The abuse of history to emotionally manipulate people

A common tactic in political debates

I am blessed to have friends across the political spectrum, from far-left to far-right, and I respect their opinions because they argue honestly. When you argue with someone about a sensitive topic, it can get a little emotional. But if people stick to using facts and rational arguments, it’s difficult to get mad at someone for disagreeing with you.

One thing I can’t tolerate though is when people use emotional manipulation to try and win arguments. One of the common methods is to try to limit the parameters of a debate using historical guilt. For example (something I have witnessed several times) is people discussing the merits of immigration and someone brings up the fact that a person’s ancestors were immigrants and therefore they cannot argue against unlimited immigration. This is not a logical argument. It is an attempt by someone without a logical argument to try and shut down the debate through emotional manipulation. Whether or not something is good for our society has absolutely nothing to do with the history of someone’s family.

A policy should be debated on its merits. Whenever someone tries using “history” to limit a debate, they are not doing it from a position of good faith. They are doing it because they cannot win the debate if you are allowed to speak freely.

Ask yourself: Does this person actually have a good argument for their position, or are they trying to avoid having to explain and defend their position? If their position were actually good for the public, they would simple explain why. The fact that it is bad for the public is why they know they have to shut down the debate.

Another manipulation tactic I see is outright lying about history. I often observe this in the entertainment industry, where many shows and movies about historical events in the US don’t tell the true story, and instead embellish or make up facts to enhance the narrative, which during this era is usually one of historical guilt. The goal is for you to watch the content (based on a true story), feel bad about the past, and then make political decisions based on those feelings.

When you watch content about history, always ask yourself what the MOTIVATION of people telling the story is. Who is made to look like a villain? Who is the hero? What are they trying to say to you about modern politics?

I’m not saying that the past has no value in making decisions, or shouldn’t be present in political debates when it actually matters - but when people are making political decisions based off some movie or TV show they watched on Netflix, then they have been emotionally manipulated.

This type of manipulation using historical lies is not just limited to the entertainment industry. It happens in the press as well. A few months prior to the Racial Reckoning of 2020, The New York Times launched a project with the explicit purpose of changing the historical understanding of the founding of The United States to center on slavery. Called the 1619 Project, it led with an outright lie (later retracted) that the colonists wanted independence because they thought the royal government was going to end slavery. That fact was entirely made up by the author and apparently passed through multiple editors who knew about it and yet approved it. Why do you think they lied about this if not to emotionally manipulate their audience into action - a group of people already primed to hear their message at a politically volatile time?

Those who use emotional manipulation to win arguments are rarely good people, and that includes those who do so using history. They may wear a mask of progressive or egalitarian values, but beneath the surface, what often motivates these people is hatred and resentment. These people are, in my opinion, the most dangerous group in modern politics. You can guess at their goals, but not their true beliefs or motivations, and so you can never have an honest debate with them or believe what they say.