A Reverb × Civicus Reflection on Language, Democracy, Propaganda, and the Slivers We Inherit
To my longtime readers, welcome back.
And if you are visiting CherryCoBiz for the very first time, welcome. I am glad you are here.
Today’s reflection began with a video from Hawk’s Podcasts.
The video discusses a study titled Faith, Freedom, Family, Place, an ethnographic report from the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University that explores how conservative Americans in three counties understand and experience their relationship to democracy.
I clicked in expecting a political reaction.
Instead, I found something much deeper.
A question about language.
A question about belief.
A question about how people come to understand the world they are standing in.
The Word Was Translation
The part of the study that stayed with me most was not a political claim.
It was a methodological one.
The researchers describe their role as one of translation — trying to understand how beliefs that may appear contradictory from the outside make sense within the full context of people’s lives.
That word matters.
Translation is not agreement.
Translation is not surrender.
Translation is not pretending harmful beliefs are harmless.
Translation is the discipline of asking:
What does this mean to the person saying it?
Where did this belief come from?
What language shaped it?
What fear protects it?
What community reinforces it?
What wound, value, or story gives it power?
That is where my psychology brain lights up.
People do not become who they are in a vacuum.
When Words Replace Reality
This is where my own writing keeps circling back.
Language.
Over and over again, I have watched words stop describing reality and start replacing it.
I saw this clearly with the Affordable Care Act.
People could be furious about losing the ACA while insisting they did not have Obamacare.
But Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act.
Same law.
Different label.
Different emotional reaction.
That is not a small thing.
It shows how political branding can break understanding before the policy conversation even begins.
We have seen this happen with other words too.
Democracy.
Socialism.
Freedom.
Woke.
DEI.
Christian.
Patriot.
Immigration.
Family.
Once a word becomes emotionally loaded enough, people may stop asking what it means. They react to what they have been taught it means.
That matters in this study.
Because when participants say they distrust “democracy,” my first question is not only whether they are right or wrong.
My first question is:
What do they mean by democracy?
Democracy, or Mob Rule?
Several participants in the study reacted negatively to the word democracy. Some associated it with majority rule, mob rule, or a system where small towns and rural communities would be swallowed by cities and coastal power.
From the outside, some of those comments may sound exaggerated.
But ethnography asks us not to stop at the outside.
If someone defines democracy as unlimited majority rule, they may naturally fear it.
If someone else defines democracy as constitutional self-government with representation, checks and balances, and protected rights, they may defend it.
Those two people may argue for hours while using the same word.
But they are not having the same conversation.
That is one of the central problems of this moment.
Political polarization is not only about different values.
Sometimes it is about different definitions.
The Moral Map
Another part of the study stopped me.
Some participants struggled to say whether Democrats had morality at all. More often, individual Democrats were treated as misled, while the Democratic Party itself was described as having abandoned the moral foundation participants believed democracy requires.
That is where disagreement becomes dangerous.
It is one thing to say:
I disagree with Democrats.
It is another thing to say:
Democrats are outside the moral circle.
Once a group is placed outside the moral circle, democracy itself begins to feel threatening.
Why share power with people you have been taught to see as godless, corrupt, dangerous, or immoral?
That is how language becomes permission.
The Architecture of Distrust
This is also where propaganda enters the room.
Propaganda does not require stupidity.
It requires repetition.
Trust.
Fear.
Identity.
Belonging.
And now, algorithms.
We are all living inside information systems that learn what keeps us engaged. Sometimes that means recipes, pets, wellness content, or comedy. Sometimes it means outrage, conspiracy, fear, and political identity.
This is not only a conservative problem.
It is a human problem.
But some ecosystems are more dangerous than others because they do not merely inform people.
They isolate them.
They tell people who to fear.
Who to hate.
Who to distrust.
Who to see as less moral.
And once that happens, facts alone may not be enough to break through.
Because people are no longer only defending information.
They are defending belonging.
When Distrust Becomes Useful
This is where my own thinking widens beyond the study.
