Frank's Musings

The former Prez fumes at Rupert Murdoch’s sudden realization that Fox News cannot escape a defamation suit without blaming its commentators for taking advantage of the gullibility of its viewers (or their desire for believable false narratives),

The Donald really does believe that a successful politician is no more than a snake oil salesman. He is disappointed that, when it comes to protecting his wealth, Murdoch doesn’t share Trump’s belief that money is less important than self-image.

“You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

We’ve forgotten this kind of lesson before.  The Black Death killed 20% of the world’s people in the fourteenth century.  Surely, its causes were a political issue.  The medical cause of the Black Death was not known at the time; if it had been, one would  hope that pest control measures would have been taken.

Today, not only do we know the cause, its sources, and also how to minimize the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, through vaccination, anti-viral medication, and social distancing.  These have made the severity of the pandemic a personal issue—How to behave when faced with a wildly infectious disease.  These measures would definitely have improved the demographic survival rate in the fourteenth century, had they only been known.  We don’t have the same excuse this time.  And yet, we tend to discount the urgency of warnings from those who caution against disregarding the behavior changes which minimize the likely spread of infectious disease particularly in the belief that they could harm business or social interactions. 

As my daughter pointed out, it is rational to risk succumbing to the disease by associating with friends when taking the precautions available to an individual, such as vaccination, testing, antiviral medication, and social distancing, including masking.  It is not only unreasonable and dangerous, but reckless for an informed person to put others who may not have access to these precautions at risk of incurring the pandemic disease. Moreover, it is insulting for those who ignore those precautions to offer compensation to those who may have suffered the consequences of their recklessness.

Of course, as you must know, sometimes occasional recklessness is an attractive characteristic that makes friendships valuable. Therefore, in order to anticipate even desirable recklessness, keeping friends with that risky trait is another reason to act responsibly during a pandemic and to guard against unthinking personal behavior that threatens the welfare of others.

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Dr. Anthony Fauci have prominently decried the false information regarding vaccines for COVID-19.  Many progressive and other liberal politicians have angrily objected to the characterization of their propositions as elitism by their opponents on the right.

The defenders of the truth also have the duty to influence the public, not just to complain. The First Amendment protects us from exploitation only if the right to speak convincingly is exercised by defenders of the common welfare as effectively as it is by special interests or polemicists.

Yes, free speech sometimes is more effectively used by enemies of common sense than by other critical thinkers. This has always been a problem in social organizations. Benjamin Franklin published his thoughts on the matter; so have many other leaders before and since. However, gullibility to persistent and determined deceit is part of human nature. Advances in communications technology have, unfortunately, at times surpassed the capabilities or desires of common human intelligence to think clearly and critically about the misinformation that false prophets profess more effectively than they.  Objective truth may not be as compelling as factual distortions presented well.

While misinformation may be combatted on its merits, the same harmful messages must also be corrected by exposing the antisocial motivation of the deceivers.  It’s a tricky task, particularly in a liberal democracy where free speech is sanctified.

President Biden surprised the political columnists like Eugene Robinson by delivering a combative State of the Union address challenging his Republican opposition to come up with better answers to the country’s economic and personal security issues. Moreover, as a long veteran of Congressional politics, he could easily respond to the shouted objections to his speech from MAGA Republican congressmen in the audience.

Biden also succeeded in highlighting the disagreement between the Republican Speaker and his MAGA party members on fundamental issues like Social Security and MEDICARE. After all, it’s more important to Kevin McCarthy that he keep his Speakership than that he achieve what he may think is best for the country (except that he is the one that leads the House of Representatives).

The biggest aim of Biden’s speech was to solicit McCarthy’s cooperation in adopting much of the President’s program in exchange for maintaining his Speakership. Biden would like McCarthy to collaborate with him, Hakim Jeffries and the remaining moderate Republican Representatives in a coalition to pass a moderate version of the Democratic agenda plus keep his job as Speaker.  

Part of the deal Biden is offering McCarthy would mean Democratic House votes in the inevitable challenge to his election as Speaker from one of his erstwhile MAGA supporters is Jeffries’ willingness to arrange compensating Democratic votes cast on McCarthy's behalf to make up for a MAGA Republican defection.  Question is—will Jeffries play this game?