In Both Sides Now, author and ethicist Leslie Cannold presents two sides of an argument and then it’s over to you: what do you think is true, and what do you think Cannold really believes?
Today: when a population is polarised by wildly differing “truths” — those promulgated by some sections of the media and social media versus those proffered by scientists and health experts — it’s not only political confusion that reigns. Families and friendships are often shattered. Do we really want “truth” that we’re told to believe?
No: Exposing and discrediting false truths gives us the confidence to make our own decisions about our future and that of our families — and our country. Yes: Some people consider independent thinking an important aspect of democracy, but for others being part of groupthink gives them a sense of security.
No
Everyone cares about truth. Without the confidence that what we see, hear, touch and — consequently — believe to be true, the ground on which we stand goes earthquake, unable to support the minute-to-minute decisions we must make and actions we must take to ensure our and our dependants’ survival.
Or to form a view, as a responsible democratic citizen, about the quality of decisions made in our names.
Truth matters to Australians and Americans because democracy matters to them, and democracy requires a shared set of facts to survive.
The destruction of our ability to share a set of facts about the basic features of the world was a stealth operation by the Murdoch press. It was achieved less through the assertion of any particular alternative facts than a steady stream of false claims that reporters and guests on other news sources were “biased”. This claimed “silencing” of “the other side” led to the grievance that traps its viewers in the Murdoch “news” bubble forever because all other sources of information have been discredited.
But now, at long last, we are fighting back. We are fact-checking and debunking, inoculating and “boosting”, flagging and taking down false news content and, most importantly, downranking unreliable content by changing search algorithms.
This is just the fix we need for flailing democracies. For example, the ridiculous “Pizzagate” conspiracy would never have been allowed to flourish on Twitter today the way that it did in 2016, effectively helping to take down presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in favour of the demagogic authoritarian Donald Trump.
While democratic citizens are frustrated with how their democracies are functioning, this does not equate to their lack of interest in exercising their vote. Exposing, debunking and facilitating access to the truth is the best way for us to nip authoritarianism in the bud.
Yes
Over the past few years I’ve witnessed tensions, even ruptures, in important personal relationships over politics. Whether it’s my partner’s concern about rising levels of vaccine hesitancy among men he’s known for 40 years, or my adult sons grappling over the relationship they can have with their once-beloved grandfather who now compulsively spouts Fox talking points, questions about truth are front and centre.
“How can I convince them?” my partner agonises. “It’s like he’s been brainwashed,” my sons fret. “How can he believe that crap?”
US cable news broadcaster Rachel Maddow describes the two realities that increasing numbers of Americans are living in as Earth One and Earth Two.
On Earth One, Joe Biden is US president, climate change and the COVID-pandemic are top-order threats that must be addressed, and assertions designed to provoke action are evidence-based.
On Earth Two, Trump is about to be reinstated as president, critical race theory and unvaccinated migrants coming across the border are top-tier threats, and mass movement happens whenever a leader demands it of his loyal followers, as long as he’s “their” guy.
Let’s look a little harder at this last aspect of Earth Two: “Mass movement happens whenever a leader demands it of his loyal follows, as long he is their guy.” Notice that it is feelings, not facts, that are driving people to listen, pay heed and act; feelings that include loyalty and the need to belong. Both needs are familiar and well recognised within the human psyche.
But while all humans have the same basic needs, mileage may vary for individuals. While independence might be critical to one person (“I make up my own mind”), another might prioritise being an accepted member of a group (“It’s important to fit in”).
A person who privileges independence of thought is likely to be a fan of the individual right to participate guaranteed by democracy. But if the high that comes from belonging to a group is their thing, then populist authoritarian rule might hold more appeal, as long you’re a member of “the people” in whose name the dictator leads.
During emergencies, the appeal of so-called strong leaders only grows, as even independent-minded citizens grow fatigued by the absence of reliable information to make consequential decisions.
