The notion of "shared reality" is so critical and I feel it's something that will be impossible to overcome. Trump essentially invented the idea of "fake news" back at the beginning of his first campaign in 2015, and it's become the standard retort to anything he and his fans (and even his most vehement haters) don't like. Your entire ethos, Sharon, is the idea that "facts don't require our approval to be true," but we as a society have stumbled into a chasm where A LOT of people think that facts aren't facts unless they agree with them. How do we climb out?
I feel like is THE question Carly -- and I would love to hear Sharon's take. I truly don't know how to have conversations with people who are ground in a set of fundamentally different "facts." (And then it also makes me question my own facts/reality, which then leads me .... to drive my head under the pillows)
SAME. At least 3x a day, I'm like "wait... am *I* the crazy one because I trust facts?! Are the facts I'm trusting not really facts?! Am *I* part of the DEEEEP STAAAATE?!"
This phenomenon has been around for much longer than we realize, I think. Remember when Stephen Colbert coined the term “truthiness”? That was in 2005! The social media algorithms have just made it worse. It’s really hard to get out of your silo.
Yes fake news goes back to the birth of this nation. When the Governerd Insiders read The Revolutionary Samual Adams we found out he was a spreader of fake news. It made me wonder if we would have broken off from England at all had it not been for the crazy amount of fake information spread by people with an agenda.
I think a healthy skepticism is good. It doesn't mean that everything is fake news, but it also doesn't mean that you should trust blindly. I think a couple of things happened when fake news became a thing..... One, media is very skewed in what they report. Two, people follow blindly and think, well, if it was said on CNN or Fox News it must be true. One side is as guilty as the other about presenting a very agenda driven point of view.
Two quick for instances: We were watching coverage about the aftermath of a hurricane and the massive amount of flooding. The reporter was standing almost knee deep in a water, and the cameraman panned too far out. What it showed was that the reporter was standing in puddle and the streets were dry and you could see people walking about and walking their dog.
Another is when news anchors report they were in a part of the middle east and took active artillery shelling to their location, but it was later disproved and that the anchor was lying. Politicians have been caught in a similar lie.
All this adds up to, can we really believe anything they say anymore? These thing are why I'm skeptical (or believe half heartedly) of any mainstream media, and most things any politician or political organization says.....until I personally OR Sharon fact checks it.
I agree with that. Especially when dealing with mainstream media. I don't remember where I heard it but I use it a lot when explaining to people the dangers of mainstream media. They are a business and businesses need to make money. Stories that are good and happy and blandly factual...don't make money. Sensationalism makes money. So the advice I read was, "If you read an article and it makes you angry or scared, pause and ask yourself who benefits from you being scared/angry about this info?" Then you do some digging and then you find the actual truth is a little more "boring" than what the article was saying. But when the information is "boring" no one likes, comments, and shares (where the money is).
However, I've come into contact with people that when I share with them a link to a report done by the FBI they say, "Ha! I don't trust anything the corrupt FBI has to say." or "You call the FBI a credible source?" That's when I get frustrated. The FBI isn't a group of like 6 people sitting in a super secret room. There are approx 35,000 people working for the FBI. There's no freakin way all 35,000 of those people have been bought and paid for and made into people that are just spewing information they are told to post.
Exactly. I would love to hear thoughts on how we as a society move away from the mentality of "selective facts". I mean, we hear it right in this article from Dons when he says it is more democratic when the beaurocracy is aligned with the political motive of the president. That is in FACT the opposite of being democratic.
Question for the video: if Trump wins, is democracy in as much danger as it feels it could be if Project 2025 is brought to fruition? Are the current checks and balances enough to maintain, if not efficiency, basic functioning of our country as planned by the writers of the Constitution?
I think to see where "political fealty" leads us, we must look no farther than the current Congress, which has become most notable for being one of the least (if not the least) productive and functional Congresses in the history of our country.
The very best leader is a consensus-builder. So the mandate for leadership therefore requires any president to build consensus within their ranks. If they are unable to build that consensus, do we call that a problem within the ranks … or a problem with leadership? Rhetorical, of course - we all know the answer.
I'm curious about their responses when confronted with long-term data contradicting their claims. Do you find they have been open? Not just to speaking with you, obviously they are, but in terms of hearing conflicting data.
