There’s something deeply broken in the way political arguments are being made right now. Honestly, for the last 16 years.

Supporting limited government, stronger regulation, more spending, less spending are legitimate political debates. But what we see now are partisan talking points that are exaggerated, embellished, or completely fabricated, repeated as if they are established fact.

And the damage goes far beyond politics.

When someone throws out numbers that clearly don’t withstand even basic scrutiny, like claiming $400 million in fraud when the publicly charged case is about $14 million, it doesn’t just weaken their argument on that issue. It destroys their credibility everywhere else. Once people realize you’re willing to inflate facts for political gain, everything you say becomes suspect.

Twenty years ago, politicians still disagreed strongly, but there was at least an expectation that someone would step in when misinformation crossed the line.

During the 2008 election, a supporter told John McCain that she didn’t trust Barack Obama because she believed he was “an Arab.” McCain immediately shut it down and defended his opponent’s character. He made it clear that disagreement over policy didn’t justify spreading falsehoods.

Go back even further to the debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. At times they openly acknowledged they actually agreed on the goals. Their disagreement was about how to get there.

Imagine hearing that level of honesty in modern political discourse.

Instead, we now have young political operatives, and now even “independent journalists,” whose entire model is built around amplifying partisan narratives. They take exaggerated claims, strip away context, and push emotionally charged content because outrage spreads faster than facts.

And those narratives don’t stay online.

In Minnesota we watched the fallout from the federal immigration crackdown known as Operation Metro Surge, where thousands of federal agents were deployed across the state and more than 3,000 people were arrested.

During that operation two U.S. citizens were shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis, triggering protests and national political conflict. Yes, they were shot. And they were killed. These are indisputable facts regardless of what your viewpoint of their actions may be.

The situation quickly spiraled into outrage, protests, and political chaos across the state.

But what’s even more troubling is how quickly exaggerated narratives, speculation, and politically motivated messaging filled the information vacuum. Claims started flying from every direction. Politicians, commentators, and viral online personalities began pushing narratives long before the facts were actually known. Just look at the immediate statements and the subsequent refusal to walk them back. That seems to be the standard in federal politics now.

That’s the real danger of the current environment.

Constituents already support you. They are party line voters.

So why lead with inflammatory rhetoric and questionable claims?

Do you honestly believe you are helping your cause or persuading new voters?

What happens next is predictable. Your supporters take those exaggerated claims and react emotionally, usually with anger. Neighbors begin seeing each other as enemies. Communities become divided over narratives that were inflated or outright false from the beginning.

And when someone calls it out, like I did to a local candidate, the response is:

“I will forever support limited government and a government that does not have a dollar of waste, fraud, or abuse. I will forever spread that message to voters in Minnesota. That makes me a principled conservative, not a partisan Republican.”

But that completely dodges the question.

Supporting limited government is a legitimate political philosophy. Nobody disputes that.

But being principled means engaging with facts, even when those facts do not support your narrative.

If someone points out that a number is exaggerated, that evidence does not support the claim, or that a story is being misrepresented, repeating your ideological slogan does not address the issue. It avoids it.

Unless the definition of “principled” changed overnight, integrity still requires intellectual honesty.

You can absolutely argue that government waste should be rooted out. You can absolutely argue that fraud should be prosecuted aggressively. Most Americans across the political spectrum would agree with those goals.

But if your argument relies on inflating numbers, repeating unverified claims, or amplifying narratives that fall apart under scrutiny, then that is not principled conservatism.

That is just partisan messaging dressed up as principle.

And the long-term damage is real.

Every time exaggeration replaces evidence, trust erodes a little more. Every time politicians rile up their base with claims that are not grounded in reality, the divide between neighbors gets a little wider.

And eventually we end up where we are today. A political environment where outrage travels faster than truth, and credibility has become optional.

— Shawn Weber is a resident of Morgan and business owner