Combatting Leftists' Three Narrative Strategies

 

                 This summer is likely the calm before the political storm.  The previous two presidential-election cycles gave us turbulent summers immediately preceding those presidential elections, and I have no reason to expect the summer of 2024 to be any different.  Summer 2016 gave us an escalation of Black Lives Matter (“BLM”) violence, while Summer 2020 gave us the BLM riots.  Of course, three months of lockdowns and social isolation did a great job providing the powder keg that ultimately burst into those riots following the George Floyd killing.  Hopefully, I am wrong in using our 2016 and 2020 experiences to project the future.  Hopefully we have a happy, peaceful summer of 2024, but let us first analyze the present.

               Fortunately, as I mentioned, this current summer of 2023 is calm so far, as I would have expected it to be.  Election Day in a year (such as 2023) immediately preceding a presidential-election year (for the mathematically inclined, such a year has a remainder of 3 when the numbers are divided by 4) is typically the quietest in one of our four-year political cycles.  There are few substantive elections in such years.  People who do not think too much about politics likely ignore politics altogether during these times, while the politically inclined liked me focus mainly on the presidential primaries. 

               In this relatively calm summer, one of the “bigger issues” has been that Vice President Kamala Harris last week criticized Florida (and indirectly Governor Ron DeSantis, who is a Republican presidential candidate) for having the sentence, “In some cases, (the aforementioned) skills created benefit for the slaves; some were able to purchase their own freedom, and others fled, assured of their ability to earn a living.” in its African American History curriculum.  Meanwhile, Harris lied and said that the curriculum says that slavery benefits slaves (in a “net” sense), which the passage did not say. 

Anyone who reads this passage can see clearly that it was the skills, not slavery itself, that provided benefit to the slaves.  That said, if anyone has any doubts about the context of the line, I have read the paragraphs leading up to and following this line.  Those paragraphs speak about the horrors of slavery, so it is not as if the line that Harris quoted was a preamble to sentences speaking glowingly about slavery nor to statements making a case that slavery rendered a net benefit to slaves.

That said, I hope that all Republicans and independents who want Democrats out of power (and want a Republican to win the 2024 Presidential Election) take note of what Vice President Harris did here.  She combined two of the three standard, often successful, moves from the leftist/mainstream-media (“MSM”) playbook, and Republicans need to be ready for leftists/MSM to employ these moves more often and with more vigor over the 15 months between now and the 2024 presidential election.  “What are those three leftist moves?”, you might ask.  All three deal with amplifying false narratives and/or treating those false narratives as facts, and those moves are:

1)     Magnify an inconsequential issue, and make it seem consequential. 

2)     Create a false Republican belief, and argue against it.

3)     Give people a false binary of choices.

 

In my afore-mentioned example, Vice President Harris used the first two Democrat/media strategies in this list, and I will elaborate on all three strategies momentarily.  Democrat leaders and the mainstream media often use these approaches to coax Republican politicians to abandon their beliefs (temporarily or permanently) and to persuade independent voters to vote for Democrats.  Thus, as a Republican, I find the approach nauseating, while I also note the strategy’s effectiveness. 

I believe that one of the fundamental differences between the typical Republican and the typical Democrat is that a Republican usually thinks out all of the potential effects of a policy proposal/issue before forming an opinion on the matter while a Democrat usually forms an opinion purely out of emotion.  Meanwhile, an independent voter could go either way on this one, so Democrat leaders and the media try to play the “emotion” card before Republicans can play the “logic” card, and this strategy often works successfully to give more voter and politician support to the Democrat stance than to the Republican one. 

 

Democrats regularly use all three entries on my afore-mentioned list of three moves to play the “emotion card’, and I will elaborate on each of these now.

1)     Magnify an inconsequential issue, and make it seem consequential. 

 

Harris’s comment is a perfect example of this strategy.  Should the Florida Department of Education have used the word, “benefit”?  I say, “Yes”, as the statement is factual, and some of you will agree with me.  Others of you might say “No”, as you might prefer to use a different word than “benefit”.  However, what effect does this issue actually have on voters’ lives?  None at all.  Florida students learn about the horrors of slavery, and no Florida high-school student – regardless of whether or not his/her teacher uses the word “benefit” in the context of “skills the slaves could apply post-slavery” - walks out of class thinking that slavery was a good thing.  Guess what though?  Politically inclined people have been talking about this issue for a week now, and it would not shock me if this topic comes up again in future political discussions involving Ron DeSantis.  Expect many Democrats and MSM personalities to use this inconsequential “word choice in a 216-page school curriculum” matter to play some variation of the “DeSantis is a horrible racist, and minorities’ lives will be ruined if he wins the election” card that Dems play against essentially all Republican candidates.  Thus, of course, we saw Democrats and the MSM play this card effectively in 2020.

 

The 2020 George Floyd killing was an example of this Democrat approach.  Yes, given that a man unjustly lost his life, this was a more consequential issue than the Florida-curriculum-line issue, but the “consequential” idea pertained to Floyd and his family, not to society at large.  However, Democrats and the MSM used this one-off instance to falsely promote the concept of “systemically racist police”.  Granted, since Colin Kaepernick first kneeled for “The Star Spangled Banner” nearly 7 years ago, I have yet to find an example of our police system actually being “systemically racist”, but “systemically racist police” is nevertheless a narrative that the Democrats/MSM rather successfully propagate.  Thus, when Derek Chauvin (assisted by other police officers) unjustly killed George Floyd, Dems/MSM cried “systemic racism”, though there was no evidence to back this cry.  George Floyd was a career criminal with drug issues who died unjustly but in the midst of a physical altercation with police officers.  Even now, while we have evidence that Derek Chauvin was in the wrong and after Chauvin has been convicted of murder, we do not have evidence that he acted in a racist fashion. 

 

Of course, with President Donald Trump seeking re-election in 2020, the Democrats and MSM played used the Floyd killing to provide a link between the “Donald Trump is racist” and “the police system is racist” narratives, even though there was evidence for neither of these claims.  I will go into more detail on false leftist/MSM narratives in a few paragraphs.

 

Let us though first return to the “consequential” debate, as it pertains to the George Floyd killing.  It was consequential to Floyd and his family that he died unjustly, but the Floyd/Chauvin killing was inconsequential in terms of how black people should view police.  Dems/MSM made it seem as if all black people are under attack from the police, and there is no evidence to back this claim.  If a group were so inclined, it could take a video of the police unjustly shooting and killing a white man to say that the police are hunting down white people.  The claim would be unfounded, but it would be just as nonsensical as the one claiming that the police are hunting down black people.  The truths are: 1) If you avoid physically confronting a police officer, you do not need to worry about the police hurting you, and 2) The police kill more white people per number of violent interactions than black people per number of violent interactions.

 

We live in the least racist time (in my opinion) in the history of the world, but Dems/MSM fixate on racism more than ever before.  Thus, there is a large chunk of Americans who genuinely believe, without evidence, that our police system is systemically racist, and the Dems/MSM employed its strategy perfectly with the George Floyd case.  I fully expect that, over the next 15 months, we will find many more instances in which the Dems/MSM find valid or invalid examples of racism and try to create narratives that these one-off examples are consequential and representative of “systemic racism” in society at large.  The Dems and MSM will also try to link these cases to the Republican presidential candidate to try to increase support for President Biden’s re-election bid.

 

I should note that, while I devoted several paragraphs here to an example of race, Dems/MSM employ this tactic in many other arenas too.  “Covid” and “climate” are two other common areas in which Dems/MSM try to attribute superfluous consequence to instances of little consequence.  With “Covid”, the classic examples were the rare cases of young people dying of Covid in Spring 2020.  Nearly every “Covid death” of a non-elderly person was of the “had a positive Covid test but died mainly of other factors” variety, but the Dems/MSM wanted to make it seem like Covid was a brutal plague. 

 

Meanwhile, with the issue of “climate”, we see Dems/MSM up to their usual tricks now.  This summer in New Jersey, I have not experienced any 100+-degree days and have experienced very little time in the 95-99-degree range, though most summers in my New Jersey life have had more days in those two temperature ranges than Summer 2023 has had thus far.  Nevertheless, the media now plays up every hot day as a cataclysmic climate event and applies red to weather maps for temperatures that might have rendered yellow colors a decade or two ago. 

 

I should note that I actually think that people with good memories are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, because this “make something inconsequential seem consequential” approach works primarily on people with poor memories.  I have a good memory, so I can easily rattle off a list of extremely hot experiences from all of my summers dating back to fifth grade or so.  Meanwhile, if you have a poor memory, it is much easier, for someone to dupe you into believing that every summer is so much hotter than previous ones.  (Note: I realize that some places in this country have recorded record-high temperatures this year, but this does not change the fact the media often tries to deceive people into thinking that non-record highs are actually record highs.)

 

Similarly, an educated voter, especially one with a strong memory, knows that nobody is trying to say that slavery was net-beneficial to slaves, that our police system is not systemically racist, that Covid   has never posed a risk greater than that of a bad flu to the non-elderly/obese, and that we have had very hot days every summer.  The Left, however, does use the strategy of “making inconsequential things seem consequential” to dupe many voters into voting against their best interests.  This is why we need a Republican presidential candidate who can quickly and logically note any instance in which Dems/MSM are either trying to turn a non-issue into an issue or trying to turn a minor issue into a major issue. This leads me to the second Democrat/MSM “false narrative” move:

 

2)     Create a false Republican belief, and argue against it.

 

This is Democrat/MSM behavior 101, and Vice President Harris claiming falsely that the Florida curriculum (which several African American scholars helped craft) says that slavery net-benefited slaves is a perfect example of it.  Again, this is a wise strategy, even though it is disingenuous.  There are plenty of voters who are not politically inclined.  These people might not be eager to do deep research on the views of both parties.  Thus, if Dems/MSM can create a false, evil-sounding Republican point of view and argue against that phony viewpoint, a voter can feel like he/she is educated on both sides of an issue, when, in actuality, the person’s education is inaccurate.  At the same time, the Dems/MSM are able to successfully procure votes this way.  Below is a list of other false Republican beliefs against which Dems have argued or currently argue.  I first state the false Republican belief and then state what I actually believe.  Because I believe that we Republicans tend to think critically and disagree internally much more often than Democrats do, there is more variance among Republicans about what we actually believe (compared to a much more straightforward list of what Democrats believe).  Thus, I list here what I actually believe, though I know that some Republicans would deviate slightly from my thoughts.  At the same time, I can say confidently that other Republicans’ thoughts are much closer to my thoughts than to the Democrat/MSM fallacies, even if some Republicans and I might have slightly different viewpoints.

1)     “Republicans are anti-immigration.” / We believe in a merit-based legal immigration system and are concerned about the crime related to illegal-immigration.  We believe that our government should counteract illegal immigration.

2)     “Republicans don’t believe in climate change.” / We know that the climate changes and do not know what the optimal climate would be.  We also know that a) even an entire lifetime is too short to judge climate changes in a historical sense, b) our society has evolved technologically to handle extreme heat and extreme cold better than at any other time in human history, and c) any government action to address climate change would require us to give the government additional power and more of our money, would likely not improve our lives, but would likely make poor people’s lives much worse.

3)     “Republicans are Covid deniers/anti-vaxxers.” / We think that the government response to Covid was more detrimental to society than Covid was, and we think that people should have always been able to decide on their own if they wanted to mask/self-isolate/test/get the jab.

4)     “Republicans are transphobic and don’t believe in trans rights.” / We believe the following.  A person who “identifies as ‘transgender’” is the sex/gender that his/her biology dictates.  He/she should generally be allowed the same rights that all humans have, but a man should not be able to “identify as a ‘woman’” and then be able to enter women’s spaces.  Additionally, we do not believe that a man can become a woman nor vice versa, but we do not fear anyone who “identifies as ‘trans’”.  We believe that it is humane to try to treat one’s delusions, that it is inhumane to affirm one’s delusions, and that it is detrimental to society to treat truths as lies and lies as truths.

 

You will notice that there are many differences between what Republicans believe and what Dems/MSM say that we believe.  Well, what we believe has nuance, and the Dems/MSM cannot quickly win over an independent voter with nuance.  Dems want quick soundbites, as “Republicans are Covid deniers who don’t believe in climate change!!!” gives a quick and easy rebuttal along the lines of “Republicans are heartless and stupid.”  Thus, though our side might be logical, Dems/MSM again play to voters’ emotion by battling the false Republican belief, instead of the real one.  Republicans need to be ready to battle this Democrat approach by applying logic day after day to try to counteract the Democrats’ emotional appeal.  This leads me into the third and final Democrat/MSM strategy.

