Chapter 1: The Illusion of Communication

In the United States, many believe that our current struggles with partisanship, the culture wars, and the intense polarization of politics stem from a lack of effective communication. This perspective suggests that the root cause of our issues isn't a fundamental disagreement on governance or doubts about democracy itself, but rather an inability to listen to each other's needs and concerns. In this view, both sides share the blame.

However, I take issue with this notion for a significant reason. The Republican Party's leaders, along with their allies in right-wing media and the party's most vocal supporters, often serve as unreliable narrators in the broader discourse. They frequently engage in bad faith discussions, rely on fallacious reasoning to support their claims, and are willing to spread false or misleading information to maintain their power. In essence, they mislead.

The term "unreliable narrator" was first introduced by Wayne C. Booth in 1961, referring to an individual whose credibility has been compromised through their actions or words. Such narrators appear in both literature and film and can be categorized into various types, including the Pícaro, Madman, Clown, Naïf, and Liar. These classifications often hinge on the narrator's intent to deceive; some may be oblivious, others mentally unstable, while many are simply dishonest. Trust is absent in all cases.

At one point, I pondered how much of their own rhetoric these individuals genuinely believed. Were some truly convinced of their viewpoints, despite the evident delusions? Or was it a coordinated effort from the beginning?

Did they honestly think that tax cuts for the wealthiest would ultimately benefit all by stimulating economic growth? Were they sincere in their interpretation of Jesus' teachings, striving for grace and compassion? Or did they merely view public service as a vehicle for rapid accumulation of power and wealth, exploiting the hopes and fears of an uninformed electorate?

Beyond their beliefs lies a more pressing concern: their refusal to engage with the opposition. They have abandoned any effort to persuade the American public of their superior ideas, opting instead to manipulate the system to secure unfair advantages and maintain power while remaining a minority party. Asking Democrats to engage in good faith negotiations is akin to asking a fox to guard the henhouse.

How can a genuine exchange of ideas occur without a foundation of trust? Consider a debate with a stranger online—someone unknown to you, lacking any real relationship or reason to trust. How does that typically unfold?

I often find myself in discussions with various groups regarding this matter. To clarify, I seldom engage in political debates with individuals I know are staunch Trump supporters. The gap in understanding is vast, and the basis for mutual trust and shared facts is nonexistent.

Moreover, many have been so deeply indoctrinated that they are impervious to the truth when it is presented. They have been inundated with disinformation designed to shield them from reality—ironically, like a vaccine against truth. They are immune.

What remains are the voters who need convincing that priorities such as winning elections and selecting candidates committed to real change are essential for preserving democracy. However, not everyone is aligned with this goal.

The first group consists of Independent Voters who profess disdain for both parties but lean toward the right. They prefer to distance themselves from political engagement, yet will vote Republican if pressed. This group often embodies a both-sides view, criticizing a system they deem corrupt while refraining from efforts to change it.

Next are the Party Loyalists, active individuals who canvass neighborhoods, attend local council meetings, and closely collaborate with their party. They expect everyone to rally around the team and refrain from dissent. To them, criticism signals disloyalty and offers support to adversaries. They remain oblivious to the realities we confront, believing that collective focus can salvage the situation.

Lastly, there are the Peacemakers—dedicated Democrats who generally endorse progressive ideas but hold onto the naive belief in a centrist compromise. They think that understanding the grievances of those with extremist views could resolve our issues.

Independents see both parties as equally flawed, rendering debate on effective governance pointless. Loyalists are convinced that merely persuading friends and neighbors to vote will suffice. Meanwhile, Peacemakers desire harmony above all.

I know this might surprise those familiar with my perspective, but I disagree with all of these viewpoints. While I critique the Democratic Party and our political system, I do not consider both parties to be similarly flawed or equally problematic. Each party has its shortcomings, but only one shows a commitment to governance and the sanctity of a pluralistic democracy, which disqualifies the GOP.

Furthermore, I do not believe we can achieve success through wishful thinking or peaceful protests. We must take decisive actions, even those that may be perceived as underhanded or unkind.

Finally, I do not see our challenges as stemming from a lack of compassion for those who support violence against us. That ship has sailed. We face domestic terrorists and potential fascists. Negotiating with terrorists is futile, and fascists only respond to overwhelming opposition.

Our solution lies in embracing boldness, strength, and a laser focus on safeguarding democracy at all costs. We must establish strong majorities to reverse the damage already inflicted and enact laws that prevent a recurrence. Our goal is not one-party dominance, but rather democracy, the rule of law, and equity for all.

A legitimate adversarial relationship cannot exist if one party disregards the law or the rules. Honest dialogue is impossible if one side refuses to negotiate in good faith or lacks scruples regarding the law. Additionally, engaging in rational conversations with those who deny verifiable facts is futile, as they dismiss truth as mere "fake news."

When adversaries demand that their unfounded conspiracy theories and lies are given equal weight to established facts, we find ourselves, as described in The Princess Bride, at a classic impasse. Yet, there is no battle of wits to engage in.

If only we had some iocaine powder and a suitable black mask.

If you appreciate this analysis, consider following David Todd McCarty for more insights. For those not yet subscribed to Medium, sign up to access all of David’s articles and a plethora of other engaging writers.

Follow David Todd McCarty on Mastodon.