Published writings are often times judged not on content or truthfulness, but on the intention of the writer. It’s as if we are all worried more about the impact on the sheeple than we are on the truths in the document. Agendas can be seen in the speeches and documents produced by politicians, clergymen and economists. This is often at the price of truth. The basic tenet of democracy is that people, when given the facts, can figure out the correct course of action. The argument against it is people are not smart enough, and too reactionary, to survive without the intervention of leaders. The compromise is a Republic, like our own, where people elect representatives to make the decisions. When they speak it is often on the anticipated result among the populace their speeches are judged, not on the truthfulness therein.
There is a certain amount of arrogance in those making these judgements. The first point is they can only guess at what the reaction might be. That assumes people will respond to the speeches and tweets of politicians like a vast army of zombies. In other words; the belief people can’t think for themselves.
The second failure of these critics is their assumption the response of the people won’t be a good thing. How can it be said with certainty the public would not respond in a positive manner? Or, if some people do respond in a negative manner it wouldn’t, overall, have a positive effect?
An example might be the plethora of police shootings of unarmed black citizens in the 2010’s. With this argument if could be said these events should have been covered up. The anticipation of race riots and terrorist attacks in the name of racial injustice could harm society. Antagonistic behavior might increase in both black and white populations and catastrophically tailspin toward a race war.
The actual result was the “Black Lives Matter” movement. It was for the most part peaceful and shows us; even in a time of crisis and fear, the US black population is not some volatile, unruly mob. This is an example of a positive result from a negative event. It also flies in the face of critics who are afraid of the truth because it may scare people. There are times when people need to be scared. Hiding the truth and criticizing those who seek to reveal it is criminal, whether intentional or negligent.
When it comes to conspiratorial thinking, critics really come out of the woodwork. Some conspiracies are wrong, and some are not. Even making a judgement on the validity of their theories can be arrogant. Some people might just be trying to get others to think. To really analyze their statements one must research the claims to their maximum ability. It simply doesn’t serve the good to stifle these theorists. If one feels the need to go after a conspiratorial theory it should be through the use of sound argument, not censorship.
Historically, Republics have not survived. Rome became a Republic in 509 BC and through subterfuge became a Monarchy (Roman Empire) in 27 BC. It would be a shame to watch history repeat itself. There still exists on the global political spectrum a “free” world and a not so free world. Theocracies and monarchies are the norm. Almost all of them provide the pretense of being a democracy which are thin veils of the true nature of despotic regimes. The US bolsters this freedom globally. If we use history as our guide, internal threats to our democracy are the ones we must be wary of. If our nation falls to fascism it will be from the inside. Lies are their greatest weapons.