Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Character Assassination
It’s ugly. No one will deny the intensity and revolting events that have taken place since the election of Donald Trump. In one sense, destroying another’s reputation is not new; but the collaboration in order to take down the President and his administration is a process I’ve not seen in my lifetime. It’s character assassination. I’d like to define that term, provide a few examples of the ways it’s been practiced historically, and how is different in these times.
Character assassination is slandering a person with the intention of destroying public confidence in that person. Further, I believe it is an evil act. Dennis Prager explains that these actions actually violate the Ten Commandments, specifically the Eighth Commandment, “Do not steal.” After explaining how stealing a person (enslaving) is prohibited, as is taking away a person’s property, he talks about the most egregious type of stealing:
Stealing a person’s good name—whether through libel or slander or gossip—is a particularly destructive form of theft. Because unlike money or property, once a person’s good name has been stolen, it can almost never be fully restored.
There are many methods for assassinating peoples’ character:
Discredit them, showing their arguments and decisions are weak and they are incapable in their work.
Use defamation, damaging the good reputation and name of others.
Demonize them, turning them into bad people that everyone hates, such that anything they do will be considered bad.
Dehumanize them, treating them as a ‘thing’ and framing them as non-human with negligible values.
I believe we have seen all of these tactics widely used against Donald Trump. If we are to approach this subject honestly, we also have to look at the attacks that have been made by the right against Trump’s opponents. If we are relying on facts, without the strategies listed above, and refraining from hyperbole as much as we possibly can, we may or may not be assassinating a person’s character.
There are countless examples of character assassination in our history. Abraham Lincoln may have sustained the worst verbal and written onslaughts. The media frequently called him an ape, a baboon, a monster, a Negro, an idiot, and a buffoon. His actual performance allows us today to see his greatness and how disgusting these attacks were. So the passing of time can eventually mend the damage of one’s reputation.
Several differences set our times apart from past actions of character assassination. One is the role of the media. The media have demonstrated an overwhelming left slant for many years; they have always denied this label, trying to show their unbiased credentials. Today, the media blatantly, almost proudly, flaunt their liberal bias and declare their willingness to distort the truth. Attacking President Trump by demonizing and discrediting him in any way becomes a badge of honor. I think it is fair to say that they want to destroy him. There are those who believe that the media, not the Left or the Democrat party, are driving the rhetoric about Trump.
The far left and the Democratic Party also have no qualms about destroying Trump. The lies, distortions and demonizing that they have attached to Trump are too numerous to mention here. In spite of actions and proof to the contrary, his mental and physical health have been questioned; in spite of his support of the middle class and tax breaks, they deny these benefits have gone to the American people; in spite of his promise to de-regulate government and trying to eliminate Obamacare, he has been accused of essentially calling for death sentences for the American people. The media, of course, publicize these attacks.
Organizations that have been celebrated for their ethics and non-partisan work until now, appear to be working with the media and the Democrats. The FBI, and potentially the DOJ, have joined the fray.
The difference in these times for those engaging in character assassination is the level of coordination and complicity by the media, the Left and the Democrat Party, and the intelligence community.
Maybe we should have seen these extreme efforts coming for a long time. Or maybe it just needed a controversial, obnoxious, non-politically correct presidential nominee, now President, to strip off the masks of greed, hatred, and evil.
I think a key reason that the groundwork was laid for these attacks is the decay of the moral fiber of this country. Secularism and its rejection of Judeo-Christian values show how easily we carry out our desire for revenge, for winning, for destruction and how incapable we have become of demonstrating respect and compassion.
I don’t mean to suggest that people shouldn’t be subject to criticism; that’s not the point. We do, however, need to look at our motives, at the tone of our language, the amount of facts vs. hyperbole, and whether we are maintaining our own integrity when we write or speak.
My final message is this: I have found myself disparaging people in ways that are truly hateful and hyperbolic. It has become easier over time, as I act out my rage against forces that I can’t control. I want a scapegoat, someone to blame, to hold accountable. But if I’m not careful, I will turn into the very people and institutions I despise.
I need to be stronger. I need to be more conscious. I need to be true to my beliefs and values. I am the one who wants and expects to be held to a higher standard.
What about you?
Published in Culture
Also what I find effective regarding the whole divisiveness that is now on going is just to accept the mud that is flung at me. Having been called a White Supremacist for stating to a former friend that I liked Trump’s plan for infrastructure rebuilding, I am now much less alarmed if that is how either the left or the “Never Trumpers” are going to play that game. Sometimes I am sad about things, but more often confused. Just how is it that the ‘liberals” are now pro-censorship, pro-adopting the hive mind and pro whatever the new ‘meme of the week” happens to be? It adds up to an unhappy equation: for them being pro-tyranny.
