ON Heather Cox Richardson's YouTube (and FB) podcast of yesterday, she mentions there are a lot of AI generated and fake accounts attributed to her. Some apparently are "meh" but others are more serious. I personally have not seen them. She started her podcast by cautioning anything that does not come from one of her authorized accounts. I'm not surprised that this is happening to her, as she is a big voice and as she says, the Right is scared.
Damn Miselle That makes the whole thing uglier. Fake AI accounts get attached to her name, then the internet acts like she’s the credibility problem. That’s a setup.
Xplisset, a related issue to the "AI-Heather Cox Richardson": if before voting, people INFORMED themselves about the candidates by seeking out the candidates official websites and reading about their stances on issues, we'd have a much better society. But, many people are downright lazy and will just follow the memes.
I am not an expert in marketing, but let me relay something I was told about thirty years ago: I had a friend trying to launch a small secretarial business from her home. She told me she got books on how to start a business, and it suggested she send out marketing materials, stating that basically, the first time, people will toss it. The second time, they'll give a millisecond recognition of the name and toss it. The third time, they will stop and read it, even if they don't need the service right then. NAME RECOGNITION sets in.
(My friend simply didn't have the finances to do three mailings, sadly. Like the majority of small businesses, it failed.)
This is why the big donors are pursued, as it is tremendously expensive to get all those ads, both paper and digital! If someone's campaign organically grows itself, it's unusual and can garner it's own momentum. If you can get the attention of a say--Joe Rogan, or a Heather Cox Richardson--and use their bases, you've got a big hand up.
So if you can't get their attention, or they'd disagree with your campaign, well, enter the AI. 😣
I personally got disillusioned by making donations to the DNC, as I recall stories of smaller (think state level) campaigns that could have been won, but the DNC decided to drop funds into other campaigns they deemed more worthy. By reading the HCR forum, I learned about writing my own postcards/letters--using my own dime!--to support candidates I believe in. It felt better to me to know that my money was indeed supporting the candidates I wished to, and these organizations have data which says that HANDWRITTEN messages are more likely to be read. (Sadly, I wrote about 50 postcards for John Fetterman, which I truly, truly regret.)
Another thought, Xplisset, is something that I as a white senior woman can't answer, is, how do you get young black people to vote? Perhaps this is racist of me, and if so I apologize for it, but when I've given a list of infrequent voters to write to, based on their geographic area (which I look up) and their names, I think they are people of color. Seriously, what do I know about their lives that I can write two or three lines to convince them that their vote matters, especially when the GOP is hell-bent on diluting the value of their vote?
I'm beating a dead horse, I know, but I still can't fathom why Kamila isn't our POTUS! This woman checked all the boxes, as far as I could see. I was dumbstruck to hear of majority black districts that went for Trump. I don't get it.
I apologize for hijacking your comment section and going off on a tangent. I really hope as the midterms approach, you can devote some substack space to the issue of voter turnout.
There were AI videos of Aaron Parnas saying he was good friends with the supposed shooter at the whcd. This is just what conspiracy idiots will eat up, all the fake AI crap.
Anyway, just want to thank you for this fantastic piece of truth. We need to clone AOC & Jasmine Crocket & have them rule the planet
I had been ignoring this “prophet “ but not heard of the not-so-subtle attempts to discredit HCR. I will say that as an academic who teaches through critical race and gender lenses, and a woman, the automatic discrediting may be as much tied to the now popular distain for higher education as much as to HCR’s gender
Exactly. It’s not that every criticism of HCR is sexism. It’s the reflex. The speed. The way her memory gets treated like bias while some dude at a whiteboard gets treated like he cracked the Matrix. That’s the part that made me go hmmmm.
Thank you Xplisset. An excellent essay, annotated and complete. I too trust and admire Dr. Heather Cox Richardson implicitly and I feel the same about you. You both have intelligence combined with humility, qualities necessary for trust. It’s not a matter of right versus left political bias (based on economics) it’s a matter of what is good and correct ideals for humanity.
A brilliant read--never heard of Ad Fontes but I nearly fell for the "Professor" a few moments back--but after listening to his predictions decided he was a crank with a whiteboard as you write. HCR, other other hand, is recording our perilous moment day by day and helping many of us keep the faith. As are you.
That’s the trap Grace. The crank with a whiteboard sounds useful for five minutes because he says the empire ain’t invincible. Then the fog rolls in. HCR is doing the opposite: not prophecy, not vibes, not no Matrix cosplay. She’s clearly keeping the receipts while the house burns.
Nope - not going there! As you said this time and earlier, I believe, Heather Cox Richardson is the real deal. Her letter is the first thing I read every morning. Someone who "predicted" the dumpster? Well how hard was that? The Letter is far from partisan & I've learned (or maybe re-learned) more history and get brought up to date with the current mess, besides.
In my opinion (biased) everyone should be reading her Letters.
I wait for her live chats every Tuesday and Thursday. She brilliantly ties everything together with her calm voice. She talks thousands of us off the cliff with her chats.
The worst part about it is how Substack supports this crap. Our youth are being corrupted by all these ads and endorsements for gambling, Polymarket, and etc and 10 years from now we are going to regret this vice being unleashed.
Thank you for another insightful Dive into the underworld of deception. I found you on Letters to an American in comments a while ago... Best investment I have made in a long time. I am an old boomer who found history in the libraries. My refuge for my youthful years. Being an octogenarian provides me with a long memory of the events we now call history. I don't need glasses to view truth of these events. As always : Keep om Keeping on.
The problem is that Ad Fontes has unintentionally (I trust) created a bogus system of evaluation in which a given commentator or news source is placed on the political spectrum without really understanding what that spectrum represents. I went to the website, and the divide between “left” and “right” appears to be predicated not on the policies advocated, for the most part, but on whether a fact-based narrative—grounded not in political theory but in demonstrable information—is presented. This actually discredits both the actual political left and the actual political right.
I say this after seeing even quite conservative news outlets, like the Globe and Mail, placed left of centre. They’re there, I believe, not because they repeat narratives identified as coming from the political left (although, frankly, the very concept of “left” and “right” is eroding like a sugar cube in a cup of coffee just now), but because they attempt to set the record straight as to what the evidence shows.
So Heather Cox Richardson lands on the “left” because she draws upon historical facts—actualities that are part of the record, solidly researched and confirmed as well as possible from multiple sources and original material—to show that certain policies have worked or failed in the past. Since policies associated with the political right tend, on average, to produce poorer outcomes for most citizens than those associated with the left (put simply: from the left you tend to get less income inequality, more social spending, more carefully managed regulation, and stronger democratic processes; from the right, lower taxes, less social spending, greater income inequality, and less “red tape”), presenting those outcomes apparently places one on the left.
For those at Ad Fontes who don’t think this through, the implication is that when facts contradict what is promoted from the right, then, in order to be “on” the right, one must push a false narrative at the expense of the facts. True conservatives don’t feel that they have to do that.
For example, pointing out that the law requires the President of the United States to obtain Congressional authorization to wage war beyond a 60-day period does not place one on the left. Wherever one sits on the political spectrum, one can state that as fact and explain its implications without revealing one’s political position. It has nothing to do with left or right.
Similarly, one can point out that, based on common usage—whether from restaurant slang, popular culture, or, if you like, gangster movies—“86” does not equate with assassination. Saying that it is absurd to lay a criminal charge based on a photograph of seashells is an opinion, albeit one informed by that basic fact. But even that opinion does not place one on the left or right—it is simply an opinion.
What I’m trying to say is that the basic premise by which Ad Fontes “rates” pundits and commentators is of limited value, except perhaps at the more extreme ends of the spectrum. They don’t seem to recognize this because their thinking is surface-level—shallow, even. That, of course, is my opinion, not a demonstrable fact. It derives from personal values—and what I value is evidence, and getting as close to the truth as possible.
Barry, lemme tell ya this comment pulled up with a bibliography, a folding chair, and a thermos of coffee.
But yeah, exactly. The problem is Ad Fontes treats “left” and “right” like some clean straight line when the real divide now is often evidence vs. narrative management. If a fact contradicts right-wing mythology, the fact does not become left-wing. It remains a fact. That’s why the label bothers me. Not because I think Ad Fontes is twirling a villain mustache, but because shallow categories become permission slips for lazy readers. I agree we shouldn’t lose sleep over them, but we should absolutely notice how the label they create travels.
Which is, of course, not only the job you chose but one you do well. There is so much more to be said, and I refer to J.L. Graham's wise words about confusing the model with the actuality. But J.L. also brings up another important point, and that is the careless construction of the model (assuming it is not deliberately so, which is not a safe thing to assume). Which leads to the "dumbing down" of the electorate, and the attacks on science, literacy, the arts, education overall. But we must not wait until we are trampled before we take note of the elephant in the room, or the inconvenient truth, and that is that we are not all created equal and some of us are more or less intelligent and/or experienced than others and that is neither wrong nor right...it just is. (And lest anyone think I'm self-identifying with the "elite", nope...I wish I understood nuclear physics or could do math, or had a degree, but no...I'm not stupid but I could be a whole lot smarter.) What is odious, to me, is when the more, or at all, gifted, take advantage of the less so, or else use them (as Pete Hegseth is being used, not that I have a trace of sympathy for him) or their greed or other less "noble" traits, for their own gain at the expense of others. The ability to do so decreases, I believe, proportionate to the degree that people are taught critical thinking and that, in my opinion, should start, in an age appropriate manner, in kindergarten, if not sooner. Really!
Barry, this comment came in with chapters and begats. lol.
