Writing Portfolio
by Lloyd Gardner
by Lloyd Gardner
Prophetic Warnings from America's Founding that we Dare not Ignore
Lloyd Gardner
Most people don’t believe in prophets anymore. Our politicians and spiritual leaders have so disappointed us that we seriously doubt that they have any profound discernment about the direction our country is going in the twenty-first century. But many observers of early American history made statements that suggest that our forefathers had more prophetic insight then we see in today’s visionless leaders. Is it possible that the early witnesses of our country’s birth had the insight to look forward into the future to our day and warn us of dangers they saw coming?
Alexis de Tocqueville on the danger of being carried away by affluence
Take Alexis de Tocqueville for example. In the 1830s this French historian and writer came to America to see firsthand the amazing experiment in democracy that was taking place. In his Democracy in America he expressed much positive amazement at what he saw, but he did see a danger that he expressed quite candidly:
When the taste for physical pleasures in such a nation grows more speedily than education or the habit of liberty, a time occurs when men are carried away and lose self-control at the sight of the new possessions they are ready to grasp. … There is no need to wrench their rights from such citizens, they let them slip voluntarily through their fingers. The exercise of their political duties seems to them a tiresome nuisance.
This great political thinker saw past the amazing new adventure in democracy to a potential disaster. His ominous words warn of a time when the citizens of a free democracy may become “carried away and lose self-control” when the developing taste for physical pleasures overwhelms their commitment to participate in the democratic process. He saw this as a serious peril that citizens of a democracy must guard against. When one considers the anemic participation in most of our recent elections it appears that we have come to the precipice of that peril. People seem to be taking for granted what a free society has secured for them and mistakenly think that these things are guaranteed to them. The line between liberty and entitlement is quickly being erased.
De Tocqueville was concerned that a citizenry could become overly concerned about the perks they can receive while forgetting the principles that made the country great. Then he feared that the voting citizens would begin to elect leaders who would provide those perks. Is it possible we have reached that point as a nation?
Ben Franklin on the despotic end of our government
Ben Franklin said something similar. On the occasion of the last day of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 he said, “I agree to this Constitution ... and I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
With seeming prophetic vision Franklin saw the Constitution working well for a period of time but ending in despotism when the people become so corrupt that they need a corrupt government. At that point, he predicted, the despotism would prevail.
George Washington on the danger of amendment by usurpation
George Washington foresaw a time when controlling leaders would bypass the Constitution for the sake of instituting what he called an “instrument of good.” He clearly believed and predicted that ignoring the Constitution would be the “weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Here’s what he said in the parting words of his farewell address in 1796:
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpations; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
He uses the old English word “usurpations” to describe a change to the Constitution effected by force or political power instead of through the amendment process designated in the document itself. We have seen our share of that in recent years. To many the Constitution has become a “living document” that can be manipulated for the sake of political ideals and changes can come by political fiat. It is possible that our first president would be shocked at what is happening in the fulfillment of his biggest concern.
Thomas Jefferson on the danger of an out of control judicial branch
Thomas Jefferson had a fear of the judicial branch becoming too powerful. He claims to have seen its seizure of power even in his day. In a letter to Judge Spencer Roane in 1821 he wrote this unnerving prediction: "The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the governments into the jaws of that which feeds them."
To put it in more contemporary words, Jefferson was saying that the federal judiciary would gain more and more power as it slowly but gradually advanced its power and would never relinquish the power it gained. In so doing it would take the power that belongs to states and give it to the federal government, “the jaws of that which feeds them.” Jefferson appears to have identified this potential problem we see arising today in the growing power of the Supreme Court and federal courts everywhere. Surely he recognized the federal courts as a primary means by which the national government can expand its power over the people.
James Madison on welfare and overreach by the government
James Madison, referring to a bill to subsidize the cod fishing industry in 1792, sounds like he is describing the overreach of the federal government we are witnessing in the twenty-first century:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely, for the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, the establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.