I will take it as a victory for the middle class that the left has backed away from titling themselves “anti fa’s.” The result of last year’s anti fa strategy left many cities in the South not only without historic statues, but also without needed funding for school programs. The statue destruction cost a pretty penny and in many places it has come out of the local educational budget. (While knocking down those statues accomplished exactly what?)
I didn’t say that, but hey, if you want to hear it, go for it.
Nah, you just said if you criticize Trump, you are supporting Hillary.
I have never once said that, but again, if you want to put words into my mouth, please do so.
What I said was, if, during the election, you were working against Trump, you were supporting Clinton because we had a binary option.
At this point, going after Trump is not supporting Clinton. Repeating leftist talking points does mean you are supporting their cause though.
Again, so what? I don’t see why being told you are supporting a cause you are supporting is so insulting.
Meh. Criticizing Trump meant working against Trump.
No. Being Never Trump meant being against Trump.
Hardly the same thing. I criticize Trump. But, you never did want to listen to what I was saying then, so I don’t really expect you to now.
You were pretty clear back then. I listened to you, you didn’t listen to me. I even gave you a list of reasons why you were wrong that criticizing Trump was not supporting Hillary.
Well, I guess we just have to agree to disagree then.
Hey doc, you need to bring that avatar back!
I don’t know what those rules are, @jimbeck.
The difficulty here, @bryangstephens, is that no one of us is a pure conservative. At least I’m not. So it is possible that I will agree with the left on something, or some things. Look at all the debating over the incident at Parkland; we’re seeing people from all sides all over the place. Rather than assuming that a view that appears to be left, it might be a good idea to check whether the person sees himself or herself as on the left.
When a person does it over time, over many posts, I feel free to judge them at their word.
It is more than fair to say, based on the posts of one Bryan G. Stephens, that he is not a libertarian, for instance.
This supports my previous comment, and is more accurate: you may support a cause or idea of the left, but not be a leftist. At least that’s what I think.
Say, @asquared and @bryangstephens, what say we turn over a new leaf and you both start listening to each other!! ;-)
I have to say, Bryan, that I will never understand you. To insult some people, and not not regret it, is bad enough. But to not even understand that you insulting people – that is sad (to echo your favorite person), and a little weird too.
Let me try to explain: You are telling somebody what they believe. You are not saying, “You know, I believe that by your words you must feel this way.” You are just assuming it it true, because you say it. That is insulting. Arrogant too. And there is nothing to buttress your argument. On top of that, you say that if we are not the ones you are referring to, we needn’t worry. You can drive a truck through all the things you take for granted. Maybe you are clairvoyant. Is that it?
George, this is borderline incoherent .
I take people t their word here that they mean what they say. So, I they say things such as they want to limit the right to bare arms, I believe them. If they say that they are for any cause associated with the left, I believe them. Pace Susan, if enough pile up, the person then sounds like they are on the left. Far be it from mind reading, I am making a judgment on them based on their own statements of belief. So, I don’t need to buttress and argument beyond saying I June people here by way they say. How’d you do it?
Trump is not my favorite person, though I suppose that is a bit of mind reading of your own. Certainly, as you castigated me, you commit the very crime of which you access me.
You look for me to be insulting, and that is persistent across threads, George.
So that’s not insulting? And you are doing exactly what the left does ( though now we have all learned that you can be a conservative and use these despicable debating tactics ) somehow in simply defending an aspect of DJT he is a favorite person, worshipped, or idolized as a god.
It’s despicable and pathological.
Well, it is nice to be considered borderline incoherent, rather than totally!
To your last point: This is the most correct thing you’ve said. But why contribute to this, just because others are?What totally escapes me is why you can’t be satisfied with stating your own views? You want to play doctor, and diagnose others. Instead of saying what disease they may have, you charge yourself with saying how sufficiently conservative they are. Well, who is Bryan Stephens to do that?
There is a fellow on the radio, daily, who has appointed himself the watchdog of conservatism. I am sure you can guess you I mean. He has said that, if you are not totally supportive of Donald Trump, you are not a conservative. Now, leaving aside the ludicrousness of such a statement, who the Devil is he to judge? And why?
I know this must give you some sort of satisfaction. But your perceptions may not even be right. Gun control is a good example. It is so cut and dried for you. No nuance at all is allowed, according to you. If the person said that taking away a person’s guns was the only answer, you may be right. But, if he said, as one measure, that limiting a purchase, say, according to age, may be something that ought to be looked at, why is that a disqualifying factor to be called a conservative. Ricochet is supposed to be for thoughtful discussion, not name calling. In the approximately two years I’ve been a member, I don’t think I read one post that would cause me to think that person was on the left. And, even if I were wrong, why should it be up to you to say who is on the left and who isn’t?
I say, state your own views, and leave the diagnostic work to those qualified to make it. And for more important matters.