But you’re right and thank you for this thoutful reply. Once the model replaces the actual thing, we stop thinking and start worshiping the chart. And yes, people are not equally trained, equally experienced, or equally equipped to spot the hustle. That doesn’t mean unequal human worth. It means critical thinking has to start early, because otherwise the loudest model in the room becomes reality.
My mother told me that there is a difference between clever and wise, and the more I see, the more I believe it. Tortoise and hare, and useful, certainly moral, intelligence has as much to do with values and what one pays attention to, as mental "horsepower". It seems to me that "wisdom" resists defining precisely, but I think it is an eye for detail, as well as the whole, the forest and the trees, and since we all have limits, a sense somehow of what most matters. I think intellect helps, but is not the key. Curiosity and honesty with one's self seems more important. Why does the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" so resonate? The kid in the story was not being especially clever. He was being honest.
A tape measure is useful, and I use one often, but there are three dimensions and Einstein added a forth by proving time and space are interactive. The tape can measure only fragments of that. Reality is so much richer, detailed and connected than our maps of it, even though that mapping can greatly serve us. What does not serve is confusing our model of reality, especially a carelessly constructed or deliberately misleading one, with the reality we are and in which we live, but there is a lot of that.
People jailed and bombed by Trump can't wish away reality, and uncertainty does not undo probability. It is supposed to be 81º here on Monday. That isn't normal, and yes, it is not necessarily uncommon to encounter things that are not "normal", but that is happening with much greater frequency than normal; and that bears paying extra attention to.
We never left the "Garden of Eden"; yet while it may be a rose garden, it sports some really nasty thorns. Nature gives no flying @#$% what we SAY about her, but when we know her rules, she will often let us hitch a ride, and maybe avoid SOME of the nastier pitfalls. How many lives throughout history have been lost and ruined by somebodies' out of control ego, and aggressive denial of best efforts to represent reality?
I think of technical "left" and "right" as "state owns almost everything" and "state owns nothing". I have encountered "Republicans" who believe that absolutely nothing should be non-profit, including all roads and services, such a police and fire. Seems like sanity lies somewhere in the realm of what Heather Cox Richardson calls "the liberal consensus" that was typical of the mid 20th Century, the right tool for the right job. Hard "left" and hard "right" are extremes, but I resist calling it "centrist". It can get complicated when you get into a mix. Apart from that. "left and right" seems to mean whatever one want's it to mean, to the speaker anyway, and a lot of "buzz" seems to assign categories and numbers to things that do little more than appear to legitimize careless opinions.
I agree with Karen Close, that "It’s not a matter of right versus left political bias (based on economics) it’s a matter of what is good and correct ideals for humanity. "
"Good and correct ideals for humanity is partly subjective and party not. We can compare notes. We can ask ourselves what, after all, really, truly matters.
I have encountered the view from the right that earning money is the only motive for work, which is a very Ayn Randian way of thinking and contrary to the reality for many people. The view continues that minus the competitive motive that profit making supposedly rewards the worker with, said worker becomes sloppy, thus private enterprise always "trumps" publicly funded services in efficacy, economic and otherwise...again a simplistic fallacy often at odds with demonstrable facts. Karen Close's statement is correct, in my opinion, too, if "humanity" is defined to include us all. If it does not, if we deny others what we think we should have for ourselves, we put ourselves at risk...presumably for such people that is really all that matters. The people I turn to for the goods and services I need, for example, the provision of food, the fixing of a leaky pipe, the trimming of a tree or the cutting of my hair, are not billionaires. Who do you call when you smell smoke coming out of the laundry room, or there is some stranger prying the window open of your neighbour's house at two a.m.? Not a billionaire. We all need what it takes to survive and be healthy, but none of us needs a second yacht...or the first, and certainly not at the cost of a hungry child or an abandoned elder. But yeah...that kind of thinking is anathema to the far right, and dismissed with careless disdain as "socialism".
No one needs a ship-sized yacht with a permanent on-board staff that can carry many dozens. One can hire a boat for that. The richest have for centuries tended to equate one's wealth with one's virtue; but while there is certainly some correlation between wealth and labor, it is way more complicated than that. Al Capone was wealthy. The British East India Company was wealthy. Some nations are dominated by a few ultra-wealth families, while most live in need.
Virtue?
Not according to Jesus, who the MAGAs bang on about.
"Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow.; What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. -- Lincoln
Thank you for your defense. As you may be aware, this is just a slightly updated version of COVERTURE. Which goes back centuries. In project 29/5 but not by name. Actually, there are resources for that but you truly have to search—I have a library of books on this topic. COVERTURE
Yes indeed. Coverture is the ghost in the floorboards so to speak. I didn’t want to overstate the argument, but that idea that a woman’s authority has to be covered, managed, or absorbed by somebody else is still so very much with us.
Please drop a few of those book titles if you can. That’s exactly the kind of historical root system I want people thinking about.
