In the recent article in Time Magazine by Molly Ball, it was stated that "they (The Shadow Campaigns) were fortifying the (last presidential) election; not rigging it." The more recent article in The Epoch Times by Jeff Carlson about the Time article was excellent but I thought it did not provide enough detail. The Shadow Campaign itself was clearly detailed but was based from the beginning on the unproven supposition that the opposition (president Trump) was lying. The unproven supposition that Trump lied was meant to be the reason for the existence of the secret Shadow Campaign. Trump's lies were analogous to putting lipstick on a pig to pretty it up.
The pig itself was portrayed in great detail. Using traditional reasoning all of the elements of the Shadow Campaign were laid out in good scientific fashion. The campaign was organized into groups of differentiated data. They were 1) The Architect, 2) The Alliance, 3) Securing the Vote, 4) The Disinformation Defense, 5) Spreading the Word, 6) People Power, 7) Strange Bedfellows, 8) Showing Up, Standing Down, 9) The Five Steps to Victory, and 10) How Close We Came. These groups were organized to follow the progress of all these secret liberal groups. The bias present in that article was the general assumption that the opposition was lying.
Within each of these groups were long lists of mostly liberal groups that met secretly to thwart the lies of Donald Trump. It was presumed that his lies were the source of the upset that had overtaken the voting public. No other source was even mentioned. The presumption that he lied was assumed before the article was even written. What all this organized lipstick said was that indeed a secret cabal had worked feverishly to overcome what they thought was overbearing intimidation and lying to the American public. Their goal was to fortify our crumbling republic and its perfect election process. But what if the underlying premise of the article was wrong?
What if Trump was right and had not lied? His verbiage can be quite forceful but I think he is only intimidating to those who prefer to think he lied. What if our archaic system of voting is flawed? Maybe it has become necessary to review and incorporate new updated laws that prevent dishonesty in a flawed election process. Certainly, a secret cabal, instead of an honest open analysis, is not the answer. The result of an analysis may then include a more modern, more efficient election result for both sides. Consider that our system of voting is over 200 years old. Perhaps it does need a serious update. What bothers me is that the entire liberal community would not even consider any notion that the election was flawed or that anyone cheated.
Let us consider that maybe, just maybe, the idea that both parties in a polarized group conflict would consider the opposing party to be liars; in other words, it works both ways. This view could depict a situation where each group presumes guilt for the opposing party without any admission of guilt for themselves. Under those conditions there would be no real search for the truth; just unimaginative defensiveness. As far as I know there has never been this kind of intense polarization in presidential elections before. Because it is new, old solutions may no longer work. To impose a secret marketing campaign on the opposition is surely an attempt to rig the election; not fortifying it.
As I've said before, this article is metaphorically putting lipstick on a pig. The real solution to the problem of the election process is to diminish or eliminate the real cause of the general upset. We appear to need laws or regulations that limit the amount of all upsetting intense communications under crisis conditions, including presidential elections. That way media can be limited under certain conditions while still being able to function freely as an advocate of freedom of speech.
The media should not be allowed to censor certain special political entities because it would certainly encourage special interests to become self-interests. When media is allowed to censor, it is analogous to having basketball players serve as referees in their own games; it is self-serving. It is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. The easy solution is to limit or eliminate both or all sources of upset in a crisis. Because media are part of the problem, they should not be allowed to managed the solution. One solution is to limit the amount of money available for marketing the source of the upset. For instance; in the case of political conflicts, a pandemic or a stock market crash, legal limitations on all sides of the source of the upset should be implemented.