 

3)     Give people a false binary of choices.

 

It has annoyed me for years that ESPN “gets away with” posting “news” articles with statements like “Colin Kaepernick is protesting systemic racism”, instead of the appropriate “Colin Kaepernick is protesting what he feels to be systemic racism”.  If you are writing a news article, you are not supposed to treat narrative as fact.  Most people on the Left do, however, treat narrative and fact as one and the same.  It annoys me greatly, but the Left employs this strategy with aplomb.

 

 This frustrates me, as I know that, even though I think that socialism is a terrible system that will never be successful in any context, I could not write an allegedly factual news article and state “because socialism is an ineffective system” (instead of “…what I believe to be an ineffective system”) in the text.  I would be infusing narrative, albeit one that I consider nearly factual, into a factual article, and a legitimate news writer should not do that.  Of course, the Left/MSM nevertheless does this move all the time, and Republicans usually fall into the trap. 

 

What is this “trap” exactly?  I believe that treating narrative as fact often causes Dems/MSM to give Republicans false binaries of choices, a practice that leads to Republicans saying Democrat talking points.  Here some examples of such false binaries:

1)     How do you think we should solve systemic racism in our police force?

2)     How can you decrease the number of Covid cases in your state?

3)     What is the best approach our government can take combat climate change?

 

Well, if you do not believe that our police force is systemically racist, if you believe that virus cases will always rise and fall and that our politicians should stay out of the matter, and if you also believe that climate change should not be a legitimate government worry; how should you answer all of those questions?  In order to answer any question, one must accept the validity of that question; and, in order to accept the question, one must first accept the validity of the binary/narrative contained within the question.  However, with the afore-mentioned three questions, I accept the validities of none of the three narratives.  Thus, I would never in good faith give answers to those questions. 

 

That said, as soon as a person – be it a politician or a voter – answers the question, he/she has already given Dems/MSM the victory.  He/she has already accepted the premise.  In my examples, if a candidate answers those questions, he/she validates the concepts of “systemic police racism”, “the importance of Covid case counting”, and “government efforts to curb climate change”.  As I have shown, Dems/MSM employ this “false binary” strategy very smoothly not only to win over independent voters but also to trap Republican politicians into espousing Democrat views. 

 

This is why, to win the 2024 Presidential Election, the Republican nominee has to be ready to call out the invalid nature of such questions.  As soon as a candidate gives an answer to a “false binary” question, he/she is playing on the Dems’/MSM turf.  It becomes quite easy for Dems/MSM to respond to the Republican answer by saying that the Republican “doesn’t care enough” or by playing the standard “he/she is a racist/sexist/homophobe/transphobe/xenophobe/etc.” card.  An undecided voter feels emotion there, now believes the issue is quite valid, now believes the Democrat is better-equipped to handle the issue, and is likely to sway toward voting for the Democrat.  Thus, it is imperative that a Republican candidate be able to immediately strike down the validity of invalid questions, as that refutation can make an important, emotional, and logical mark on an undecided voter.  That voter is much more likely to vote for the Republican candidate who notes the folly of the question than the Republican candidate who legitimizes the question only to look weak with his/her response to the question.

 

Thus, to summarize, Dems do an excellent job of wielding all three of these three strategies – making something inconsequential seem consequential, fighting against false Republican beliefs, and treating narrative as fact/creating false binaries.  Dems/MSM so often goad politicians and voters into these traps, and this approach is very helpful to winning elections.  Plus, Dems and media typically control the narratives.  Once they play the “emotion” card, Republicans have to play defense with the “logic” card.  It can be very tough to win with the “logic” card once the “emotion” card is in play.  That is why we need a Republican candidate who is smart, quick-thinking, rational, tireless, and consistent at making his points logically (albeit with emotion).  We need someone who can deftly and comfortably answer voters’ and media personalities’ questions, but, most importantly, we need someone who knows which questions not to answer.  We need someone who can turn the leftists’ false narratives on their heads and provide the accurate narratives.  That is how a Republican can win the 2024 Presidential Election.