Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the NYU Stern School of Business, recently wrote an article for The Atlantic comparing our currently fractured and fragmented society with what is described in the Bible following the building and ultimate destruction of the Tower of Babel. In his article, entitled “Why the Past Ten Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” Haidt recounts how before the Tower was built, the people were one, sharing a common language, common references, and a common reality. After the Tower was built and then destroyed—some say by God—the people splintered into factions, speaking different languages, using different references, and living different realities.
Sound familiar? Haidt thinks so.
Rather than having a Tower to blame for our current fragmented society, Haidt points the finger of blame at social media. He writes:
“Social scientists have identified at least three major forces that collectively bind together successful democracies: social capital (extensive social networks with high levels of trust), strong institutions, and shared stories. Social media has weakened all three.”
The “shared stories” part of Haidt’s quote jumped out at me. I have been amazed in recent years how people living in the same country, often the same state or city, can have such wildly divergent views of reality. For comparison’s sake, consider the United States during the Vietnam War.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Americans got their news about the war from local newspapers, national newspapers, magazines, and TV network news. For the most part, all of these outlets presented a similar view of reality. There were no wild speculations, conspiracy theories, or easily debunked claims about the war, at least not coming from the sources we depended on to shape our reality.
Despite the cohesiveness of our information sources, people drew very different conclusions about the war. Some supported it, some opposed it, but everyone saw the reality of it in the same light. We all saw the video footage, we all heard the same reports, and we all accepted the truth of what we were seeing and hearing.
If the Vietnam War were to happen today, as a society, we could not agree on the reality of the war or the circumstances surrounding it. Some would support it, some would oppose it, some would claim it was being orchestrated by a race of lizard people, some would blame George Soros and other liberal billionaires, some would claim it was nothing more than a conservative plot to distract us from the truth of climate change, and others would swear that the war wasn’t real and was being produced on a sound stage in Hollywood. And all of the claims would have some platform wiling to spread the claim, regardless of whether or not there were facts available to support it. Our reality is fragmented to the point where we no longer live in the same world as our family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers.
The American Founding Fathers may not have envisioned the rise of social media, but they did have a fear for what social media has ultimately wrought. Haidt points to the anger and outrage that social media often produces, and says this about our Founding Fathers:
“It was just this kind of twitchy and explosive spread of anger that James Madison had tried to protect us from as he was drafting the U.S. Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution were excellent social psychologists. They knew that democracy had an Achilles’ heel because it depended on the collective judgment of the people, and democratic communities are subject to ‘the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions’…The tech companies that enhanced virality from 2009 to 2012 brought us deep into Madison’s nightmare. Many authors quote his comments in “Federalist No. 10” on the innate human proclivity toward ‘faction,’ by which he meant our tendency to divide ourselves into teams or parties that are so inflamed with “mutual animosity” that they are “much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good…But that essay continues on to a less quoted yet equally important insight, about democracy’s vulnerability to triviality. Madison notes that people are so prone to factionalism that ‘where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.”
Even in Madison’s day, there was a concern for “alternative facts.” In Madison’s day, falsehoods could spread because it was difficult to distribute information based in reality. No wide-spread outlets existed to share the truth of what was going on in the world. Today, with the internet and social media, everyone has the ability to spread their version of reality, regardless of whether facts exist to support the spreaders version of reality or not.
I say all of this as a kind of prelude to the larger point I would like to make about our current fragmentation. Haidt is correct that social media has played a major role in our societal fragmentation, but at least for me, his article paints a picture of us as helplessness victims to an all-powerful social media. I don’t see it that way. Despite social media’s ability to spread lies as well as or better than the truth, the truth is still out there for us to access.
One of the tactics used by the MAGA movement—and voiced by one of the architects of that movement, Steve Bannon—is to “flood the zone with shit.” What Bannon and others mean by that turn of phrase is to overload people with so much information that they don’t know what to believe. As a result, they give up on the concept of truth. Instead, they turn to a strongman—in this case, Donald Trump—and believe whatever he says. They ignore news outlets that say anything against their fact-free beliefs and gravitate toward those outlets that tell them what they already believe. And they continue to follow those outlets, even when the outlets are exposed for spreading falsehoods, preferring to believe a comfortable lie than a difficult truth.
I recently read a social media post that illustrates this point well. It involves a conversation between two men, Dan and Denny. I won’t use their last names because my intention isn’t to shame or expose anyone. I simply want to illustrate what people believe and say when they’ve given up on the concept of truth and have chosen to accept lies rather than seek facts.
The exchange between Dan and Denny started when Dan posted on his Facebook page. His post read:
“Waking up to not hearing my Trump friends say a single word about his tyranny. Shameful!”
In the comments, Dan explained that he had posted the quote to give his Trump-supporting friends a chance to comment on what Dan believed was tyrannical behavior by President Trump. It’s worth noting that Dan is very good about having informed, civil conversations on his Facebook page and calling out people who are rude or who resort to name-calling.
Dan’s friend Denny, a supporter of the President, chimed in with the following comment:
“Ok there’s so much here. 1st of all Dan, I’m lucky if I get on Facebook once a week if not less so that’s why you don’t hear a response from me. I prefer to spend my free time doing other things.
“2nd, he (Trump) is a convicted felon because he was targeted by his political opposition.
“3rd the Jan 6 shit is what it is, shit. We’re there a few bad people there? Yes but not all of them. Whoever they could identify went to jail just because they were there. Insurrection?? Please, like 300 rednecks are going to overthrow the govt. The word was used to make it sound more serious and then Harris compares it to 9/11, Wow! Most of those people were wrongly imprisoned all because they wanted to connect Trump to it. Then Biden pardons the Jan 6 committee. Why? They will still investigate it and investigate the pardons. Biden isn’t pardoned. Dems and the media criticized Trump because they thought he would pardon his family but he didn’t because there’s no reason to pardon. Then Biden pardons his family and many others and silence from the libs and media.
“4th, now this one is so ridiculous. The nazi salute. Have you seen all the pics of about every top democrat doing the same thing? Did you call them nazis? If you watch the video, you will see that when he puts his hand on heart he says My heart is with you. And when he puts his hand out, it’s turned sideways a little. I can’t believe you all still call the right nazis, they aren’t the ones who want socialism. You know he is on the spectrum for autism right? Therefore that’s why he is awkward in many social settings. I’ve seen many people post this salute thing and I just shake my head but when you did it Dan, I was surprised because I just figured you would know it was bs.
“5th, what has he done the 1st 4 days that make him a tyrant?”
“6th, It’s actually quite exhausting constantly reading the same shit, that’s why I don’t get on here that much anymore. Now by the time you respond to this, I might not be back for 5 days or so lol”
The first thing I want to point out about Denny’s response is the way he presents his opinions and beliefs (none of which are really responsive to Dan’s original post) without providing any supporting facts. For instance, he says that the only reason Trump is a felon is because he was targeted by his political opposition. He neglects to provide any support for his statement, and he ignores the overwhelming evidence that contradicts his contention.
Likewise, he claims that the January 6 attack on the Capitol was not an insurrection because it only involved a few hundred “rednecks,” as if the term “insurrection” doesn’t have an actual definition. Again, he didn’t engage with any facts. He simply gave an opinion that, with even the slightest bit of research (i.e., Google) would have revealed that the January 6 attack on the Capitol was not only an insurrection by definition, but it has been held to have been an insurrection by courts across the country.
Let’s dissect Denny’s post, applying facts (as opposed to opinions) about what he had to say.
“2nd, he (Trump) is a convicted felon because he was targeted by his political opposition.”
Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsification of business records by a court in New York. The indictment against Trump was issued by a Grand Jury, and he was prosecuted in a NY trial court. The jury was made up of his peers, and his attorneys, along with the prosecutor, were involved in selecting the members of the jury.
At trial, Trump was defended by attorneys of his own choosing and was allowed to call witnesses in his defense. Those that testified included his former attorney, the editor of The National Enquirer who was and is his friend, as well as former and current employees of his company. None of his political opponents were involved in the trial. The jury of his peers heard all of the testimony and ultimately convicted him on all 34 counts.
Those who share a belief with Denny that Trump was railroaded by his political enemies often claim that Joe Biden initiated the prosecution. Of course, Trump was prosecuted in New York—his former home and where the crimes took place—and Biden had no authority over prosecutions in New York.
People who share Denny’s belief also often point to the fact that the prosecutor in Manhattan, where the trial took place, is a Democrat. While true, this is hardly proof of Trump being targeted. Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan prosecutor, is charged with prosecuting crimes in his jurisdiction, and despite him being a Democrat, there are safeguards in the system to make sure that prosecutors are not carrying out political vendettas. Could it happen? Sure, but it wouldn’t be easy and there’s no evidence, other than the political affiliation of the prosecutor and the defendant, to suggest that anything untoward happened in Trump’s prosecution.
“3rd the Jan 6 shit is what it is, shit. We’re there a few bad people there? Yes but not all of them. Whoever they could identify went to jail just because they were there. Insurrection?? Please, like 300 rednecks are going to overthrow the govt. The word was used to make it sound more serious and then Harris compares it to 9/11, Wow! Most of those people were wrongly imprisoned all because they wanted to connect Trump to it. Then Biden pardons the Jan 6 committee. Why? They will still investigate it and investigate the pardons. Biden isn’t pardoned. Dems and the media criticized Trump because they thought he would pardon his family but he didn’t because there’s no reason to pardon. Then Biden pardons his family and many others and silence from the libs and media.”
There’s a lot here to unpack. Let’s start with Denny’s claim that people went to jail just because they were there at the Capitol on January 6. Of course, this isn’t true. In round numbers, 1600 people were convicted of crimes for their behavior on January 6. About 1000 were convicted of misdemeanors (trespassing, destruction of property) and about 600 were convicted of violent felonies and/or sedition. It’s important to point out that when I say convicted, I also mean people who pled guilty rather than going to trial.
We all saw the video evidence of what went on at the Capitol on January 6. Despite claims to the contrary, the assault on the Capitol was a bloody, violent affair, with protestors using anything they could get their hands on, including flag poles, fire extinguishers, bear spray, pepper spray, bike racks, etc., to assault police and break windows to gain entry to the Capitol. We also know from Secret Service reports that several protestors had guns with them that day.
There can be no doubt that the people who were arrested and convicted for their actions on January 6 deserved to be prosecuted. Unlike what Denny claimed, they were not just in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were caught on video—often video taken by themselves and posted to social media—committing criminal acts. There is no evidence to back up the assertion that innocent bystanders were rounded up and wrongly prosecuted just because they attended the Stop the Steal rally on January 6.
Was January 6 an insurrection? According to the Oxford Dictionary, an insurrection is “a violent uprising against an authority or government.” Britannica goes a bit further and defines an insurrection as “an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt.”
So, at least colloquially, what happened on January 6 meets the definition of insurrection. But what about the legal definition?
Under 18 U.S. Code § 2383—Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Courts have held that three elements must be present for an insurrection to have occurred: (1) A violent uprising, (2) Organized resistance to the government or it’s regulations, and (3) Acts intended to disrupt, overthrow, or challenge the authority of the United States.
Notice, none of these definitions or court holdings require that the insurrection be well organized. They don’t require that a certain number of people participate in the insurrection, and they do not require the insurrection to be successful before it can legally be called an insurrection.
So, to Denny’s point, the number of people (redneck or not) is immaterial. His claim that the word “insurrection” was used just to make it sound more serious seems to be nothing more than projection on Denny’s part. In fact, I would submit that Denny’s use of the word “redneck” and his claim that there were only 300 people involved, even though 1600 were convicted of various crimes, is an attempt to downplay the insurrection, making it seem less serious than it actually was. Of course, those are just my opinions. I don’t have any evidence to prove Denny’s motivation or intention.
Denny claims people were wrongly imprisoned because they wanted to connect Trump to it. I assume Denny means Democrats when he uses the word “they” and he means the insurrection when he uses the word “it.”
So, is there any evidence that anyone was wrongly imprisoned? I know some Trump supporters, like Denny, believe that, but I’m not aware of any evidence to support that notion. Of course, Denny didn’t provide any evidence to support his own claim, so it’s hard to know what he is basing his opinion on. What I will say is that courts were involved in all of the trials and plea agreements, and all of the defendants either had legal counsel or the right to legal counsel, which they waived. Prosecutors cannot convict on their own. There are safeguards in place to make sure defendants’ rights are observed. And to the best of my knowledge, no evidence has been presented that would support Denny’s claim of wrongful prosecutions or convictions.
