Talking Politics with ChatGPT
I had an interesting conversation with ChatGPT this morning, because I know you shouldn’t talk politics with friends or family. It was a nice conversation and nobody threatened to disown the other or refuse to speak to them again or anything like that, so it’s all good.
What prompted this post was this article by Clay Risen. I’ve also been listening/watching the Unbiased podcast/youtube channel of Jordan is my lawyer, which is a very good and maybe only source of truly unbiased political reporting on current events.
TikTok was down on my fire tablet so I started thinking for myself again, and was trying to understand the current president and how it seems he makes decisions that serve his best interests more than the country’s interests. Here is how our conversation went: (I readily admit that I am very naive about a lot of things, and politics is one of them)
MY INITIAL PROMPT:
Good morning. I want to talk to you about politics, and specifically about the US Constitution and who the president should be working for. It is my understanding that the government (including the president) work for me, the taxpaying citizen. Is that a valid assumption?
ChatGPT’s RESPONSE:
Good morning! Yes, that’s a valid assumption. In the U.S. system of government, public officials, including the president, are elected to serve the people. The Constitution establishes a government that derives its power from the consent of the governed, meaning that officials are accountable to the citizens.
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution begins with “We the People,” which reinforces the idea that government exists to serve its citizens. Additionally, elected officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which outlines their responsibilities and limits their powers.
That said, while the president and other officials work for the people, they don’t take direct orders from individual citizens. Their duty is to uphold the laws, protect rights, and act in the best interests of the country as a whole, which sometimes means making decisions that not everyone agrees with.
Are you thinking about this in the context of a specific issue?
Are you thinking about this in the context of a specific issue?
MY RESPONSE:
You mentioned government and the president should “act in the best interests of the country as a whole”. How would rebuilding Gaza align with the best interests of the country when we as a country currently have serious mental health issues with the population that go unnoticed and/or ignored?
ChatGPT’s RESPONSE:
That’s a fair question, and it touches on the broader debate over government priorities—whether resources should be spent domestically or internationally, and how decisions align with the national interest.
From a policy perspective, those who support U.S. involvement in rebuilding Gaza might argue that it serves strategic interests, such as maintaining stability in the Middle East, fulfilling humanitarian commitments, and preserving alliances. They might also see it as part of diplomatic efforts to prevent further conflict, which could ultimately impact U.S. security and economic interests.
On the other hand, critics argue that taxpayer dollars should first and foremost address domestic concerns—like mental health, infrastructure, homelessness, and other pressing social issues—before being spent abroad. Mental health, in particular, has been a long-standing crisis in the U.S., with underfunded programs, lack of access to care, and growing concerns about conditions like depression, addiction, and PTSD among veterans and civilians alike.
Ultimately, it comes down to how people define “the best interests of the country.” Some see global involvement as a necessity, while others prioritize fixing domestic issues first.
What’s your take—do you think foreign aid should be cut back significantly, or do you see a balance that could work?
MY RESPONSE:
I’m not a politician but I do think there can be a compromise that would serve both sides. By allocating funds from recently eliminated wasteful government programs to, for example, mental health, you could start to reduce crime and homelessness, and probably at the same time work on improving infrastructure. Foreign aid is not a bad thing, but I would like to see this country spend more on the pressing needs of our own.
ChatGPT’s RESPONSE:
That’s a reasonable and pragmatic view. If wasteful spending could be identified and reallocated to critical domestic issues like mental health, crime reduction, and infrastructure, it could address major concerns without necessarily eliminating foreign aid altogether.
Many people share your frustration that while foreign aid has strategic benefits, there are urgent problems at home—homelessness, mental health, veteran care, and crumbling infrastructure—that don’t seem to get enough attention or funding. A compromise approach could involve:
- Identifying and cutting wasteful government programs – Auditing federal spending to eliminate inefficiencies and redirect funds where they’re most needed.
- Investing in mental health services – Expanding access to treatment, crisis response, and prevention programs to reduce crime and homelessness.
- Maintaining foreign aid but prioritizing efficiency – Ensuring that funds spent abroad serve a clear U.S. interest and are used effectively, rather than being mismanaged.
The challenge, of course, is that government spending is highly political, and reallocating funds often faces resistance from entrenched interests. But in theory, if politicians focused on efficiency and accountability, it could be a win-win.
Would you support legislation that required Congress to audit and justify all foreign aid spending before approving it?
MY RESPONSE:
I would absolutely support legislation that required Congress to audit and justify all foreign aid spending before approving it. Which brings me to the issue of lobbying. But let’s save that for another day.
ChatGPT’s RESPONSE:
That makes sense, and I think a lot of Americans would agree with you on auditing and justifying foreign aid spending. Transparency and accountability should be a priority when taxpayer dollars are involved.
Lobbying is definitely another big topic, and I’d be happy to discuss it whenever you’re ready. It plays a major role in how policies are shaped—including spending decisions—but it’s also a controversial issue.
Let me know anytime you want to continue the conversation!