This is my question too. How do they respond to factual responses that contradict their version of information. I wish I were able to quickly spout facts and sources for them when speaking with supporters of Project 2025, sadly it never comes to mind and mouth correctly.
One fundamental problem I see with the mentality of P2025 is in how Sharon opened the article: they consider the civil servants to be the president’s people rather than the country’s servants. They’ve merged president with nation to a far greater degree than the constitution does.
“There isn’t supposed to be a check on the president by his own employees,” Why not?! I keep friends around me that keep it real. I don't want friends that see me mistreat someone and say, "Yeah! Get 'em girl!" I want friends that say, "Whoa! That was wrong. Let's talk about what's going on with you and then you will go apologize to that person."
I want the same for our president. Our president will be an elected HUMAN. Humans are notorious for making mistakes. 100% of humans have made at least one in their life. So I want the president (whoever they may be) to be surrounded by people that are willing and brave enough to say, "Hold up. This is wrong."
“What if someone is elected with Hitlerian inclinations? Elections don’t always mean someone good will be in charge.” Neither Dans nor Devine seem to think this is a problem.
Wow. The small-mindedness is mind boggling. In theory Communism seems great and would be if every person that became in control was a good and decent person. But newsflash humans can be the absolute worst sometimes. So you need a system that is actively on alert and keeping that in check. Letting our guard down in that area will lead us right down the same path Germany went down in the 40s.
All of this is just so concerning. It's like narcissism. How they can they not see that they are the problem?!
Thanks for continuing the conversation. 2 questions: 1) Dans says their project benefits democracy “Because the president is elected…that’s a mandate for leadership.” Is it legit to push back on this with the fact that winning the electoral college vs popular vote is not exactly a mandate from the citizens? 2) It seems to me there are two options for what’s going on with Dans’ argument - either he’s so soaked in the false narratives that have been put out there by Trump, his handlers and certain media organizations and social media networks (which you easily debunked with facts) that he doesn’t know better and really believes this stuff, OR he does know better but is part of promoting the deception for whatever his own political ends are. Is there another option? Frankly, I’m still trying to get my head around WHY they want this change.
Ha! My comment was going to be…but he didn’t win the popular vote…
My unofficial bet is that of DC Republicans, 90% know better but do it for the power and (maybe or) accomplishing their policy goals (looking at you, Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio) The ends justify the means and all that.
I feel like almost all of the people you see talking about this are part of the latter (they know better but are going along with it because it's working to achieve their own political ends).
YES! AND their frustrated over the civil servants who actively sought to thwart Trump's agenda during his presidency. They want to oust anyone who would prevent them from reaching their goals.
Jeez, I see my grammar mistakes in my comment. It's not that I confused "their" and "they're." It's that I was going to say "their frustration" and decided to say "frustrated" instead, which required me to change "their" to "they're," but I didn't think about it. 9 times out of 4 that's where my grammar issues occur. I'm using the right homophone, but I changed the form of the word that comes after it and it makes me look like someone who isn't an English major.
Thank you, this is very informative. I guess I am a little surprised at the flimsy rationale for such a large change. The Heritage Foundation is supposed to be grounded in research and education. Do they believe their assumptions (such as the composition of the bureaucracy) will not be challenged or does that not matter? Is it arrogance?
FWIW, Heritage took a very sharp right, anti-intellectual turn during the first Trump administration. In my opinion, AEI is the one still grounded in research and education (and I’m not a Republican)
Hi Sharon! This has been an ever-present conversation in my home, as my husband has spent nearly 20 years on the HR side of Civil Service for our city, county, and state. He often ends the conversation with “it won’t go anywhere because of the union (AFGE).” Can you tell me if you’ve been able to connect with them, or if that’s something you would do? How do they prepare an argument when they’re not on the same playing field (aka shared reality of facts(?
I don’t think they see anything as wrong though. What these men are proposing is exactly what they want. Yes men in the President’s circle means that whatever he or she want to do is immediately okayed. No one looks at it questioningly because they’ll be fired. Executive orders will become the norm and that’s terrifying in the hands of Christian Nationalists and other extreme groups. I wish we could have a “shared reality”, but I don’t think that’s going to happen unless we splinter the extreme right out of the GOP and then have the Democrats and the GOP working as a group with a small mix of extremists on the fringe getting shouted down.