It’s hard to understand, and therefore respond to, Denny’s beliefs about pardons for the January 6 Committee or for Biden’s family. I’m not sure what point he’s trying to make, so I’ll just let that one go.
“4th, now this one is so ridiculous. The nazi salute. Have you seen all the pics of about every top democrat doing the same thing? Did you call them nazis? If you watch the video, you will see that when he puts his hand on heart he says My heart is with you. And when he puts his hand out, it’s turned sideways a little. I can’t believe you all still call the right nazis, they aren’t the ones who want socialism. You know he is on the spectrum for autism right? Therefore that’s why he is awkward in many social settings. I’ve seen many people post this salute thing and I just shake my head but when you did it Dan, I was surprised because I just figured you would know it was bs.
Again, there’s a lot to unpack here. First, did Elon Musk give a Nazi salute? It’s hard to know for sure. He didn’t just do it once, he did it twice. Musk says it wasn’t a Nazi salute. However, far right-wing groups, including Nazi groups in the United States and in Germany, took it to be a Nazi salute. Musk’s own daughter said she believes it was a Nazi salute and that it was done intentionally. So, it’s hard to say with any confidence either way. But I will point out Denny’s certainty that is was not a Nazi salute as well as his lack of fact-based support for that assertion. As with many of Denny’s claims, they are opinions stated as facts, but in truth are not facts. They are unsupported opinions.
I find this next statement from Denny interesting. He says “I can’t believe you all still call the right nazis, they aren’t the ones who want socialism.” This statement indicates that Denny does not know the history of Nazism, the definition of socialism, or both.
Nazism is a far-right political ideology that was embraced by Hitler and the Germans prior to and during World War II. Despite the name of the Nazi Party—The Nationalist Socialist German Worker’s Party—the Nazis were neither socialists nor a party intent on benefitting workers. They were nationalistic, anti-Marx (Karl Marx is considered the father of the modern socialist movement), and racist. On the political spectrum, they were far to the right.
By contrast, socialism is an economic ideology that believes that the means of production and distribution should be controlled and regulated by the people (usually defined as the workers). Marx saw socialism as a necessary step away from capitalism and toward communism. Socialism is far left on the political spectrum.
Contrary to what a lot of Americans have been taught and believe, things like Social Security, Medicare, entitlement programs such as food stamps, the national highway system, etc. are not in and of themselves socialist. They are perfectly in keeping with a well-regulated free-market, capitalist economy. In fact, I would argue that they are mandated by the Preamble to the Constitution that sets out the three main aims of the government as establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, and promoting the general welfare.
Never in the history of the United States have we widely embraced a socialist agenda. The fear of socialism has been so overblown in the United States that we still have people stoking those fears even while an authoritarian (some would say fascist) is elected to the presidency. Denny provides a good example of someone who has been trained to (1) fear socialism, (2) equate Democrats and/or liberals with socialism, (3) is blind to the fascist tendencies of his own preferred president, all while not understanding socialism.
I point out Denny’s lack of understanding not to shame or humiliate him, but to point out the willingness of so many to spout a belief or opinion without any factual grounding. Or worse, to believe that their opinion is just as valid as your fact. Of course, that’s a ridiculous belief, but it is one that is held by a lot of people within the MAGA movement.
“5th, what has he done the 1st 4 days that make him a tyrant?”
Although Denny isn’t making a statement here, I take his question to mean that he doesn’t believe that in the first four days of his new administration, Trump has done anything that would be considered tyrannical.
Again, facts matter. As Dan pointed out to Denny, in his first four days in office, Trump signed Executive Orders or otherwise made arrangements to:
- Suspend a portion of the 14th Amendment that deals with birthright citizenship
- Offer support for military action to take Greenland and the Panama Canal by force
- Unilaterally suspend immigration, including canceling appointments with asylum seekers
- Pardon or commute the sentences of all people arrested and convicted for both misdemeanors and felonies associated with January 6
- Withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement
- Withdraw from the World Health Organization
Despite Dan’s best efforts to engage Denny, he never responded.
