They're Not Going to Come Around

They say the definition of a fool is someone who keeps doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. In that spirit, call me a fool. Because I keep believing that people will finally come around and wake up to the manufactured media narrative, observe its undeniable absurdity, and dismiss it. And that keeps not happening.

The first time I was convinced we were at a sort of event horizon for national sanity was with the Wikileaks and Project Veritas revelations during the election. We were provided with incontrovertible proof that the establishment Democrats and mainstream media were actively colluding to spin a narrative and to prop up a preferred politician. We could read their emails, hear the words coming out of their own mouths. What more proof could you need? Liberals had a brilliant strategy to counter the damning evidence: they simply rejected it. They either ignored it or dismissed the source as biased. What a technique! They label anyone who contradicts their world view as biased, and dismiss anything that appears to be biased. Ergo, they can literally never be contradicted. They can never be proven wrong! This should have been enough to demonstrate the principle: evidence and reason won't work on our opponents. Oh, but how we try anyway!

The next example came on election night. We had been saying for weeks the polls were wrong, and had been called conspiracy theorists in response. Many an argument were had on social media about the topic. The results showed the Trump supporters as vindicated. The polls and media predictions are completely off. It would seem that to anyone with a brain this was proof that the media wasn't reliable in these matters and strong evidence to support the claim of widescale media bias and dishonesty. (Coupled with the Wikileaks the case was effectively made.) Liberals didn't linger on these thoughts for a second. Instead, they almost immediately congregated in our nation's cities dressed as female genitalia. Still, we thought our best bet was to counter these reactions through argumentation.

Next came the Russian conspiracy, which wasn't actually new. Hillary and her media allies had made it the most discussed theme of the presidential debates. Yet even after being the premiere issue of the debates, it rose an order of magnitude following Trump's victory. At no point was any substantive evidence produced. The major "evidence" was that the DNCs hired investigators decided in a day it was the work of Russia (which they have since backed off of) and that it seemed like something the Russians might do. That was it. The intelligence community issued a report that provided no evidence, resorting to talk of internet trolls. Surely this was so ridiculous that anyone in their right mind would see the desperate smear job by both the intelligence community and the media. But no, to this day many people think that absurd document is all the proof they need. But it got even better. The infamous Russian dossier story, which Buzzfeed broke, was ludicrous beyond comprehension. No right-wing satirist could have even in jest concocted such an absurdity, which is yet more support for the claim promoted on this blog that The Left Can No Longer Be Satirized. Even after everything, I honestly believed that the fallout from this absolute circus would destroy the mainstream media. And yet nothing really changed. It didn't matter. They can turn the absurdity to 11 and most liberals will just keep believing what they hear. It really is mind-boggling.

Then there was the tax returns fiasco. You would think that after she so thoroughly embarrassed herself in front of a record audience, that Rachel Maddow wouldn't show her face in public again, and that no one would dare use her as some sort of source in social media. Yet she shows up on my facebook feed all the time. No one cares that she didn't just make herself look like an idiot, but also made millions of people and DNC officials who had hyped up the tax return non-scandal for months look like idiots. It doesn't matter how wrong she was; if she's saying what the left wants to here right now, she's right.

Currently, we're in the middle of Supreme Court nomination drama. If you wanted to prove that Democrats would oppose anyone Trump appointed, the best political move for him would be to nominate someone the Democrats had previously supported. Which is what Trump did when he nominated Gorsuch, who was unanimously approved by Senate Democrats to the circuit court, by current senators such as Chuck Schumer, and other Democrat bigwigs like Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. Not only are Democrats now all of the sudden opposed to him, but they've decided that for the first time in all of American history, a Supreme Court nominee will be filibustered by the Senate, a candidate they unanimously supported until Trump nominated him. You won't find any greater proof of their unreasonable nature than that.

The big story now is the wiretapping scandal breaking loose. I have to ask: even if Jeff Sessions' Justice Department can put together a rock solid case against Obama and his cronies abusing foreign intelligence capabilities to spy on a political opponent, will it matter? Liberals won't come around on this. If they were capable, they would have done so after the Wikileaks. Not only will they not come around, but the media will so poison the public perception that Obama's administration will be largely exonerated in the court of public opinion long before anything comes to a grand jury. Does it matter what evidence is brought? No, clearly it does not. Liberals won't believe it is anything but a political witch hunt no matter what the evidence is. I can't say it enough: it doesn't matter what the evidence is. This is, of course, the definition of irrationality.

Assuming there is strong evidence of crimes, there are three ways this can go, the first two of which benefit the right.

1. The case is brought and high-level officials of the Obama administration are sent to prison.
2. The case is brought with little resulting punishment; at most some staffers are sacrificed. The precedent is set that spying during an election is safe and Trump claims those powers for himself.
3. The case is brought with little punishment. The precedent is set, but Trump chooses not to use the newly permitted powers. Democrats regain power and regain their abuse of their positions of authority.

There's plenty of reason to worry that #3 will be the outcome. It would be a big mistake. The only thing to lose by assuming those powers is the opposition will cry foul. But they will cry foul no matter what Trump does, and they will defend their own not matter what the evidence is. The biggest mistake would be to act reasonable under the assumption the left will respond accordingly. They're not going to come around. If evidence and arguments were going to work, they would have by now.