Question for the video: I know you’re not a psychoanalyst or therapist 😂 but what do you think it is that’s actually motivating Dans? The academic Devine, I actually get. But Dans…is it really a deep love for his understanding of the Constitution? Is it (what I suspect) a chip on his shoulder of being an educated Republican in the very liberal worlds of NYC (where I believe he practiced litigation?) and DC? I have a very, very hard time believing he just really loves his understanding of the Constitution this much to so thoroughly restructure power in the US government to, what do you know, benefit the hand that feeds (or will) feed him.
In addition to dropping the term "deep state," I would vote for much less use of the term "wokeism" as a pejorative. Collins Dictionary defines it as a description of people who are informed and aware of social and political injustice. If anyone is interested, this is a good piece that explains the history of the term and how it has morphed from its original uses to the epithet it is today. I hope it's okay to post links here. Guess I'll find out. https://www.naacpldf.org/woke-black-bad/
I agree, Sharon. Thank you for presenting the facts, as you've been able to discern them thoughtfully and transparently without cynicism or fear-mongering. I appreciate being treated like an intelligent human, not an uneducated mob.
My experience working as a contractor within the DoD for 35+ years has shown me that differing ideologies, political beliefs, world views, and backgrounds are the healthiest safeguards for positive outcomes. While there are examples where great success was achieved for a specific goal championed by a President, I believe part of that success was having differing opinions weigh in on how to achieve it within the ranks of the scientists, engineers, managers, and financial experts involved. We need that creative tension to appropriately vet ideas for all of our safety and the continuance of a healthy republic. However, for this to work, as you discuss, we must have the ability to find common ground from which to work. I'd love to challenge each of us to work at trying to truly listen and understand someone who has differing ideas from you. We don't have to agree to respect one another as long as we can "disagree better".
The notion of "shared reality" is so critical and I feel it's something that will be impossible to overcome. Trump essentially invented the idea of "fake news" back at the beginning of his first campaign in 2015, and it's become the standard retort to anything he and his fans (and even his most vehement haters) don't like. Your entire ethos, Sharon, is the idea that "facts don't require our approval to be true," but we as a society have stumbled into a chasm where A LOT of people think that facts aren't facts unless they agree with them. How do we climb out?
I feel like is THE question Carly -- and I would love to hear Sharon's take. I truly don't know how to have conversations with people who are ground in a set of fundamentally different "facts." (And then it also makes me question my own facts/reality, which then leads me .... to drive my head under the pillows)
SAME. At least 3x a day, I'm like "wait... am *I* the crazy one because I trust facts?! Are the facts I'm trusting not really facts?! Am *I* part of the DEEEEP STAAAATE?!"
This phenomenon has been around for much longer than we realize, I think. Remember when Stephen Colbert coined the term “truthiness”? That was in 2005! The social media algorithms have just made it worse. It’s really hard to get out of your silo.
Yes fake news goes back to the birth of this nation. When the Governerd Insiders read The Revolutionary Samual Adams we found out he was a spreader of fake news. It made me wonder if we would have broken off from England at all had it not been for the crazy amount of fake information spread by people with an agenda.
I think a healthy skepticism is good. It doesn't mean that everything is fake news, but it also doesn't mean that you should trust blindly. I think a couple of things happened when fake news became a thing..... One, media is very skewed in what they report. Two, people follow blindly and think, well, if it was said on CNN or Fox News it must be true. One side is as guilty as the other about presenting a very agenda driven point of view.
Two quick for instances: We were watching coverage about the aftermath of a hurricane and the massive amount of flooding. The reporter was standing almost knee deep in a water, and the cameraman panned too far out. What it showed was that the reporter was standing in puddle and the streets were dry and you could see people walking about and walking their dog.
Another is when news anchors report they were in a part of the middle east and took active artillery shelling to their location, but it was later disproved and that the anchor was lying. Politicians have been caught in a similar lie.
All this adds up to, can we really believe anything they say anymore? These thing are why I'm skeptical (or believe half heartedly) of any mainstream media, and most things any politician or political organization says.....until I personally OR Sharon fact checks it.
