There Is No Political Center—Only Framing and Control
Conventional wisdom tells us that politics is a spectrum, with extremes on either side and a rational center where sensible people reside. But as George Lakoff argues, this “center” is an illusion. Political beliefs are not a linear negotiation between left and right; they emerge from deep moral frameworks that structure how we see the world. The battle for power is not about winning over an ideological middle—it’s about activating and reinforcing the moral worldviews that define our political landscape.
Once we understand that politics operates through competing cognitive frames, we can also see how ignorance and stupidity are not just unfortunate byproducts of mass politics but essential tools of control. Misinformation, moral panic, and confusion are not accidental; they are weaponized to ensure that people remain locked into specific ways of thinking—or too overwhelmed to engage critically at all.
Weaponizing Stupidity: Ignorance as a Political Strategy
The myth of the political center makes ignorance easier to exploit. If people believe they are in the middle, they assume they are neutral, rational, and immune to manipulation. In reality, they are still operating within pre-constructed moral frames that determine their political reactions.
Framing is a primary tool used to control public understanding. The way issues are presented shapes how people think about them before they even begin to process the details. If tax cuts are framed as “giving people their money back” rather than “defunding public infrastructure,” the debate is over before it begins. Similarly, gender fluidity is not debated in terms of human rights and personal identity but framed as a cultural collapse, making rational discussion impossible. By controlling the frame, those in power dictate the terms of public discourse, limiting the possibility of genuine engagement.
Misinformation also serves as a cognitive shortcut, providing emotionally satisfying answers that reinforce existing biases. The spread of deliberate falsehoods—like the idea that elections are rigged or that gender-affirming care is dangerous—simplifies complex issues into digestible, ideological talking points. Repetition solidifies these falsehoods in the public consciousness, ensuring that counter arguments become irrelevant in the face of moral certainty. Once misinformation is widely accepted, it creates a self-reinforcing cycle where people actively reject any attempt to challenge their worldview.
Moral panic is another weapon in this arsenal, ensuring that people react with fear rather than critical thought. If a group is painted as a fundamental threat—whether it’s immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, or political activists—then emotions override reason. This is why opponents of gender fluidity frame it as an attack on children rather than a question of identity and rights. If the issue is framed as “protecting kids,” then debate is no longer about reality but moral absolutes. The goal is to shut down discourse entirely by making opposition seem immoral rather than incorrect.
Confusion plays a final role in suppressing engagement. If everything is presented as complicated, contradictory, or unknowable, many people disengage entirely. The deliberate flooding of public discourse with half-truths and conspiracies creates an environment where people either accept the dominant narrative or retreat into apathy. By making gender politics, democratic legitimacy, and social justice seem like endless, unwinnable debates, people lose faith in the very possibility of public policy. This ensures that reactionary forces can operate unchallenged, as their opponents are too disoriented to effectively push back.
The Only Way Forward: Reframing the Narrative
If there is no political center, then the battle is not about moderation—it’s about engaging the frames through which people interpret the world. To counter the weaponization of stupidity, we need to stop debating within the enemy’s frame and start reinforcing our own moral narratives. Instead of defending gender fluidity as an individual choice, frame it as a fundamental freedom—autonomy over one’s identity. Instead of playing defense against misinformation, go on the offensive by reinforcing narratives of care, community, and empowerment. Instead of engaging in debates over whether rising authoritarian movements are legitimate populist uprisings, frame them as what they truly are: an elite-backed consolidation of power using populist aesthetics to manipulate the masses.
The future of authority will not be determined by an illusory center but by the struggle to define reality itself. The only question is: whose frame will win?
