Musings By Rebecca

By: Rebecca Witherspoon, April 8, 2025

Politics has always been a bit contentious, but these days, it feels like the focus has shifted from policy debates to personal attacks. With social media amplifying everything, it’s easier than ever for false narratives and smear campaigns to take root. And, it seems that some far-left factions of the political spectrum have been using these tactics more and more.

And, no, I’m not suggesting every progressive or Democrat is guilty of this, but it’s becoming more common to see smear campaigns used to target opponents instead of engaging in healthy debates or offering better solutions. In fact, I experienced this firsthand after a recent vote of the village board on which I serve didn’t go the way a small group of far-left activists hoped. Thankfully, I did win my re-election bid despite the attempts to smear my reputation in the eyes of my local constituents. Disturbingly, the experience revealed a dark side to my community. I will forever be grateful to the many, many people in my community who reached out to me throughout the experience with kindness, prayers, and support—reinforcing to me exactly who I am working for every day as their local representative.

Instead of discussing the issues at hand or proposing alternative ideas, these activists resorted to personal attacks. They created multiple fake social media accounts to anonymously spread false and defamatory information primarily about me but even included some of the village staff—attacks that were not only untrue but also designed to damage our reputations. This wasn’t just isolated to one or two people—it was a coordinated effort by multiple people to undermine me and anyone else who disagreed with their views.

What’s worse is that some voices from the far-left even tried to justify this kind of treatment by arguing that public figures like me should simply “expect” to face personal attacks and defamatory behavior. They claimed that because we choose to enter the political arena, we somehow give up the right to defend ourselves against these kinds of attacks. This perspective is not just wrong—it’s dangerous.

Just because someone is in the public eye doesn’t mean they forfeit their basic rights to personal dignity and the ability to defend themselves. Public figures are still human beings, and we should be able to stand up against false claims without being labeled as “soft” or “weak” or “retaliatory.” Every person—whether they’re in politics or not—deserves the right to protect their reputation from lies and defamation. While it may be more difficult for a public figure to succeed in holding someone accountable, it’s not impossible.

It’s important to remember that we all have the same rights as anyone else. Our public roles don’t strip us of the fundamental freedoms we enjoy as citizens. These rights are enshrined in law, and no one should be above the ability to challenge defamation. Politics should never be an excuse for allowing harmful and unfounded attacks to go unchecked.

But, as anyone who’s faced these kinds of attacks knows, standing up for yourself isn’t always simple. In fact, it can often make things worse.

After being targeted, I initially chose to refrain from responding directly. I thought the best way to handle it would be to rise above the personal attacks and stay focused on the issues at hand—and I continue to believe in most cases that not responding to the attacks is the best course of action. However, what I quickly learned is that in some situations when you don’t immediately defend yourself, the smears tend to escalate in both intensity and nastiness. Silence is often seen as an invitation to double down. The longer you remain quiet, the more the attackers feel emboldened to spread even more damaging lies, and the louder their voices become.

Here’s where things get particularly tricky: when you do attempt to defend yourself, it often triggers a response much like the behavior of a narcissist. Narcissists thrive on pushing buttons, manipulating reactions, and playing psychological games. When they see that they’ve hit a nerve, they double down, believing they’ve found the right “buttons” to push to get a reaction.

The more you respond, the more the attackers feel validated. They perceive your defense as proof they’ve “won” or that they’re having an effect on you. Unfortunately, this dynamic only fuels the attack cycle—making it even harder to stop. It’s like throwing gasoline on a fire: every attempt to put it out only makes it spread.

So, how should someone in my position deal with these kinds of attacks? Here are a few suggestions:

1. Stay Calm and Composed: While it’s natural to want to respond, staying calm and collected is key. Responding in a way that reflects dignity and respect for the truth will ultimately resonate more with the public than reacting emotionally.
2. Focus on the Issues: It’s easy to get pulled into the drama, but the best response is to stay focused on the real issues. Talk about your values, your goals, and your vision. This shows voters that you’re committed to substance over spectacle.
3. Speak Your Truth: If you do choose to address the attacks, be clear, factual, and concise. Present the truth without sinking to the level of personal attacks. This can help counter the narrative without escalating the situation further.
4. Call Out Disinformation: It’s essential to correct false information as it arises. Whether it’s through a social media post, a press release, or a community meeting, make it clear that you won’t tolerate defamation and stand up for what’s right.
5. Seek Legal Recourse If Necessary: In cases where the defamation is severe or harmful to your personal life, it may be worth seeking legal advice. While defamation cases can be challenging to pursue, there are legal avenues to stop false attacks and hold perpetrators accountable even for public figures.
6. Find Support: Surround yourself with people who understand the challenges of public life and can offer emotional support. Whether it’s friends, family, or other community leaders, having a solid support system can help you navigate the stress that comes with personal attacks.
7. Engage with the Public Directly: One way to combat these smears is to engage directly with the community. Hosting town halls, participating in public forums, or using your platform to speak directly to constituents can help shift the focus back to the real issues that matter to people.

Sadly, these types of incidents aren’t isolated to just my village.

In Alabama’s 2017 Senate race, progressive operatives were caught running fake Facebook pages that pretended to be conservative voters, pushing divisive issues to try and manipulate the vote. In Prairie Village, Kansas, progressive leaders coordinated online attacks against residents who opposed rezoning plans. And in Greensboro, North Carolina, a fellow city council member was publicly attacked with false accusations about her leadership during the pandemic—all to hurt her re-election efforts.

These smear campaigns are more than just frustrating—they’re harmful to our democracy.

