Stratagems of the Right

Most knowledge comes from a rule of thumb, a heuristic, that because a consensus of authorities portrayed to us by our news media and educational and governmental institutions state something to be true, it must, therefore, be true. It's not that we observe for ourselves the events reported in the news, history books, Google searches, or the data that constructs what we call science. Instead, we place trust in authorities telling us what is true. Our knowledge is a proxy, a symbol of our trust in these authorities. We assume these authorities almost always, or at least usually, state the truth and that we can rely on that truth to plan our day-to-day lives. This is the foundation of what we call civilization. You don't have to build most items you use from scratch; you trust an expert to furnish you with that item in exchange for money. You don't have to examine the item you're purchasing and test it yourself or even understand how it works; you can, instead, read revie...

We endeavor to see the truth, as best our conscious minds can interpret it, but we commonly view what we disagree with, especially on politics, through a lens that distorts our perception. Don't think too literally, as we should never mix politics and drinks, but, as the old adage goes: we see through a glass darkly. In the 1960s, one arguing for an increase in regulation and social welfare benefits might be seen as a "pinko," a sympathizer with communism, by a 1960s conservative. And the leftist social media sphere of the early twenty-first century reveals a fascinating inversion. One who argues for a decrease in regulation and social welfare benefits is seen as a "Nazi," "fascist," or, "crypto-fascist" by a modern-era leftist. The '60s conservative politically identified foremost as anti-communist and was tempted to filter all opposing political arguments through that lens. The modern-day leftist politically identifies foremost as anti-...