after-school programs in elementary, regardless of whether the tracks are implemented or not. Lazy people who are uneducated or rich will never want to track students based on merit, but hopefully they are too lazy to vote on this. Until something like this exists, one of the best things to spend money on is education for your kids, though I would always try the public version first (since I teach some IB students, I know that entitled students are to be avoided if possible). In this US where the entitled and stupid are getting more and more power, it is important that the rest of us at least carve out for ourselves a piece of a very important thing: education. Greed and consumerism are dangerous, but much less so when applied to education.