It got me to thinking about how there's almost a whole new movement not just relegated to Donald Trump, but to our society as a whole. Right now, our society is angry, and one thing I've learned about anger is it warps your perspective on things, particularly in the moment. Lately, this anger has been turned toward all things large, even if they are also the things that protect us.
Let's take for example the biggest societal view that has gained more and more steam, that "Big Pharma" is simply out to make money and couldn't give one ounce of care about our lives. The opioid epidemic has enhanced and exacerbated this conspiracy theory, as people seek out holistic and alternative healing methods instead of trusting their regular physicians and more traditional methods of treatment. And sure, there are some greedy companies out there that may not care at all about us. But I'm still a huge believer that you can want to make profits and still have a moral center. I'm also for seeking alternative methods on things, but the rise of the anti-vaxx movement has been borne out of these kind of attacks and conspiracy theories. No matter how many studies, no matter now many test groups, there are people that will swear that vaccinating their children caused whatever issue their child has now, mainly autism. Yet vaccines have been among the most successful health programs ever in world history, amputating diseases at their heart and sometimes eliminating them altogether. This is to our greater detriment, and has seen the reappearance of diseases such as smallpox, polio and rejuvenation of tuberculosis.
We have also started casting our glances toward the FBI. Granted, there have been many questionable things that have occurred within that service in the last few years, including the actions of James Comey during the election, and the intercepted texts of FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his one-time lover, an FBI Lawyer named Lisa Page.
However, because of these three individuals, the entirety of the country wants to cast doubt on the entire Federal Bureau of Investigations, a service the employs 35,000 people. It is understandable why many people would take this tact, given the arguments cast upon them are completely appropriate in this new age of online media and sound bytes.
But here's a hypothetical for you: Two FBI employees engaged in a personal 'fling' are both registered Democrats who are disturbed by the fact Trump is running for President. Not only are they privy to more information on Trump, including, but not limited to, the dossier that became available from Christopher Steele long before the public knew about it. Perhaps they talk at work, but they also text outside of the office. One of them voices the concern that Trump could win President. The other doesn't think it's possible and thinks America wouldn't let it happen. Because of their close relationship he says simply, "We'd stop it," meaning America wouldn't vote that way.
This is the part of their private text conversation that has been grabbed and placed into the media for consumption by the public. Paranoids and those that want to cast doubt on the entire bureau think Strzok was obviously saying he and the FBI would stop Trump from becoming President. People who are less judgmental realize that it's possible he was saying either. We just don't know. Can we be certain he meant one over the other?
Regardless of this conversation, there is no record of these two employees ever letting their political leanings affect their ability to do their jobs. And if the FBI was really out to stop Trump from gaining the Presidency, um, they did a terrible job. But the generalization that we should somehow doubt the FBI, who, if anything, may have done more damage to Clinton by re-opening her email investigation a few weeks prior to election day, is a broad generalization to say the least. There are all sorts of people who work in our secret services. Some are Democrats, others Republicans, others Independents, etc. etc. Finding the truth and obeying the law have strict parameters, so why would we think these two agents are different than any other two? Because they were cheating at the time? That hardly has anything to do with whether they can perform their respective jobs. How are we sure that we wouldn't find similar conversations in private emails of many agents? Opinions on an election are shared during an election season, you know. And if you were to grab a few lines of text from any private conversation I was having at a time, particularly one if me and my wife were arguing, you might mistake the entire conversation.
The attacks on the media have been almost non-stop since Trump started his Presidential run. The new term "fake news" which is now being applied to major news sources and networks as if they each were a version of The National Enquirer, has sought to remove truth from the equation. Instead of causing people to seek out an understanding of how news stories are generated and spread, they have instead jumped to the conclusion that media outlets are biased and sought out 'news' they agree with. The facts are only facts if I agree with them seems to be the notion of the day, and while there are websites to be very wary of, and television news that is often sensationalized, the only network of news stations that has been clearly steering a one-party agenda has been Fox News. This is further confirmed in study after study which finds their viewers are the most misinformed of any news viewer. Three separate citations over four years: Once in 2012, this study here published in 2015 and this article in Forbes where the writer did his own research. This doesn't mean Fox causes everyone to be completely misinformed or is the only reason, but they clearly aren't helping the situation.
Sometimes major news outlets are a bit sensational or even lazy, but I have yet to see a major news source stump for a candidate or a specific policy without labeling it an 'editorial.' By the way, when I say major news outlets, I am removing from this equation the talk news and panel shows and morning news shows. These shows aren't about news. News isn't interested in telling you how you should feel or look at something. Period.
I don't disagree that many of the major news outlets are likely to lean left politically, because it goes without saying to report news accurately requires a completely open mind to the facts, regardless of where your emotion or political loyalties lie. And since when does someone's political affiliations NECESSARILY inform all parts of their lives? Let's face it -- it doesn't.
Perhaps the worst broad and constant attacks are now against science, the one discipline for which facts show no bias. Through science we've discovered how the human body works and the indiscriminate and often cruel nature of life and death. We also learned about diet and potential cures for disease, extending the lengths of our lives substantially. Through science, we were able to find out the world was round (despite these wonderful folks) and that it turns, realize we were not the center of the universe, determine the molecules and atoms that make up our world and the world's near us. We can understand seasons, seismic events, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and set up warnings for many of these sometimes cataclysmic events. Through science we were able to achieve speeds of travel never thought of, such that you could be across the globe in less than a day.
Yet every day, these folks that have no political agenda but to help protect, modernize and extend the existence of the human species are under attack for their all but unanimous claim the world's temperature is rising, that it will affect everything for the worse as far as they can tell, and that it portends another possible mass extinction. For this they are attacked with the kind of virile and infantile displays that would make our forefathers cringe with incredulity. Who can forget Jim Inhofe's bringing a snowball to the Senate Chamber to prove their is no proof of climate change.
I know a tiny bit about scientists. I'm the son of one. And I can't think of a time where scientists have it worse. It's a time when the population they work so hard for suddenly discounts them because they just don't want to believe in their results. It's a bad time for science, and, in turn, that means it will be bad time for us.
There are those that claim they are entitled to their opinions. They are entirely correct, except that an opinion is generally formed for a reason, or based on a shared experience, or some agreed upon facts. 'Opinions' used to be important, because in some ways, it reflected your education level and your understanding. An informed opinion was seen as more renowned, not less.
The danger is that people are confusing their opinions and their right to have one with facts. In doing so, they're turning their opinions into truths and taking giant leaps in logic. And when someone who is a truth manipulator is the leader of your country, such that there is no truth anymore, only opinions, when that leader decides he wants to lay waste to centuries of work used to instill trust in something greater than the office of the President, the population must become diligent. Isolation might feel initially good, like America is being tough and standing on its own again right now. But the loss of allied support, trade partners and our internal protections is the face of fascism, whether your opinion agrees or not.
The attacks happening on our institutions are a dangerous trend. We are trending toward opinion over fact, emotion over logic, and the fear-mongering of a few over the institutions of a great nation. I fear that we will forget that the institution and more importantly, our nation, is bigger than the man, and not the other way around...if many haven't already.
No comments:
Post a Comment