This powerful statement was prophetically precise. In warning of the danger of subsidizing an industry, Madison is basically asking where the line would be drawn. He fears that such a policy would lead to government intrusion in religion, the educational system, and provision for the poor. His concern was Congress providing money for “the general welfare” as a way of expanding the overreach of the federal government. The man often referred to as “the father of the Constitution” apparently felt that this would lead to a destructive transformation of the constitutional concept of limited government.
The controversy surrounding the amount of power to be granted to the government is the primary issue in modern American politics. How much power shall we grant the government to manage the welfare of the citizens? That is the question that divides the country into liberal and conservative camps. Madison saw it coming.
Abraham Lincoln on the overthrow of justice by disregard for the law
Long before he became president, Abraham Lincoln saw a dangerous rising of lawlessness in society. Speaking in 1838 to the Young Men’s Lyceum at Springfield, Illinois he pondered how long our political institutions could survive the growing “disregard for law.” His words could well apply the growing violence in our modern major cities and the rampant disregard for the institutions that guard our safety:
There is even now something of ill omen amongst us. I mean that increasing disregard for law which pervades the country -- the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passion in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice. The disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours ... it would be a violation of truth to deny.
Lincoln’s prophetic words referring to replacing “the sober judgment of courts” with “wild and furious passion,” reminds one of the violence in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri that erupted despite the facts supporting the actions of the accused police officer. The “furious passion” completely overrode the grand jury decision based on very thorough investigation of the facts. Throughout our country people are still chanting “hands up” in their protests as if the original accusations of the policeman were validated. Lincoln apparently saw a time when such passion would overtake sound judgment coming from the courts. It is happening across the country and undocumented passion is winning the battle.
John Adams on the danger of the two party system
John Adams, in a letter to Jonathan Jackson in 1780, wrote these often quoted words about the two party system:
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
“Nothing which I dread so much.” Those are ominous words coming from our second president. Surely there were many things to fear as the American experiment was being entered into but Adams feared the two party system most of all. He called this “the greatest political evil under the Constitution.” Most voters today are completely fed up with the system of parties that seems to foment the vitriol and hate-mongering we see in our national elections. Adams saw the danger long before it developed into the putrid political mess we see today.
George Washington on the danger of party dissension
George Washington saw the same danger and threw out a parting warning in his farewell address in 1790:
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Keep in mind that our first president was speaking at a time when some people were crying out for him to be elected as king. He said at one point that he would not run for a third term because he feared that more time in office would increase the power of the executive. Washington carried this concern for growing power over into the argument against the party system. Putting it in modern terms, he saw the “party dissension” as a condition that would create an “us versus them” atmosphere that in turn would create a climate leading to the rise of a dominate individual into “absolute power.”
Today’s political scene is characterized by two polar opposite parties who cannot compromise on much of anything because the factionalism has widened the gap between them. This has created a vacuum in which President Obama is using his phone and his pen to pass executive decisions without any consultation with Congress or concern about the Constitutional issues raised. Washington saw it coming and tried to warn us from the beginning.
Abraham Lincoln on the way America will be destroyed
Abraham Lincoln in the Lyceum address may have inadvertently predicted the means by which this once great country would be destroyed. The defeat, he predicted, would not come from some powerful outside source but from within:
Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! — All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
This comment should send chills down our spines. We have fought two world wars and several other crucial wars but the Great Emancipator was predicting that our destruction would not come from an invasion from abroad. Rather it would come from a cancer growing from within. We would be the authors of our own destruction by committing suicide by allowing internal decay. The divisiveness, hatemongering, out of control government, lawlessness, injustice and much more are feeding an internal cancer that may well be the cause of our ultimate destruction. Perhaps it is not too late to wake up and do something about it.
Lloyd Gardner
Most people don’t believe in prophets anymore. Our politicians and spiritual leaders have so disappointed us that we seriously doubt that they have any profound discernment about the direction our country is going in the twenty-first century. But many observers of early American history made statements that suggest that our forefathers had more prophetic insight then we see in today’s visionless leaders. Is it possible that the early witnesses of our country’s birth had the insight to look forward into the future to our day and warn us of dangers they saw coming?
Alexis de Tocqueville on the danger of being carried away by affluence
Take Alexis de Tocqueville for example. In the 1830s this French historian and writer came to America to see firsthand the amazing experiment in democracy that was taking place. In his Democracy in America he expressed much positive amazement at what he saw, but he did see a danger that he expressed quite candidly:
When the taste for physical pleasures in such a nation grows more speedily than education or the habit of liberty, a time occurs when men are carried away and lose self-control at the sight of the new possessions they are ready to grasp. … There is no need to wrench their rights from such citizens, they let them slip voluntarily through their fingers. The exercise of their political duties seems to them a tiresome nuisance.
This great political thinker saw past the amazing new adventure in democracy to a potential disaster. His ominous words warn of a time when the citizens of a free democracy may become “carried away and lose self-control” when the developing taste for physical pleasures overwhelms their commitment to participate in the democratic process. He saw this as a serious peril that citizens of a democracy must guard against. When one considers the anemic participation in most of our recent elections it appears that we have come to the precipice of that peril. People seem to be taking for granted what a free society has secured for them and mistakenly think that these things are guaranteed to them. The line between liberty and entitlement is quickly being erased.
De Tocqueville was concerned that a citizenry could become overly concerned about the perks they can receive while forgetting the principles that made the country great. Then he feared that the voting citizens would begin to elect leaders who would provide those perks. Is it possible we have reached that point as a nation?
Ben Franklin on the despotic end of our government
Ben Franklin said something similar. On the occasion of the last day of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 he said, “I agree to this Constitution ... and I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
With seeming prophetic vision Franklin saw the Constitution working well for a period of time but ending in despotism when the people become so corrupt that they need a corrupt government. At that point, he predicted, the despotism would prevail.
George Washington on the danger of amendment by usurpation
George Washington foresaw a time when controlling leaders would bypass the Constitution for the sake of instituting what he called an “instrument of good.” He clearly believed and predicted that ignoring the Constitution would be the “weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Here’s what he said in the parting words of his farewell address in 1796:
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpations; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
He uses the old English word “usurpations” to describe a change to the Constitution effected by force or political power instead of through the amendment process designated in the document itself. We have seen our share of that in recent years. To many the Constitution has become a “living document” that can be manipulated for the sake of political ideals and changes can come by political fiat. It is possible that our first president would be shocked at what is happening in the fulfillment of his biggest concern.
Thomas Jefferson on the danger of an out of control judicial branch
Thomas Jefferson had a fear of the judicial branch becoming too powerful. He claims to have seen its seizure of power even in his day. In a letter to Judge Spencer Roane in 1821 he wrote this unnerving prediction: "The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the governments into the jaws of that which feeds them."
To put it in more contemporary words, Jefferson was saying that the federal judiciary would gain more and more power as it slowly but gradually advanced its power and would never relinquish the power it gained. In so doing it would take the power that belongs to states and give it to the federal government, “the jaws of that which feeds them.” Jefferson appears to have identified this potential problem we see arising today in the growing power of the Supreme Court and federal courts everywhere. Surely he recognized the federal courts as a primary means by which the national government can expand its power over the people.
James Madison on welfare and overreach by the government
James Madison, referring to a bill to subsidize the cod fishing industry in 1792, sounds like he is describing the overreach of the federal government we are witnessing in the twenty-first century:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely, for the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, the establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.
This powerful statement was prophetically precise. In warning of the danger of subsidizing an industry, Madison is basically asking where the line would be drawn. He fears that such a policy would lead to government intrusion in religion, the educational system, and provision for the poor. His concern was Congress providing money for “the general welfare” as a way of expanding the overreach of the federal government. The man often referred to as “the father of the Constitution” apparently felt that this would lead to a destructive transformation of the constitutional concept of limited government.
The controversy surrounding the amount of power to be granted to the government is the primary issue in modern American politics. How much power shall we grant the government to manage the welfare of the citizens? That is the question that divides the country into liberal and conservative camps. Madison saw it coming.