I agree with that. Especially when dealing with mainstream media. I don't remember where I heard it but I use it a lot when explaining to people the dangers of mainstream media. They are a business and businesses need to make money. Stories that are good and happy and blandly factual...don't make money. Sensationalism makes money. So the advice I read was, "If you read an article and it makes you angry or scared, pause and ask yourself who benefits from you being scared/angry about this info?" Then you do some digging and then you find the actual truth is a little more "boring" than what the article was saying. But when the information is "boring" no one likes, comments, and shares (where the money is).
However, I've come into contact with people that when I share with them a link to a report done by the FBI they say, "Ha! I don't trust anything the corrupt FBI has to say." or "You call the FBI a credible source?" That's when I get frustrated. The FBI isn't a group of like 6 people sitting in a super secret room. There are approx 35,000 people working for the FBI. There's no freakin way all 35,000 of those people have been bought and paid for and made into people that are just spewing information they are told to post.
Exactly. I would love to hear thoughts on how we as a society move away from the mentality of "selective facts". I mean, we hear it right in this article from Dons when he says it is more democratic when the beaurocracy is aligned with the political motive of the president. That is in FACT the opposite of being democratic.
Question for the video: if Trump wins, is democracy in as much danger as it feels it could be if Project 2025 is brought to fruition? Are the current checks and balances enough to maintain, if not efficiency, basic functioning of our country as planned by the writers of the Constitution?
I second this question!! Is there honestly a way for this stuff to occur with a Republican win this November?
I think to see where "political fealty" leads us, we must look no farther than the current Congress, which has become most notable for being one of the least (if not the least) productive and functional Congresses in the history of our country.
Question for this week's video.... what can we, the general public, do to combat the premises of Project 2025 if we find them objectionable?
The very best leader is a consensus-builder. So the mandate for leadership therefore requires any president to build consensus within their ranks. If they are unable to build that consensus, do we call that a problem within the ranks … or a problem with leadership? Rhetorical, of course - we all know the answer.
Exactly 💯
I'm curious about their responses when confronted with long-term data contradicting their claims. Do you find they have been open? Not just to speaking with you, obviously they are, but in terms of hearing conflicting data.
This is my question too. How do they respond to factual responses that contradict their version of information. I wish I were able to quickly spout facts and sources for them when speaking with supporters of Project 2025, sadly it never comes to mind and mouth correctly.
One fundamental problem I see with the mentality of P2025 is in how Sharon opened the article: they consider the civil servants to be the president’s people rather than the country’s servants. They’ve merged president with nation to a far greater degree than the constitution does.
Specifically they use the word “president’s employees” as if the whole civil service should be his lackeys and ideologically aligned with him.
“There isn’t supposed to be a check on the president by his own employees,” Why not?! I keep friends around me that keep it real. I don't want friends that see me mistreat someone and say, "Yeah! Get 'em girl!" I want friends that say, "Whoa! That was wrong. Let's talk about what's going on with you and then you will go apologize to that person."
I want the same for our president. Our president will be an elected HUMAN. Humans are notorious for making mistakes. 100% of humans have made at least one in their life. So I want the president (whoever they may be) to be surrounded by people that are willing and brave enough to say, "Hold up. This is wrong."
“What if someone is elected with Hitlerian inclinations? Elections don’t always mean someone good will be in charge.” Neither Dans nor Devine seem to think this is a problem.
Wow. The small-mindedness is mind boggling. In theory Communism seems great and would be if every person that became in control was a good and decent person. But newsflash humans can be the absolute worst sometimes. So you need a system that is actively on alert and keeping that in check. Letting our guard down in that area will lead us right down the same path Germany went down in the 40s.
All of this is just so concerning. It's like narcissism. How they can they not see that they are the problem?!
I know you don't want to run for office, but this would be a great campaign... make reality shared again!
Except the acronym for that is the same as a kind of bacteria.
hahahahahahahaha!
Thanks for continuing the conversation. 2 questions: 1) Dans says their project benefits democracy “Because the president is elected…that’s a mandate for leadership.” Is it legit to push back on this with the fact that winning the electoral college vs popular vote is not exactly a mandate from the citizens? 2) It seems to me there are two options for what’s going on with Dans’ argument - either he’s so soaked in the false narratives that have been put out there by Trump, his handlers and certain media organizations and social media networks (which you easily debunked with facts) that he doesn’t know better and really believes this stuff, OR he does know better but is part of promoting the deception for whatever his own political ends are. Is there another option? Frankly, I’m still trying to get my head around WHY they want this change.
