Phyllis Beveridge Nissila

It reminds me of a playground contest:

“YOU’re the one (spouting Russia talking points)!”

“Unh unh! It’s YOU!”

“Unh UNH!…”

(Wash, rinse, repeat.)

But what with the level of sophisticated word-smithing going on these days in the very troubled Right-versus-Left world of politics, it can be hard to tell.

Problems exist for several of the usual reasons, of course:

–lack of information,

–lack of education,

–powerful money backers,

–sophisticated propaganda mechanisms,

–fraud, and

–deceit.

I would add one more that is not often discussed: cognitive dissonance particularly as it pertains to the more intelligent among us. See here for a discussion on this difficulty which, in my view, is why so many in academia trend Far Left politically, particularly if they spurn the idea of absolute truth and, in this nation, as they work to fundamentally transform the founders’ definition of the Rule of Law [1], an effort not well known but that has been going on for several decades now.

But whatever side one is on politically, or, perhaps, a combination of sides, there is one way to discern truth that is not restricted to this nation, even to this era. It comes from an ancient source and goes like this:

Ye shall know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:16).

In the secular realm, it goes like this:

The proof is in the pudding.

In short, it’s a universal truism that if you want to know what’s working, whose plan is the best, analyze the results.

If the plan is in progress, take a close look at the “ingredients,” as it were.

So we also have this opportunity regarding the “Russia, Russia, Russia” debate.

The ingredients in this case are the philosophies, proposals, and products making up the government espoused by Russia*, as compared with the Republicans’ and the Democrats’ contrasting concepts of governance espoused here in the United States.

Carefully considering those, we can then better understand–and make more informed decisions on–which of the two political parties here most resemble Russia when it comes to end goals of consolidation of central power and restriction of freedoms because we do know the end result of Russia’s history of totalitarianism, especially in the *Cold War period that most people think of when hearing the phrase “Russia talking points” (which is why that is such an effective dog whistle).

Then let critical thinking be the guide.

If we can resist becoming entangled and enraged, divided and destroyed, by the playground contest, it is really that simple.

I would add, that essential.

Carry on.

~~~~~

1. See here for a discussion on how the definition of Rule of Law has slowly been changing, in the last few decades, to be more “fluid,” influenced on the Left more by ever-morphing  contemporary cultural and social norms than classic standards and definitions.