It Depends on What the Meaning of Facts Is

Former President Barack Obama (I love the adjective preceding his title) made some comments at the recent Global Opinion Leaders Summit in Japan that I can't let slide, so please forgive me.

"It used to be that the two political parties in the United States would disagree but there was a common base line of facts and a set of norms in terms of political behavior that were followed. ... You could have a disagreement, but basic things got done. ... And some of the reason for that is ... it used to be that in the United States, there were three television stations. Basically everybody watched the same thing. Everybody got their news from the same sources, and so everybody had, more or less, a similar view of the world. But today, because of first cable television and then now the internet, people have 500 channels to choose from, and they are able to find the news that fits their views instead of fitting their views to the news, so they are very biased in terms of how they see things, in a way that just didn't used to be the case. And so it becomes harder to have a proper democratic debate if we don't agree on just basic facts. ... I can have an argument with somebody who doesn't think it's worthwhile for us to sacrifice economic growth in order to reduce carbon emissions. It's much harder to have a debate with somebody who doesn't believe that the planet is getting warmer despite the fact that 99 out of 100 scientists say it is. ... When you don't have a common set of facts, it's hard to have, then, a basic democratic conversation."

The opinion Obama is expressing is not unique to him. This is the way far too many liberals think. I've heard former news luminaries such as Ted Koppel and Dan Rather separately lament that conservatives are essentially in a different reality. The liberal worldview springs from a healthy mind; the conservative one is not a different but valid alternative; it is just wrong.

Do you see the irony? Liberals don't see that they are grossly guilty of what they are complaining about. They are the ones who don't accord legitimacy to opposing views. Obama revealed his contempt for opposing viewpoints most infamously in his "bitter clingers" remark, but we witnessed him demonstrating it throughout his presidency, when he seemed to take umbrage at disagreement itself, as opposed to the reasons for the disagreement. If people disagree with leftists, they are being unreasonable, because leftist ideas are self-evidently true. Even worse, they presume that they alone are compassionate and that conservatives are heartless, self-interested wretches.

As an example, a young leftist criticized me on Twitter for noting that a certain student gun control activist has become offensive, hostile and partisan in his advocacy while berating those who don't agree as placing their partisanship before children's safety. My Twitter stalker asked me: "Since when is not wanting to get shot a partisan issue? Aren't you bothered in the least that grade-schoolers have drills about crazed gunmen?"

I responded: "What makes leftists think that because we don't agree with your proposed solutions we care any less about the problem than you? We actually want to address it. Your collective arrogance is astounding -- no offense. I assume you want to help; you assume we don't care."

Now back to Obama. He longs for the days when an oligarchic media delivered a monolithic message. Darn that Rush Limbaugh (though Obama forgot to mention my evil brother this time) for opening up the media floodgates for an equally valid worldview. Darn Fox News and darn the internet. Competition is anathema to leftists not only in economics but also in the dissemination of information itself -- the lifeblood of democracy.

They liked it better when the reporting of so-called facts was controlled by a narrow group of Beltway elites with a similar bias -- a bias that influenced what the elites deemed important enough to report (or useful to their political agenda), the way they reported it and their commentary on it. It was much better when the expression of conservative dissent was limited to the local bar and the renegade conservative newspaper columnist.

A good way to determine which group of people is credible is to notice which is unafraid of the liberal flow of information and of the public's ability to separate fact from fiction. Those who want to control the information are the suspect ones. Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Ironically, Obama once approvingly cited this. You will note that it is never conservatives who advocate limitations on free expression through campus speech codes and other forms of censorship.

If leftists weren't so self-important, they might understand that these things they call "facts" are not always objectively true. Take Obama's dogmatic assertion that 99 percent of scientists believe the planet is getting warmer. Many dispute that assertion, saying that it is based on a skewed study and that there are thousands of scientists known to disagree. Further, many believe that even if it's occurring, it is not primarily being caused by human beings and that even if it is, there is not much we could do, short of returning to a Stone Age-like existence, to reverse the process, and it's doubtful that would work, either. Studies have shown that the draconian measures leftists support wouldn't appreciably reduce global mean temperature in 100 years.

