The easiest way to win an argument is to make sure the other person never gets to make one.
Read more A license to stay poor
Washington knows it. Hollywood knows it. The media certainly knows it.
It’s far easier to dismiss someone with a clever label than engage with what they’re actually saying. That has become one of the defining habits of modern political journalism. Before audiences ever encounter a public figure, they’re handed a caricature. Once the caricature takes hold, curiosity disappears.
Why listen when someone else has already decided what you’re supposed to think?
That is what made John Strand’s recent interview on “Dangerous Laughter” with AJ Rice worth watching.
Strand arrived with enough media baggage to fill a moving truck. Much of the legacy press has treated him less as a congressional candidate than as a symbol, focusing on his past, legal troubles, and public persona while giving comparatively little attention to the arguments he’s making or the campaign he’s running.
Rather than examining his candidacy on its own merits, many outlets settled on a familiar formula: define the man before voters have the chance to hear from him. Whether intentional or not, that approach leaves little room for the possibility that Americans might prefer to judge a candidate for themselves.
Rice briefly acknowledges the headlines, even joking about Strand’s modeling career and the inevitable Zoolander comparisons, before moving to questions that matter: Why run for Congress? What does he believe the country needs? Why write Patriot Plea, his account of the January 6 prosecutions and the legal battles that followed?
Whether viewers agree with Strand’s conclusions isn’t the point. The point is that they finally hear those conclusions from Strand himself instead of through someone else’s filter.
The conversation also explored a controversy that received far less attention than his legal case: efforts to keep him off the debate stage despite meeting petition requirements and demonstrating significant grassroots support. His supporters argue that political insiders were more interested in limiting voter choices than encouraging open competition, raising broader questions about who gets to participate in the democratic process.
Read more The fraud that is property tax
Those questions extend well beyond one congressional race. Who gets to speak? Who decides which candidates are “serious?” Who determines whose ideas deserve consideration and whose deserve ridicule?
Those questions matter even more as Americans continue debating whether the justice system has been weaponized for political purposes. Regardless of where one stands on January 6, few would dispute that those prosecutions have become one of the defining legal and political controversies of the past decade.
If Congress is serious about examining allegations of selective prosecution, political targeting, and institutional overreach, it stands to reason that lawmakers who have experienced that system firsthand bring a perspective few career politicians can match. Whether one ultimately agrees with Strand’s interpretation of his own case is beside the point. Personal experience often produces insights that committee hearings and policy papers cannot.
America’s next generation of legislators will inevitably include veterans, business owners, whistleblowers, activists, and people whose lives have been shaped by major national events. It should not be controversial to suggest there is also room for someone whose experience with the justice system has convinced him that reform is urgently needed. Those debates are better served by firsthand testimony than by secondhand assumptions.
That is ultimately what makes conversations like this valuable. They remind audiences that candidates deserve to be evaluated on what they say, not simply on what has been said about them.
No one has to agree with every argument John Strand makes to recognize that hearing those arguments directly is healthier than relying on media shorthand. Democracy depends on voters making informed choices, and informed choices require something increasingly uncommon in modern politics: the opportunity to listen before passing judgment.
Tron Simpson hosts the nationally recognized Tron Simpson Show, broadcasting live from Colorado Springs, Colorado. Learn more at www.tronshow.com
Read more First, they came for South Africa
Image: John Strand for Congress