Once Tabloid Trash, Always Tabloid Trash

By Sam Frescoe

samfrescoe@gmail.com

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe

 

What headlines tend to catch your attention? For me, I’m drawn to geo-political headlines before others. I pay particular attention to the mentioning of American national security leaders. In the case of this article, the particular headline mentioned two American leaders: The President of the United States, and the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

 

“McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name” [1]

 

Normally I look past sensational headlines such as this one. However, given the influence of Senator McCain, and the Senatorial difficulties being faced by the Trump’s administration, I elected to review the article. As a result, I increased my understanding of the Munich Security Conference and my distrust of the Associated Press.

 

The Problem

 

I am writing about the article titled “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name” because I want to show you how the Associated Press, in this case, purposefully deceived its readers and the public at large.

 

Getting Started

 

Context matters. In the case of the article, the context is that of the Munich Security Conference of 2017. Given the headline, particular attention was paid to Senator McCain’s remarks by the author and his publisher.

 

Munich Security Conference

 

Over the past five decades, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) has become the major global forum for the discussion of security policy. Each February, it brings together more than 450 senior decision-makers from around the world, including heads-of-state, ministers, leading personalities of international and non-governmental organizations, as well as high ranking representatives of industry, media, academia, and civil society, to engage in an intensive debate on current and future security challenges.[2]

 

The intention of the MSC is to address the topical main security issues and to debate and analyze the main security challenges in the presence and the future in line with the concept of networked security. A focal point of the conference is the discussion and the exchange of views on the development of the transatlantic relations as well as European and global security in the 21st century.[3]

 

The Author – The Publisher

 

The article was published by the Associated Press on behalf of Richard Lardner,[4] reporter for the Metro DC and Politics.[5] Lardner is connected with in 620 publications over the course of authoring 16,129 articles.[6] He is further described as an international investigations reporter for the Associated Press. Prior to working for the Associated Press, he was the general manager of Inside Washington Publishers' Defense Group in which he published six defense newsletters that covered budgets and programs of the U.S. Defense Department.[7]

 

The article seems to be written in an emotional rhetorical style. In my view, it seems clear that this article was purposefully designed to appeal to fear, anger, and disgust. While the logical fallacies contained within the article are many, there are some that stand out: appeal to ridicule and spite, red herring, and character attack. The rhetorical device being used is an appeal to a specific audience.

 

McCain

 

At the time of the article, Senator McCain was acting in the position of Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.[8] 

 

What Was Told

 

“McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name” Fox News

 

“McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name” AP, The Big Story

 

The author, and by extension the publisher, seems to desire connecting the following: McCain’s concern about the security of Western values, that Trump questions the value of NATO, and that SECDEF Mattis is breaking from Trump.[9] To this end, an article was posted to the public. Within the article, the author makes the following claim: Republican Sen. John McCain has delivered a withering critique of President Donald Trump in a speech that highlights fractures within the GOP as the new administration struggles to overcome a chaotic start.[10] The article was reposted by several additional news outlets: The Associated Press, Fox News, The Boston globe, ABC News, The New York Times, The Palm Beach Post, US News, CBS, Business Standard, Financial Express, and others.[11]

 

What Was Said – What Was Done

 

Senator McCain’s remarks were posted for public viewing on YouTube.

 

The MSC was held for three days, 17-20 Feb 2017 in Munich, Germany. On 17 Feb 2017, the MSC began and McCain provided his remarks.

• McCain’s remarks were posted to YouTube by Live Satellite News under the title “John McCain takes Shot at Trump at Munich Security Conference”.
• Lardner’s AP article was published as “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”.

 

On 17 Feb 2017, the Associated Press, on behalf of Richard Lardner (an AP reporter) asserted the following claims.

• “Republican Sen. John McCain has delivered a withering critique of President Donald Trump.” [12]
• “Republican Sen. John McCain has delivered a speech that highlights fractures within the GOP.” [13]
• “The new [Trump] administration struggles to overcome a chaotic start.” [14]

 

Garbage In – Garbage Out

 

Given the seriousness of the issues claimed, let’s see how well they stand up to a basic analysis.

