Is it Misinformation, Disinformation, or Malinformation?
Or, maybe just stupidity?
Property requirements
This tweet caught my attention the other day:
Yes, misinformation and election interference are serious concern these days. In the US voters had to contend with the government collaborating with the media and twitter to suppress stories that could hurt the democrats or ran counter to the approved COVID narrative. In Canada we lived (are living?) under the threat of foreign interference for at least 7 years with little to no action by the government.
These are all serious election problems that US and Canadian governments engaged in, hid from the public, or otherwise ignored and yet Elon Musk tweeting an opinion is what the left gets worked up about? There is no doubt that if he’d tweeted in support of a left-wing party, we’d hear nothing about it. How do I know? George Soros has been funding progressive DAs who support defunding the police for a decade and nobody cares.
A little historical knowledge shows just how ironic this tweet and the associated beliefs are. In most democratic nations, voting was originally restricted to a small elite (wealthy landowning men) and expanded through social movements, legal changes, and civil rights struggles. Most people are aware that women and minorities were not allowed to vote until relatively recently, but few seem to be aware that only the rich could vote at one time. A brief history:
U.S. (1820s-1850s): Property requirements dropped for white men (Andrew Jackson era).
Britain (1832, 1867, 1884): The Reform Acts expanded voting to more working-class men.
Canada (1870s-1918): Property restrictions were gradually removed in most provinces, allowing all white men to vote.
France (1848): Established universal male suffrage after the revolution.
The irony of arguing that Musk’s tweet is election interference is that it is implying that free speech should restricted if one has “too much” money.
One might argue that Musk isn’t German and so shouldn’t be allowed to voice an opinion on a German election. However
The left appears to be selective as to whose speech constitutes election interference. Here are a couple of examples of foreigners speaking up in support of foreign elections which the left had no problem with:
Barack Obama endorsed Justin Trudeau, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, ahead of federal elections on two occasions:
Two days before the 2019 Canadian federal election Obama tweeted: "I was proud to work with Justin Trudeau as President. He’s a hard-working, effective leader who takes on big issues like climate change. The world needs more leaders like him, and I hope our neighbors to the north support him for another term."
Four days before the 2021 Canadian federal election Obama called Trudeau “an effective leader and strong voice for democratic values" and expressing pride in their past collaboration.
Hillary Clinton also endorsed Justin Trudeau before the 2021 Canadian federal election. Tweeting 3 days before the election that she had seen Trudeau "show leadership in the fight for accessible child care, protected reproductive rights, and ambitious climate action," and wished him and "our progressive Canadian neighbors the best" in the upcoming election on September 20.
So it can’t be that Musk is a foreigner. Is the argument that “your life depends on it” is a lie? Let’s ignore that fact that any reasonable adult would view this as hyperbole and call it a lie for arguments’ sake. What are we to make of all the “broken promises” made by politicians? Here are just a few that cannot be blamed on circumstances so must be characterized as lies:
Biden
Immigration Reform with Citizenship Path (2020 Election)
Promise: Biden pledged to send a comprehensive immigration reform bill to Congress within his first 100 days, including a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Outcome: No bill was sent within 100 days. A proposal was introduced in February 2021, but it stalled in Congress, with no significant legislative progress by 2025.
Public Option for Healthcare (2020 Election)
Promise: Biden promised to create a public health insurance option to expand coverage, building on the Affordable Care Act.
Outcome: No public option legislation was passed or seriously advanced by 2025, with focus shifting to other priorities like drug price negotiations.
Trudeau
Balanced Budget by 2019 (2015 Election)
Promise: Trudeau promised to run modest deficits of less than $10 billion annually for two years, then balance the budget by 2019.
Outcome: Deficits exceeded projections (e.g., $29.4 billion in 2016–17), and the budget was not balanced by 2019. Pre-pandemic deficits continued, and the debt-to-GDP ratio remained above the promised decline to 27%.
Pharmacare Implementation (2019 Election)
Promise: Trudeau promised to introduce a national pharmacare program, including coverage for prescription birth control, by 2020 or soon after.
Outcome: No comprehensive pharmacare plan has been implemented by 2025, with progress limited to studies and partial measures.
Putting aside the fact that I’m happy Trudeau lied about pharmacare because we can’t afford it (in part because of his of his broken promises I listed), politicians seem to lie on a regular basis – ya I’m shocked too. What is our takeaway here, that lies only matter if someone isn’t running for office?
No, this is just another example of the left’s selective outrage and word games. I’ll leave it to you to decide where in this table calling free speech election interference should fall.
Is it a lie if you’re too dumb to know better?
If you spend any amount of time on the internet you will inevitably come to the conclusion that Thomas Edison was understating the problem when he said:
“Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”
When I start a sentence with “everyone” or “no one” it is with the understanding that it means something along the lines of “every/no intelligent person…” For example, “no one believes the world is flat” cannot be taken literally as there is an entire organization which believes that the earth is flat.
Satan’s efforts to convince the world that God doesn’t exist by fooling people into believing that the world isn’t flat is, in fact, my second favorite conspiracy after “birds aren’t real.”
Conspiracies aside, I sometimes run across statements which, despite being ludicrous, cannot be dismissed with a “no one believes…” That is the case with this message:
Nothing would make me happier (exaggeration again) than being able to say that no one believes this. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are of course equally dumb comments on the right, but I’ll let you dig them up yourself.
This is not misinformation, it’s just ignorance. Both “conservative” and “liberal” have definitions. This isn’t to say that some liberals vote because they want to be nice and some conservatives because they are cold hearted. As Churchill (or whoever you want to attribute this to) said “Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over thirty who is not a conservative has no brains.”
An imaginary conversation between a liberal and a conservative regarding harm reduction policies might go something like this:
Liberal: These poor unfortunate souls are addicted to drugs by no fault of their own. We should give them free drugs and let them sleep on the street because they have no other place to go.
Conservative: Are you f*cking nuts?!?
I’m exaggerated for effect. A little. My thoughts are more along the lines of “are you f*cking retarded?!?
Yes, I know:
A more thought-out response might be:
Conservative: if you had a loved one addicted to drugs would you rather, they be living on the street or forced into a treatment program?
The point being that it would be simple to categorize all opinions concerning harm reduction under “conservatives don’t care” or as “liberals don’t think.” Both are probably inaccurate. While there are probably as many conservatives who don’t feel as liberals who don’t think, neither stereotype is accurate. This is because both ideologies have long historical roots. Liberalism evolved from classical ideas of individual freedom to modern social welfare policies. Conservatism began as a reaction to revolutionary change but later embraced capitalism while preserving traditions.
An examination of the history of conservatism and liberalism is beyond the scope of this article, but this “simple” table provides a high level overview of both:
It is important to remember that each serves a purpose. Conservatives ensure stability by prioritizing social norms and institutions while liberals seek improvements. Without liberals to question the world we might not make any advances. Without conservatives to restrain liberals we might tear everything down without knowing if their “solutions” made things any better.
We need both. It’s also clear that we need to start teaching this in schools.