Abraham Lincoln on the overthrow of justice by disregard for the law
Long before he became president, Abraham Lincoln saw a dangerous rising of lawlessness in society. Speaking in 1838 to the Young Men’s Lyceum at Springfield, Illinois he pondered how long our political institutions could survive the growing “disregard for law.” His words could well apply the growing violence in our modern major cities and the rampant disregard for the institutions that guard our safety:
There is even now something of ill omen amongst us. I mean that increasing disregard for law which pervades the country -- the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passion in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice. The disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours ... it would be a violation of truth to deny.
Lincoln’s prophetic words referring to replacing “the sober judgment of courts” with “wild and furious passion,” reminds one of the violence in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri that erupted despite the facts supporting the actions of the accused police officer. The “furious passion” completely overrode the grand jury decision based on very thorough investigation of the facts. Throughout our country people are still chanting “hands up” in their protests as if the original accusations of the policeman were validated. Lincoln apparently saw a time when such passion would overtake sound judgment coming from the courts. It is happening across the country and undocumented passion is winning the battle.
John Adams on the danger of the two party system
John Adams, in a letter to Jonathan Jackson in 1780, wrote these often quoted words about the two party system:
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
“Nothing which I dread so much.” Those are ominous words coming from our second president. Surely there were many things to fear as the American experiment was being entered into but Adams feared the two party system most of all. He called this “the greatest political evil under the Constitution.” Most voters today are completely fed up with the system of parties that seems to foment the vitriol and hate-mongering we see in our national elections. Adams saw the danger long before it developed into the putrid political mess we see today.
George Washington on the danger of party dissension
George Washington saw the same danger and threw out a parting warning in his farewell address in 1790:
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Keep in mind that our first president was speaking at a time when some people were crying out for him to be elected as king. He said at one point that he would not run for a third term because he feared that more time in office would increase the power of the executive. Washington carried this concern for growing power over into the argument against the party system. Putting it in modern terms, he saw the “party dissension” as a condition that would create an “us versus them” atmosphere that in turn would create a climate leading to the rise of a dominate individual into “absolute power.”
Today’s political scene is characterized by two polar opposite parties who cannot compromise on much of anything because the factionalism has widened the gap between them. This has created a vacuum in which President Obama is using his phone and his pen to pass executive decisions without any consultation with Congress or concern about the Constitutional issues raised. Washington saw it coming and tried to warn us from the beginning.
Abraham Lincoln on the way America will be destroyed
Abraham Lincoln in the Lyceum address may have inadvertently predicted the means by which this once great country would be destroyed. The defeat, he predicted, would not come from some powerful outside source but from within:
Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! — All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
This comment should send chills down our spines. We have fought two world wars and several other crucial wars but the Great Emancipator was predicting that our destruction would not come from an invasion from abroad. Rather it would come from a cancer growing from within. We would be the authors of our own destruction by committing suicide by allowing internal decay. The divisiveness, hatemongering, out of control government, lawlessness, injustice and much more are feeding an internal cancer that may well be the cause of our ultimate destruction. Perhaps it is not too late to wake up and do something about it.
Testing what you Hear and Read
Lloyd Gardner
The rise of biased journalism recently has stirred me to write this article on how to test the reliability of things that are said and written in today’s media. We have a crisis of credibility in America today because too many journalists, politicians and regular citizens are using their words to propagandize instead of to report truth. I have decided to put to use my years in the classroom teaching students how to write, read and listen critically. I hope this will help many out there to be able to sort through what you hear and read with keen discernment. This process actually comes from the Bible. Paul, for example, wrote that we should “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). We cannot hold fast to what is good until we know how to test things that we hear and read. I hope this article helps you to learn to do just that.
1. Know that humans are flawed by nature. Be aware that every human being is flawed and no one is perfect in the things they express. We should not accept what someone says simply based on their reputation or credentials or because they belong to a certain political party. Even respected journalists should be tested because anyone can make a mistake or fail to report accurately. Learn to do your homework as you seek truth.
