Despite the epic wipeout of the Democratic Party these past six years, despite the repudiation of progressivism that it represents, and despite the election of the Untethered Orange Id to the Presidency, the Left’s self-certainty remains unshaken and its crusading continues unabated. Democrats and Progressives continue to refuse to accept the outcome of the election (something they mocked Trump for when he didn’t affirm that he would), sought various means of reversing that outcome, and have been engaging in a variety of “de-legitimizing” gambits such as the Russian hack, the popular vote arguments, protest marches, “not my President” banners, and a relentless assault on even the most picayune “gotcha” tidbits such as Jeff Sessions’ conversations with the Russian Ambassador.

A broader-based “initiative,” if you will, that the progressive legions are invoking involves taking ownership of the word “fact.” They like to do a lot of “fact-checking,” and they like to declare that “facts” are on their side. Oftentimes, the declaration itself take the place of actually presenting facts, as if saying “I’m right, you’re wrong, shut up!” carries a shred of persuasiveness. Of course, it’s never done quite so overtly, because this degree of honesty would expose the subterfuge. And, it’s often done in the negative, via genetic fallacy: asserting the falseness or untrustworthiness of something based solely on presumptions about the source (e.g. if Breitbart publishes something, it’s de facto wrong or a lie). Corollary to this is the “fact-check” gambit, where certain sources (e.g. Snopes.com, Factcheck.org) are presumed authoritative enough to negate assertions made by other sources.

Unfortunately, “fact” is often conflated with “opinion,” especially if the opinion is more than just someone’s random musings. Such opinions may be well supported but, especially in subjects outside mathematics and the hard sciences, involve subjective conclusion and thus don’t rise to the level of hard, dispassionate fact. This is especially true in politics, where people’s “facts” are often rooted in ideology. Rational people will recognize this, call their statements “conclusions” rather than facts, and attempt to support those conclusions with a combination of logic and empirical data. But, in the zero-sum bloodsport of partisan political bickering, the rational are drowned out or run roughshod over by the loud.

Two new branches of the “Fact!” trend are the “fake news” hysteria and the “alternative facts” head scratcher. The former, which many on the Left attribute solely to tendentious, partisan and click-bait right-wing websites (but which have infected the full left-right spectrum), has become enough of a concern that social media sites are taking steps to vet what’s propagated on their platforms (which raises other questions and creates other problems). The latter, sourced to Trump advisor KellyAnne Conway, is an unforced-error misuse of the word “fact.” Trump himself has fed this fact/opinion conflation with his loose-cannon style, sloppy speech, and bizarre declarations of the easily-disproved.

Running in parallel with this is the budding movement to defend “Science,” complete with Marches scheduled for Earth Day this year. If ever you wanted an example of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” this is it. Too many people who have attached themselves to this or have decided they need to be “Science’s” white knights really don’t understand what science is and is about. They’ve latched onto a narrative that the Administration and the Right, by virtue of skepticism towards the catastrophic theory of anthropogenic global warming and conflation of all things Conservative/Republican/Right-Wing with young-Earth creationism and denial of evolution, are anti-Science and mired in deliberate ignorance that threatens humanity, reality and the planet. Both the assertion of irrefutable, imminent, cataclysmic disaster and the conflation itself are hogwash, and anyone with a true fealty to the scientific method and rational inquiry should steer well clear of this quasi-religious movement that purports its own dogmatic and beyond-doubt “science is settled” facts that brook no challenge no matter how much new work is done. It’s also a joke that one side of the divide asserts a monopoly on “Science.”

Justifying all this is another piece of dogma: the presumption that Trump is such an existential threat to the Republic that he must be “stopped,” by any and all means and tactics. This presumption has become doctrinaire, both on the Left and among a cluster of NeverTrump conservatives, and it seems that nothing Trump does or even can do at this point will change minds or abate the antipathy. What happens, though, when Trump gets something right? The Left must surely see echoes of Obama’s stimulus package and his “shovel ready jobs” initiative in Trump’s promise to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure, and conservatives must surely be happy with the Neil Gorsuch nomination and the string of executive orders that undo some of Obama’s, right? Or does the overall dogmatic presumption that he is the Antichrist, Galactus the Eater of Planets, and StalinHitler rolled in orange Cheetoh dust rule out giving any credit where it might be due? Wouldn’t a fealty to “Facts” demand such admissions/concessions?

Of course, the opinion that a broken clock doesn’t deserve credit for being right twice a day can be held, but lets not kid ourselves here – few will go public with this bit of honesty. Why? Because it’s not compelling, because too many people falsely believe that all opinions are equally worthless, and because it’s less likely to coax the marginally-engaged into agreement than by presenting opinions as “facts.”

The unfortunate outcome of all this is that people start to tune out all “facts” that don’t conform with their biases. Swept up in this rejection are legitimate facts and solidly grounded conclusions, making a casualty out of reasoned debate and discussion. When people scream “FACT!” at those with whom they disagree, and offer up opinions instead, they accomplish nothing apart from a bit of smug self-satisfaction. The folks on the Right (and, now, the Alt-Right) at whom this is directed have been yelled at for years, and are at the point where, with all their recent victories, feel no need to tolerate or listen to the yelling any more.

The even more unfortunate outcome is that the rational folks are swept away by the partisan tide. The current environment has become so toxic to rationality that it often seems like a waste of time to even bother arguing any more. The evidence for this is the proliferation of sources that cater, with bias or outright tendentiousness, to the partisans. The market has spoken, and the message is clear that people would rather feed their cognitive bias, even if it means throwing rationality out the window. Those who actually want facts that aren’t mislabeled opinions are, by the evidence at hand, a minority.

This is all reflected in the mainstream media. There’s a reason that the major news organizations have foregone actual journalism in favor of a blurred and blended combination of reporting, not-reporting, curating, and editorializing. Watch or read any major news outlet and try to find some political coverage that isn’t filtered through ideological slant and editorial bias. Why? Because there’s obviously not much of a market for cold, straight, dispassionate journalism any more. Yes, journalists have taken their own initiatives in this regard, but if their product didn’t sell, they’d be out of work.

The danger of all this cannot be underestimated. With increased partisanship and decreased respect for dispassionate fact comes an increased blindness to the weaknesses and dangers of one’s own team/side/party, and a reduction in accountability and honesty. This is the path to tyranny. This is how demagogues rise to power, and how the checks and balances of the political system start to fail. We witnessed George W. Bush expand and concentrate the executive branch’s government, and we witnessed Barack Obama (who decried this) do more of the same. Trump hasn’t been in office long enough to allow us to judge whether he’s doing the same, but there’s little reason to believe he’s a limited government Constitutionalist. What happens after Trump? What happens if we, societally, continue to consider those opinions and conclusions that feed our biases as unchallengeable “facts,” and refuse to let anything that might undermine those falsely-named “facts” into our minds? It’s already happening on college campuses, where dissent has become an endangered species. Unless we accept and understand the difference between facts and opinions, and challenge those who conflate the two, we’ll end up unable to distinguish reality from what others tell us to think.

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.