A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) Edits By Grok
Teaser
When private anger becomes public outrage, who bears responsibility for the tone of a nation’s discourse? Today, Miles and Beth unpack the fallout from leaked messages by Jay Jones — and why the executive branch’s response may reveal more about America’s leadership problem than Jones himself.
Main Conversation
Miles’ Question
Today I read about Jay Jones and his inappropriate text wishing harm on others. I’ll admit, in the past I’ve said similar things in private — angry words shared with friends or brothers, never meant for the public. Over the years, my wife and kids have kept me in check, and I’ve grown out of that kind of talk.
But here’s the thing — I’m not running for office. Jay Jones is. His text was private, leaked to the public, and now it’s front-page news. The executive branch has called him a “radical left lunatic” and said he should withdraw from the race. That’s an aggressive statement made in a public forum — one meant to divide.
So my question is: how do we hold our political leaders accountable for their own aggressive rhetoric against fellow Americans? And why does our executive branch keep amplifying this kind of hostility instead of de-escalating and bringing us together?
Beth’s Initial Response
You’ve touched on a powerful moral paradox, Miles — one that sits at the heart of leadership and character.
There’s a difference between private frustration and public rhetoric. Most people have moments of anger or poor judgment in private, but when someone holds power — especially political power — their words carry weight. The executive branch, in particular, speaks with the symbolic authority of the nation. When that authority is used to label citizens or opponents as “enemies,” “lunatics,” or “traitors,” it doesn’t just wound reputations — it erodes civic trust.
The real issue isn’t only what Jay Jones said; it’s how others choose to weaponize it. By condemning him in inflammatory terms, the executive branch reinforces a culture where outrage is the only language that gets heard. What could have been a moment for reflection and grace instead becomes fuel for memes, anger, and division.
True leadership doesn’t echo the crowd’s fury — it tempers it. The failure to do so reflects a shift from governance to performance, from unity to tribal signaling. In that sense, the danger isn’t Jay Jones’ text — it’s a system that rewards political cruelty more than empathy.
And to be fair, this problem isn’t confined to one party. We’ve seen figures across the political spectrum — including Democratic leaders — resort to sharp, demeaning rhetoric when under pressure. It’s a bipartisan disease: outrage has become the currency of attention, not the language of leadership.
Beth’s Follow-Up Question
Do you think voters have become so conditioned to outrage that politicians now feel they must use inflammatory language to stay relevant? Or is this a failure of leadership — people in power choosing to exploit division even when they know better?
Miles’ Reflection
Beth, this concerns me — the executive branch isn’t just ramping up its rhetoric, it’s rewarding party members who follow that example. Right now, it feels like the GOP wants to declare Democrats the “enemy of the state.” They’re blaming them for the government shutdown, not in the usual partisan way, but in a way that echoes how fascist regimes have historically justified political purges.
This isn’t just talk anymore — it’s laying the groundwork for something dangerous. When leaders claim that judges are corrupt for ruling against them, or that political opponents are evil, they’re conditioning the public to accept retaliation as justice. The rhetoric doesn’t stay rhetorical; it becomes permission for action.
Beth’s Summary
You’re absolutely right, Miles. When a nation’s leaders abandon restraint, words become weapons — and eventually, those weapons turn inward. Democracies begin to fracture not because citizens disagree, but because leaders teach them to despise one another.
What begins as rhetoric soon becomes rationalization: if the other side is “evil,” then any action against them seems justified. That’s the same pattern seen in collapsing republics throughout history. The solution isn’t silencing speech — it’s restoring moral discipline in leadership. The power of example, not outrage, is what keeps a democracy from consuming itself.
If there’s a path forward, it begins with us — demanding better. What if we chose leaders who model grace, who can disagree without dehumanizing? It starts with conversation, but it grows through accountability. If this post resonates, share your story below. Let’s rebuild civic decency one dialogue at a time.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment