I have a number of people in my life who sit at the far opposite end of the political spectrum, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to collect some real opinions on current events to avoid straw-manning.
Rules of the game
This is the format I created:
- I send an email explaining my purpose transparently.
- I open with a question, then challenge that belief.
- We exchange several emails back and forth until either they stop, it becomes circular, or it falls into a rabbit-hole that demands a follow-up.
- I send them a link to the post in case they want to continue the discussion (or start their own).
This person will remain as anonymous as they wish to be following the interview.
The interview
Q: How do you feel about local police cooperating with federal ICE agents in Boston?
It’s a matter of upholding the rule of law. When local law enforcement agencies cooperate with federal authorities like ICE, their simply doing their job and ensuring our immigration laws are enforced.
Q: Can you explain, in your own words, the virtues of small government?
The virtue of a small government is that it empowers the individual, not the bureaucracy. It’s about preserving liberty and economic freedom by keeping the government out of the way.
Q: When is it okay to sacrifice liberty for security?
I do not believe we should sacrifice liberty for security. That line of thinking is a classic trap. The American founders understood this well: those who are willing to give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither.
Q: If advocating for small government keeps the state in check, ensuring liberty comes before security, why do you support ICE, whose dual civic and criminal mandate puts our rights at odds with their goal of finding immigrants?
Your premise is flawed. ICE isn’t putting rights at odds with security, they’re upholding the law, which is the very bedrock of our rights. A small government must still perform its essential duties, and chief among them is maintaining a secure border and enforcing immigration laws.
Q: The ACLU has detailed various civil rights violations by ICE in New England. Are you aware of this?
The ACLU is an activist organization known for its opposition to immigration enforcement. They have a vested interest in portraying ICE in a negative light so I take their reports with a grain of salt. The legal system is in place to address specific instances of misconduct and if any individual ICE agent violates the law, they should be held accountable through those channels
Q: Respectfully, do you think that’s a deflection? The premise of that article is that the courts DID find that ICE violated civil rights–and there hasn’t been any accountability.
There’s a difference between a bad outcome in a single case and a systemic failure. The ACLU’s goal is to use those individual court findings to push a political agenda against enforcement. Our goal is to ensure the law is upheld and that any civil rights issues that arise are handled within the existing legal framework. The law itself is not the problem, it’s a few bad apples, and accountability for them should be pursued through the proper channels.
Q: Can you articulate how ICE was held accountable in these instances of civil rights violations, and what they do differently today?
The legal challenges force the agency to clarify and refine its practices to better align with constitutional law. It’s an ongoing process, and the goal is always to have the most effective and lawful enforcement possible. This is what a society with a rule of law looks like: a system where even government agencies can be challenged and are held to account.
(At this point, I felt that the conversation was becoming circular, so I decided to cap it.)
Q: Understood; that’s all from me. Do you have any last points you want to make?
I appreciate your questions and the chance to speak my mind. My final point is this: what we’re talking about, meaning small government, individual liberty, and the rule of law, these aren’t just talking points. They are the principles that have made America a beacon of freedom throughout history. While some may disagree on the implementation, the core ideals are what we must hold fast to. A strong nation is one that honors to its foundational beliefs, and that’s precisely what I, and others like me, are fighting to preserve.
Takeaway
I felt that this conversation revealed a disconnect when we discuss the role of ICE: I was focused on the logical premise, they were focused on party consistency. I think if I were to do this again, I would lean more heavily on what I know about “loyalty to authority” to challenge these concepts with greater precision.
Leave a comment
[Guest] Brian D on August 24, 2025
That’s the exact definition of a straw man! You’ve built this entire narrative around the idea that the person you interviewed is somehow less thoughtful than you are, just because they didn’t fall into your carefully constructed gotcha questions.
📝 massandra (author) on August 24, 2025
Disagree, I talked to a real person to avoid straw-manning them. It’s true that I went in knowing which points I wanted to challenge, but to me, a “gotcha question” is one which tricks or traps the other person unfairly, or one where the question itself is meant to make a statement. In this case, I was probing for consistency. I had no idea how they would answer ahead of time, or if they would raise a point I hadn’t considered.