Tag: politics

Don’t mix up censorship with civility

A version of this essay was published as part of my twice-monthly newsletter several weeks ago. Find other archives and join here to get updates like this first.

Censorship is about content (you can’t say this or that). Civility is about tone (you can’t say this like that).

Attribution bias virtually guarantees that we are sure our tone is appropriate for all circumstances. If we use vulgar language or overly fatalistic language, it’s because we are on the right and just side of a cause. If someone with whom we disagree does this, they are proving just why they something short of civil.

Continue reading Don’t mix up censorship with civility

People you disagree with and people you dislike are two different groups

I’m struggling with how clear it seems we’re on a path culturally in which we won’t be able to like or admire people we disagree with. Or, worse, that if we disagree with someone on one topic, we’ll have to disagree with them on everything.

I tweeted this week that I both respect Barack Obama and I can understand his administration made decisions that have a complicated legacy. Likewise, I’ve long admired John McCain but do not agree with many of his stances. There are lots of people whose views might diverge from mine.

It reminded of that image above that I made last fall out of exasperation. I like people and disagree with them, and I mostly dislike people who I disagree with. Also, opinions on people and topics may shift, because we are all adapting. Some of that surely has to be ok, doesn’t it? I worry if not.

All war begins with a premise of ‘better than’

At its core, every war—whether between nations, ideologies, or even individuals—starts with a premise of superiority. One side believes it is better than the other: better ideals, better values, better claims to resources or land. That belief in being “better than” is the seed from which conflict grows.

This framing helps justify violence, no matter how brutal or senseless. If you’ve convinced yourself that your way of life is superior, it becomes easier to dehumanize those who don’t share it. You aren’t attacking equals; you’re attacking something lesser, something wrong. And when you believe your cause is just and theirs is flawed, compromise feels unnecessary—or even impossible.

But here’s the hard truth: Wars aren’t just about ideological clashes or moral righteousness. They’re also deeply practical, rooted in power and control. The “better than” narrative is often a convenient way to rally support, to mask the raw pursuit of dominance as something noble.

This idea isn’t just about geopolitics. It’s worth considering in our daily lives. How often do we approach disagreements—whether in relationships, workplaces, or communities—with a subtle sense of “better than”? And how much conflict could we avoid if we were quicker to recognize the humanity in others, even when we disagree?

War, big or small, thrives on division. It begins with “better than.” It ends when we start to see the world as “equal to.”

I donated to a political campaign for the first time in my life

Let’s start with scale: I attended a political fundraiser and wrote a check for $250.

Next, consider context: it was for someone I’ve known for longer than I can remember, among the closest of my family friends, who lived a few houses down from me when I was just a few months old.

Even still, I actually agonized a bit about the decision. Journalism is a thicket of rules and expectations and among the loudest is to stay objective in politics and distant from the money that feeds it. I was worried my donating would cloud the work I do as editorial director at niche publisher Technically Media. Here’s why I decided it was the right decision.

Continue reading I donated to a political campaign for the first time in my life

Would the coup d’etat of the future originate with an IT leader rather than a military one?

Governing is messy, so there has been no shortage of attempts by one party to overthrow the other through history. Among the most recent, high-profile coups came in Egypt where, as is almost always the case, the military led the overthrow — at some level.

This summer, as the Egyptian revolution has taken place, government leaders from China and the United States held their first talks on cybersecurity, spurred by reports that the second largest economy was snooping on the first.

It got me thinking: when will be the first coup led by a technology leader? There’s no doubt that military force will become increasingly controlled by technology. I wonder if that work will ever grow outside of a military or, if not, will there come a time when a military-based technology leader leverages control over systems, security and other digital processes using that power to take over control. It can’t be too far removed.

Why must I pick a side in the trial of George Zimmerman?

zimmerman

I’ve been struggling to explain to people why I haven’t much followed the much publicized trial of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in either self-defense or because of vengeful stereotyping, depending on where you land politically.

Then I read something that helped me understand better. I strongly endorse this post about the polarization of our country:

Why the hell must I pick a side in the George Zimmerman trial? A 17 year old boy is dead and a man who may or may not be guilty of murder is on trial but, even if not guilty, will never again be safe because so much outrage and so much politicization has been poured into the trial. A 17 year old is dead. Why am I forced, as a conservative, to cheer for the guy who took his life? And you people who support Trayvon, how are you given a pass on seeing things from George Zimmerman’s perspective? Why must I decide on the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman based on the outrage of people whose politics differ from mine? Why must a death and trial comport to a political world view?!

MORE

Campaign opposition research is a type of investigative journalism

TheOppositionBook

What we have lost in investigative reporting units at news organization in the last two decades will be at least partially replaced by mission-orientated groups that can find other value for doing such work.

Foundations, think tanks and mission-minded nonprofits may be the more ethically normalized groups, but in elections and government, the idea of campaign opposition research will almost surely come to wider prominence. The idea that a campaign would hire investigators, lawyers or others to dig up shortcomings on political rivals is not new at all, but we’ll hear more about this.

Continue reading Campaign opposition research is a type of investigative journalism

There are no good U.S. presidents, just good times to be president

When one looks at the depths of U.S. presidential politics, there is a balance between who is perceived as having succeeded and who has failed.

We write thick biographies and create college courses on the considerable accomplishments of our favorites. In pragmatic contrast, there is an old saw that means to convey how much federal structure has been built up over time.

The only two decisions a president gets to make are when to drop the bomb and where to put the library.

It’s with that logic that I’ve found myself feeling a certain sense of predetermined indifference. I’ve long loved following local politics more than federal, on the whole, because it’s my belief that those actors impact my life in a far more tangible way than those federally.

There are no good U.S. presidents, just good times to be president.

Good times

  • When a new gamechanging technology is invented, like the Internet
  • When there is an enemy of state, like after 9/11
  • Right after a global recession, like perhaps next term

Bad times

  • When there is a global recession, like now
  • When there is a hostage situation, late in your second term.

Why politicians cheat: five reasons that should leave us unsurprised by campaign affairs

When the inevitable annual news story comes out about the latest politician having cheated on his wife, people question why leaders cheat.

There are some obvious reasons to me:

  1. Long campaign hours — Same as workaholics, being away from home offers a lot of opportunity for philandering.
  2. Lots of people interaction — When campaigning and legislating, you deal with a lot of people.
  3. Charismatic, passionate leaders — Elections attract people who often have the attractive qualities.
  4. Sense of entitlement — Those who do good, big work (like legislators) can easily convince themselves that they’re owed a little wrong.
  5. You’re the boss — In interviews and campaigning and voting and such, legislators are taught to make and stand by their decisions. Not all of them are the right ones.