Saw this great essay a few hours ago, but only now am free to comment on it. Mr. Plisset is correct, as always, to see a sexist angle to this issue and to compare it with the Black experience. But I'm really confused about the "Reliability" index employed by Ad Fontes. Dr. Richardson expresses opinions, to be sure, but those opinions are always based in searchable fact, and she provides the sources in every Letter. You might disagree with her interpretation, but her reliability is not (or should not be) in question. You can just check the facts she conveniently provides for yourself, if you are so inclined. I'm not at all concerned at all about Ad Fontes placing LFAA on the liberal side of the table. While I'd be interested to know the standards by which Ad Fontes discerns a liberal or conservative tendency to an article or site, it really doesn't matter. The relative position of LFAA with regard to the other publications Ad Fontes evaluates is clear. And it seems to me that the position of LFAA on that scale is just further confirmation of the old joke "reality has a liberal bias."
James, you pretty much nailed it. The “liberal side” part doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the reliability fog. Call her liberal if you must. Fine. But don’t act like sourced historical interpretation is the same neighborhood as shaky facts. If HCR gives you the receipts and you don’t like the conclusion, that’s disagreement, not unreliability. And ok yes, maybe the real scandal is still the old joke that reality keeps refusing to file its paperwork as conservative.
Absolutely! The scientific method is built to minimize and name any likely biases in its process.
The problem is not that the scientific method itself is bad, but that the systems that feed scientific inquiry are stacked against those for whom the overall sociopolitical system are disempowering. From the educational barriers into science, to the interests of those who make it into productive research, to the makeup of peer reviewers, to the oligarchical and capitalist biases of research funding, to the oversimplification of results reporting in media, we have failed to make the scientific method work for welfare, public health, equity and justice.
But don't chuck the baby out with the bathwater - science, done with critical theory guiding its operation, inclusive, equitable funding, and accurate interpretation of results, is essential for the good of humankind, and the planet.
Agreed. Science as a way of understanding is conservative in the sense of a "conservative estimate". It acknowledges one's own likely ignorance/capacity for error, and and therefore avoids the awareness-stopping hazard of certainly. It is humility, even though that is not always practiced. An open mind is is skeptical (but not cynical); skeptical of any (including one's own) conclusions, and therefore questions everything. In the end we are obliged to make decisions, including life-changing ones, while acknowledging uncertainty, but ideally based on a degree of confidence in turn based on due diligence. Innocent until proven guilty is based on that approach, however imperfectly that may be applied. Science is most frequently spoken of as a focus, a topical category, but it really is a practical way to be more careful. That won't answer everything, but I think as much due diligence as one can manage is always an advantage. You see that demonstrated in the work of Heather Cox Richardson and on this site. What I think Xplisset means by "receipts'.
It's not a joke. The hallmark of authoritarians is suppressing speakers of truth. It is no coincidence that much of the founding US philosophy of governance (VS monarchy) was based on Enlightenment period thinkers, a period that embraced science and forward thinking over authoritarian edicts of yore.
Bravo-for brilliantly saying the quiet things out loud and giving me the words to articulate this ruse to myself and others. Great insight on the prediction markets and society’s need for this approach to life. Keep doing you!!
Most main media - WaPo, WSJ, even some reporters at the NY Times and The Atlantic - the "truth checkers", the AI dominated search engines, and some outlets perceived as critics of the regime, are all tending towards an obvious state controlled ecosystem. The sane-washing, the outright propaganda mouthpieces like faux "news", are treated as reliable sources in too many corporate media circles. As the felonpotus denigrates all press he does not like, i.e., truth tellers; media companies fearing retribution, and caving to frivolous lawsuits, are writing as if what this lunatic potus says, posts, and enacts is sane, and reasonable. He is not. Outlets denigrating real journalists like Heather Cox Richardson know whom to target, who are not swallowing the lines, and who will not be complicit with state propaganda. We need independent voices more than ever, to combat this regime's tyranny.
ON Heather Cox Richardson's YouTube (and FB) podcast of yesterday, she mentions there are a lot of AI generated and fake accounts attributed to her. Some apparently are "meh" but others are more serious. I personally have not seen them. She started her podcast by cautioning anything that does not come from one of her authorized accounts. I'm not surprised that this is happening to her, as she is a big voice and as she says, the Right is scared.
Damn Miselle That makes the whole thing uglier. Fake AI accounts get attached to her name, then the internet acts like she’s the credibility problem. That’s a setup.
Xplisset, a related issue to the "AI-Heather Cox Richardson": if before voting, people INFORMED themselves about the candidates by seeking out the candidates official websites and reading about their stances on issues, we'd have a much better society. But, many people are downright lazy and will just follow the memes.
