Contributor: My father, Ronald Reagan, would be heartbroken by today's White House conduct 69%

By Patti Davis0%

6/7/2026, 10:41:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 47.1% saturation with 354 hits. Analysis detected 2,270 faulty-reasoning hits from 752 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.9% and a BS Rank of 69% (6,756 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.10% of the article peer group.

This is a reflective time of year for me. 
My father, Ronald Reagan, died in June 2004, and each year I let myself drift into whatever realm my thoughts and memories lead me to. 
Sometimes it’s about who he was as a father  magical when I was a small child, but elusive and a bit awkward as I grew up. 
This year I have found myself reflecting on who he was as America’s parent  not in a political framework, but as a human being. 
I’ve thought about how baffled he would be at the language and the statements that bellow out of the current White House. 
I can imagine his eyes darkening, his head bowing in sadness when the current president warned on social media that a “civilization will die tonight,” referring to bombings in Iran. 
My father would wince at talk of overtaking other nations and claiming them as part of America  that “51st state” trope we hear in reference to Canada or Venezuela, or the rumblings of seizing Greenland. 
I can see him recoiling from the profanities that are tossed out, which he might have used in private but would never allow to cross into his role as leader of the free world. 
I’ve thought about his phone call to Margaret Thatcher in 1983, after he ordered an attack on Grenada, a former British colony, without first contacting her. 
The audio of the phone call is public now, and the exchange shows mutual respect, admiration and adherence to international norms on both their parts. 
My father began the call by saying, “If I were there, Margaret, I’d throw my hat in the door before I came in.” 
He explained to her the phone call he got at 3 in the morning, the urgency of the situation and the awareness that somewhere in our government there was a “loose source, a leak.” 
Hence the secrecy of the mission. 
Thatcher accepted his apology, called him Ron and all was forgiven. 
Obviously, a long list of presidents have adhered to civil discourse with other world leaders and have never publicly descended into profanities and threats. 
As a child, I listened to President Kennedy and felt that I was listening to someone who I was meant to see as a role model, a person I needed to try to emulate. 
It’s hard now to find an elected official who is worthy of being emulated. 
An influential way of thought within the Trump administration considers empathy to be a “sin.” 
And as Conan O’Brien observed in his graduation speech at Harvard last month, “We are living through a period of extreme narcissism.” 
These attitudes are contagious. 
If unkindness, lack of empathy, even cruelty, abound at the highest levels, they too easily seep into the rest of our culture. 
It takes some determination to remember that there is a different way, that we can coexist respectfully and use empathy as our watermark. 
So now, at the edge of summer, the season when my father left this world, my thoughts go to him. 
I remember going into the Oval Office the day after he was inaugurated and seeing how quietly reverential he was about that space and the history that loomed there. 
Many years later, I saw the sadness in Mikhail Gorbachev’s eyes when he came to my father’s service in Washington. 
Brian Mulroney’s eyes brimmed with tears as he eulogized him, and a frail and not-well Thatcher made the trip across the Atlantic to honor her friend. 
These former leaders of the Soviet Union, Canada and England had shared the world stage with my father, who like them had operated with dignity and respect for one another. 
If we don’t remember how world leaders have behaved in the past, how they are supposed to behave, if we just accept that dignity and civility are now extinct, we’ll find ourselves in a wasteland from which we can’t escape. 
We’ll be changed forever, not necessarily by the language tumbling out of the White House, but by our normalization of it. 
Remembering that this is not who we are supposed to be  that America’s dignity may have been sidelined but can still be reclaimed  is our lifeline. 
It’s how we pull ourselves back to who we are supposed to be. 
Patti Davis is the author of “Dear Mom and Dad: A Letter About Family, Memory and the America We Once Knew.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.2%Patti Davis: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Patti Davis: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic8.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 5.9%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Patti Davis: 2.8%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 2.8%Patti Davis: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion2.8%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Patti Davis: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect3.3%This article: 6.8%Patti Davis: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias6.8%This article: 10.0%Patti Davis: 5.5%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias10.0%This article: 25.8%Patti Davis: 10.0%Daily Pilot: 7.7%Negativity Bias25.8%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Patti Davis: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error2.9%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Patti Davis: 2.9%Daily Pilot: 1.7%In-Group Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Patti Davis: 9.0%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect11.4%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%Patti Davis: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias8.8%This article: 7.8%Patti Davis: 3.1%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect7.8%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.0%Patti Davis: 6.3%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority9.0%This article: 8.5%Patti Davis: 4.2%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma8.5%This article: 11.6%Patti Davis: 9.9%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope11.6%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.9%Patti Davis: 10.4%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization16.9%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.7%Patti Davis: 13.0%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion23.7%This article: 8.1%Patti Davis: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question8.1%This article: 0.8%Patti Davis: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.8%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.9%Patti Davis: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division6.9%This article: 28.3%Patti Davis: 12.6%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal28.3%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.9%Patti Davis: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.9%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.0%Patti Davis: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote2.0%This article: 6.9%Patti Davis: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection6.9%This article: 47.1%Patti Davis: 22.7%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice47.1%This article: 21.5%Patti Davis: 11.6%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination21.5%This article: 0.0%Patti Davis: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Patti Davis: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.0%This article: 2.8%Patti Davis: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.8%

752 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers13%attributed speech652writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageRonald Reagan • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRonald Reagan • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageConan O’Brien • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coveragePatti Davis • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Conan O’Brien

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words22% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+95.4 ptsWriter: 4.6%Conan O’Brien: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-54.3 ptsWriter: 54.3%Conan O’Brien: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-24.8 ptsWriter: 24.8%Conan O’Brien: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Conan O’Brien: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Conan O’Brien: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.