Ha! My comment was going to be…but he didn’t win the popular vote…
My unofficial bet is that of DC Republicans, 90% know better but do it for the power and (maybe or) accomplishing their policy goals (looking at you, Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio) The ends justify the means and all that.
I feel like almost all of the people you see talking about this are part of the latter (they know better but are going along with it because it's working to achieve their own political ends).
YES! AND their frustrated over the civil servants who actively sought to thwart Trump's agenda during his presidency. They want to oust anyone who would prevent them from reaching their goals.
Jeez, I see my grammar mistakes in my comment. It's not that I confused "their" and "they're." It's that I was going to say "their frustration" and decided to say "frustrated" instead, which required me to change "their" to "they're," but I didn't think about it. 9 times out of 4 that's where my grammar issues occur. I'm using the right homophone, but I changed the form of the word that comes after it and it makes me look like someone who isn't an English major.
You can edit your comments.
I know. I just felt like explaining myself . . . just this once. ;-)
I was going to comment about the popular vote and then thought I better read through these first because I bet someone already said it!
Thank you, this is very informative. I guess I am a little surprised at the flimsy rationale for such a large change. The Heritage Foundation is supposed to be grounded in research and education. Do they believe their assumptions (such as the composition of the bureaucracy) will not be challenged or does that not matter? Is it arrogance?
FWIW, Heritage took a very sharp right, anti-intellectual turn during the first Trump administration. In my opinion, AEI is the one still grounded in research and education (and I’m not a Republican)
Hi Sharon! This has been an ever-present conversation in my home, as my husband has spent nearly 20 years on the HR side of Civil Service for our city, county, and state. He often ends the conversation with “it won’t go anywhere because of the union (AFGE).” Can you tell me if you’ve been able to connect with them, or if that’s something you would do? How do they prepare an argument when they’re not on the same playing field (aka shared reality of facts(?
I don’t think they see anything as wrong though. What these men are proposing is exactly what they want. Yes men in the President’s circle means that whatever he or she want to do is immediately okayed. No one looks at it questioningly because they’ll be fired. Executive orders will become the norm and that’s terrifying in the hands of Christian Nationalists and other extreme groups. I wish we could have a “shared reality”, but I don’t think that’s going to happen unless we splinter the extreme right out of the GOP and then have the Democrats and the GOP working as a group with a small mix of extremists on the fringe getting shouted down.
Question for the video: I know you’re not a psychoanalyst or therapist 😂 but what do you think it is that’s actually motivating Dans? The academic Devine, I actually get. But Dans…is it really a deep love for his understanding of the Constitution? Is it (what I suspect) a chip on his shoulder of being an educated Republican in the very liberal worlds of NYC (where I believe he practiced litigation?) and DC? I have a very, very hard time believing he just really loves his understanding of the Constitution this much to so thoroughly restructure power in the US government to, what do you know, benefit the hand that feeds (or will) feed him.
(Has living in DC made me too cynical? 😜)
In addition to dropping the term "deep state," I would vote for much less use of the term "wokeism" as a pejorative. Collins Dictionary defines it as a description of people who are informed and aware of social and political injustice. If anyone is interested, this is a good piece that explains the history of the term and how it has morphed from its original uses to the epithet it is today. I hope it's okay to post links here. Guess I'll find out. https://www.naacpldf.org/woke-black-bad/
I agree, Sharon. Thank you for presenting the facts, as you've been able to discern them thoughtfully and transparently without cynicism or fear-mongering. I appreciate being treated like an intelligent human, not an uneducated mob.
My experience working as a contractor within the DoD for 35+ years has shown me that differing ideologies, political beliefs, world views, and backgrounds are the healthiest safeguards for positive outcomes. While there are examples where great success was achieved for a specific goal championed by a President, I believe part of that success was having differing opinions weigh in on how to achieve it within the ranks of the scientists, engineers, managers, and financial experts involved. We need that creative tension to appropriately vet ideas for all of our safety and the continuance of a healthy republic. However, for this to work, as you discuss, we must have the ability to find common ground from which to work. I'd love to challenge each of us to work at trying to truly listen and understand someone who has differing ideas from you. We don't have to agree to respect one another as long as we can "disagree better".