Truthiness: of Rights and Wrongs

Truthiness feels good

Truthi­ness feels good!

Truthi­ness.  I love this word.  It encap­su­lates all that is wrong with the Amer­i­can Reli­gious Right.  I’ve been think­ing around how to talk about this scourge and received insight from a com­mon (for me) source: The Econ­o­mist has a book review of “The Bat­tle for Yel­low­stone” by Justin Far­rell. The essence of this book, accord­ing to the review (I real­ly need to read the book), is to talk about the prob­lems with pol­i­tics in Amer­i­ca with­out actu­al­ly talk­ing about pol­i­tics in Amer­i­ca.

It is absolute­ly true that the best ways to talk about a dif­fi­cult top­ic is by talk­ing about some­thing else entire­ly.  I’m not just talk­ing about avoid­ance (a viable strat­e­gy — a head in the sand is worth two in the bush), but about the sub­sti­tu­tion inher­ent in most good fic­tion and espe­cial­ly sci­ence fic­tion.

The book, accord­ing to the econ­o­mist, dis­cuss­es how each group in the vari­ety of dis­putes sur­round­ing Yel­low­stone frame their argu­ment as truth against false­hoods while they are real­ly argu­ing moral right ver­sus moral wrong.  The Wikipedia arti­cle on Truthi­ness echos this point where Col­bert (wide­ly con­sid­ered to have coined the term in com­mon usage) dis­cuss­es the way each fac­tion desires to bring it’s own facts to the polit­i­cal debate, rather than all fac­tions argu­ing the cor­rect action against an accept­ed set of facts.

I had actu­al­ly cho­sen the word Truthi­ness before I had read the Col­bert quotes and cog­i­tat­ed on how they meshed with the theme.  I’ve been cog­i­tat­ing for some time on the inap­pro­pri­ate­ness of Truthi­ness.  I see the prob­lems: that things have become com­plex enough; so far beyond most people’s edu­ca­tion and expe­ri­ence that they are eas­i­ly duped by those who would manip­u­late their views.  The prob­lem is not that some peo­ple will attempt to manip­u­late oth­er peo­ple — that will always be true.  The prob­lem is that so few peo­ple in soci­ety as a whole have any qual­i­ty of horse­hock­ey fil­ter.

The stat­ed goal of pub­lic edu­ca­tion is to pre­pare each child for the life of a cit­i­zen.  In gen­er­al­ly avoid­ing class­es in civics, they have failed this task. The Huff­in­g­ton Post has a good primer on the sub­ject of pub­lic school pol­i­cy.

How did we get here, or more per­ti­nent­ly, how do we get out.  For good or for ill, large groups of politi­cians and vot­ers dis­trust sci­en­tists.  Has the dai­ly bar­rage of issues become to fierce for san­er heads pre­vail­ing in inves­ti­ga­tion and debate?  How did it come that argu­ing about right and wrong was not enough for some to invent new “facts” so as to be able to argue about what is truth?

This entry was posted in Life, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.