People sometimes want to criticize both action and inaction because the real target is the politician, not the policy itself. The latest in Iran is a perfect example of how public debate often rewards contradiction over consistency.
Critics that have been pounding the table spouting that Trump’s threat to bomb power plants and bridges in Iran would amount to war crimes — now say he chickened out because a cease fire agreement was reached.
Wake up! Trump is a negotiator… and a blabbermouth. 😉
I’ve never negotiated anything remotely similar to war, but I have negotiated with clients/prospects for decades. Negotion is negotiation, right? It’s all about coming to an agreement that both parties can live with — both sides feel they get a win considering the options they have before them. That’s the GOAL — demand what you want, but agree to less if the outcome is still desirable.
A lot of people — like me — feel exhausted by how everything gets filtered through a political lens, whether it’s social media, mainstream media, or even everyday conversations.
- social media algorithms amplify the most emotional and absolutist takes
- mainstream outlets often highlight conflict because it drives engagement
Criticism is great — inconsistency is bad.
In a democracy, it’s completely legitimate for political opponents, journalists, and citizens to strongly criticize a president’s choices. In fact, scrutiny is part of the system, and most Americans still say media criticism helps hold politicians accountable.
Where it becomes especially maddening is when criticism feels reflexive rather than principled—when the same people would likely praise the exact same move if their preferred leader made it. That inconsistency is what many people react to, regardless of party.
The bigger challenge in today’s world…
Honestly, the bigger issue may not be left vs. right so much as everyone increasingly living in separate information ecosystems.
We all need less of that… and more of this…
Now you know: Washington State was originally going to be named “Columbia” but it was feared it would be confused with the “District of Columbia”, so the name was changed to “Washington.”