I'd like to go back to the good old days, when people were judged by their actions not whatever the trolls online, the liberal press and their opponents' attack ads said about them. Then again, maybe there was never a time when that was a reality. Still, now it is easier than ever to propagate lies because of how fast information spreads. What makes the lies so dangerous and why do I feel compelled to respond? Well, it isn't because I think the Dept. of Homeland Security's new Disinformation Governance Board (which plays the same role as The Ministry of Truth from 1984) should get involved in setting the record straight. It's not because I am a fragile victim who needs to be protected or am afraid and need to defend myself. It's because people need to know the truth and they aren't going to hear it in the CdA Press or on the nightly news.
Kids are all too often the victims of adults playing stupid games. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised when my twelve year old told us that he just recently started getting yelled at, flipped off and followed by young adults since my campaign started - he has helped me knock on doors and is in our promotional material. Simultaneously, I had a car stop and back up to try to spit on me while I was standing beside my truck which prominently displays my campaign signs. As it turns out, normal citizens like me stepping up to serve our community invariably challenges the established power structure. Those who have, or want to maintain, power are willing to go to extreme lengths even if it puts an innocent family in danger - but my question was, where is all the vitriol coming from?
Rhetoric Used to Divide
It didn't take long for me to figure it out. A couple of moms of young adults who just became eligible to vote, explained to us that their young adults had gotten 4-5 robocalls recently warning that I was a dangerous extremist. The goal of these calls is certainly to gain a few votes but the result of spreading lies, fear and inciting anger is more division, in an increasingly isolated and divided community. Then a letter came today from a former politician in the area, with libelous statements using the same baseless verbiage to try to tarnish my reputation.
Who's the extremist again?
My opponent and her supporters are using buzzwords like "EXTREMIST", a common page from the leftist playbook, to deceive and manipulate people. I guess I just didn't expect this liberal tactic to be a part of a Republican primary election with two self-proclaimed conservative candidates. On paper we might as well just combine forces since we are supposedly fighting for the same things: Pro Life, 2A Rights, Public Safety etc. But, as is usually the case, the reality is far from what appears on the surface, and that becomes increasingly obvious based on the tactics used by my opponent which are identical to those used currently by the Democrat party. My opponent is a self-proclaimed "Citizen of the world," a fan of the late abortion supporter Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and is endorsed/supported by leftist activists. It appears there is a coordinated effort between my opponent's campaign and a group called the Idaho 97 who support Democrat and liberal candidates consistently in political races in Idaho. They are a group that supposedly "counters disinformation and extremism" according to their website and has endorsed my opponent while labeling me as an "extremist-backed candidate." What they fail to do is explain who is supposedly backing me and how that makes me extreme. It's easier to just label someone as "Bad" without explaining why. My greatest concern is that this is a tactic used by true extremists that purposefully infuse division, fear and anger into communities in order to divide and, ultimately, gain control.
Extremist terminology shows accuser's true position.
Nobody that I know wants to be labeled an extremist. I guess if you really think about it, using this terminology actually indicates where the person using the description is positioned. A constitutional conservative like myself, who wants to have reasonable conversations (without being shouted down or called names if I have different beliefs than someone else) may seem extreme to someone on the left who believes in micro-aggression and thought-crime. Based on this line of reasoning my opponent, and her supporters, are really just outing themselves for how liberal they really are, since the vast majority of constituents I speak with in the community, and while going door to door, are like-minded and don't want this type of divide and conquer politics in our beautiful city. A fair question for constituents to ask: Is someone who uses liberal techniques and unsubstantiated name-calling really the best representative for a community that values respectful discourse and conservative values?