It’s been a long time coming, but here is the bottom line point I want to make: Like society as a whole, Dan and Denny are currently living in two different worlds. Dan has chosen to remain factual, allowing the facts to guide his opinions and beliefs. Denny has done the opposite, allowing his opinions and beliefs to override any facts that might inconveniently challenge his world view.
Because of these different ways of engaging with the world, we live in different realities. For the past four years, Denny likely believed that immigrants were pouring over the border, raping and killing Americans, and stealing our jobs. I’ll bet he also believed that our economy was horrible, crime was out of control, our cities were overrun by illegal immigrant gang members, and that Haitian immigrants were eating dogs. The fact that none of this was true likely only made Denny double down on his beliefs and opinions, ignoring any facts that challenged or contradicted his world view.
By contrast, Dan relied on facts to determine what he believed. He did his homework and found out that border crossings were lower at the end of Biden’s term than the end of Trump’s first term. He learned that our economy had rebounded incredibly following Covid and was the strongest in the world. He found out that crime hit a fifty year low during the Biden Administration. He learned that the claims made by Trump that cities like Portland and Seattle had been taken over by gangs and ANTIFA was a lie, just like it was a lie when Trump claimed that Haitians were eating dogs in Dan’s home state of Ohio. And when Dan learned the facts, he formed beliefs and opinions based on what he had learned.
We have been given the powers of logic, discernment, and rational thinking. We don’t have to believe what others want us to believe. We can investigate for ourselves and find the truth. It’s out there. But unlike on X-Files, it’s not that hard to find. We don’t have to live in separate realities. There is one fact-based reality and it’s available to all of us. But until we’re all living in it, our society is going to remain fragmented and our politics polarized.
There’s much more to Haidt’s article than I discussed here. But to me, until we all get on the same page and share a common story, things will not improve. Haidt’s ultimate goal is compromise, which I find strange. How can we compromise with the truth. Should we accept a few lies for the sake of compromise? I don’t think so.
As I said earlier, fact matters. And until we all embrace facts and stop inventing lies designed to explain away our unsupported beliefs we can never have a harmonious society. Because a shared reality—a shared story—is necessary for a harmonious society to exist.
When Barack Obama was elected President in 2008, Republicans in Congress met and agreed that their charge was to make sure that he became a one term president. They banded together, and worked to thwart Obama’s agenda and to elect a Republican when the next presidential election rolled around.
Donald Trump seems to really like Vladamir Putin, President of Russia. He refers favorably to Putin often, and I’ve yet to hear him criticize the Russian President, which is notable because criticism comes easily to Trump. His policies favor Russia, and he opposes policies from former administrations designed to sanction the former Soviet flagship. But does that mean Trump is a Russian asset? I don’t know, but…
This past February 15 was the anniversary of the mass shooting in my hometown of Aurora, IL. On that day in 2019, six people were killed, including the perpetrator, and seven people were injured, including six cops. The Police Chief in Aurora at that time was 
Donald Trump, in the opening days of his second term in the White House, has revealed a huge scandal involving the US Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID is a government program that makes grants, primarily in poor and developing countries. Trump and others in the MAGA movement have been ultra critical of these grants recently, claiming that they take US taxpayer dollars and provide extravagances for foreign countries while Americans go hungry and homeless.
Jimmy Buffett lived an enviable life. He spent his days in the sunshine, seemed to always have a good time, played music for adoring fans, and he became wealthy in the process. Love him or hate him, Jimmy knew how to live.
John Nance Garner, known to many as “Cactus Jack,” may be most famous for his time as Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president, but his legacy extends far beyond that. A prominent Texas congressman, Garner was known for his bold ideas and his enduring love for his home state. One of his most audacious proposals was the suggestion that Texas could, and perhaps should, break itself into five distinct states—a notion that has lingered as a fascinating “what-if” in the state’s history.
Following the 2024 Presidential Election, I unplugged for a while. I spent much less time on social media, I stopped watching news programs and reading political articles, and I stopped writing on the blog. I needed a break from what was an intense, eye-opening, and disappointing campaign and election season, and I didn’t feel much like working on any extracurricular writing.
“It’s gonna be so much fun. It’ll be nasty… at the beginning in particular… You’re gonna see things that you’re not gonna believe” –Donald Trump, on the first days of his second term