Yes and No

When you watch an entire congressional hearing or a complete live stream of a major political event, you quickly realize how easily manipulated the narrative can become once the media gets hold of it. Whether it's a talk show, a mainstream media outlet, or even a podcaster, these sources have the ability to selectively extract soundbites that fit their own political ideology. The result? A distorted and oversimplified version of reality, presented to the public as the only interpretation that matters.

What I find baffling is that if you care about the news—if you genuinely care about a political issue or a major event—why wouldn't you want to watch the full, raw documentation of what actually happened instead of relying on soundbites and media snippets? If you are going to go on and express your opinions on these matters, you have a responsibility to understand the full context. Otherwise, you risk becoming just another person converted by media that produces binary content, regurgitating their selective conclusions as if they were your own. This is how the media manufactures opinion—not by giving people full access to reality, but by curating what they see, limiting the range of acceptable conclusions.

When people consume news in this fragmented way, they aren’t actually informed, even though they believe they are. Watching a 30-second clip or reading a headline gives you only one ingredient in a much larger recipe, one that involves multiple moving parts, complexities, and gray areas that often get erased for the sake of convenience. Yet, once that carefully selected snippet has been broadcasted, the damage is done—the general public takes it, repeats it in conversations with friends and family, and unknowingly helps spread the binary conclusions the media wants them to have.

This was exactly what happened with Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation hearing. If you watched only what the media clipped, you’d think the entire hearing was about Edward Snowden and whether Gabbard could be trusted with national security. But if you watched the full thing, you’d see something completely different—a nominee offering thoughtful, detailed answers while senators repeatedly ignored the nuances in favor of trying to force her into a politically convenient yes-or-no trap.

Early Recognition and Subsequent Alienation

In 2012, Gabbard was hailed as a rising star in the Democratic Party. She received praise from prominent figures, including Nancy Pelosi, who referred to her as an "emerging star." Publications like Vogue celebrated her as a diverse, trailblazing woman in politics, highlighting her background as the first American Samoan and practicing Hindu in Congress.

Her identity and military service were seen as valuable assets that could help broaden the Democratic Party’s appeal. But when she started voicing critiques about government overreach, civil liberties, and foreign policy missteps, the support she once enjoyed disappeared almost overnight. She questioned mass surveillance, the military-industrial complex, and interventionist wars—ironically, issues that had once been central to progressive politics. The moment she stepped outside of the ideological boundaries expected of her, she was cast aside.

This wasn’t about policy differences. It wasn’t even about party loyalty. It was about conformity versus independent thought. Once Gabbard started challenging the prevailing narrative, she was no longer politically useful.

The Edward Snowden Paradox

Her confirmation hearing for Director of National Intelligence revealed this hypocrisy on full display. A significant portion of the questioning revolved around her stance on Edward Snowden, despite the countless other intelligence issues that could have been discussed. Each senator had only five minutes to question her, yet a disproportionate amount of that time was spent trying to get her to say, in simple terms, whether Snowden was a traitor.

What makes this especially ironic is that the very same party that attacked her for not outright condemning Snowden once championed him as a hero. For years, Snowden was celebrated in progressive circles as a symbol of anti-establishment resistance. His exposure of the NSA’s unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens was seen as courageous, even necessary.

If you lived through that time, Snowden wasn’t just a controversial whistleblower—he was commodified as an anti-establishment icon. He was featured on Wired magazine covers, invited onto The Joe Rogan Experience, and hailed as a modern-day truth-teller in liberal media. His actions were framed as progressive, open-minded, and morally necessary in an era of unchecked government power.

Hollywood even produced a film about him—Snowden (2016), directed by Oliver Stone, a director known for tackling themes of government corruption and power. If Snowden were simply a one-dimensional traitor, why was there such an effort to create a nuanced portrayal of him?

And yet, during Gabbard’s hearing, the Democrats who once praised Snowden had completely switched their stance. Suddenly, any acknowledgment of nuance in his case was considered a disqualifier for Gabbard’s nomination. The very same party that once rallied around Snowden now used him as a political litmus test—any hesitation in calling him a traitor was enough to suggest that Gabbard herself was a threat to national security.

This wasn’t about Snowden. It was about forcing Gabbard into a binary box—patriot or traitor, establishment or anti-establishment. But she refused to play along.

The Digital Era of Binary Thinking

This demand for a yes-or-no answer wasn’t just a tactic in a political hearing—it reflects a much larger cultural shift. Social media has conditioned people into binary thinking, where every issue must be reduced to good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, loyalty vs. betrayal. There is no room for nuance, no space for deeper conversations. Everything must fit into a neatly packaged narrative that can be condensed into a viral soundbite.

Gabbard, however, insisted on engaging with complexity. She provided comprehensive answers, backed up by context and analysis, but these were quickly disregarded by senators who had no interest in a real discussion. They weren’t there to understand her views—they were there to corner her into a forced, simplistic statement that could be used against her.

This is exactly why media coverage of hearings is often misleading. When you watch the full hearing, you see the gray area that gets erased in the final news clips. What makes it to mainstream coverage isn’t the careful thought process of the nominee—it’s the moments that can be framed in the most convenient way for the outlet's political perspective. The full picture is rarely, if ever, given to the public.

Advocating for Open Dialogue and Strategic Restraint

One of the qualities that makes Gabbard unique is her willingness to engage in dialogue with adversaries. She has consistently pushed for diplomacy, not because she is naive, but because she understands the principle of keeping your enemies close. She operates with the belief that peace and restraint are necessary even in the most tense situations—an approach likely shaped by her experiences in combat.

Unlike career politicians who view foreign policy in abstract terms, Gabbard understands the human cost of war. She has seen its effects firsthand. This has made her a vocal critic of unnecessary military interventions and a strong advocate for de-escalation. But rather than being acknowledged as a strategist who prioritizes American interests, she has been smeared as someone sympathetic to authoritarian regimes.

Her willingness to meet with controversial figures has been twisted into claims that she supports them, rather than recognizing it for what it is—a pragmatic approach to conflict resolution. Her stance isn’t about appeasement; it’s about understanding adversaries so that diplomacy, not war, remains the first option.

Final Thoughts

The way Gabbard’s hearing was conducted reveals a deeper issue with modern political discourse. The goal isn’t to evaluate qualifications—it’s to force individuals into a binary framework that allows no room for critical thinking. The full picture is never presented, only the moments that reinforce a preexisting agenda.

Tulsi Gabbard has proven that she won’t be bullied into taking the politically convenient stance. And in a time where integrity in politics is increasingly rare, that alone makes her a figure worth paying attention to.