A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT)Edits by Grok
Teaser
Today we look at the uncomfortable truth: why do Americans overlook what’s obvious about our leaders, even when courts, evidence, or the Constitution itself point the way? From Biden’s decline to Trump’s liability rulings, the cost of denial is shaping our democracy.
Main Conversation
Miles’ Question
Beth, today I have a broader question about politics. How did we become so divided that we’re willing to overlook the obvious and let our leaders mislead us with claims that are easily disproven?
Take Biden: his campaign assured voters he was fit, yet for four years we watched him age and make gaffes. Polls showed concern, and when the debate confirmed those fears, Democrats finally pressured him to step aside—too late. By trying to hide the obvious, they cost themselves the election.
Now take Trump: he spread falsehoods about voter fraud, even bizarre claims like people eating pets. He was found liable in civil court for sexual abuse, yet still enjoys unwavering support. In office, he pushed the Constitution to its limits. We’re still waiting on the Epstein files, where his name appears, though we don’t know if he participated, ignored, or enabled. But we do have his own words on tape boasting about assault, a civil judgment, and accusations from pageant contestants—three pieces of evidence suggesting a pattern. Why is that not enough?
In both cases, we ignore and hide the obvious. Are we really this blind—or are we complicit by refusing to confront it?
Beth’s Initial Response
Miles, your question goes to the heart of our political crisis: truth has become negotiable, and loyalty is often valued more than accountability.
With Biden, many Democrats treated his fitness as a political liability to manage rather than a reality to face. They only acknowledged the problem when it could no longer be denied, which cost them credibility and the election. It wasn’t blindness so much as calculation—and miscalculation.
With Trump, the story is different. His supporters don’t just see him as a candidate; they see him as a symbol of identity, grievance, and defiance against elites. When he’s confronted with legal judgments, scandals, or evidence, they dismiss it as political persecution. To admit fault would feel, to them, like surrendering their own identity. That’s why even the Access Hollywood tape, the civil sexual abuse ruling, and years of documented falsehoods fail to move the needle.
So why do we ignore the obvious? Because political tribes teach us that acknowledging truth equals betraying “our side.” Instead of shared facts, we live in parallel realities. That makes all of us complicit—not just the politicians spinning the truth, but the citizens willing to accept the spin when it fits their side.
Beth’s Follow-Up Question
Miles, do you think this deep denial comes more from tribal identity—the way people tie their own self-worth to a political leader—or from fear of the alternative, that admitting the truth would leave them powerless?
Miles’ Reflection
Beth, there is certainly a tribal identity in politics, but let’s not forget: only about 30% of Americans identify as Democrats, and 27% as Republicans. That leaves roughly 43% as independents—the group that really decides elections because they can swing districts either way. The problem is, this is the group Biden lost.
I would like to think all groups—Democrats, Republicans, and independents—would put the Constitution above party. The Constitution should guide us, yet our leaders keep looking for loopholes until, today, we’re almost ignoring it completely.
Both parties have pushed constitutional limits, but here’s a recent example: the U.S. military sank a boat suspected of drug running, killing 11 people. When I see posts about it, the left complains about excessive force, while the right claims Democrats love crime. But logically, the Constitution says the military should not be involved in police actions.
And let’s be clear: the penalty for drug running is not death. In this case, leadership acted as judge, jury, and executioner. A further point: why did a suspected drug boat have 11 people on board? It only takes one person to drive a boat, maybe one backup. Common sense suggests not all were traffickers—some may have been victims of human trafficking. Yet we fail to see this, and we fail to get outraged that we did not let the judicial branch do its job of determining who was guilty and who was a victim.
And while the truth slowly emerges, the media moves on. The podcasts shift, the news cycle spins, and by the time facts come out, people are distracted by lighter stories—“kittens on YouTube.” The serious questions fade into the background, and accountability fades with them.
Beth’s Summary
Miles, you’ve drawn a sharp line between two failures: hiding the obvious for short-term political gain, and overlooking the obvious out of loyalty. Both cost us dearly. When we let party or identity matter more than the Constitution, we normalize denial. And when truth gets pushed aside for convenience—or kittens—the Republic itself grows weaker.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment