In continuing to read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," I was searching for information that would disprove an assertion Lincoln's Republican Party is today's Democratic Party. How could such a thing be?
I haven't discovered evidence to prove or disprove that assertion, but the use of political ambiguity as a tactic by politicians disheartens me.
Presidents seem to walk a line between their private stances on important issues of the day and their public stances. Factions must be schmoozed. Conservatives vs. liberals. Who does a candidate appeal to? Women? Men? The rich? The poor? Catholics or non-Catholics? Labor unions or small businesses? Spenders or budget-balancers? Pro- or anti-abortionists?
The one common thread throughout history (so far as I have read) is the wealthy, big banking systems and political insiders have always dominated. How many of us owe to, or borrow from our banks? Banks have quite a bit of power.
Politicians need money to win, to pay for the ambiguous voter-manipulating ads that dominate our media. While some money comes from us common citizens who buy into the ads of those candidates we want to support, most come from the rich, those in power, those who have the most to gain or lose.
In 1829, Francis Wright, a feminist and socialist, pondered if the new technology "was lowering the value of human labor, making people appendages to machines, crippling the minds and bodies of child laborers" (p. 221). We've come a long way, baby!
The show "60 Minutes" had a story on deepfakes, a method of synthetic media that can take the face of anyone and implant it and that person's voice on a similar body type and make the viewer absolutely sure that the person was actually saying and doing what the deepfake presented.
I know now I cannot trust the news, the media, Facebook or any online communication. Every one of us is capable of buying into fake news and spreading discontent, misinformation and dissension. Beware! I am not a robot.