How many of you caught it? Right there in plain sight. Perspicuously subtle.
Dr. Phil McGraw invited Daniel Miller, the president of the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM), on his program in an episode entitled The Need to Secede: The Disunited States of America, which aired on 29 July 2024. Near the end of the discussion, which included four more guests, Dr. Phil mistakenly or intentionally misinterpreted one of Miller’s comments. When one misinterprets a point in a debate, on purpose or not, hearers may be drawn to false conclusions. The magnitude of the misinterpretation was only heightened by the specific point under consideration at that specific time during the debate. It could not have been a more pivotal moment. Yet, the hearers are tasked with the responsibility of noticing such gaffes and not allowing them to sway their opinions in error. Did you catch it?
When opinions are formed, usually influenced by the first thing we hear (Proverbs 18:17, International Standard Version [ISV]), Levi Hedge wrote that people “are usually disposed to defend them (their opinions – mwd)…Hence arise controversies and disputes, which are oftentimes conducted with such intemperate and misguided zeal, as to inflame animosities, by which the comfort and harmony of society are impaired” (1861, p. 157). From these emotional positions, misinterpretations often occur. Any husband and wife may speak to the veracity of that point, for we frequently hear what we think the other person said, not what was actually meant, by hearing it through our own preconceived ideas and, all too often, self-righteousness. Hedge continued: “The design of interpretation is to ascertain the real intention…to develop the true meaning…” (1861, p. 163). Sometimes we just want to express our own opinions, refusing to give merit to the positions of others. “A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion. …Whoever answers before listening is both foolish and shameful” (Proverbs 18:2, 13, ISV). Whether by mistake or intentionally, when we respond to others with whom we disagree, based upon our misinterpretation of their words, we strip the discussion of its integrity and we hinder the search for truth and the possibility of unity.
Now, let’s set the stage. The first three guests, Dan Golvach, Daniel Miller, and Carla Gericke, took the pro-separation position. For Texans, this is called TEXIT. Other states use their own appellations. The last two guests served as the antagonists: Laura Wellington (journalist and political commentator) and Richard Kreitner (author).
Wellington: “We are in a situation right now, nothing is working, but there’s so many things happening at once that’s setting us up for a civil war. …I think to say it can’t happen now is very naïve. Of course it can happen. We are on shaky ground right now. There are several indicators why I think a civil war will happen. The first thing, our government is ruling as if it is a dictatorship.”
Read that last sentence again. The first crack of the bat in her reasons why civil war stands on the horizon – “our government is ruling as if it is a dictatorship.” Then she went on to say that no one is talking about this.
A little later in the discussion, McGraw introduced Kreitner.
Kreitner: “Secession is clearly becoming a more prominent part of our politics.”
(MWD: Apparently Kreitner and Wellington are not on the same page on this issue.)
Kreitner proceeded to declare that he believes a vote on secession could occur in the future. Then he began to speak of hurdles, obstacles that stand in the way. After questioning the legality of the topic, Kreitner then explained that the federal government most likely would not allow a state to leave, and he offered the first Civil War (so-called) as evidence. Notice that Kreitner referenced the historic utilization of military means to force states to remain in the Union.
Kreitner: “There’s no point in pretending we are not as divided as we are. I think what all the talk of secession and civil war really means is that we’re truly, fundamentally divided, and that is what we should be paying attention to.”
(MWD: Remember, according to Wellington, no one is talking about it.)
Kreitner then disparaged the point of being in a dictatorship. To support his ridicule, he selected the references to the waving of Ukrainian flags and the disagreement over taxes. Why didn’t he choose the failure at the border? Why didn’t he mention the 34+ trillion-dollar debt? Why didn’t he speak to the voluminous, egregious violations of the federal government against the rights of Americans and Texans? Returning to Hedge: “As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candour; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning, by wit, cavilling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy” (1861, p. 162).
Kreitner intended to lessen the force of Miller’s reasoning by means of sophistry.
McGraw then opined his disbelief that we are as divided as people think. He believes a lot of the division is “within, not between states,” and he laid the primary burden on foreign intervention; namely, Russia. Perhaps McGraw is not aware of the more than 40 lawsuits filed not against Russia, or China, or North Korea, but against the United States federal government by then Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and current Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, plus the 25 lawsuits Paxton filed during the first fifteen months of the Biden administration. Foreign intervention occurs, no doubt, but these lawsuits represent the dictatorial attitude of the federal government against Texas, and any other state that dares to contradict the federal edicts. Legal disputes happen. Litigation is a necessary evil. However, people who strive to get along should not have to go to court so frequently to settle their differences. What would your opinion be of a judge who ruled that a wife must remain in the marriage even though her husband has consistently violated the covenant and forcibly retains her? If she cannot leave under such circumstances, she is nothing more than a slave. If that is not dictatorial, then, pray tell, what is? Thomas Jefferson wrote: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. …a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny…To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
How many more facts are needed?
