Confused?

Shannon Bohrer

(3/2023) The last several years have caused me to question what I know, my beliefs, how I see the world, and how people think. From my perspective, the world has changed, or maybe it was always confusing, and I just failed to notice. I remember hearing the phrases "Alternative facts" and "Truth isn’t truth," and I was perplexed, not because of the words, but because of who voiced them. Kelly Ann Conway produced the term "Alternative facts," and she was working in the White House. Rudy Giuliani said, "Truth isn’t truth," and was one of the president's private attorneys. I would not have expected individuals in their positions to speak those words.

When you hear someone say something that is not true or something that seems nonsensical, you either ignore it or possibly believe that someone just misspoke. The lack of logic with "Alternative Facts" and "Truth isn’t truth" was confusing to me and still is. I understood that people have different thoughts and beliefs, but I always believed there was a common foundation to our thoughts, at least for most people. At that time, in my mind, most people did not put illogical words together. However, as time progressed, I learned that what I believed was an irrational or illogical thought process - is more common than I believed. I still do not understand it. I just know it exists.

Muhammad Ali said, "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." His quote, in many ways, defines the idea that we should gain wisdom as we grow and learn. I have known for a long time that people think differently, but I have gradually come to realize that the differences are broader than I ever imagined. I have also come to realize that even science and facts are often dismissed, frequently by educated people. The fact that people can think differently about a topic with the same facts does not surprise me. However, when the differences have no foundations or are not based on any logical thought process, one questions what the other person based their opinions on.

Sometimes, depending on who is at the center of a situation determines how one thinks about the event. When President Biden's violation of possessing classified documents was reported, it seemed extremely serious. However, that was in contrast with how many political leaders defended the former president when similar documents were found at Mar-a-largo. Excusing the former president of stealing classified documents and then professing righteous indignation at Biden’s situation, is not logical. We often hear that it is easy to find fault with our enemies and overlook flaws of our friends, but this seems extreme.

Watching the insurrection on January 6, 2021, I was shocked, saddened, and outraged. My emotions were all over the place, especially the anger I was feeling. I had trouble understanding that American citizens would think and believe that taking over the capital would result in them taking over the country. Insurrections occur in third-world countries, not in the United States of America. Seeing people waiving the American Flags as if they were patriots and then assaulting police officers was not in my realm of reality. The insurrectionist even accused the capital police, who were protecting the capital and congress, of being the enemy. It was a Rod Serling, "Twilight Zone" type of experience. Something you never expect to occur, and when it does, you can't make sense of it. I became angrier as the news footage continued.

A number of the insurrectionist were carrying "Don’t Tread on Me" flags. The Gadsden flag, as it is known, was created during the American revolution. It was a symbol to the British that the Americans would not be denied their freedoms. The Gadsden flag is very popular today. However, when used in an insurrection, the purpose seemed counterintuitive. If the insurrection had been successful and our democracy was dissolved, the freedoms we currently have and enjoy would disappear. It is a historical fact that when democracies fail, the person in charge (the dictator) invokes martial law and suspends freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and any other freedoms that they deem not in their interest. And yet, many of the insurrections referred to themselves as freedom fighters.

There are instances when people can have a different view of an event with identical facts. Several years ago, a well know football player knelt during the playing of the national anthem, and his actions were vilified by some as being unpatriotic. Under our constitutional first amendment, individuals have a constitutional right to kneel, and those that were offended by his actions also had a constitutional right to complain. Using this example, if the insurrection had been successful, the first amendment would probably have been suspended. If so, possibly one or both sides would lose their rights. The rights that could be lost would depend on who emerged as the dictator.

During the insurrection, several individuals assaulted uniformed police officers with American flags: striking the officers with the flag poles. Many of the same people that vilified the football player(s) for kneeling, have since called the insurrectionists Patriots. To some, kneeling for the national anthem is unpatriotic, but striking an officer is patriotic? Confusion cannot describe an illogical thought process, and yet many of the people espousing these views believe them. Even saying that it is easy to find fault with our enemies and overlook faults with our friends is not explainable in this situation.

A West Virginia lawmaker, Derick Evans, pleaded guilty to his involvement in the insurrection. During his trial, he expressed remorse for his actions, saying he made a "crucial mistake." Now, "less than a year later, Evans is portraying himself as a victim of politically motivated prosecution as he runs to serve in the same building he stormed on January 2, 2001." He currently calls himself a "J6 Patriot."

How can someone hold two opposing beliefs, one being that they made a "crucial mistake" and the other that they are a "J6 Patriot?" Maybe he is just a dishonest politician? They do exist. How can it be unpatriotic to kneel during the national anthem and be patriotic to beat a police officer with an American Flagpole? It seems that the more I learn, the more I have to question what I believe because I would never have expected that anyone trying to overthrow our government would be called a "patriot."