How Communication Can Break Down

I recently published an essay entitled Pondering America’s Greatest Scandal. The scandal was the “Russia Hoax” reportedly created by President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other members of that administration to smear Donald Trump. Attorney General Bondi has ordered a grand jury investigation into the Hoax. My essay examined the far-reaching harm traceable to the scandal, the responsibilities of its contributors, and the punishment they could possibly receive. Finally, I speculated that a surprising happy outcome could be Trump’s pardoning those punished and commented that it would both touch many hearts and minds and provide a model for following Jesus’ call to treat others as we wish to be treated.

A friend of mine then responded to the essay. Though he is a progressive and I am a conservative, we have been able to have satisfying exchanges of ideas in the past. I therefore expected he would have something meaningful, and perhaps insightful, to say on this occasion. However, I was both disappointed and saddened at what he actually said. Here, in its entirety, was his response.

I presume many will interpret this investigation as Trump’s revenge; he intimated this intention before the election. I suppose it diverts attention away from Epstein; perhaps that is the hidden purpose. I have become cynical of all things political. I am convinced no politician knows what truth is, other than their own version of it!

My first reaction was that he didn’t address the main point of my essay, which was about the Russian Hoax scandal, not about Trump’s “intention” before the scandal was revealed or his “purpose” afterward. Instead, he leaped to the Epstein scandal, which is unrelated to the Hoax scandal.

My second reaction concerned his guess that the “hidden purpose” was to divert attention from Epstein the pedophile. This line of thought is badly flawed. First, it implies that the grand jury investigation of the Russian Hoax has no merit of its own but was designed only to cover up something else. He then hints that he has in mind Trump’s involvement with Epstein’s evil deeds; this despite published documentation that there was no such involvement. (Even the most rabid Trump haters refused to pursue that idea.)

My third reaction to my friend’s commentary was to his final sentence. I can well understand being somewhat cynical toward politicians, but to be “convinced {that] no politician knows what truth is, other than their own version of it” is not only unfair but absurd.

I believe that in fairness to my friend I should not just criticize what he said but also explain what would have been a more reasonable response to my essay. Here is one possibility.

If the charges against Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the others are proven true, they not only harmed Trump, but contributed to the disharmony that has since afflicted the country. Anyone who knowingly contributed to that scandal should be held to account. However, the public and the media should not prejudge the outcome of the court case.

This response is not only fair but would satisfy my friend’s desire for caution. So why did he instead avoid the issue, substitute a different, irrelevant issue and thereby allow our communication to break down?

The answer, it seems clear, is that he has been victimized by the very lies about Trump the Russian Hoax created. In other words, he has become incapable of expressing a kind thought about Trump and treating him like the neighbor Jesus commanded us to love as we wish to be loved.

When I see such an educated, intelligent, decent man as my friend reacting this way, I cannot help but wonder whether the hatred of Trump has penetrated so deeply into the American psyche that great numbers of citizens will continue to believe the lies about him no matter the proof of his innocence. If that proves to be the case, a return to harmony in America seems unachievable.

But we don’t have to give up hope altogether. There is a way we can use to avoid being victimized by lies and provide an example for others to use. It was well described by psychologist David G. Myers in a book titled, Intuition (2002). To paraphrase him, instead of limiting our thinking to the arguments we want to present to our opponents, we should spend a generous amount of time giving serious, genuine consideration to why they think as they do. And if we find any merit in their thinking, we should adjust our own view accordingly. If a majority of people approached discussion in this way, American discourse would be considerably more meaningful.

Copyright © 2025 by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero. All rights reserved.