I am not an expert in marketing, but let me relay something I was told about thirty years ago: I had a friend trying to launch a small secretarial business from her home. She told me she got books on how to start a business, and it suggested she send out marketing materials, stating that basically, the first time, people will toss it. The second time, they'll give a millisecond recognition of the name and toss it. The third time, they will stop and read it, even if they don't need the service right then. NAME RECOGNITION sets in.
(My friend simply didn't have the finances to do three mailings, sadly. Like the majority of small businesses, it failed.)
This is why the big donors are pursued, as it is tremendously expensive to get all those ads, both paper and digital! If someone's campaign organically grows itself, it's unusual and can garner it's own momentum. If you can get the attention of a say--Joe Rogan, or a Heather Cox Richardson--and use their bases, you've got a big hand up.
So if you can't get their attention, or they'd disagree with your campaign, well, enter the AI. 😣
I personally got disillusioned by making donations to the DNC, as I recall stories of smaller (think state level) campaigns that could have been won, but the DNC decided to drop funds into other campaigns they deemed more worthy. By reading the HCR forum, I learned about writing my own postcards/letters--using my own dime!--to support candidates I believe in. It felt better to me to know that my money was indeed supporting the candidates I wished to, and these organizations have data which says that HANDWRITTEN messages are more likely to be read. (Sadly, I wrote about 50 postcards for John Fetterman, which I truly, truly regret.)
Another thought, Xplisset, is something that I as a white senior woman can't answer, is, how do you get young black people to vote? Perhaps this is racist of me, and if so I apologize for it, but when I've given a list of infrequent voters to write to, based on their geographic area (which I look up) and their names, I think they are people of color. Seriously, what do I know about their lives that I can write two or three lines to convince them that their vote matters, especially when the GOP is hell-bent on diluting the value of their vote?
I'm beating a dead horse, I know, but I still can't fathom why Kamila isn't our POTUS! This woman checked all the boxes, as far as I could see. I was dumbstruck to hear of majority black districts that went for Trump. I don't get it.
I apologize for hijacking your comment section and going off on a tangent. I really hope as the midterms approach, you can devote some substack space to the issue of voter turnout.
I'm convinced Kamala did win, but voter suppression, purges, vote manipulation, etc. gave it to Trump.
Yep. I've seen a few obvious fakes of her profile and report them
There were AI videos of Aaron Parnas saying he was good friends with the supposed shooter at the whcd. This is just what conspiracy idiots will eat up, all the fake AI crap.
Anyway, just want to thank you for this fantastic piece of truth. We need to clone AOC & Jasmine Crocket & have them rule the planet
Yes, & others have complained about it, too, including Robert Reich. I have noticed it for Rachel Maddow, Jasmine Crockett, George Will & others.
I had been ignoring this “prophet “ but not heard of the not-so-subtle attempts to discredit HCR. I will say that as an academic who teaches through critical race and gender lenses, and a woman, the automatic discrediting may be as much tied to the now popular distain for higher education as much as to HCR’s gender
Exactly. It’s not that every criticism of HCR is sexism. It’s the reflex. The speed. The way her memory gets treated like bias while some dude at a whiteboard gets treated like he cracked the Matrix. That’s the part that made me go hmmmm.
Thank you Xplisset. An excellent essay, annotated and complete. I too trust and admire Dr. Heather Cox Richardson implicitly and I feel the same about you. You both have intelligence combined with humility, qualities necessary for trust. It’s not a matter of right versus left political bias (based on economics) it’s a matter of what is good and correct ideals for humanity.
🙏
Beautifully said- thx
A brilliant read--never heard of Ad Fontes but I nearly fell for the "Professor" a few moments back--but after listening to his predictions decided he was a crank with a whiteboard as you write. HCR, other other hand, is recording our perilous moment day by day and helping many of us keep the faith. As are you.
That’s the trap Grace. The crank with a whiteboard sounds useful for five minutes because he says the empire ain’t invincible. Then the fog rolls in. HCR is doing the opposite: not prophecy, not vibes, not no Matrix cosplay. She’s clearly keeping the receipts while the house burns.
BTW: you write autoethnographically! A compliment.
Nope - not going there! As you said this time and earlier, I believe, Heather Cox Richardson is the real deal. Her letter is the first thing I read every morning. Someone who "predicted" the dumpster? Well how hard was that? The Letter is far from partisan & I've learned (or maybe re-learned) more history and get brought up to date with the current mess, besides.
In my opinion (biased) everyone should be reading her Letters.
Exactly. “Trump will create chaos” ain’t prophecy. That’s looking out the window and saying it’s raining while the roof is already leaking.
Millions of people pick a lottery number, and some of them win. Prediction? Not unless you can show your work, and a here to there.
I wait for her live chats every Tuesday and Thursday. She brilliantly ties everything together with her calm voice. She talks thousands of us off the cliff with her chats.
Sarge, this is some of the best articulation I’ve heard regarding this trend towards “outcome betting”.