 

Claim-1 – Withering Critique – On/Near 17 Feb 2017, the Associated Press, on behalf of Richard Lardner, asserted the following: “Republican Sen. John McCain has delivered a withering critique of President Donald Trump.”

 

In my view, Lardner attempts to support his claim with the following statements:

• “The Armed Services Committee chairman never mentioned the president's name while lamenting a shift in the United States and Europe away from the "universal values" that McCain says forged the Western alliance.”
• In his speech, McCain said "more and more of our fellow citizens seem to be flirting with authoritarianism and romanticizing it as our moral equivalent." [15]

 

After viewing the YouTube record, I am able to support the following challenges.

• First, and foremost, stating that McCain “never mentioned the president's name” does not provide sufficient license to connect McCain’s remarks to the President. Lardner and the AP have a significant integrity problem.
• Senator McCain was not lamenting, nor did he lament. Lamenting means to express oneself in a mournful, sad, or melancholic manner. To lament (verb) refers to an act of mourning, or expression of grief. It is clear for all to see, that McCain was not lamenting, nor did he lament.
• The “fellow citizens” remark was stated by McCain in his speech. Given its placement within the speech it seems clear that McCain was referring to the past and not the present. McCain offered the observation as a result of prior complacency, not as a result of current conditions.

 

Furthermore, the video presents further evidence contrary to the claim.

• McCain stated, “I know there is profound concern across Europe and the world that America is laying down the mantle of global leadership. I can only speak for myself, but I do not believe that that is the message you will hear from all the American leaders who cared enough to travel here to Munich this weekend.”
• McCain stated, “Make no mistake about it. These are dangerous times, and you should not count America out.”
• McCain stated, “That more and more of our fellow citizens seem to be flirting with authoritarianism and romanticizing it as a moral equivalent.”

None of these statements amount to a withering critique of President Donald Trump.

 

Claim-2 – GOP Fractures – On/Near 17 Feb 2017, the Associated Press, on behalf of Richard Lardner, asserted the following: “Republican Sen. John McCain has delivered a speech that highlights fractures within the GOP.”

 

In my view, Lardner did not attempt to support his claim with additional statements.

 

However, the video does present evidence contrary to the claim.

• McCain aligns himself with the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Advisor. – Examination of those referenced, provides support for the following conclusions: all are Republicans; three were selected by Trump himself; two were properly elected to office; two were approved by the Senate to take office.

McCain did not deliver a remark that “highlights fractures within the GOP.”

 

Claim-3 – Struggling Administration – On/Near 17 Feb 2017, the Associated Press, on behalf of Richard Lardner, asserted the following: “The new [Trump] administration struggles to overcome a chaotic start.”

 

In my view, Lardner did not attempt to support his claim with additional statements.

 

However, the video does not present evidence contrary to, or in support of, the claim. Additionally, at the time of posting, the Trump administration had existed for 28-days. Finally, in my view, the Trump administration is actively realigning staff, and pushing through the Senate confirmation process for several key cabinet members. Both challenges, staffing and confirmation, are reasonable and expected for any newly seated President.

 

Conclusion – Given the preponderance of the evidence, I conclude that all of Lardner’s claims are without merit. Furthermore, given the facts recorded, his claims are an outright fabrication and a breach of trust with the American public.

 

“So What?”

 

In my view, the Press is granted special protections that reflect the special trust placed in its profession. Simply stated, because of its special rights and protections, the Press has a duty to accurately present the facts regardless of the matter addressed. Clearly, Lardner and the AP failed to preserve the special trust placed in their profession.

 

Additionally, given the historical record claimed by Lardner and the AP, there is little doubt that this article was intentionally written to create an emotional effect. In short, they published tabloid trash loosely guised as factual enough.

 

An Alternative Assessment

 

On/Near 17 Feb 2017, Senator McCain, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, while speaking at the Munich Security Conference, reaffirmed America’s commitment to support and defend western civilization (The West). However, his comments were not exclusively that of praise. McCain’s speech is available at this link. 

 

McCain recounted a historical summary of the founding of The West (western civilization). A key feature of his summary was a reiteration of western values: universal values, rule of law, open commerce, and respect for national sovereignty and independence.