McGraw asked Kreitner: “What’s your cautionary tale about this?”
Kreitner: “I think the biggest one is this claim that this could happen peacefully. The same claim was made by Southerners, by Confederates, in the 1850s, in 1860 and 1861.”
Carla Gericke, the panelist from New Hampshire, then asserted that when dealing with these grievances and issues none should approach the conversation with even the notion of civil war. She then pleaded, “This isn’t working. How can we peacefully get out of this relationship?”
Wellington then chided Carla as being idealistic and attempted to take Carla’s argument and use it to support her own. Carla rejected Wellington’s claim.
Carla: “That’s why it behooves us to do something better. I mean if you’re going to come to the table and be like, You, I’m gonna kill you if you don’t do what I say, that doesn’t seem like a great way to come to a better solution.”
At this point, Miller dove back into the conversation. Here it comes. Pay close attention.
Miller: “What we want here is a fair, open discussion that culminates in a vote where people actually go and get to vote. And what the contention is (he is referring to the previous discussion about the inevitability of civil war by Wellington and the skepticism of a peaceful solution by Kreitner) that if Texans…or people in any other state vote wrong (votes to leave the federal government), then the two-and-a-half million unelected bureaucrats and President Peepaw are gonna get on the red phone and they’re gonna come carpet bomb Walmart in Houston, Texas. And it’s like, wait a minute, if we are ascribing that sort of behavior, if we are failing to act on our right of self-government, because that’s the fear, then what does that tell us about Washington D.C.? That they’re gonna behave like North Korea, or Syria, or any of these other dictatorships? I mean, what does that say about them?”
Now, read it again. Ask yourself, what is Miller saying? What does he mean?
It is here – At this point – The blatant misrepresentation occurred.
Miller was taking in context the arguments posed by Wellington and Kreitner and laying them before the audience. Remember, Wellington stated: “our government is ruling as if it is a dictatorship.” Kreitner had warned that the federal government would not allow a state to leave, and his evidence for that was the Civil War (so-called). Now, who was talking about, warning of, and pitching the threat of civil war? It was not Dan, Daniel Miller, and Carla, who were speaking of peace and a peaceful exit. It was, in fact, Wellington and Kreitner who were the town criers of civil war. Miller was taking the arguments of Wellington and Kreitner and presenting to the audience this idea: If, as was suggested, particularly by Kreitner, the federal government is going to respond with violence and war against any state that exercises a legal and peaceful means to terminate the covenant relationship of one or more states with the Federal Government, then what does that say about the character of Washington D.C.?
It was at this point that McGraw radically altered the perception of Miller’s point by calling Miller’s remarks “reckless.” To which the audience began to applaud.
By this accusation of recklessness, McGraw transposes the positions of Wellington and Kreitner to Miller, insinuating that Miller was asserting that the federal government was going to behave in such outlandish ways. When, in fact, Miller was not affirming that point at all. Miller, much to the chagrin of some, has maintained a position arguing that it makes no sense for the federal government to attack Texas. Miller was not stating that Washington D.C. was going to carpet bomb Walmart in Houston, Texas. He was arguing from the standpoint of what had been said, specifically by Wellington and Kreitner, and drawing attention to the character of D.C. if, in fact, D.C. was bent on war over this issue. If D.C. threatens us, as Kreitner asserted by his reference to the Civil War (so-called), then how are they any different than the husband who violently violates his marital vows and forces his wife to stay with him at gunpoint?
McGraw either completely missed the point Miller was making, or he intentionally misrepresented Miller. There is no other way to assess the exchange. Nevertheless, the damage was done with McGraw’s reckless comment. McGraw should (and does) know better.
In closing, the issue here is not whether or not McGraw or anyone else agrees with the idea of TEXIT. Instead, the issue is making sure we do not misrepresent someone else, by mistake or intent, and to make certain we are not swayed by such sophistry. Given McGraw’s closing remarks, the misrepresentation appears to have been intentional. You decide. For me, Merit Street Media did not live up to its name this time.
Hedge, L. (1861). Elements of logick: Or a summary of the general Principles and different modes of reasoning. New York, NY: Phinney, Blakeman, & Mason.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Reckless. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved 30 July 2024 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reckless
