Knee Jerk Conservatives Are Easy to Outwit

Although they’re still dangerous to the community, particularly when they form groups and reinforce each other’s ignorance and bizarre worldview.

This is illustrated by the online comments posted in response to an op ed I had published in one of our local newspapers. The op ed, by the way, was sparked by a recent post. You may not be able to see the comments without a subscription, but I’ve included some interesting examples below where I respond to their silliness.

Let’s start with a classic piece of idiocy you’ll see in Trumpanzee circles:

Mark, I would guess if the Biden administration had created DOGE and put George Soros, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders in charge, you would be on your platform clapping like a seal and barking how the federal government needs accountability. All your columns are simply an attempt at making Trump and his administration a villain at every turn. 79 million people all see through your party’s ideological, and hypocritical whining. We won, so please stop trying to turn diamonds into dirt.

At no point in my piece did I suggest I would be fine with someone more aligned with my political views doing what the DOGE dummies are doing. Yet they immediately jumped to that conclusion…assuming facts not in evidence and thereby demonstrating their inability to think critically.

The closing sentence is also potentially highly revealing. They want debate to stop because they won. Besides violating the entire spirit of a pluralistic representative democracy, this may reveal something many Trumpanzees have in common: they are bullies, and therefore desperately afraid they will be challenged, and routed. One way of preventing that is asserting that the time for political debate is over.

As is your tradition, you missed the mark completely. These federal agencies have not undergone credible audits for years. Why would you, as a self-appointed financial expert, be opposed to an audit? Most of us would be pleased when DOGE does not uncover fraud and waste and would only restore or reaffirm our trust in the government.

This commenter illustrates something that is all too common in political discussions, and not just among Trumpanzees (although it is more common there, in my experience).

Rather than debate the point I’m making, they simply hand wave it away by asserting I’ve missed the mark. But what mark? The lack of audits acceptable to the commenter? My thesis has nothing to do with audits but rather focuses on the fundamental difference between what we want a public sector organization to do and what we are willing to tolerate private sector organizations doing.

You’ll also notice they again assumed facts not in evidence, namely that I wouldn’t want government agencies audited. I not only have no problems with audits, I think they’re a good thing, for both private and public sector organizations. You just have to remember the goals of the two types of organization are very different and not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Thanks for your guest perspective, Mr. Olbert, and your 700+ words in a feeble effort attempting to change the narrative regarding DOGE. While completely ignoring the tremendous waste and fraud on taxpayers, by both the government and the private sector in the form of NGO’s. I recommend you read the hearing wrap up by the DOGE subcommittee (https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-doge-subcommittees-first-hearing-uncovers-billions-lost-to-fraud-and-improper-payments-launches-war-on-waste/) and watch The War on Waste hearing (https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/the-war-on-waste-stamping-out-the-scourge-of-improper-payments-and-fraud/). Of note: fraud rates in private sector businesses experience fraud at a rate of around 3 percent whereas the federal government’s fraud rate is about 20 percent.

As it is, my greatest takeaway from your perspective is that government should maybe be run more like the private sector. BTW, over 77 million people voted for Trump/DOGE so apparently they’re not too worried about Elon and his band of merry men. In fact, survey says… DOGE is seen as a promise made/promise kept. I admit watching Democrat political theatre/outrage/cussing/lying is quite enjoyable. Of course, who wouldn’t resort to hysterics if their slush funds are being cut?

I give this person credit in that they at least provided a link to something they believe supports their point of view.

However, I dispute his relative comparison of private versus public sector fraud. Why? Because we accept massive levels of spending in the private sector that we label fraudulent or corrupt in the public sector.

Think about every private sector non-disclosure agreement created to compensate someone, usually a woman, for being sexually harassed. These are almost never disclosed publicly. Indeed, it is generally a condition of accepting compensation that the victim never disclose what happened. If they do disclose the details, they almot always forfeit the compensation or will find themselves sued for violating the contract.

The same applies for many other sorts of private sector settlements. All of which we would consider fraudulent or corrupt if they occurred in the public sector.

This last commenter deserves an encore.

And thank you, markolbert, for showing up on cue… As usual, our friend markolbert unable to answer questions or defend his POV so he resorts to throwaway comments and personal attacks accusing others of his own shortcomings. Hey markolbert, for the future I’d recommend proofreading and ensuring you don’t have more holes in your arguments than Swiss cheese.

Perhaps in the near future you can provide a perspective on why you hate our (yes, our) great President Trump more than you love America. Jealousy? Afraid of being canceled by the left? A cry for attention? A nature vs. nurture thing? Some of us would like to know how you lost your priorities. Meanwhile, have a Trump-tastic day. Looking forward to your next serving of hysterical screeching (aka winning for us). BTW, do you know when incandescent bulbs will be on shelves? I hear we can return to installing high-flow showerheads and high-flow toilets. Is this another way Trump is draining the swamp?

A few takeaways. First, notice the immediate use of insult and invective while simultaneously claiming the more reasonable approach I’d taken in the op ed — trying to explain my views — was full of unidentified holes.

But then the really interesting stuff appears. After asserting anyone not with “us”/them is against “us”/them, he — astoundingly — equates his belief system with the entirety of America, as if there was no one other than a few crying malcontents (me, in his mind) who disagreed with that equation.

Failing to recognize just how many people didn’t vote for His Imperial Majesty Trump the First is mind-boggling, and highlights an inability to think critically.

Then again, what can you expect from someone who has so little sense of community that he just has to close out his comment by talking about energy inefficient lighting and low flow toilets?

At this point you may wonder how I deal with this kind of feedback. There are a number of ways:

• Always remember, feedback is useful, even when you don’t like it.
• What someone says, particularly in a highly emotionally charged way, is valuable information about them. If nothing else it likely highlights you’ve touched a nerve…because very few people react strongly to something they believe they can, in good conscience, dismiss outright.
• In order to feel an emotional reaction to criticism, you have to accept it might be valid. Ill-conceived and poorly thought-out comments rarely are.

And also, because every once in a while, you get feedback like this:

I’d like to compliment you on your Guest Perspective in yesterday’s Journal.  Your article was the clearest explanation of the difference between the public and private sectors I have ever read. It should be read by every American, along with the Constitution and a few other documents of substance.  I spent 45 years in the public sector, first in a Federal agency and working for a Member of Congress in Washington, D.C., and then for [redacted] as the [redacted; senior position in a public agency dedicated to helping community members in need].  It’s nice to read something from someone with the knowledge and clarity to really explain an important subject.  And you know how to write!  I’m afraid it is a dying art.   Your article was the reason I decided to subscribe to your website.  Please keep writing!

That last thing is something you can most definitely count on :).