I’m reminded of the old saw “Remember that Grace Kelly did everything Fred Astaire did, only backwards and in high heels.
The worst part about it is how Substack supports this crap. Our youth are being corrupted by all these ads and endorsements for gambling, Polymarket, and etc and 10 years from now we are going to regret this vice being unleashed.
For some reason, when I started my comment, it was black type on black background. Then, instead of “backspace” I hit “post”.
Yeah I figured it as a snafu of some sort.
Thank you for another insightful Dive into the underworld of deception. I found you on Letters to an American in comments a while ago... Best investment I have made in a long time. I am an old boomer who found history in the libraries. My refuge for my youthful years. Being an octogenarian provides me with a long memory of the events we now call history. I don't need glasses to view truth of these events. As always : Keep om Keeping on.
This boomer white septuagenarian agrees completely!!
Very cogently thought out and explained clearly and with nuance - thank you!
🙏
Your essay was spot on and the comments reflected my feelings also. It motivated me to put the last $310 into your goal.
Thank you Margaret. I will most definitely KEEP ON keeping on.
The problem is that Ad Fontes has unintentionally (I trust) created a bogus system of evaluation in which a given commentator or news source is placed on the political spectrum without really understanding what that spectrum represents. I went to the website, and the divide between “left” and “right” appears to be predicated not on the policies advocated, for the most part, but on whether a fact-based narrative—grounded not in political theory but in demonstrable information—is presented. This actually discredits both the actual political left and the actual political right.
I say this after seeing even quite conservative news outlets, like the Globe and Mail, placed left of centre. They’re there, I believe, not because they repeat narratives identified as coming from the political left (although, frankly, the very concept of “left” and “right” is eroding like a sugar cube in a cup of coffee just now), but because they attempt to set the record straight as to what the evidence shows.
So Heather Cox Richardson lands on the “left” because she draws upon historical facts—actualities that are part of the record, solidly researched and confirmed as well as possible from multiple sources and original material—to show that certain policies have worked or failed in the past. Since policies associated with the political right tend, on average, to produce poorer outcomes for most citizens than those associated with the left (put simply: from the left you tend to get less income inequality, more social spending, more carefully managed regulation, and stronger democratic processes; from the right, lower taxes, less social spending, greater income inequality, and less “red tape”), presenting those outcomes apparently places one on the left.
For those at Ad Fontes who don’t think this through, the implication is that when facts contradict what is promoted from the right, then, in order to be “on” the right, one must push a false narrative at the expense of the facts. True conservatives don’t feel that they have to do that.
For example, pointing out that the law requires the President of the United States to obtain Congressional authorization to wage war beyond a 60-day period does not place one on the left. Wherever one sits on the political spectrum, one can state that as fact and explain its implications without revealing one’s political position. It has nothing to do with left or right.
Similarly, one can point out that, based on common usage—whether from restaurant slang, popular culture, or, if you like, gangster movies—“86” does not equate with assassination. Saying that it is absurd to lay a criminal charge based on a photograph of seashells is an opinion, albeit one informed by that basic fact. But even that opinion does not place one on the left or right—it is simply an opinion.
What I’m trying to say is that the basic premise by which Ad Fontes “rates” pundits and commentators is of limited value, except perhaps at the more extreme ends of the spectrum. They don’t seem to recognize this because their thinking is surface-level—shallow, even. That, of course, is my opinion, not a demonstrable fact. It derives from personal values—and what I value is evidence, and getting as close to the truth as possible.
I wouldn’t worry about them.
Barry, lemme tell ya this comment pulled up with a bibliography, a folding chair, and a thermos of coffee.
But yeah, exactly. The problem is Ad Fontes treats “left” and “right” like some clean straight line when the real divide now is often evidence vs. narrative management. If a fact contradicts right-wing mythology, the fact does not become left-wing. It remains a fact. That’s why the label bothers me. Not because I think Ad Fontes is twirling a villain mustache, but because shallow categories become permission slips for lazy readers. I agree we shouldn’t lose sleep over them, but we should absolutely notice how the label they create travels.
Which is, of course, not only the job you chose but one you do well. There is so much more to be said, and I refer to J.L. Graham's wise words about confusing the model with the actuality. But J.L. also brings up another important point, and that is the careless construction of the model (assuming it is not deliberately so, which is not a safe thing to assume). Which leads to the "dumbing down" of the electorate, and the attacks on science, literacy, the arts, education overall. But we must not wait until we are trampled before we take note of the elephant in the room, or the inconvenient truth, and that is that we are not all created equal and some of us are more or less intelligent and/or experienced than others and that is neither wrong nor right...it just is. (And lest anyone think I'm self-identifying with the "elite", nope...I wish I understood nuclear physics or could do math, or had a degree, but no...I'm not stupid but I could be a whole lot smarter.) What is odious, to me, is when the more, or at all, gifted, take advantage of the less so, or else use them (as Pete Hegseth is being used, not that I have a trace of sympathy for him) or their greed or other less "noble" traits, for their own gain at the expense of others. The ability to do so decreases, I believe, proportionate to the degree that people are taught critical thinking and that, in my opinion, should start, in an age appropriate manner, in kindergarten, if not sooner. Really!