The upshot? It’s feeling, not fact, that’s driving the false-fact brigade and it will be feeling that gets them — and our democracy — back on track. This will be achieved by finding other ways for loyalty to be expressed; other ways for the desire to belong to be met. Like for instance by including those with misguided views in family gatherings rather than shunning them?
The leadership angle must be pursued too. Authoritarian leaders must be influenced, substituted or, where no other choice exists, de-platformed — not ridiculed or attacked, which only drives their loyal adherents further in.
The absence of a shared reality from which to debate solutions to our shared planet’s problems is the source code of the crisis facing advanced democracies across the Western world. But how we got there, and how we’ll get back, is all about emotions, not facts.
Which side do you think Cannold sits on? And what do you believe? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au with Both Sides Now in the subject line.
Most people only seem to have a very vague understanding of political processes and what the differences are between the two major political parties. If the Government of the day decided to suspend Parliament and rule by decree, I don’t think much would happen as long as normal life continued (good coffee/retail therapy/house auctions/AFL and Rugby League match of the day etc).
“Truth is in the eye (and ear) of the beholder (and the listener). Some people are more than happy to be told what to believe — it gives them a feeling of security to know they’re thinking the same as others; they don’t have to make their own decisions or do their own research.” This description sounds remarkably like those with deep religious beliefs!
It’s interesting that all these type of articles put all the responsibility on the reasonable people to not upset the unreasonable and to bring them around by by being nice to them, meanwhile the unreasonable continue to spit bile with no onus on them to be decent human beings.
Insights from the Fromm’s “Fear of Freedom” are useful here. Fromm’s inquiry into the social-economic-psychological sources of the rise of Nazism still has things to say. Notably, that Fascism has roots in status and financial anxiety, particularly in the lower middle classes, stemming from the economic conditions of capitalism, with its perpetual tearing up of economic conditions and relationships between people. All that is solid melts into air, as Marx memorably remarked.
More broadly, our thinking generally vacillates between ideas we feel comfortable with, or that comfort us, and a need to seek truth and facts, if only to actually act successfully in the world. A love of truth can be wrong-headed if you chose the wrong “truth” or sources of it. A love of seeking truth via rational analysis and an open mind is more desirable for someone seeking meaningful freedom but it would include knowing that truth can be constantly receding or moving. Note this last is not the same as a vacuous “all truths are equal” relativism.
I find the following a useful and relevant encapsulation of aspects of the fear of freedom, and I am quoting from Wikipedia
Authoritarianism: Fromm characterises the authoritarian personality as containing both sadistic and masochistic elements. The authoritarian wishes to gain control over other people in a bid to impose some kind of order on the world, but also wishes to submit to the control of some superior force which may come in the guise of a person or an abstract idea.
Destructiveness: Although this bears a similarity to sadism, Fromm argues that the sadist wishes to gain control over something. A destructive personality wishes to destroy something it cannot bring under its control.
Conformity: This process is seen when people unconsciously incorporate the normative beliefs and thought processes of their society and experience them as their own. This allows them to avoid genuine free thinking, which is likely to provoke anxiety.
Remind you of anyone you know?
People believe the lies. They want the truth, and they believe lies. However, why such a focus on right wing lies? The left lies all the time too, just with lesser consequences.
Take the lie that everyone wants to work and hand outs have no impact. Ha! The original Covid supplement paid what I earned at work. So I sat out the entire period until they dropped the payment back to 150. I enjoy my job, but I’m not a charity. Why would I go to work if the Government is going to pay me the same? In minimum wage works gaps on your resume are fine.
But you would never read about this in The Guardian, who insist no one ever bludges. I bludged my way through half of Covid but you want find the left ever admitting that the rate of welfare has an impact on the willingness to work. I am all for raising the dole but you can’t do that without raising the minimum wage, why would I work when it’s close to the same? You wouldn’t read about it would you. Upsets the narrative of us hard working honest peasants.