I’m always on a search for truth. I feel I have something in
common with someone when I learn they are also searching for the truth. So I
get interested when I read a piece that declares the value of the search for
truth.
But then, I get to reading, and find out they define truth
as their viewpoint, and everyone who differs is some sort of sub-human that
should be dealt with unmercifully.
I’m trying to be certain that I do not do the same. But what
I’m finding is that the self-proclaimed truth seekers who disdain dissent are
on one side of the spectrum—what they call left, but here at the Spherical Modelwe call south, into tyranny,
poverty, and savagery, rather than freedom, prosperity, and civilization.
So the argument isn't new. But I sure miss the congenial way he said it. |
I’m not saying they are purposely and knowingly choosing
tyranny, poverty, and savagery; they think they are choosing something good.
But there’s a closed-mindedness that keeps them stuck in their misconceptions.
I’ve collected a few pieces to illustrate what I mean.
This first I saw in the Houston
Chronicle opinion section “To some, ignorance has become impervious to
fact” by Leonard Pitts, Jr. (It’s his column from October 5, although I think
it appeared in the Chronicle October
8.) He begins with an anecdote from
2010. Some reader named Ken refused to believe that an African-American soldier
was a World War I hero—even after being sent multiple credible sources of
documentation.
I would call that an anomaly. I don’t personally know any
person who would refuse to believe such a thing. It would require both racism
and ignorance—to a degree of self-assuredness that drives the person to
challenge the story repeatedly. Seriously, who is both that ignorant and
energized in that direction?
But, instead of dismissing the guy as a crank,
self-described truth seeker Mr. Pitts extrapolates to a very broad spectrum of
people:
It’s not just Ken who makes me doubt [that efforts to improve
journalism will help]. It’s also Fox “News” and talk radio. It’s Trump’s lies,
his war on journalism and people’s tolerance for both.
I use a pretty wide variety of news sources, only
occasionally including mainstream media. That’s because the mainstream media—the
Houston Chronicle, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc.—are so
obviously biased, they are a waste of time for anything other than big events
of the day. That has been so for a long time.
A decade or more ago I read a piece by Orson Scott Card, the
fantasy writer. He was doing a column for his local North Carolina newspaper
that got picked up by an online magazine I read. He is a Democrat. But he is
also a Mormon, so on a number of issues, usually social issues, he is surprisingly
conservative. His piece covered a front page of the news, pointing out the
numerous biases evident in a casual read, on a random day. The list was
astounding.
I occasionally highlighted my paper that way too. [Here’s
one example.] Eventually I mostly stopped reading
beyond the food section.
Imprimis, a
publication of Hillsdale College, included a piece on the demise of journalism
earlier this year, by Michael Goodwin. His evidence is unassailable.
So claiming this is because of Trump's “war on journalism” lacks
self-reflection at minimum.
Another “you have to believe what I believe or you’re not a
truth seeker” article showed up a few days ago on Vox. As
Pitts did in his piece, David Roberts lists a number of “crazy conservative
fairy tales.” These include “Pizzagate”—a supposed Democrat-run prostitution
ring in a pizza parlor, which I never saw taken up in any source I go to for
news, and:
Hillary Clinton has had multiple people killed, that Obama is
a secret Muslim who wasn’t born in the US, that Trump had millions of votes
stolen, that Barack Obama wiretapped Trump’s White House, that Seth Rich (the
mid-level Democratic staffer who was tragically murdered) was assassinated for stealing
DNC emails and giving them to WikiLeaks, or that Antifa, the fringe
anti-fascist movement, will begin going door-to-door, killing white people,
starting on November 4.
I suppose you can find these stories on sensationalist sites
with only occasional ties to truth (maybe Alex Jones, although I haven’t gone
there to look, because I don’t go there). But it’s not part of any talk radio or
podcasts I listen to, including Glenn Beck, Ben Shapiro, Hugh Hewitt, Larry
Elder, Michael Medved. I haven’t listened to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity
lately, but I have in the past, and they just didn’t peddle stories like that.
I typically have talk radio on in the background during my workday, so I get a
pretty large sample.
Roberts and Pitts are painting with a very broad brush, so
far out of the lines that a typical conservative like me does not even
encounter what they say “millions of Americans fervently believe.”
I do agree with Roberts on this assertion:
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy having to do with
how we know things and what it means for something to be true or false,
accurate or inaccurate. (Episteme, or ἐπιστήμη, is ancient Greek for
knowledge/science/understanding.)
