Propaganda

Question 1

Biden as an Authoritarian: A Phony Talking Point - Lucid, 2021

Answer 1

The Republican narrative that Democrats, under President Biden, are a threat to American liberty and are pushing a left-wing authoritarian agenda is gaining traction, with Fox News and other conservative media outlets amplifying this message. This rhetoric, designed to stoke fear and anger, portrays Biden as a dictator and associates his policies, such as public welfare measures and health mandates, with socialism and tyranny. Conservatives, including media personalities and faith leaders, use this narrative to galvanize their base, spreading the idea that the U.S. is on the verge of a Marxist takeover. This strategy not only fuels political polarization but also incites calls for violent action, as seen in events like the “Justice for J6” rally. As the GOP adopts more authoritarian tactics, such as suppressing voting and criminalizing protest, the rhetoric will escalate, further framing Democrats as destroyers of freedom. It is crucial for Democrats to counter this narrative by calling out the “Biden as authoritarian” claim as baseless and dangerous, as it threatens democracy and fuels division.

Question 2

In 2022, Reality Has a Conservative Bias - American Enterprise Institute; 2022

Answer 2

Key Points:
Colbert’s 2006 Quip: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias” reflected how events at the time—like the Iraq War’s failure and the 2008 financial crisis—undermined Republican policies.
G.O.P. Misjudgments (2003-2012): Republicans miscalculated the impact of the Iraq War, underestimated financial risks, and incorrectly predicted economic collapse due to Obama-era policies like deficit spending and Obamacare.
Reality’s Shift to a Conservative Bias: In 2022, Democrats face challenges that counter their policy assumptions:
Inflation: Excessive COVID-era stimulus led to the highest inflation since the 1980s.
Border Crisis: A lax stance on immigration enforcement resulted in record illegal crossings.
Crime Spike: Efforts to reduce incarceration coincided with rising homicide rates, reversing decades of progress.
Dynamic Nature of Ideology: Political beliefs can be effective for a time but eventually require adjustment as circumstances change. Democrats must adapt, just as Republicans had to in the past.
Trump as an Example: Despite inconsistencies, Trump adjusted Republican priorities to align with reality, shifting focus from deficits to economic growth and reevaluating past foreign policy mistakes. Democrats now need a leader who can similarly recalibrate their agenda.

Question 3

Does reality have a liberal bias? - Quora Comments

Answer 3

• Not according to the definition of reality. Objective truth, which describes reality, is independent of any political ideology. Reality is information or facts that are verifiable and supported by evidence. It exists independently of personal beliefs or political orientations.
  However, the interpretation and application of facts can vary based on individual perspectives, values, and biases. Different political ideologies, including liberalism, conservatism, and others, have distinct approaches to interpreting and applying facts to support their definitions of reality.

“Reality has a liberal bias” is attributed to comedian, author, and political satirist Stephen Colbert. He coined this phrase while hosting “The Colbert Report,” a satirical news show. The idea highlights a perceived bias in media coverage and public perception, suggesting that the truth or facts of a situation align more closely with liberal perspectives. That said, in today’s post-truth news ecosystem, the phrase rings of truthiness, as Colbert would say.

• As far as I know, “reality has a well-known liberal bias” is a quote from Steven Colbert, which may be based on “The facts have a well-known liberal bias”, a quote from Rob Corddry a couple of years earlier. Or not.

I think there’s an important distinction between “conservative” and “liberal” in the generic sense, and how specifically these are defined in modern America. So I first want to look at the more generic case.

Conservatism and Liberalism: Historical Context
Two Schools of Conservatism:

Traditionalists aim to preserve the status quo and institutions.

Reactionaries seek to return to an idealized past that often never existed.

Liberalism: Originated in the Age of Reason, challenging monarchy, state religion, and advocating for democracy, rights, and the rule of law.

Conservatism in U.S. History: Traditionally opposed social change (e.g., slavery abolition, women’s suffrage).

Liberalism’s Role: Drove U.S. progress through democratic ideals and educational advancements.

Liberalism and Education
Universities, freed from church control, advanced science and human understanding.

Scientific progress thrives on the free exchange of ideas, often resisted by those in power.

Rise of Reactionary Conservatism in America
Modern conservatism has become increasingly reactionary, opposing social progress.

