Facts are Stubborn Things

I reached out to a former friend whom I knew at the university. Dave and I decided to meet for coffee at a central location to catch up. He currently lives in rural Wisconsin. It had been over 40 years, so I was somewhat hesitant about how our meeting would go. Years ago, Dave was young and impressionable, but he typically analyzed things from a fresh and objective perspective. Here’s the conversation.

I walk into the café and notice a semi-recognizable person in the corner, so I go over and say, “Are you Dave?”

Dave smiles and shakes my hand.

I begin, “How are you? It’s been so long since we’ve seen one another. What are you up to?”

We exchange pleasantries as we begin to establish a little rapport, as we haven’t seen each other since we were university students.

I notice he’s wearing a long-sleeve shirt with the American flag blazoned on it.

I say, “Nice shirt, where’d you get it?”

Dave looks at the shirt and says, “Online, one of those patriot clothing retailers.”

I smile and say, “In today’s political world in the States, the American flag has been somewhat of a lightning rod.”

Dave is surprised by my comment and says, “All Americans need to be more patriotic by wearing or displaying the American flag.”

I’m not ready to necessarily discuss politics, but say, “The country appears to be as divided today as it was during the Civil War. And the South wanted to secede from the Union because they wanted to continue to own slaves.”

At this point, we look at one another and realize we have completely different political views, at least when it comes to the Federal Government.

I ask Dave, “Do you think it’s legal for our government to destroy small vessels in international waters?”

Without hesitation, Dave says, “If they're bringing in drugs, such as fentanyl, yes, destroy potential enemies.

Facts are stubborn things...

I try to provide some perspective by saying, “Do you realize most of these attacks occurred in international waters? Besides, most of the drugs coming from Venezuela include marijuana and cocaine. Fentanyl comes over the Southern border.”

Dave points to his American Flag shirt and says, “I’m a patriot because I believe what the Trump administration is saying about these drugs destroying our country.”

I respond by saying, “These attacks weren’t approved by Congress. The Constitution states that it’s Congress, not the President, who can declare war on another country. Besides, unfortunately, many Americans have a thirst for illegal drugs. They are simply providing the supply to meet the American demand.”

Dave’s face turns to anger at my statement and says, “That goddamn Congress can’t find its way out of a paper bag!”

I search for a response before saying, “Regardless, it’s Congress and not the Executive Branch that can declare war. It appears to me that targeting these boats was a trial balloon before our military going to a foreign land and removing Venezuela’s leader (Maduro).”

I shift to another topic and say, “Now, it appears the Federal Govt is going after the Fed chair, Jerome Powell. They’re accusing him of lying or misleading Congress. Interestingly, the Attorney General Pam Bondi did not comment on the investigation but said Ms. Bondi had “instructed her U.S. attorneys to prioritize investigating any abuses of taxpayer dollars.” Good deal, our Executive Branch is worried about abuses of taxpayer dollars. Is that why they’re trimming the staff at the IRS? Let’s see, if the IRS had 100,000 employees but now employs half that number, what would that do to ensure that all Americans pay their fair share of taxes? Let’s be honest, more than a few Americans cheat or “stretch the truth” when it comes to giving the feds what they deserve. Seems to me, if you have fewer investigators at the IRS, you’ll catch fewer tax cheats. And if you catch fewer tax cheats, isn’t that also an abuse of taxpayer dollars when only a certain percentage of Americans will pay their fair share in taxes? In addition, if these charges against Powell are phony and bogus, isn’t that an abuse of taxpayer dollars?”

As he listened, it appeared he wasn’t interested in my argument about the federal government's inefficient use of resources.

Dave replies, “It’s un-American to pay so much in taxes. How can we afford groceries when the government always has its hands out?

He continues, “I liked what Musk did to the federal government. He eliminated many unnecessary government jobs. That’s part of draining the swamp.”

I reply, “What does draining the swamp mean to you? How was Musk qualified to take a chainsaw or other mechanism to government spending?”

His reply, “I don’t know, but I’ll know it when I see it. The Trump administration is trying to reduce the deficit and clean up DC. BTW, I loved Musk's theatrics too, in my mind, being theatrical is showing America what’s finally needed in our federal government.”

I say, “If he’s fired so many government workers over the past year, and as you say, he’s draining the swamp, then why is the federal government still spending much more money than it’s receiving? That should reduce spending, but he’s spending elsewhere. So, he’s not being fiscally conservative.”

Dave shakes his head back and forth in disagreement.

I ponder, “It's important to understand that Trump and his consultants want absolute power and absolute obedience. Americans got rid of the king hundreds of years ago."

Dave simply ignores my statement.

I move on to what Trump has recently said about how he’s governing.

I continue, “Trump this week said he alone is the final arbiter of morality in this country. We are supposed to have a republic or democracy, but he’s claiming he knows what’s best for the country. Is that dangerous for one man to have so much power?”