The US is experiencing a deep epistemic breach, a split not
just in what we value or want, but in who we trust, how we come to know things,
and what we believe we know—what we believe exists, is true, has happened and
is happening.
Yes. But his sense of where this comes from is about 180
degrees wrong:
The primary source of this breach, to make a long story short,
is the US conservative movement’s rejection of the mainstream institutions
devoted to gathering and disseminating knowledge (journalism, science, the
academy)—the ones society has appointed as referees in matters of factual
dispute.
In their place, the right has created its own parallel set of
institutions, most notably its own media ecosystem.
No. The primary source of the breach has been the media and
academia being so biased that people cannot and should not trust them any
longer as sources for truth, and must therefore search for truth elsewhere.
Writing with a different opinion this week was Erick Erickson. He tells of a question a friend
asked on Twitter:
He just wanted to know how many political reporters know
anyone who owns a pickup truck.
It seems like a rather mundane question. After all, the top
three best-selling vehicles in America are the Ford F-150, the Chevy Silverado
and the Dodge Ram. All three are trucks. Very few political reporters gave a
number. Most actually raged that it was an unfair question or they dared to
pull the "how dare you" card suggesting their questioner dared to
suggest they were out of touch. Their reaction proved just how out of touch
they are.
Erickson recounts this story: In heated political rhetoric, a
Democrat in Virginia called Republicans “evil.” Not just his particular
opponent, but all his voters. And the Democrat ran an ad showing a “typical”
Republican, with a Confederate flag on the back of his truck, “trying to run over
Muslim, Hispanic, and black children.” That’s how that side views those of us
who don’t see the world the way they do.
Erickson comments:
The contrast between the fever dreams of the Democrats and
reality could not be more striking. In Democrat rhetoric and dreams,
Republicans in general and Trump voters in particular are the racist, evil
monsters who run over Muslim children. In reality, a Muslim terrorist ran over
a diverse group of people in New York City.
Why are conservatives viewed in this unrealistic, untruthful
way? Maybe because the Pitts, Roberts, and other media from that side haven’t
ever met us:
In their mostly large cities, progressives and the press have
isolated themselves from others. It is far easier for a progressive to avoid
daily contact with a conservative than it is for a conservative to avoid
progressives. It is also far more likely that a Republican will encounter more
diverse voices in his party than a Democrat will.
Another story popped up recently, about former
NPR head Ken Stern, who decided to do field research, by planting himself among
the regular people, and then became a Republican. (He has written a book about his conversion):
Spurred by a fear that red and blue America were drifting
irrevocably apart, I decided to venture out from my overwhelmingly Democratic
neighborhood and engage Republicans where they live, work and pray. For an
entire year, I embedded myself with the other side, standing in pit row at a
NASCAR race, hanging out at Tea Party meetings and sitting in on Steve Bannon’s
radio show. I found an America far different from the one depicted in the press
and imagined by presidents (“cling to guns or religion”) and presidential
candidates (“basket of deplorables”) alike.
He tells a story from Texas, where a store owner defends
himself from an armed robber, and then says,
It is an amazing story, though far from unique, but you
simply won’t find many like it in mainstream media (I found it on Reddit).
It’s not that media is suppressing stories intentionally.
It’s that these stories don’t reflect their interests and beliefs.
It’s why my new friends in Youngstown, Ohio, and Pikeville,
Ky., see media as hopelessly disconnected from their lives, and it is how the
media has opened the door to charges of bias.
Truth comes from diverse sources. There’s that “diversity”
word we get thrown at us so often. But, as Erickson says,
Democrats talk a great game on tolerance and diversity, but
they increasingly view anyone who thinks differently from them as evil. They
can do so only because they have chosen the superficial diversity of color and
gender over the more complex diversity of thought.
Roberts thinks the way to truth is to stomp out the sources
of opposing voices. Pitts thinks it may be hopeless, because people who
disagree with him are too stupid to accept his “facts”—even when biased fact
checkers like Politifact tell you what the facts are.
image found on Pinterest |
They think I’m evil in all kinds of ways I’m not. For some
reason that attack doesn’t make me more willing to believe they’re right. Especially
when there’s so much evidence that almost no one out here among us is racist,
sexist, homophobic, or otherwise hateful. Evidence: Hurricane Harvey in
Houston.
But I’m willing to think those people might benefit from some
time among diverse thinkers, like myself. After all, we handle standing up for
ourselves in school and public discourse all the time. We’ve had practice. And
that’s one way we know our beliefs—what we believe is truth—stand up to
scrutiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment