© 2024
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations
An update has been released for the Android version of the WAMC App that addresses performance issues. Please check the Google Play Store to download and update to the latest version.

Michael Meeropol: How To Talk With Your Trump-Believing Relative

According to a recent Fox News poll, 68 percent of Republicans believe that the Presidential election was stolen --- that Donald Trump actually won.   This, of course, fits with the fact that the vast majority of people who voted for Trump believe many (most?) of his lies.   A recent article in the New York Times interviewed a group of pro-Trump demonstrators in Washington, DC and found that a good percentage of them were a bit more uncertain. 

[See Sabrina Tavernise, “They’re Certain the Election Was Stolen, Now What?” The New York Times, December 15, 2020:  p. A18.]

Nonetheless, even those who thought that perhaps there had not been sufficient fraud to successfully steal the election were absolutely certain there was some fraud.  This despite the fact that in EVERY Court case filed by Trump’s allies, the lawyers themselves went out of their way to state in Court that they were not alleging fraud.   As with Trump supporters in general who accept many of his thousands of lies that have been documented by, for example, the Washington Post, it just boggles the mind that so many people will believe the most errant nonsense.

As listeners to my commentaries know, I spent my career teaching at the college level.   As a lifelong educator I believe that people can learn things they didn’t previously know by reading and thinking about them.   As a teacher of economics and history --- social sciences that do not have the finality of the hard sciences like physics, chemistry and biology -- I also believe that people can draw conclusions based on evidence and change their minds when the evidence presented warrants it.  (Of course because of the inability to run controlled experiments, there remains a great deal of uncertainty about the lessons of history for the social sciences.   Astronomy makes it impossible for serious scientists to assert that the earth is flat --- economics is so uncertain that lots of nonsense [“you can cut taxes without reducing revenue”] can persist even in the writings of Ph D economists!)     

Even with the uncertainties about what passes for “scientific truth” in the various social science fields, including economics, the process of looking at evidence and coming to a conclusion has worked for me during my life.   I have changed my opinions on big issues and small ones.   I have also, even when my opinions haven’t changed, found it interesting, even exhilarating, to subject my opinions about historical and economic (and political) issues to the best possible counter-arguments --- to “test” whether my opinions could stand up to evidence presented against them.   It seems to me that it is essential that every thinking person approach issues – big or small – that way – especially when the controlled experiments possible in the hard sciences are not possible.

I used to encourage my students to participate freely in class discussion by suggesting that they always consider everything they propose to the class as a provisional statement – in other words, you --- the student ---  give your classmates your present opinion, but you reserve the right to change your mind --- this opinion is not set in stone.   This is a great way to be a student --- and it’s a great way to remain curious about what new arguments or information might be around the corner ready to make anyone re-think what you believed yesterday (or an hour ago).

But that was before the era of Donald Trump and his followers.  Right now, I admit I am getting pretty worried about whether my model of how people form opinions and (sometimes) change them is correct.  Is it possible that millions (tens of millions) of people can be so successfully brainwashed that no amount of evidence or argument will ever change their minds?

The millions of Americans who believe that Joe Biden and the Democrats stole the election and that Donald Trump in fact “won” scare me.   How can these people believe that?  The short answer is that it’s not a matter of fact --- it’s a matter of faith.  Donald Trump is not a political leader --- he is the leader of a cult.

That might be the key to understanding how the rest of us can try to cope with members of this cult.  People lose their faith all the time --- we just have to try to figure out how the worshippers at the Trump cult can be de-programmed.   What follows are a series of suggestions of questions that people can ask of friends, relatives, co-workers or casual acquaintances who believe that Trump won the election – who believe that widespread voter fraud has produced the results recently ratified by the Electoral College giving Joe Biden the Presidency.