The report helps me understand how ordinary people experience institutional distrust. But I also keep asking who benefits from that distrust.
When regular people feel abandoned by institutions, many build small workarounds close to home. They homeschool. They filter water. They grow food. They turn toward church, family, local community, or alternative information networks.
But when powerful people decide democracy is broken, their workaround can look very different. It can become platform control, privatized public services, surveillance technology, corporate governance models, and attempts to move decision-making away from public accountability.
That is not the study’s conclusion.
That is my own concern, shaped by the other reporting and reflections I have been following.
The contrast matters to me: ordinary people may be trying to protect their homes, while some powerful actors appear eager to redesign the house itself.
The Hitler Comparison
At one point in the video, Hawk references people voting for Hitler.
I understand why those comparisons come up.
History matters, and democracies can weaken from within. That is exactly why historical comparisons deserve to be made carefully.
If the point is simply, “People voted for Hitler too,” the conversation may shut down before it teaches us anything.
The more useful question is:
How do ordinary people become persuaded to surrender judgment to a movement, a leader, or an information system that promises protection while concentrating power?
That is where the warning lives.
Not in pretending every moment in history is identical.
But in recognizing that fear, propaganda, grievance, and loyalty can distort moral judgment.
One Vote. One Too Many.
I cannot write about this from a distance.
I voted for Donald Trump once.
One vote.
One too many.
I have written about that regret before, and I will hyperlink that piece here because it matters.
I do not share that because I am proud of it.
I share it because people can change.
I changed.
Not overnight.
Not because someone mocked me into clarity.
Because I kept reading.
Kept listening.
Kept noticing where the story I had believed no longer matched reality.
I am still learning.
I am not pretending to understand all of American politics perfectly.
But I know what cruelty looks like.
I know what corruption looks like.
I know what happens when language is used to confuse people instead of clarify reality.
And I know that truth matters.
Curiosity Is Not Surrender
Trying to understand people is not the same thing as excusing harm.
Understanding is not the opposite of accountability.
Sometimes it is the beginning of meaningful accountability.
If we refuse to understand how people arrive at destructive conclusions, we weaken our ability to prevent those conclusions from spreading.
That does not mean every belief deserves equal respect.
It means every human being deserves to be understood before being reduced to a label.
That is not soft.
That is disciplined.
Sliver
If you have followed CherryCoBiz for a while, you know I often return to a philosophy I call Sliver.
None of us sees the whole picture.
Not me.
Not Hawk.
Not the researchers.
Not politicians.
Not billionaires.
Not commentators.
Not any one party.
Each of us sees from where we stand.
Our job is not to pretend our sliver is the whole sky.
Our job is to widen the picture.
That is why I read the study.
That is why I watched the video.
That is why I examine my own past.
That is why I hyperlink sources.
That is why I keep asking what words mean before deciding I understand the person using them.
Because before I decide whether I agree or disagree with someone, I want to know what they mean by the words they are using.
Final Reflection
Over the last two years, I have not been trying to prove I was right.
I have been trying to understand why I was wrong.
Why people I love see the world differently than I do.
Why powerful people tell the stories they tell.
Why those stories resonate.
Why language changes meaning.
Why curiosity feels so rare.
This reflection is not the whole truth.
It is one sliver.
But maybe that is the most honest thing any of us can offer.
A sincere attempt.
A clearer question.
A wider picture.
And the humility to keep learning.
Further Reading
If this reflection resonated with you, these pieces continue the conversation from different angles:
From CherryCoBiz
- A Vote I’ll Always Regret: An Open Letter to Donald Trump
- Obamacare, the ACA, and the Language of Confusion
- Shattering Illusions: Exposing the Myths of Christian Nationalism and Political Extremism
- A Look at Elon Musk, Power, and Misinformation
- No One’s Coming to Save Us: How Accelerationism Threatens Society
- Peter Thiel’s Antichrist Problem Isn’t Faith, It’s Power
- The Grace Gap: Why We Can’t See Each Other
External Sources / Videos
YouTube Fab Five: Clifton Chilli Club
Read More >