Want to know what do those three things have in common? Perception. Donald Trump did some seemingly incongruous things this week. First, he met with a fair number of outright liberals, then he nominated two cabinet positions with individuals that liberals have claimed are going to ruin their respective agencies and, by extension, the U.S.. Sigh.
So how does this all tie in? I’ll tell you. Let’s go back to any particular President picking their cabinet. There is always a clash between the ideas of the incoming administration and the outgoing – that’s the way it works. I can guarantee you that right-wingers were not happy in 2008 with President Obama’s cabinet picks and protested and whined as well. Only time will tell how those persons will pan out. In the case of Obama’s picks for Attorney General(s) and U.N. Ambassador, for example, not so well. In terms of other positions – markedly better. We’ll see. There is also this thing called a ‘confirmation process’, so none of these picks are a done deal. Several nominees of Obama’s were not confirmed and I would expect some of these nominees to suffer a similar fate. That’s the Art of the Deal, right? Negotiations. Maybe these are just the first wave that will take the flack and force Democrats to expend political capital, while the ‘real’ nominees behind them are waiting in the wings. We have no way of knowing.
Wait, read that last line again. “We have no way of knowing”. This brings me to the “Fake” news issue and Hillary Clinton. There has ALWAYS been ‘fake’ news – there are just more and more and more media outlets for that news now. That is the drawback of a free and open society (and by extension, internet). People are allowed to have their own thoughts and beliefs, no matter how nutty (see: Pizzagate). When Hillary Clinton, however, refers to fake news (under the guise of Pizzagate), she is not in fact referring to THAT kind of fake news but rather the kind that she disagrees with on a more substantive basis. I would argue that if given a lie detector test and asked about the whole email scandal/server issue – she would classify that as “fake” news. Ditto for Clinton Foundation. Ditto for the F.B.I probe. Ditto for probably any story that emerged from the leaked Podesta emails. Now, she wants to draw the connection between (a) her failed campaign, (b) “fake news” and (c) defining “fake news” as aka ‘Pizzagate’, but in reality it is (d) any story that she feels caused her candidacy to tank. That will be the narrative moving forward to rehab her legacy – I can assure you. Fairly soon, Pizzagate will be forgotten, but ‘fake news’ will continue to be a talking point that will grow to encompass all of those things I mentioned she feels derailed her candidacy.
Which brings me back to the successful candidacy of Donald J. Trump and his cabinet picks and ‘fake’ news. If you do research on his cabinet picks, they are either the worst people imaginable, or they are American heroes. There are credible news sources that make sincere, sober arguments on both sides. One side has to be more right than the other at the end of the day….so does that make the other side ‘fake’? We need to be careful how we bandy about words, for sure. Let’s start with not using the word ‘fake’ when it comes down to matters of perception- instead using it to define matters of provable ‘fact’. This has always been my problem with the climate change argument.People are taking ‘fact’ then making predictions and declaring those predictions as synonymous with the facts. They are not. They are interpretations, and no matter how well grounded in scientific principal they are, they need to be explained as such and people need to be persuaded honestly. Now, it’s time for HRC to go back to wherever she’s been holed up and take her fake narratives with her…..