2. Always check for sources. If a person does not present sources or verifiable facts to support his words, his words should be rejected until the evidence comes in. This is especially true in short presentations like we have with Twitter or comments to articles. In those short tweets many people resort to opinion and often vitriol without any sources to back their words. Be very leery of reporters who base their article on unnamed sources. This is a red flag. A recent BuzzFeed story used unnamed sources to suggest that Trump directed his attorney at the time Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations for a Trump Tower project in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign. This article caused a firestorm of false journalism to erupt throughout much of the media. At the end of the day Robert Mueller’s Special Council office issued a statement saying the article was “not accurate.” The original article was unverified leading to many follow-up errors by journalists. We must learn to reject what is not backed with facts.
If you read a message on Facebook or Twitter about some sensational subject, put it on hold until you have checked the source. If you can’t do so, reserve judgment until you have the facts and do not pass it on even if you trust the person who sent it. By passing things around that are unverified we are passing something on that was possibly started by a person with an agenda. The source of a message is the bottom line.
3. Reject vitriol. Reject vitriol regardless of which end of the political spectrum it comes from. People who use hatred and vicious comments to make their point most likely have lost the argument and they resort to vitriol to prop up their case. Emotional responses, curse words, and derogatory names have no place in honest discussion. They come from people who do not know how to seek and express facts.
4. Learn to differentiate between opinion and fact. An unsourced statement is simply an opinion until it is verified. If I say that Chevrolets make the best pickups, I am merely stating my opinion. If I say a certain pickup has a 5.3L Eco Tec 3 V8 engine I am stating a fact that can be verified. To build a case for Chevrolet being the best I would have to gather many more such facts. Opinions come from your personal taste for something whereas stating something as fact must be backed with verifiable sources.
5. Be familiar with propaganda techniques. Propaganda techniques are strategies calculated to spin information toward the author’s conclusion with the purpose of selling you on it. Check this link for a great summary of some of these techniques used by politicians and salesmen. A common technique is called “name calling.” When trying to win an argument some people will resort to calling their opponent names such as racist, bigoted, liar etc. Usually the words are not backed facts or are based on very flimsy evidence easily discredited. Another technique is “card stacking” where a politician, for example, will argue by using only those facts that support his preconceived ideas while ignoring other obvious facts. These are simple techniques that, if learned, will make you a better thinker and may save you a lot of headache.
6. Always go back to bedrock. Ideas can be traced back to bedrock or back to their source. In America the bedrock of all political ideas is our Constitution. If our argument cannot be substantiated in our founding document it is probably spurious. A great example of this practice is Alan Dershowitz, a former Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and a lifetime liberal who voted twice for Barack Obama. Because he believes that our law originates in the Constitution, he has been able to keep an open mind about President Trump and has consistently rejected opinion and referred people to what the law really says. Of course, like us all, he is not perfect but his ability to return to bedrock keeps him on an even keel that many of us miss. Some progressive-minded people believe the Constitution should be a “living document” that should be interpreted, not by its words but on the basis of current conditions. That approach can only lead to political chaos.
The bedrock of the Christian is the Bible. If we cannot substantiate what we are professing in the word of God we are off course. The beliefs we embrace must have their origin in our spiritual founding document inspired by the God we worship. Segments of our society that have left the bedrock of the Bible or of the Constitution are bringing devastation to our country.
There is much more that could be said but these are the basics that I think will help you find some balance in your approach to seeking truth. Be a skeptic in this culture of fake news and political propaganda. “Test all things; hold fast to what is good.”
Lloyd Gardner
The rise of biased journalism recently has stirred me to write this article on how to test the reliability of things that are said and written in today’s media. We have a crisis of credibility in America today because too many journalists, politicians and regular citizens are using their words to propagandize instead of to report truth. I have decided to put to use my years in the classroom teaching students how to write, read and listen critically. I hope this will help many out there to be able to sort through what you hear and read with keen discernment. This process actually comes from the Bible. Paul, for example, wrote that we should “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). We cannot hold fast to what is good until we know how to test things that we hear and read. I hope this article helps you to learn to do just that.