First of all, such an approach has to be one of curiosity.  These questions should be asked without malice or condescension.   This is a friend or relative ---- not an idiot spouting nonsense on TV --- and not a cynical politician like Guiliani.   It might be hard but the important thing is to listen and encourage the person with whom you are talking to explain how what they believe came to pass.   And this has to be done sincerely.  If one asks the question with the tone that suggests you think anyone who has the opinion that the election was stolen from Trump is an idiot, this approach will not work.

The obvious first question is:   How did the fraud happen?   Was it confined only to the swing states or did it happen all over?   Again – do not interrupt with skepticism.  It is important that the person you talk with actually explain – perhaps for the first time to him or herself --- how this fraud occurred.     The key to this first question is to attempt to get your friend to “guess” at how many votes had to be fraudulently changed and in how many states.    It would be useful for the questioner to let their friend/relative (etc.) talk at length.  This is the technique that anthropologists use when engaging in field work.   Let the folks talk --- at length.

The next question is to ask for an estimate of how many people had to be in on the scam?    Once there is some guess as to how many people would have been involved ask if anyone who WAS involved has come forward.   You can readily agree that there have been people who said they witnessed fraudulent activity --- the woman sitting next to Giuliani at the Pennsylvania “hearing” (famously satirized on Saturday Night Live) claimed to have seen ballots throw away.  (She was not considered credible by the Court where she made this charge but at least she made a factual set of claims.)   But witnessing misbehavior is not the same thing as blowing the whistle on activities in which you yourself participated.   You can mention that the Mafia is constantly being exposed by inside informers as are many other criminal conspiracies.  Most cop shows on TV show that cases are usually broken by getting co-conspirators to turn states evidence.   Where are the Democratic fraudsters coming forward to admit that they helped steal the election for Biden?

The final question can be whether your friend/relative thinks all the judges who have refused to countenance the various claims made in the various lawsuits were also in on it?   Were some Supreme Court Justices in on the scam also?

[Speaking of the Supreme Court, it seems that one Matt Patrick a Texas elector who voted for Trump later went to the floor of the legislature and made a patently false assertion about how the Supreme Court decided not to take up the case from Texas (joined by 17 other Attorneys General) asking the Court to overturn the electoral votes of four states that went for Biden, thereby giving Trump a majority in the Electoral College.  Patrick refers to a report he claims to have read “online,” describing it as something that “was written by someone who was a current staffer for one of the current Supreme Court justices,” He continues,  "The Justices went into a closed room...When Texas case was brought up he [an unnamed staffer supposedly] said he heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal Justices were insisting...afraid of what would happen if they did right thing...Moral cowardice"   Anyone see the absurdity of this?   The reason this is absurd and the reason this charge was immediately debunked on social media is that the Supreme Court has not met in person for months because of COVID.   All their conferences are via computer -- (for the whole story see https://www.rawstory.com/2020/12/maga-outraged-after-gop-official-serves-up-easily-debunked-lie-about-texas-voter-fraud-lawsuit/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6142).  This is just one among probably hundreds of false stories flying around the internet that help to brainwash too  many people.  And as the linked article notes, despite the obvious falsity of the story, it got picked up by many right-wing folks and soon had a life of its own.

Asking these questions and getting your friend or relative to develop the factual basis for his/her belief is the important first step.  And once again, I think this first step towards de-programming a brainwashed person has to come across as somewhat neutral questioning to elicit information rather than the first part of an argument.  This may not be easy but it is probably essential.

Some people reading this might think I am being overly optimistic about the value of such a “gentle” approach.  It is certainly true that many people are unfortunately too far gone for this proposed approach to have any impact.   Yet for those of us who want to remain friends or continue to interact with loved ones, I think this is the only possible way to go --- It is, in my opinion, much better than stony silence around the dinner table.

Michael Meeropol is professor emeritus of Economics at Western New England University. He is the author with Howard and Paul Sherman of the recently published second edition of Principles of Macroeconomics: Activist vs. Austerity Policies

The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.

Related Content