Your Incoherency (borderline), signing off.
No problem. After today, my membership lapses again. It was my mistake to come back.
@asquared, I wish you didn’t feel that way. Why not just engage in discussions that are meaningful and important to you. They can’t all be a waste of time. When a discussion moves in a direction you don’t like, leave it. That’s what I do, and it’s not all that uncommon. In fact, I’m not happy with the way this discussion has proceeded. I asked people to be respectful while I was gone over the Sabbath, and you weren’t. I think @georgetownsend, even though he criticizes people, he has a point. I think that all kinds of conclusions can be drawn from what people say, but they rest on shaky evidence and especially on people’s perceptions. Just because any of you think a certain way about a person doesn’t make it true. That you have possibly driven off a person greatly disturbs me.
I am.
I joined ricochet to discuss politics with thoughtful people. I see no reason to pay for a membership in a political discussion site so I can avoid the discussions about politics. Ricochet will get along fine without me.
Thank you, Susan, for your kind words. I do try to have a point, most of the time. And I do think discussions are important, especially when they are done in an atmosphere of mutual respect. When that respect is not there, that is when I get my back up. Perhaps, at times, I may come on stronger than I ever have in my life. It is because I see that respect as being smothered in this trying time, for our beautiful land. If we are not careful, we may never get it back.
That next to last sentence of yours, above, is what I do believe. It is what I tried to convey to Bryan last night, before I retired: It is best to state one’s own thoughts, not to tell others the thoughts they supposedly have, and then feel free to criticize these alleged thoughts.
I sympathize with you, A-Squared, I really do. And I’ve thought about leaving Ricochet a few times. But there are some good people here. @Susan Quinn among them. She is right about leaving certain discussions when they get too personal. There are always more to be had. And you can always write your own Posts. And then there are so many Podcasts. There is a lot more to Ricochet than the occasional offensive remark. Just leave that one discussion, and start one of your own. Don’t be driven away.
I wouldn’t say I’m being driven away, I am just choosing to do different things with my time and money.
My membership has been intentionally sporadic over the last year. I have just learned that my happiness is higher when I’m not engaged in conversations on Ricochet. I keep thinking that will change, and it doesn’t. I’m not complaining, Ricochet is what it is, my only choice is to pay or not.
It’s all good. I have plenty of other places where can engage in online conversations.
I don’t see anyone being driven away. If that is the case then I would consider them a snowflake. Discussions get heated and sometimes not so nice. But Driven away ? If someone leaves, I put it in the category of “not their cup of tea”. Not to say that the “cup of tea” can’t be improved upon.
Their are a few people here I frankly don’t like. I still read them and don’t hesitate to respond if inclined. I’f they offend me I will ignore them. However, even of those who have offended me and then ignored. I eventually came back to read their stuff anyway. Why ?Because everyone on this site has something to offer worth having. Even the ones I don’t like.
Evening Kevin,
The Ricochet format tends to produce comments, statements of opinion, almost like small columns. If we were at a meeting together there would be more questions, more follow-ups, what do you mean by that questions. The comments tend not to produce questions. If there were more questioning a la WFB Firing Line then discussions although maybe just as heated would be less likely to be viewed as personal. Do you have any thoughts about how to have the comments less statement positions and more of a dialog, more questions where the topic might be examined more deeply?
It is also possible that folks respond to what they perceive as insults more openly. When you say that you know the folks with whom a conversation will go nowhere and don’t engage, I think that is the most sensible choice. I also think folks could follow that approach and save themselves and others aggravation.
Hi Jim. To be honest I don’t mind the heated discussions. As far as the statement/question conundrum. The problem is, we all are for the most part conservatives. That means we have had to ponder our point of view in a culture that is hostile to it. Most of us have some fairly cemented convictions. Add to that, are cherished country is slipping away and we are uptight about it. The printed format adds to the conundrum. The only way I would see to limit the friction and add back and forth to the conversation would be thru the meetups. Face to face will always be more gentile. I really don’t see anyway to make this format more like face to face.
Jim. I can say I have grown in my world view/politics thru Ricochet. Not by leaps and bounds but by increments. I can also say that the heated discussions have played a part in that growth.
Evening again Kevin,
I don’t mind higher levesl of intensity, like the SSM, debates. What I would like to see is a topic dug into. This topic on character assassination, especially as it regards to politics is a great topic. Attacking one’s political opponent is here to stay and as conservatives we will also have the MSM against us as well; how to fight back, how is Trump so successful at staying alive, what happens as news and nearly everything jumps to social media. Think about the shunning of the NRA by the big companies because of social media frenzy and virtue signaling; will that be effective or will it harden differences as fans of the NRA shun the shunners. I think there was more to discuss and we have lots of smart folks who might have so solutions concerning how to not be a dupe when you are thought to be the scum of the earth.