> The institutions under attack are universities, data repositories, libraries, archives, statistical agencies that have earned their legitimacy through decades of transparency and authentication of verifiable information.
To be absolutely fair: a lot of these institutions also lost legitimacy by aligning themselves with one major political faction and alienating the other. Politics is more than elections and legislative debates, and that was a major political blunder on the part of those institutions. Some of the stuff Trump's done (like to the BLS) is egregious, but the universities have spent so long being outspoken bastions of the left that they should have realized the right would someday be in power decide to send the money they'd been getting elsewhere.
Infrastructure should aim to be bland, try to stay on the lagging end of controversies, and aim for universal support. Trying to use it to win some controversy just makes it vulnerable.
Can you provide examples of sources of information that MAGA considers neutral? The MAGA in my extended family who live in rural America think that scientists promote evolution solely because they're God-hating atheists who are trying to convince Christian children that God doesn't exist.
>> Infrastructure should aim to be bland, try to stay on the lagging end of controversies, and aim for universal support. Trying to use it to win some controversy just makes it vulnerable.
> Can you provide examples of sources of information that MAGA considers neutral?
You're missing the point. I'm talking about how common institutions should behave in a diverse society. Like I said: stay on the lagging end of controversies (e.g. avoid controversial issues until they're truly settled) and aim for universal support (e.g. have good representation of all the factions and their points of view). It's not about what "sources of information" faction X "considers neutral," it's about not egregiously and one-sidedly poking faction X in support of faction Y. Give both factions reasons to like and support you. Maybe it's not full-hearted support, but that's a hell of a lot better than opposition.
To be absolutely fair: a lot of these institutions also lost legitimacy by aligning themselves with one major political faction and alienating the other. Politics is more than elections and legislative debates, and that was a major political blunder on the part of those institutions. Some of the stuff Trump's done (like to the BLS) is egregious, but the universities have spent so long being outspoken bastions of the left that they should have realized the right would someday be in power decide to send the money they'd been getting elsewhere.
Infrastructure should aim to be bland, try to stay on the lagging end of controversies, and aim for universal support. Trying to use it to win some controversy just makes it vulnerable.