Barry, this comment came in with chapters and begats. lol.
But you’re right and thank you for this thoutful reply. Once the model replaces the actual thing, we stop thinking and start worshiping the chart. And yes, people are not equally trained, equally experienced, or equally equipped to spot the hustle. That doesn’t mean unequal human worth. It means critical thinking has to start early, because otherwise the loudest model in the room becomes reality.
My mother told me that there is a difference between clever and wise, and the more I see, the more I believe it. Tortoise and hare, and useful, certainly moral, intelligence has as much to do with values and what one pays attention to, as mental "horsepower". It seems to me that "wisdom" resists defining precisely, but I think it is an eye for detail, as well as the whole, the forest and the trees, and since we all have limits, a sense somehow of what most matters. I think intellect helps, but is not the key. Curiosity and honesty with one's self seems more important. Why does the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" so resonate? The kid in the story was not being especially clever. He was being honest.
A tape measure is useful, and I use one often, but there are three dimensions and Einstein added a forth by proving time and space are interactive. The tape can measure only fragments of that. Reality is so much richer, detailed and connected than our maps of it, even though that mapping can greatly serve us. What does not serve is confusing our model of reality, especially a carelessly constructed or deliberately misleading one, with the reality we are and in which we live, but there is a lot of that.
So true, JL. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard something in the nature of "we can't know everything, so let's believe in fairy tales."
People jailed and bombed by Trump can't wish away reality, and uncertainty does not undo probability. It is supposed to be 81º here on Monday. That isn't normal, and yes, it is not necessarily uncommon to encounter things that are not "normal", but that is happening with much greater frequency than normal; and that bears paying extra attention to.
We never left the "Garden of Eden"; yet while it may be a rose garden, it sports some really nasty thorns. Nature gives no flying @#$% what we SAY about her, but when we know her rules, she will often let us hitch a ride, and maybe avoid SOME of the nastier pitfalls. How many lives throughout history have been lost and ruined by somebodies' out of control ego, and aggressive denial of best efforts to represent reality?
I think of technical "left" and "right" as "state owns almost everything" and "state owns nothing". I have encountered "Republicans" who believe that absolutely nothing should be non-profit, including all roads and services, such a police and fire. Seems like sanity lies somewhere in the realm of what Heather Cox Richardson calls "the liberal consensus" that was typical of the mid 20th Century, the right tool for the right job. Hard "left" and hard "right" are extremes, but I resist calling it "centrist". It can get complicated when you get into a mix. Apart from that. "left and right" seems to mean whatever one want's it to mean, to the speaker anyway, and a lot of "buzz" seems to assign categories and numbers to things that do little more than appear to legitimize careless opinions.
I agree with Karen Close, that "It’s not a matter of right versus left political bias (based on economics) it’s a matter of what is good and correct ideals for humanity. "
"Good and correct ideals for humanity is partly subjective and party not. We can compare notes. We can ask ourselves what, after all, really, truly matters.
"Better angels of our nature"?
I have encountered the view from the right that earning money is the only motive for work, which is a very Ayn Randian way of thinking and contrary to the reality for many people. The view continues that minus the competitive motive that profit making supposedly rewards the worker with, said worker becomes sloppy, thus private enterprise always "trumps" publicly funded services in efficacy, economic and otherwise...again a simplistic fallacy often at odds with demonstrable facts. Karen Close's statement is correct, in my opinion, too, if "humanity" is defined to include us all. If it does not, if we deny others what we think we should have for ourselves, we put ourselves at risk...presumably for such people that is really all that matters. The people I turn to for the goods and services I need, for example, the provision of food, the fixing of a leaky pipe, the trimming of a tree or the cutting of my hair, are not billionaires. Who do you call when you smell smoke coming out of the laundry room, or there is some stranger prying the window open of your neighbour's house at two a.m.? Not a billionaire. We all need what it takes to survive and be healthy, but none of us needs a second yacht...or the first, and certainly not at the cost of a hungry child or an abandoned elder. But yeah...that kind of thinking is anathema to the far right, and dismissed with careless disdain as "socialism".
No one needs a ship-sized yacht with a permanent on-board staff that can carry many dozens. One can hire a boat for that. The richest have for centuries tended to equate one's wealth with one's virtue; but while there is certainly some correlation between wealth and labor, it is way more complicated than that. Al Capone was wealthy. The British East India Company was wealthy. Some nations are dominated by a few ultra-wealth families, while most live in need.
Virtue?
Not according to Jesus, who the MAGAs bang on about.
"Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow.; What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. -- Lincoln
What's changed?
Thank you for your defense. As you may be aware, this is just a slightly updated version of COVERTURE. Which goes back centuries. In project 29/5 but not by name. Actually, there are resources for that but you truly have to search—I have a library of books on this topic. COVERTURE
Yes indeed. Coverture is the ghost in the floorboards so to speak. I didn’t want to overstate the argument, but that idea that a woman’s authority has to be covered, managed, or absorbed by somebody else is still so very much with us.
Please drop a few of those book titles if you can. That’s exactly the kind of historical root system I want people thinking about.
A new word for me. I looked it up. Creepy. This whole will to dominate thing is our real original sin.
Saw this great essay a few hours ago, but only now am free to comment on it. Mr. Plisset is correct, as always, to see a sexist angle to this issue and to compare it with the Black experience. But I'm really confused about the "Reliability" index employed by Ad Fontes. Dr. Richardson expresses opinions, to be sure, but those opinions are always based in searchable fact, and she provides the sources in every Letter. You might disagree with her interpretation, but her reliability is not (or should not be) in question. You can just check the facts she conveniently provides for yourself, if you are so inclined. I'm not at all concerned at all about Ad Fontes placing LFAA on the liberal side of the table. While I'd be interested to know the standards by which Ad Fontes discerns a liberal or conservative tendency to an article or site, it really doesn't matter. The relative position of LFAA with regard to the other publications Ad Fontes evaluates is clear. And it seems to me that the position of LFAA on that scale is just further confirmation of the old joke "reality has a liberal bias."
James, you pretty much nailed it. The “liberal side” part doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the reliability fog. Call her liberal if you must. Fine. But don’t act like sourced historical interpretation is the same neighborhood as shaky facts. If HCR gives you the receipts and you don’t like the conclusion, that’s disagreement, not unreliability. And ok yes, maybe the real scandal is still the old joke that reality keeps refusing to file its paperwork as conservative.
I view the scientific method as conservative. There is nothing conservative about modern political "Conservatives".
Absolutely! The scientific method is built to minimize and name any likely biases in its process.
The problem is not that the scientific method itself is bad, but that the systems that feed scientific inquiry are stacked against those for whom the overall sociopolitical system are disempowering. From the educational barriers into science, to the interests of those who make it into productive research, to the makeup of peer reviewers, to the oligarchical and capitalist biases of research funding, to the oversimplification of results reporting in media, we have failed to make the scientific method work for welfare, public health, equity and justice.
But don't chuck the baby out with the bathwater - science, done with critical theory guiding its operation, inclusive, equitable funding, and accurate interpretation of results, is essential for the good of humankind, and the planet.
Agreed. Science as a way of understanding is conservative in the sense of a "conservative estimate". It acknowledges one's own likely ignorance/capacity for error, and and therefore avoids the awareness-stopping hazard of certainly. It is humility, even though that is not always practiced. An open mind is is skeptical (but not cynical); skeptical of any (including one's own) conclusions, and therefore questions everything. In the end we are obliged to make decisions, including life-changing ones, while acknowledging uncertainty, but ideally based on a degree of confidence in turn based on due diligence. Innocent until proven guilty is based on that approach, however imperfectly that may be applied. Science is most frequently spoken of as a focus, a topical category, but it really is a practical way to be more careful. That won't answer everything, but I think as much due diligence as one can manage is always an advantage. You see that demonstrated in the work of Heather Cox Richardson and on this site. What I think Xplisset means by "receipts'.
It's not a joke. The hallmark of authoritarians is suppressing speakers of truth. It is no coincidence that much of the founding US philosophy of governance (VS monarchy) was based on Enlightenment period thinkers, a period that embraced science and forward thinking over authoritarian edicts of yore.
Bravo-for brilliantly saying the quiet things out loud and giving me the words to articulate this ruse to myself and others. Great insight on the prediction markets and society’s need for this approach to life. Keep doing you!!
🙏
The world would be better off if the female professors like Dr. Stacy Patton and HCR were widely circulated.
Most main media - WaPo, WSJ, even some reporters at the NY Times and The Atlantic - the "truth checkers", the AI dominated search engines, and some outlets perceived as critics of the regime, are all tending towards an obvious state controlled ecosystem. The sane-washing, the outright propaganda mouthpieces like faux "news", are treated as reliable sources in too many corporate media circles. As the felonpotus denigrates all press he does not like, i.e., truth tellers; media companies fearing retribution, and caving to frivolous lawsuits, are writing as if what this lunatic potus says, posts, and enacts is sane, and reasonable. He is not. Outlets denigrating real journalists like Heather Cox Richardson know whom to target, who are not swallowing the lines, and who will not be complicit with state propaganda. We need independent voices more than ever, to combat this regime's tyranny.
Could it be because Dr. Richardson says Trump is Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs? Seriously, you are spot on. And Trump is cra-cra.