 

McCain tempered his summary by pointing out several shortcomings occurring within the last decade. He framed his comments in terms of The West in general and America specifically. McCain’s comments are paraphrased below.

• An increasing turn away from universal values and toward old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism.
• The hardening resentment seen towards immigrants, and refugees, and minority groups; especially Muslims.
• The growing inability, and even unwillingness, to separate truth from lies.
• That more and more of our fellow citizens seem to be flirting with authoritarianism and romanticizing it as a moral equivalent.
• May of our peoples, including [Americans], are giving up on the West. They see it as a bad deal, and that we may be better off without it.

 

McCain, in his view, offered several causes for the shortfalls stated.

• Complacency leading to mistakes
• At times we tried to do too much, and at others we failed to do enough
• We lost touch with many of our people
• We’ve been too slow to recognize and respond to their hardships

 

However, McCain did conclude his remarks with several statements of faith in the The West and its future; and even express the willingness to fight.

• “I know there is profound concern across Europe and the world that America is laying down the mantle of global leadership. I can only speak for myself, but I do not believe that that is the message you will hear from all the American leaders who cared enough to travel here to Munich this weekend.”
• “Make no mistake about it. These are dangerous times, and you should not count America out.”
• Our adversaries want the West to decline and fail. “This is their goal. They have no meaningful allies so they seek to sow decent among us; and, to divide us from each other. They know that their power and influence are inferior to ours. So they seek to subvert us; and erode our resolve to resist; and terrorize into passivity.”

 

In my view, upon reflecting on McCain’s remarks, and considering the breadth and depth of the MSC, I am willing to offer the following conclusion. On/Near 17 Feb 2017, Senator McCain issued a verbal statement signaling to the international community that the United States is going to set a new course of action in favor of Western civilization guiding principles.

 

Going Forward

 

America is an exceptional nation, and worthy of the leadership role and its challenges.

 

America was founded on an exceptional idea. Simply stated, that idea is that every citizen is of value. For this idea to hold true and transcend the generations, personal responsibility is mandatory. For without it, a citizen would not possess human value; and, as a result, neither would their thoughts, desires, deeds, or the tangible results thereof.

 

America champions an exceptional way. America was founded on the ideal of individual self-governance. To that end, the Founders ratified a Constitution that codified an arrangement of national government with enumerated and constrained powers. It happens that the Constitution and Bill of Rights codify a republic form of limited government, according to the consent of The People.

 

Given the history of America, in my opinion, we can lead the way forward, addressing the shortfalls of the past, and create effects in the world that are good while not compromising principle.

 

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

 

© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

 

---

[1] Richard Lardner. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. The Associated Press. 17 Feb 2017. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b2e01f5ca54c4ec4a8bd4cac7dee8eb9/mccain-slams-trump-munich-speech-without-using-his-name (accessed 170219); Associated Press. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. Fox news. 17 Feb 2017. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/17/mccain-slams-trump-in-munich-speech-without-using-his-name.html (accessed 170218)

[2] “About the MSC”. https://www.securityconference.de/en/about/about-the-msc/ (accessed 170218)

[3] “Munich Security Conference”. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Security_Conference (accessed 170218)  225 citations

[4] Richard Lardner. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. The Associated Press. 17 Feb 2017. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b2e01f5ca54c4ec4a8bd4cac7dee8eb9/mccain-slams-trump-munich-speech-without-using-his-name (accessed 170219); Associated Press. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. Fox news. 17 Feb 2017. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/17/mccain-slams-trump-in-munich-speech-without-using-his-name.html (accessed 170218)

[5] “Richard Lardner”. Muck Rack. https://muckrack.com/richard-lardner (accessed 170218); “Richard Lardner”. Reporter’s Info. Last updated 160428. https://reportersinfo.com/reporter/richard-lardner (accessed 170218)

[6] “Richard Lardner”. Muck Rack. https://muckrack.com/richard-lardner (accessed 170218)

[7] “Richard Lardner”. Reporter’s Info. Last updated 160428. https://reportersinfo.com/reporter/richard-lardner (accessed 170218)

[8] Richard Lardner. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. The Associated Press. 17 Feb 2017. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b2e01f5ca54c4ec4a8bd4cac7dee8eb9/mccain-slams-trump-munich-speech-without-using-his-name (accessed 170219); Associated Press. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. Fox news. 17 Feb 2017. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/17/mccain-slams-trump-in-munich-speech-without-using-his-name.html (accessed 170218)

[9] Richard Lardner. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. The Associated Press. 17 Feb 2017. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b2e01f5ca54c4ec4a8bd4cac7dee8eb9/mccain-slams-trump-munich-speech-without-using-his-name (accessed 170219); Associated Press. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. Fox news. 17 Feb 2017. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/17/mccain-slams-trump-in-munich-speech-without-using-his-name.html (accessed 170218)

[10] Richard Lardner. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. The Associated Press. 17 Feb 2017. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b2e01f5ca54c4ec4a8bd4cac7dee8eb9/mccain-slams-trump-munich-speech-without-using-his-name (accessed 170219); Associated Press. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. Fox news. 17 Feb 2017. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/17/mccain-slams-trump-in-munich-speech-without-using-his-name.html (accessed 170218)

[11] Google search for headline.

[12] Richard Lardner. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. The Associated Press. 17 Feb 2017. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b2e01f5ca54c4ec4a8bd4cac7dee8eb9/mccain-slams-trump-munich-speech-without-using-his-name (accessed 170219); Associated Press. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. Fox news. 17 Feb 2017. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/17/mccain-slams-trump-in-munich-speech-without-using-his-name.html (accessed 170218)

[13] Richard Lardner. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. The Associated Press. 17 Feb 2017. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b2e01f5ca54c4ec4a8bd4cac7dee8eb9/mccain-slams-trump-munich-speech-without-using-his-name (accessed 170219); Associated Press. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. Fox news. 17 Feb 2017. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/17/mccain-slams-trump-in-munich-speech-without-using-his-name.html (accessed 170218)

[14] Richard Lardner. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. The Associated Press. 17 Feb 2017. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b2e01f5ca54c4ec4a8bd4cac7dee8eb9/mccain-slams-trump-munich-speech-without-using-his-name (accessed 170219); Associated Press. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. Fox news. 17 Feb 2017. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/17/mccain-slams-trump-in-munich-speech-without-using-his-name.html (accessed 170218)

[15] Richard Lardner. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. The Associated Press. 17 Feb 2017. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b2e01f5ca54c4ec4a8bd4cac7dee8eb9/mccain-slams-trump-munich-speech-without-using-his-name (accessed 170219); Associated Press. “McCain slams Trump in Munich speech without using his name”. Fox news. 17 Feb 2017. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/17/mccain-slams-trump-in-munich-speech-without-using-his-name.html (accessed 170218)

Emotion Over Logic – Garbage In, Garbage Out

By Sam Frescoe

samfrescoe@gmail.com

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

The Sam Frescoe Project

#SamFrescoe #Trump #refugees #Christians

Late last week I was gathered around a lunch table of friends and acquaintances. We were cussing and discussing current events and the discourse of the day. Most gatherings stay light and cover several topics before concluding with handshakes and well wishes. However, this gathering was distinctly different. It began in the normal way, and concluded as before; but, the points between were neither light nor meandering. For whatever the reason, the “refugee crisis” became a hot topic. To be sure, the group discussed this subject many times before, and seemed to have relatively aligned views (we agreed on the “why” but differed on the “how”), but this time the “why” was sharply divided.

Opinion-1: The United States is morally obligated to protect (meaning accept) refugees. The People, because we are so well off by comparison, must aid those “poor people.” The American government would be in the right to obligate The People outside of their consent. “It’s the right thing to do.”

Opinion-2: The United States is morally obligated to protect its institutions (individual rights, the Constitutional Republic, consent of the governed). The People, because they are free to exercise liberty, may choose to aid those “poor people” as they see fit. The American government would be in the right to protect the rights of The People. “It’s the right thing to do.”

Shortly afterwards I received two messages: one from a youth pastor,[1] one from a minister.[2]  Both asked me to read their article and consider that my opinion was “falsely grounded” (meaning switch from Opinion-2 to Opinion-1). I agreed…I read…I considered…we discussed further…we remained firm in our opinions…we scheduled lunch for next week (per usual)…and now I am writing this article.

Getting Started

In my view, I regard my associates to be upstanding Americans that strive to “do what is good” before “doing what feels good.” Therefore, I will not be quoting their views. However, I do intend to express my views about the articles presented and their authors. To that end, this article is arranged in sections: review of the articles, review of the authors, and the expression of my views.

Article-1 ^[3]

In my view, the stand-out issue addressed in this article was whether or not to provide aid to those that are poor, oppressed, maligned, mistreated, sick, and most in need. While I agree that the issue is important, and that addressing the issue can “do what is good,” I disagree with the author’s primary claim; westernized Christians, “particularly white evangelicals,” fail to help those that are poor, oppressed, maligned, mistreated, sick, and most in need. The author supports his claim with a the following statement: “Christians in America have largely supported measures that have rejected refugees, refused aid to immigrants, cut social services to the poor, diminished help for the sick, fueled xenophobia, reinforced misogyny, ignored racism, stoked hatred, reinforced corruption, and largely increased inequality, prejudice, and fear.”  The author warrants his argument with the following:

• “Because in America, it appears that the sole purpose of Christianity is to selfishly protect people’s own self-interests instead of sacrificially serving others.”
• “The election of President Donald Trump has proven that numerous Christians are more worried about power, influence, and control than the gospel messages of humility, generosity, ministering to others, and love.”
• “These presidential orders, which will refuse help to many of the world’s most vulnerable individuals, are what many Christians voted for. This is the fruit of their political labor, but it’s not the Fruit of the Spirit. In fact, love, joy, peace, happiness, and self-control are notably absent from the current administration.”

When taken in total, the article presents an emotional argument expressed in a pathos rhetorical style.

The author, Stephen Mattson, seems to believe in “social justice” by way of the Theory of Intersectionality. His writings provide a voice for the brokerage of opinions and organizing ideas. Mattson claims to be a graduate of the Moody Bible Institute with a degree in youth ministry, and he regularly writes in a pathos rhetorical style. [4]^,[5]

Additionally, the publisher of this work, Sojourners Magazine, seems to believe in “social justice” by way of the Theory of Intersectionality. The publisher provides a means to broker opinions and organizing ideas. Sojourners Magazine is a publication of a political action group. The Magazine has a conspiratorial nature dating back to the 1970’s. [6]^,[7]^,[8] 

Article-2 ^[9]

In my view, the primary issue addressed in this article was to make clear that those who voted for Trump have condoned hatred in the forms of racism, bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, Islamophopbia, anti-Semitism, violence, discrimination, and bullying. The author’s claim was that the election of Trump was an act of hatred; therefore, those that voted for him are equally hateful. The claim is supported by painting Trump as a morally unacceptable choice due to interactions with, and descriptions of, women, protestors, Muslims, disabled persons, Black Lives Matter, VP selection, and those that choose to endorse him. “…regardless of why you voted for him, you did vote for him. Your affirmation of him and your elevation of him to this position, came with what you knew about him…” The author warrants his argument with the following:

• “These were all things you had to weigh to cast your vote, and by whatever method you used, you declared these things within your morally acceptable parameters.”
• “I want to believe that you do value equality and diversity and in the inherent value of every person as much as I do. I want to believe that people are precious to you, no matter their color or gender or faith tradition or sexual orientation. But if you refuse to speak into the events of these days, if you choose to stay silent, whether out of fear or shame or buyer’s remorse or ambivalence—I will have no choice but to believe that you are okay with all of this.”

When taken in total, the article presents an emotional argument expressed in a pathos rhetorical style that appeals to prejudices: race, sex, ability, class, religion, orientation, origin, and stereotypes.

The author, John Pavlovitz, seems to believe in the primacy of emotions, spirituality, and a variable truth (somewhere between his and yours). He desires to provide a way for a teen-community to embrace “simplicity and beauty of communal spirituality.” Pavlovitz is the head of the North Raleigh Community Church (NRCC) teen ministry, and an 18-year ministry veteran. Pavlovitz writes in a self-virtuous style. [10]^,[11],[12]

Pavlovitz publishes his work on a self titled blog that is affiliated with the NRCC. The NRCC seems to believe spiritual growth (meaning, cultivating hearts) is more valuable than Christian tradition, practice, or doctrine (which, in their view, has lost its moral authority). The Church desires to provide a way for a community to embrace “simplicity and beauty of communal spirituality.” The NRCC claims to be a Christian church that recognizes many ways to be Christian. The NRCC desires to assist others in seeking self-awareness and encourages self-disclosure. This desire is focused on leveraging single, afflictive-emotional episodes on a person-by-person basis.[13]^,[14],[15]^,[16]

My Take…

Both authors are masters of their craft. They clearly understand what they are doing, and (judging by their following) do it very well. Additionally, both understand how to leverage a pathos rhetorical style to forward emotional arguments ahead of logical arguments. In other words, concerning their skill, I wish to tip my hat to each of them.

In each of their pieces, there is evidence logical pattern interruption, the creation of comfort, leading of the imagination, and an attempt to satisfy critical minds; and then, they offer an invitation to their readers to shift feelings, change associations, and take action to “prove” worth. – This represents a deliberate attempt to present the value of emotional argument above that of logical argument.

To my mind, the leading issue in both cases is arrogance. My claim is that neither author is sufficiently qualified (in terms of intelligence, character, and goodwill of the issues raised) to speak as an authority.

Both authors acknowledge the complexity of the world at large, and then invite the reader to find it hard to believe that others could honestly and intelligently come to a different conclusion.

In support of my claim, I offer the following:

• “Because in America, it appears that the sole purpose of Christianity is to selfishly protect people’s own self-interests instead of sacrificially serving others.” [17] – This is a general (blanket) statement condemning America as nation in general and Christians specifically. The author is not in a position to have this knowledge (even if it were true).
• “The election of President Donald Trump has proven that numerous Christians are more worried about power, influence, and control than the gospel messages of humility, generosity, ministering to others, and love.” [18] – An election of any President proves nothing more than a President was elected. “Mandates” and “messages” are deduced or implied. Again, the author is not in a position to have this knowledge.
• “I want to believe that you do value equality and diversity and in the inherent value of every person as much as I do. I want to believe that people are precious to you, no matter their color or gender or faith tradition or sexual orientation. But if you refuse to speak into the events of these days, if you choose to stay silent, whether out of fear or shame or buyer’s remorse or ambivalence—I will have no choice but to believe that you are okay with all of this.” [19] – The author is not in a position to know or understand the views or values of the Trump voting population at large. Nor is he, as a Christian pastor, in a position to be a moral giver of any sort.

In short, neither author is creditable; therefore, not persuasive. Both authors lack sufficient intelligence, character, and goodwill on the issues raised. Therefore, neither is trustworthy or has sufficient expertise.

Ethos – Character Argument

For the authors to be intelligent on the issues, they must have having knowledge of their subjects, and argue in a clear and logical fashion. Given the “at large” nature of their declarations, it seems reasonable to me that neither author could possibly possess such knowledge. Additionally, neither author presented a logical argument, nor are they known for logos rhetoric.

For the authors to be of sufficient character, they must display traits admired by their audience – like honesty, sincerity, integrity, and moral commitment. While I cannot speak for the entirety of their audience, I can conclude for myself that (at this time) I do not believe either author is honest or (by extension) moral. However, given the consistency of their work, it’s plausible that they possess a measure of sincerity and integrity.

For the authors to display goodwill, they must treat their audience with respect, putting their case in terms that are understood, and acknowledge other points of view. In my view, both authors clearly fail the goodwill test.

Taken together, the objective and subjective components of believability (trustworthiness and expertise) are not present.

So What!?

In my view, the primary purpose of the authors, each in their own way, was to create a form of “false flag” in order to identify an “enemy” and create a cry for protection. The authors want you to believe that the election of Trump to the Office of President of the United States is an event or act of brute force by an “enemy.” In this case, the “enemy” is represented by all Trump voters. Those invited to provide protection against this aggression are voters already aligned with the authors, and Trump voters that redeem themselves in the view of the authors. Obedience is solicited by shame and fear. Psychological manipulations include at least one of the following:

• Condemnation according to several biblical passages.
• Avoidance of condemnation by behaving to please the author

In other words, the authors are advocating for a kind of redemptive social movement focused on radically changing the views of specific people.

Additionally, just because a voter could be motivated by something, does not mean that the voter, or any other voter, actually voted according to that something. Let’s not forget that the Presidential election came down to four candidates: one was a public loud-mouth with no experience, one was a public loud-mouth with criminal experience, one was a public loud-mouth without a clue, and one was a public loud-mouth with a favorite color. All other candidates that ran on long track records of public service, virtuous outreach, and executive success failed to make the Primary cut. – All of this to say, for those seeking to vote for a virtuous person were completely out of luck.

Mr. Mattson, I acknowledge that you are a political commentator and a seminary graduate. However, do you really expect me to believe that that you are an expert in politics because your commentary should be biblically sound? – Really!?

Mr. Pavlovitz, I acknowledge that you are a social-political blogger (an observer of outcomes) and a spiritual leader. However, do you really expect me to believe that you are an expert in social-political outcomes because your observations should be righteous? – Really!?

Given the facts presented by the authors, just how do their conclusions follow by necessity? – Non Sequitur

Stacked Evidence – Read the articles and decide for yourself.

Going Forward

You are responsible for mastering your thoughts, feelings, actions, and the circumstances you create. This is a singular responsibility that can be aided by others, but cannot be delegated to others. All of these masteries can be cultivated for the sake of what is good, true, and beautiful by your judicious development of your God-given intellect.

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below.

 

© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

 

 

---

[1] Stephen Mattson. “American Christianity Has Failed”. Sojourners. 25 Jan 2017. https://sojo.net/articles/american-christianity-has-failed (accessed 170129)

[2] John Pavlovitz. “If You Voted for Him”. Reprinted by Voices4Hillary. http://www.voices4hillary.com/if-you-voted-for-himby-john-pavlovitz-2107856844.html (accessed 170129)

[3] Stephen Mattson. “American Christianity Has Failed”. Sojourners. 25 Jan 2017. https://sojo.net/articles/american-christianity-has-failed (accessed 170129)

[4] Stephen Mattson. “Biography”. Sojourners. https://sojo.net/biography/stephen-mattson 1/ (accessed 170129)

[5] Stephen Mattson. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/sjmattson-647 (accessed 170129)

[6] About Us. Sojourners. https://sojo.net/about-us (accessed 170129)

[7] What We Cover. Sojourners. https://sojo.net/about-us/what-we-cover (accessed 170129)

[8] Who We Are. Sojourners. https://sojo.net/about-us/who-we-are (accessed 170129)

[9] John Pavlovitz. “If You Voted for Him”. Reprinted by Voices4Hillary. http://www.voices4hillary.com/if-you-voted-for-himby-john-pavlovitz-2107856844.html (accessed 170129)

[10] About | john pavlovitz. http://johnpavlovitz.com/about/ (accessed 170129)

[11] John Pavlovitz | The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/john-pavlovitz (accessed 170129)

[12] John Pavlovitz | NRCC Downtown. http://www.northraleighcommunitychurch.org/?staff=john-pavlovitz (accessed 170129)

[13] CONFESSION: SELF-AWARENESS, SELF-DISCLOSURE WORKSHEET; APPENDIX: FEELING WORDS (downloaded from NRCC website 170129)

[14] What We Believe | NRCC Downtown. http://www.northraleighcommunitychurch.org/what-we-believe/ (accessed 170129)

[15] Our Story | NRCC Downtown. http://www.northraleighcommunitychurch.org/our-story/ (accessed 170129)

[16] Our Minister | NRCC Downtown. http://www.northraleighcommunitychurch.org/our-minister/ (accessed 170129)

[17] Stephen Mattson. “American Christianity Has Failed”. Sojourners. 25 Jan 2017. https://sojo.net/articles/american-christianity-has-failed (accessed 170129)

[18] Stephen Mattson. “American Christianity Has Failed”. Sojourners. 25 Jan 2017. https://sojo.net/articles/american-christianity-has-failed (accessed 170129)

[19] John Pavlovitz. “If You Voted for Him”. Reprinted by Voices4Hillary. http://www.voices4hillary.com/if-you-voted-for-himby-john-pavlovitz-2107856844.html (accessed 170129)