Dave states, “The government is so messed up that those supporters of Trump trust he’s doing the right thing. Someone has to fix the mess in Washington. I’m too busy working hard and trying to pay my bills to follow everything that’s going on in DC. With limited time, I consult Newsmax and Fox News as my source of news.”

At this moment, my curiosity shifts to the Epstein file saga.

I chime in, “You know the US Congress passed a law that requires the DOJ to release all the Epstein files no later than December 19. You know, Congress is one of the three branches of our government in DC, and they’re trying to make Donald accountable, but what does the administration do? The Trump administration has apparently released only 1% of the files so far, even though Congress gave them 30 days to produce them. Many Americans want the truth about who was associated with Epstein and whether any leaders, regardless of party, participated in having inappropriate relations with underage girls.”

Dave’s response didn’t necessarily surprise me when he said, “I don’t think the DOJ and FBI realized how much work was involved with reviewing these files to protect the privacy of those underage girls. This will take some time. I don’t have any issue, provided they eventually release all the files.”

I asked, “How much more time should be given to the Trump administration?”

Dave couldn’t provide me with any time frame.

This reminds me of what Trump has been saying about our health care system.

My reply, “Over the last ten years, Trump has been saying he’s been working on a plan, but no plan appears. He’s also said over the last year or so that he never realized health care could be so complicated.”

I continue, “If he were honest about working on his health care plan, he would have said that early on that he’s surprised the health care system is so complicated, but he said it recently. That makes me think he was lying eight years ago about working on a plan.”

I shift to the topic of Trump trying to capture as much power as possible as President.

I said, “Some say that Trump is ruling as a king. He does what he wants, thanks to last year’s Supreme Court ruling that stated that the President has immunity from prosecution if it’s done as part of the role as President. Do you think Trump is acting as a king?”

It’s not a surprise with Dave’s response. “In my opinion, if he improves the country and drains the swamp, then I don’t care.”

I think to myself, isn’t this a Fool’s Errand?

My retort, “Do you realize the dangerous precedent he’s creating by acting as the sole arbiter of morality?”

Dave appears to be unsure of what I mean by “the dangerous precedent.”

I pose another question to Dave: “You do realize that if a Democrat becomes President, he or she could do the same thing?”

It’s almost predictable what his response might be. He says, “Trump will amend the Constitution or ignore it and will win a third term. So, I’m not worried.”

I ask, “So, the means justify the ends. Regardless of how dystopian things might get. Just to clarify, a dystopian society is where people live in fear under an oppressive government.”

Dave shakes his head and doesn’t think we live under an oppressive government.

I question his comment by saying, “You’re a Trump supporter, so he’s not intentionally targeting you. He’s targeting anyone who says something negative about him or his policies. He’s vindictive, impulsive, and wants the country to absolutely support him, regardless of his policies. He’s targeting Fed Chairman Powell because, allegedly, over a costly renovation project at the Fed. So now, the DOJ is investigating Powell even though the Fed should be independent of the Executive Branch. He’s targeting many brown-skinned people whom he thinks are not good for the country. He’s targeting universities that teach critical thinking. He jumps from issue to issue so fast that many have difficulty tracking the damage he’s doing to democracy.”   

Dave takes a sip of coffee and says, “I never knew you were so radical.”

I think to myself, isn’t it patriotic to question if and when the federal government is trampling on the Constitution?

I felt like calling him a “fascist,” but name-calling is not productive nor a respectful thing to do.

I approach one last topic for Dave to possibly see what happened recently in Minneapolis.

I said, “Renee Good was killed in Minneapolis recently by an ICE official. It appears that depending on your political persuasion, you may see things differently. ICE and the administration claim she threatened ICE officials with her car. Apparently, the ICE agent again felt threatened by how she was maneuvering her vehicle and fired three rounds at her. The Trump administration had several responses. Some claimed she was a threat. Others claim she was a domestic terrorist. Others claimed she was involved in a radical left-wing organization. Recently, Trump suggested she was disrespecting the ICE officers. Without any impartial investigation, they quickly flooded the media with various explanations on why she was killed. Not one Trump official had the courage to say publicly that we need to investigate this incident further before making any comments to the media. How do you see this?”

Dave showed absolutely no nuance by saying, “She got what she deserved. If you harass or threaten ICE, you’re playing with fire. It’s an open and closed case.”

I look at him with some contempt and confusion and mutter quietly, “I know now how Trump’s support is threatening to destroy our country, day by day, policy by policy, and by executive action by executive action.”

We’ve spent well over an hour talking and realize our coffee is gone, so we both start reaching for our coats, realizing the meeting is over.

I begrudgingly extend my hand, and we shake hands, knowing that this would probably be the last time I ever spoke to him. I’m assuming he felt the same, since we agreed to disagree, even though many of his opinions seem to contradict the actual facts about what Trump is doing to our democracy.

As I drive home, I’m again shocked at how misinformed Dave is. If facts can’t change his mind, what can?

Facts are stubborn things.