Caffeinated Politics

I overheard a conversation that made me aware (again) that we should not make an effort to overhear what others are saying. One person was trying to make the argument that the war Donald Trump started in Iran had to take place as it was brewing for 47 years. It was expressed that Trump had said of the Iranians, “They’re sick people. They’re mentally ill”. As the conversation continued, the person said, of course, we had to go to war with Iran.

With logic like that, well, of course!

As I said, we should not make an effort to overhear conversations that do not include us. (But having been raised with the party line system, it is hard to break old habits.)

In every era, political movements develop talking points. That’s normal and understandable. What history teaches us, however, is how dangerous it is when a movement becomes so dependent on pre‑packaged arguments, no matter how devoid of logic or reason, or often even facts, the messages may be. Over the past decade, a huge swath of the nation has looked at the MAGA movement and argued conclusively that this is precisely what has happened. When Trump supporters start mouthing the words “47 years” and “Iran” in the same sentence, you should be looking for the Kool-Aid container.

What I find fascinating is how quickly and unquestioningly certain narratives spread, even when those narratives are flimsy, contradictory, or disconnected from observable reality. Trump can make the most outlandish and absurd statement, and if people could fashion a t-shirt emblazoned with the statement, it would be worn by sundown. MAGA would repeat it like it was a deeply researched conclusion. (If you want to have fun during your next MAGA conversation, ask for the reading material that led the person making the claim as to how he came to his conclusions.)

Take, for example, the claim that starts out this column. If you listen to Trump’s conservative echo chamber, it appears that the present-day war decisions seem inevitable, even when the timing, justification, or strategic logic is unclear as mud in a glass jar. The lame argument becomes a laughable shield. If something is decades in the making, then questioning the specific choices of Trump becomes irrelevant. The historical claim doesn’t need to be accurate; it only needs to sound authoritative enough to shut down debate.

To that, the majority of the nation says NO!

This ignorant pattern of blindly accepting, repeating ad nauseam, and enthusiastically defending has become a defining feature of the quirky and quacky information ecosystem surrounding MAGA politics. That segment of the nation jettisoned facts faster than a kid with a loose tooth upon hearing money was involved. My concern isn’t just about being wrong on the facts or divorced from them. It’s about the erosion of critical thinking itself. (Not that much of the MAGA base had ever employed such skills in their lifetime.)

When people toss aside even rudimentary reasoning to the likes of Trump, they lose the ability to evaluate claims independently. They stop asking: Does this make sense? Is there evidence? Does this argument contradict the one I made last week? Instead, the only question becomes: Is this what my political tribe is saying today?

This isn’t the first time I have made this argument in a column. Sadly, it will not be the last. But when I hear the 47-year nonsense in relation to Iran, as a justification for Trump’s war, I want to vomit.

The consequences of what MAGA is doing ripple outward. Democracies depend on citizens who can weigh information, challenge their own assumptions, and recognize when they’re being manipulated. (After a decade, one would think even MAGA would clue in that they are being played.) When large segments of the population abandon those critical thinking skills, it becomes easier for misinformation to spread, easier for Trump and his cabinet to avoid accountability, and easier for public debate to collapse into slogans rather than substance.

I have consistently argued that due to the MAGA movement, this is exactly the danger we’re now facing. Not just farcical arguments from them, but a culture that no longer recognizes the difference between a fact and sheer lunacy. A democracy can survive disagreement. What it cannot survive is the disappearance of rational thought and critical thinking.