When people see how destructive these attacks can be, it makes it harder for good, qualified individuals to even consider running for office. Why would anyone want to put their family, reputation, and peace of mind on the line when there’s a real risk of being publicly attacked and misrepresented?

Instead of focusing on real issues—like improving schools, healthcare, and community development—this kind of political strategy shifts the conversation to personal destruction. And that only makes it harder to find the right solutions to the problems that matter.

A Call to Action

It’s up to us as a society to reject these toxic tactics and bring the focus back to real solutions. Smear campaigns, no matter which political side they come from, only serve to poison the political environment, drive good people out of public service, and distract from the issues that truly matter. We cannot allow this behavior to go unchallenged.

If we want to restore integrity to our political system, we need to support leaders who are willing to stand up for what’s right—without resorting to personal attacks. We need to demand transparency, accountability, and a renewed commitment to civil discourse.

It’s time to push back against the culture of personal destruction and create a political environment where ideas, not insults, shape the conversation. But it starts with each of us—by refusing to engage in smear tactics, holding ourselves and others accountable, and advocating for a more respectful, solution-driven approach to politics.

Only then can we begin to rebuild trust, restore integrity, and put the focus back where it belongs—on the real issues that affect our lives and our communities.

By: Rebecca Witherspoon

The ideological divide between the left and the right in American society often feels as wide as the Grand Canyon. At its core, the difference lies in how each side views the role of government, authority, and individual liberty. Understanding the motivations behind both perspectives is essential if we ever hope to find a path forward together as a nation.

Those on the left (liberals) tend to see government as a force for good—a necessary tool for solving social problems, advancing equality, and protecting the vulnerable. This belief often stems from an overconfidence and belief in the infallibility of institutions and experts. From their perspective, government intervention is not just helpful, but often necessary to correct what they view as historical injustices, regulate powerful interests, and provide services they feel the private sector neglects. For many liberals, trusting government and the experts means trusting the people and systems they believe have the knowledge and experience to lead effectively. Some liberals (not all) have a tendency to dismiss the views and values of those with whom they disagree, and in the more extreme cases to support the suppression of personal freedoms so long as that suppression advances what they believe to be noble goals.

On the other hand, those on the right (conservatives) tend to view government with a healthy dose of skepticism. They recognize that while government can do good, it also has a strong tendency to overreach. Conservatives often cite overregulation, excessive taxation, and bureaucratic inefficiency as evidence that government must be limited and held in check. They emphasize personal responsibility, individual liberty, and the idea that too much central control can erode freedoms. When government steps out of bounds, conservatives believe it should be held accountable—regardless of which party is in power. Like some liberals, some conservatives (not all) have a tendency to dismiss the views and values of of those with whom they disagree, and in the more extreme cases to support the suppression of certain activities so long as that suppression advances what they believe to be noble goals.

In both cases, the extremes tend to be the loudest and rarely represent the majority of those who fall within their particular political beliefs.

Then there people like me, the centrists—those who live in the space between who may lean a little left in some areas and a little right in others. Many, but not all, centrists tend to be socially liberal (allowing people to live how they choose, as long as they aren’t harming others) and fiscally conservative (being cautious with money and government intervention in the economy). Most of us support personal freedoms and civil rights, including LGBTQ equality, bodily and medical autonomy, parental rights, the right to protect themselves and their families, and freedom of speech and thought, while also championing balanced budgets, leaner and more efficient bureaucracies, and pragmatic, results-driven governance.

Centrists don’t necessarily want more government or less government—we want better government. We prefer that the state stay out of our private lives while making sure that the basics of society—public safety, infrastructure, economic stability—are handled efficiently and responsibly. In other words, we want solutions, not slogans or ideology.

What sets centrists apart is our general preference for a hands-off relationship with government—so long as things are running relatively smoothly. We don’t want to feel like watchdogs, constantly on alert for corruption, mismanagement, or overreach—after all, that’s what we have elected representatives for. As a result, when government seems to be functioning “well enough,” many centrists simply go about their lives without voting in every election.

But when the system starts to feel like it’s spinning out of control—whether through economic instability, failing education standards, parental rights ignored and/or infringed upon, rising crime, the justice system used to suppress rather than uphold individual rights, governmental overreach and overregulation, political extremism, etc.—centrists tend to wake up. That’s when you will see centrists begin to engage, speak out, and turn out to vote. The downside? This intermittent engagement leads to inconsistent voter turnout and, consequently, inconsistent accountability for elected officials.

This can create a troubling feedback loop: when the middle checks out, then the extremes will dominate. Without the stabilizing influence of the pragmatic center, political discourse becomes more polarized, and government becomes more reactionary. Ironically, by not showing up consistently, centrists can unintentionally contribute to the very dysfunction that finally brings them back to the polls.

So how do we bridge this ideological divide?

First, we all need to foster a culture of civic responsibility—one where participation isn’t driven only by crises but by commitment to a functioning democracy. That includes engaging moderates and centrists in a way that respects their independence but also encourages consistent involvement.

Second, we must always demand integrity from all sides. Abuse of power, whether from the left or the right, should be condemned and corrected—not excused because of political loyalty and ideology.

Finally, we must refocus on our shared values: freedom, opportunity, justice, accountability, and efficiency. These aren’t partisan ideals—they’re American ones. By recognizing that each group brings something valuable to the table—like compassion, caution, and common sense—we can begin to stitch back together the social fabric that has frayed in recent years.

Division may define the present moment, but it doesn’t have to shape our future. The bridge between the so-called left and and the so-called right—and the very essential middle—begins with each of us offering mutual respect, seeking out our shared goals, and renewing a belief that our differences don’t have to make us enemies.