Example: Resistance to ACA (Obamacare) and LGBTQ+ rights.

Four Pillars of Modern Republicanism
Southern Strategy (1960s):

Republicans capitalized on racial tensions post-Civil Rights Act, attracting Southern white voters.

Religious Right (1980s):

Reagan aligned with Evangelical Christians, fostering a rejection of science (e.g., evolution, climate change).

Conservative Media (1990s):

End of the Fairness Doctrine led to partisan talk radio (e.g., Rush Limbaugh), creating tribalism.

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News solidified a right-wing media bubble.

Post-Truth Politics (2000s-Present):

Karl Rove’s strategy: “We create our own reality.”

The rise of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and denial of inconvenient truths.

Conservatism’s Reality Problem
Conservatives’ increasing detachment from facts: Climate denial, Obama birtherism, “Pizzagate,” trickle-down economics.

Academic studies: Show conservatives more prone to believing fake news.

Liberalism and Reality
Liberals favor change but aren’t immune to misinformation (e.g., anti-GMO, anti-vaccine movements).

Critical Thinking Is Essential: Verify sources, avoid media bubbles, and recognize biases.

• No. Reality has no bias.

But there’s more to it than that. If we want to have meaningful answer, we need to identify what “liberal” and “conservative” beliefs are. You’ll have your own definition; here’s what I’ll use: Conservative policies tend to focus on preservation of the current existence; liberal policies tend to focus on changing some aspect of the current existence.

Part 1: Liberal and Conservative Beliefs as Survival Strategies (Metaphor-based Argument)
This section argues that both liberal and conservative beliefs are adaptations to the way the universe works:

1. Evolutionary Example:
   Conservatism = Stability. Species tend to stay the same for long periods.

Liberalism = Adaptability. When the environment changes, the ability to evolve (change) is key to survival.

Lesson: A balance of stability and flexibility is crucial.

2. Astronomy Example:
   Gas Clouds (like nebulae) can’t stay the same forever. They must change—either form stars or get dispersed.

Stars, once formed, are stable for a while—a form of conservatism.

Lesson: The universe forces change. Stability only works for a phase.

3. Geology Example:
   You might try to preserve a river’s path (conservatism), but nature (e.g., floods) changes it anyway.

Lesson: Preservation has limits; nature eventually reshapes things.

4. Society Example:
   Societies try to preserve traditions, but change is inevitable.

Hunter-gatherer or feudal systems are mostly extinct.

Lesson: Societies must adapt to survive, just like species.

Takeaway:
Reality isn’t liberal or conservative, but strategies that embrace change (liberalism) tend to win in the long run.

Conservative values serve to preserve, liberal values help us adapt.

Part 2: Criticism of Liberalism as “Against Nature” (Philosophical/Critical Argument)
This section offers a counterpoint with a more traditionalist and hierarchical worldview.

1. Reality Isn’t Biased Towards Liberalism:
   Argument: Reality favors hierarchy, natural limits, and roles, not ideas like total equality or radical personal freedom.
2. Critique of Liberalism (based on John Locke’s philosophy):
   Liberalism assumes all people are equal and shaped by environment.

Counterargument: People are born with different abilities, and no amount of environment can erase natural limits.

3. Conservatism Embraces Human Nature:
   Hierarchies and differences are seen as natural and necessary.

This view believes liberalism tries to erase natural order, which backfires.

4. Criticism of Modern Liberal Values (called “neoliberalism” here):
   Concepts like:

More than two genders

Body positivity (“fat acceptance”)

Materialism

Individual expression without responsibility

Are seen as unnatural or unhealthy from this perspective.

Takeaway:
This view holds that liberalism promotes ideas detached from biological and social realities.

Conservatism, in this framing, is a defense of what “works” according to nature and human survival.

Question 4

Do you find the quote “Reality has a liberal bias” to be true? - Reddit

Answer 4

• It’s worth pointing out that the line was a joke, delivered as the satirical character Stephen Colbert. That said, the joke lands because there is a grain of truth to it. Liberals tend to be much more interested in science and evidence when building policy. Conservatives seem more interested in what they feel should be or how policies should work, not in how things actually are.
  > It isn’t just science, history as well. My last four years of conversations with conservatives normally included clearing up a lot of misconceptions about the founding fathers, the constitution, European history, African history etc. It used to not be that way, I am old enough to remember when you had to really being your A game to converse with a conservative if it included anything to do with American history.
• That’s the point of liberalism. It emerged from the Enlightenment as an ideology that threw off the shackles of religion, the belief in noble bloodlines, and was based on the ideas of empirical knowledge and scientific study.
  Reality has a liberal bias because liberalism is based on what can be proven.
• It’s misleading. Liberalism, like any orientation, is about values. You can agree with someone about all the facts and still have different values: the is-ought problem.
  So if you are saying “liberal values are the correct ones because they are based in fact”. I would say that is not really true. If you are making a point about liberals being, in a general sense, temperamentally more empirically-minded than others to the right or left, I’d say that’s not an unfair characterization.
• The underlying joke is obvious.
  Republicans argue that all of media and all of academia and all of basically everything is somehow conspiring against them because their sympathies lie with the more left-wing party, when it’s clear what’s really happening is they just routinely do wrong things the media will report on and take up indefensible positions that academic professionals will naturally argue against.
• I think it’s the opposite. Liberals have a realistic bias, relative to conservatives.
  Example: Liberals are concerned with reducing the environmental impact of business. Businesses, in reality, have practices the literally destroy ecosystems, animals, and humans.
  Conservative policies value business’s ability to make money, but money is a construct. Money moving from one account to another is entirely symbolic, it doesn’t literally and immediately destroy or create something.
  So, the conservative focus on principles that disregard real world effects on the environment, animals, and people is more attached to constructs and symbols (that in the end are leveraged to have realistic positive impact on very few people), while liberals are focused on immediate impacts of policies on the well being of people, creatures, and the environment in general.
  Apart from that, I think their is a clear difference in the conservative politician’s willingness to misrepresent truth (based on actual empirical evidence) to manipulate the views of constituents, by use of fiery retoric that appeals to anger and fear.
• More to the point, liberality has a reality bias. When your basic disposition is to help those who need it, there’s a natural interest in who actually needs what, and how it actually may be secured. Instead of merely preferring low taxes, and considering that best regardless of downsides.
• For the most part, yes, though with some notable exceptions. And, even to my own surprise, the scientific explanation is not quite as flattering as most of us might hope.
  Notable exceptions vary in nature and extent, but some that are common enough to easily point out are skepticism or fear of wifi, GMOs, and vaccines. Also, unfounded adherence or attraction to numerous non-scientific or unproven ideas, such as many diets, and some mystical woo-woo.
  As for the explanation, it turns out that so-called ‘liberals’ are more likely to know and respect verifiable facts. But for a reason that’s a little less flattering.
  Studies prove that we’re just as gullible as anyone else. That’s the unflattering part. But, we also possess a common quirk – a fetish, of sorts, though I don’t want to imply anything weird or kinky about this: We gain emotional satisfaction from verifying our beliefs, to a degree that is pretty solid. And because we seek that pleasurable experience, we’re more inclined to go out of our way and dig deeper for that verification. Once we know what ‘good’ verification consists of – good sources, good evidence, corroboration from disinterested and credible sources, and so on – then we follow that path of evidence, because we want that pleasurable feeling of being sure that we’re right.
  And, happily, that includes an urgency to dump bad information once we learn that it is.
  This is of course not true for everyone. But in broad statistics, these traits are more common on our side, and that has the cumulative effect of ‘liberal’ views tending to more closely follow current objective knowledge.
  As an example, consider trans issues, which remain uncomfortable for a great many Americans of all stripes. A statistically typical ‘conservative’ in the US will tend to approach these issues viscerally: It doesn’t feel right, so it must not be right; and the rest is rationalization, or whatever arguments need to be constructed to appear to validate the belief.
  But the statistically typical ‘liberal’ in the US is more prone to approach it this way: It makes me feel uneasy, but what if I’m wrong? Is there something about this I don’t understand? What do the people who support this know that I don’t? Could they be wrong? What does the science say about it? And at that point explores the issue in whatever depth is needed to gain enough knowledge and understanding to more rationally process the question, and reach a more solid-feeling conclusion. And for that reason, the conclusion reached is more likely to align with current objective knowledge, or at least fall closer to it.
  It’s true, but not because we’re better or smarter. It’s because of a few common personality traits shared by a great proportion of us.