Some would argue that they get plenty of help from Trump himself in the way he Tweets and the way he communicates in general.
But there’s a point where you have to consider the source before you allow the incessant din of negative press to influence your perspective and, more importantly, your vote.
Trump’s detractors have a bad habit of hijacking certain words in the English language and use their implied meaning to distract from the true purpose behind the use of those terms.
- Lie – something that Trump has said that the Left doesn’t agree with and can’t effectively refute
- Fascism – that time frame when a Democrat neither occupies the Oval Office nor the majority
- Hatemonger – a personality that doesn’t cower in the face of bad press
- Mysoginist – government official who refuses to force employers to financially support a female’s sexual lifestyle
- Racist – person who sees an individual as someone who’s responsible for their actions
- American Nationalism – the mindset that believes it’s appropriate to protect and promote those things that make America unique and special
Taken together you have a literary pool from which to draw from that, when combined with intentionally incomplete information, you can sound compelling yet not be entirely accurate. And while your content may be ethical as far as it not being technically false, it is nevertheless toxic because of it being presented as a completed puzzle rather than a mere puzzle piece.
You see this illustrated in the 2017 article published by the New York Times entitled, “Trump’s Lies.” I supposedly detailed over 100 lies that Trump had supposedly told during his first 100 days in office. But with minimal digging, you can see for yourself that the Times is not reporting falsehoods as much as they are identifying things they don’t agree with and referring to them as “lies.” Click here to see for yourself.
Losers and Suckers
In addition, you have situations like the story that was recently printed in, “The Atlantic” entitled, “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’.” Within an hour, most of the major news publications were reprinting the story of how President Trump referred to the soldiers buried in France who lost their lives at the Battle of Belleau Wood. Those who despise Trump were only too happy to throw their two cents in and repeat the diatribe that, more often than not, is more sensation than it is substance.
The article itself is based on a very flimsy journalistic foundation. Jeffrey Goldberg, the author of the article, claims that Trump’s comments were verified by four “anonymous” sources. However dubious that sounds, it is nevertheless perceived as a substantive testimony and all the world is justified in perceiving Trump as a vulgar fiend.
But is it true?
Since the article was published, no less than 20 individuals who were present at the time the alleged comments were made have insisted that Trump did no such thing. Goldberg himself as admitted that some of what was asserted in the article may be false.
But to what extent do you hear what amounts to both a retraction as well as a body of evidence that compelling labels Goldberg’s accusations as bogus? And is it circulated with the same kind of enthusiasm as the original indictment?
Not a whisper and a big, fat, “No!”
What You’ve Been Told
Most of what we know about the world is based on what we’ve been told. Moreover, it’s not just what we’ve been told as much as it’s what we choose to hear. If you’re inclined to think of humanity as its own absolute, the Democrat party specializes in labels, mobs and crowds to justify the condemnation of whole systems in order to vindicate the individual and thereby awarding them a default nobility and an assumed morality. It’s not so much that God is dead as much as it’s God is gone and His Perspective is replaced with a person’s “right to be happy.” However obvious or appropriate that might sound, it’s not a person’s right to be happy as much as it’s a person having the authority to redefine that which is good and that which is evil.
On the other hand, if you’re convinced that the only qualified individual who can effectively lead our country in a way that promotes and protects Biblical Absolutes is one that can quote Scripture and abstain from anything even remotely crass, you will find yourself at an impasse when pondering all that Trump has done to preserve and apply our spiritual heritage and compare that to the self absorbed fiend the media would have you believe him to be.
At Some Point…
At some point you have to think with your mind and not your feelings. You can’t read with your ears nor can you substitute sound bites for substance.
You have to consider the source.
Whether you’re listening to a journalist, an activist or a self proclaimed political commentator, you have to process what they’re saying recognizing that some would believe they can speak something into existence simply because they want it to be real. Facts, however accurate they may be, are nevertheless pieces of a much larger whole and regardless of the name of the resource or the number of letters after the expert being cited, you have to consider the source and be ready to think for yourself rather than allowing others to do your thinking for you.
Journalism is an honorable vocation provided it’s journalism and not activism. And even citing Scripture as the premise upon which you want to build your perspective is healthy provided it’s theology and not sociology (see sidebar). So, however passionate or credible the voice may be, you have to consider the source. Only then are you guaranteed accurate perspectives, practical solutions and…
…a qualified leader.
You have to consider the source.
1. “Unmasked”, L. Brent Bozell III, Tim Graham, Humanix Books, West Palm Beach, FL, 2019, p1