The difficulty in changing the mind of the Nationalist isn’t in providing facts. It’s providing an acceptable lineage to accompany anything factual.
What could I possibly be missing? Over my morning coffee I scrolled the length of a Facebook thread between friends who immigrated to the US decades ago from the former Soviet Union. One friend is convinced of the following:
[The] BLM organization runs on Marxist platform! Coming from Soviet Union and knowing very well what the last stop of Marxist platform is, I cannot support this organization and I cannot support party that backs it up..fully backed up by Biden!
A Facebook User Posting…like so many others
I held my coffee suspended over my breakfast…wondering where this idea came from and how this person found it credible. Fortunately I didn’t need to look far, as the author added a few links supporting her argument. One was to a Facebook post from Dan Bongino, a source I had never heard of before, and a second linked to the New York Post.
After a bit more research I traced an association of BLM (and the Democratic party) to Marxism via a Perspectives post on The Heritage Foundation Website (a reprint of an article from The Daily Signal). In general, the comments ranged from vitriolic to incoherent. The Heritage is very clear in their mission to drive “conservative” policy and Dan Bongino has expressed his dedication to “own the libs.“
After only a few paragraphs, patterns quickly emerge in the arguments used by both Bongino and The Heritage. The rhetoric goes something like this: because the founders of BLM and the liberal left have “Marxist roots,” undermining “Capitalism” using “Socialist” tactics and ideology is the inarguable purpose and direction of the organization.
“Marxist roots” appear to be anything ranging from prior comments in a speech or attending a particular University or class. A significant part of the text is dedicated to establishing lineage between a person and a concept in order to explain behavior. “So, it is not a stretch to say..” is a common rhetorical bridge between the person(s) in question and the author’s version of Marxism or Capitalism:
In a 2015 interview, Patrisse Cullors, one of the three founders [of BLM], said that she and Alicia Garza were trained Marxists, which is true…So, it is not a stretch to say that all of these ideas are Marxist at base, right? Because Marxism is a theory that sees all of life as being a question of group dynamics, of the oppressed and the oppressor. And this is exactly what identity politics is all about.
“What’s Behind the Plot to Change America?” Rachel del Guidice. The Daily Signal, July 29th 2020.
After connecting the BLM founders to a controversial idea such as Marxism, the author uses biblical references to argue for the stagnation of human nature.
Human nature is unchanging. No ideology can change human nature..If you read ancient texts, read the Bible, or you read any books, you read the Quran, any book from ancient times or any of the classical, any of the texts from the Classical Age, you see that man was back then exactly the same way we are today.
Ibid.
Nationalists scaffold their opponents in pseudo-ideology, then add a healthy measure of biblical concrete to cement the relationship and its immobility. After a few days to cure in social media, a fresh length of mental sidewalk opens to an already fearful American public.
For the Nationalist, the most important question is whether you’re walking on their side of the road. The Nationalist is about lineage. There exist “conservative truths” and “liberal truths” based on the perceived orientation of the speaker. “Marxist” professors” and “Liberal” media are common examples, but the question has spilled over to more tangible things…like counting seats. Given the same aerial photo of a Trump rally, Nationalists will trust a blessed source to decide whether the rally was well attended. Rationalists will trust the authenticity of and evidence suggested by the photo.
For the Nationalist, the “true” answer depends on the lineage of the evidence. Objective standards of journalism do not matter, and Journalism itself is suspect. The Washington Post and The New York Times cannot be trusted because they have been branded too liberal, despite the papers’ journalistic integrity. This creates space for bullhorn personalities like Bongino who amplify the Nationalist lineage without any semblance of journalism or objective reasoning. In contrast, Rationalists (liberal and conservative) value objectivity in journalism despite the unavoidable bias left or right.
The difficulty in changing the mind of the Nationalist isn’t in providing facts. It’s providing an acceptable lineage to accompany those facts. For years, journalism provided America with a shared lineage of truth available to purchase in print on sidewalks across America. Today we are stranded on a few remaining slabs of concrete journalism. Neighborhood streets that were once pedestrian friendly have either been abandoned or crushed under the weight of social media traffic, leaving Americans stuck staring at directionless piles of news rubble.
Believe in Truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.
Snyder, Tim. “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons for the Twentieth Century.” p.65. Tim Duggan Books. 2017.
History may be our greatest hope for the future. Consistently reminding America of what our guiding principles actually are may be the first rope tossed and received to bridge our separating nation.