1. Know that humans are flawed by nature. Be aware that every human being is flawed and no one is perfect in the things they express. We should not accept what someone says simply based on their reputation or credentials or because they belong to a certain political party. Even respected journalists should be tested because anyone can make a mistake or fail to report accurately. Learn to do your homework as you seek truth.
2. Always check for sources. If a person does not present sources or verifiable facts to support his words, his words should be rejected until the evidence comes in. This is especially true in short presentations like we have with Twitter or comments to articles. In those short tweets many people resort to opinion and often vitriol without any sources to back their words. Be very leery of reporters who base their article on unnamed sources. This is a red flag. A recent BuzzFeed story used unnamed sources to suggest that Trump directed his attorney at the time Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations for a Trump Tower project in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign. This article caused a firestorm of false journalism to erupt throughout much of the media. At the end of the day Robert Mueller’s Special Council office issued a statement saying the article was “not accurate.” The original article was unverified leading to many follow-up errors by journalists. We must learn to reject what is not backed with facts.
If you read a message on Facebook or Twitter about some sensational subject, put it on hold until you have checked the source. If you can’t do so, reserve judgment until you have the facts and do not pass it on even if you trust the person who sent it. By passing things around that are unverified we are passing something on that was possibly started by a person with an agenda. The source of a message is the bottom line.
3. Reject vitriol. Reject vitriol regardless of which end of the political spectrum it comes from. People who use hatred and vicious comments to make their point most likely have lost the argument and they resort to vitriol to prop up their case. Emotional responses, curse words, and derogatory names have no place in honest discussion. They come from people who do not know how to seek and express facts.
4. Learn to differentiate between opinion and fact. An unsourced statement is simply an opinion until it is verified. If I say that Chevrolets make the best pickups, I am merely stating my opinion. If I say a certain pickup has a 5.3L Eco Tec 3 V8 engine I am stating a fact that can be verified. To build a case for Chevrolet being the best I would have to gather many more such facts. Opinions come from your personal taste for something whereas stating something as fact must be backed with verifiable sources.
5. Be familiar with propaganda techniques. Propaganda techniques are strategies calculated to spin information toward the author’s conclusion with the purpose of selling you on it. Check this link for a great summary of some of these techniques used by politicians and salesmen. A common technique is called “name calling.” When trying to win an argument some people will resort to calling their opponent names such as racist, bigoted, liar etc. Usually the words are not backed facts or are based on very flimsy evidence easily discredited. Another technique is “card stacking” where a politician, for example, will argue by using only those facts that support his preconceived ideas while ignoring other obvious facts. These are simple techniques that, if learned, will make you a better thinker and may save you a lot of headache.
6. Always go back to bedrock. Ideas can be traced back to bedrock or back to their source. In America the bedrock of all political ideas is our Constitution. If our argument cannot be substantiated in our founding document it is probably spurious. A great example of this practice is Alan Dershowitz, a former Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and a lifetime liberal who voted twice for Barack Obama. Because he believes that our law originates in the Constitution, he has been able to keep an open mind about President Trump and has consistently rejected opinion and referred people to what the law really says. Of course, like us all, he is not perfect but his ability to return to bedrock keeps him on an even keel that many of us miss. Some progressive-minded people believe the Constitution should be a “living document” that should be interpreted, not by its words but on the basis of current conditions. That approach can only lead to political chaos.
The bedrock of the Christian is the Bible. If we cannot substantiate what we are professing in the word of God we are off course. The beliefs we embrace must have their origin in our spiritual founding document inspired by the God we worship. Segments of our society that have left the bedrock of the Bible or of the Constitution are bringing devastation to our country.
There is much more that could be said but these are the basics that I think will help you find some balance in your approach to seeking truth. Be a skeptic in this culture of fake news and political propaganda. “Test all things; hold fast to what is good.”