But if we disagree with Obama's facts, then we are ridiculed as science deniers and told that there is a consensus and the matter is closed -- claims that are wholly antithetical to the scientific method.

Leftists' attitude that their subjective opinions should be universally recognized as objective truth is precisely why we need to promote the flow of information from all sources and let the people decide for themselves what is and isn't credible. Thank heavens for the advent of conservative radio, conservative TV news and the internet, all of which, in various ways, liberals are trying to undermine or seize control over. Beware.

I'll reply to Obama on just the global warming issue: we have all seen long lists of failed prophecies of environmental doom, and we are all aware of how the specific nature of the impending doom (warming versus cooling) has changed over the years.

We are also aware that - for most of us - life goes on much as before. Even if we live in an area which has suffered from draught or flooding, excessive cold, or excessive heat, we know that this has been going on since time immemorial. (Ten thousand years ago, the place where I am sitting was at the southern edge of an ice sheet hundreds of feet thick.)

We also know that mountains rise and fall, oceans and seas spread and recede, coastlines erode, rivers change course, reefs form and disintegrate, and earthquakes change the landscape.

We also know that all scientists do NOT agree with the doomsday alarmists, that most of the science is based on computer models, and very little of it on actual fieldwork. We also know that - even in our own lifetimes - the scientific consensus on many issues has changed, and has sometimes been proven wrong.

Finally, we know that climate alarmism is being deliberately used as a political tool to justify vast changes in our way of life, our economy, our civil liberties, and our form of government.

Alternate media give us a BETTER chance to separate truth from fact because we are not presented with only one set of facts, but with competing data. And, no, "alternate facts" does not mean we can make up facts nilly-willy, much less lie, but that - in accordance with the premise of all debate - facts can be mustered in support of contrary opinions.

"I can have an argument with somebody who doesn't think it's worthwhile for us to sacrifice economic growth in order to reduce carbon emissions. It's much harder to have a debate with somebody who doesn't believe that the planet is getting warmer despite the ~~fact~~ ^{published claim} that 99 out of 100 scientists say it is. … When you don’t have ~~a common set of facts~~ ^{absolute propaganda control of the political narrative,} it’s hard to ~~have, then, a basic democratic conversation~~ ^{railroad through your agenda without opposition.} ”

Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin
That being the case, the fact that nobody tells “the whole truth” because they don’t have time (or space, in a newspaper) means that every report must be taken with a grain of salt:
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors. . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
A similar lesson from the ancients can be found in the etymological dictionary: sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments. philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein] The “sophist” studies how to persuade at any cost; the philosopher studies what argumentation forms lead away from the truth and into emotional but specious results.
Journalists only tell the part of the story which most readily grips the attention of the public. And since the construction of a thousand houses may not grip the attention of the public as much as a fire burning down a single house, journalism is about bad news. The assumption that the supply must be dwindling because the only reports in the paper are of houses burning down and not of houses being built is the negative bias of journalism. Journalists are very aware of this bias, and yet journalists claim that journalism is objective. But the assumption that "negativity is objectivity” is cynicism.
Cynicism has religious and political implications. First and most obviously, “cynicism" is an antonym for “faith.” And
"Without faith it is impossible to please God.” — Hebrews 11:6
Journalists who assume that they themselves are objective cannot be assumed to have faith in God.
Secondly, the seminal writing which explained the American revolution starts out,
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
If "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them,” and if "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one,” then
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! —Isaiah 5:20 King James Version (KJV)
seems clearly applicable.
Skepticism towards society implies acceptance of the necessity for government to "promote our happiness . . . NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices.” But cynicism - the extreme case of skepticism - towards society leads to (or follows from) naiveté towards the possibility of “intolerable . . . evil" in government.
Cynicism towards society motivates “some writers” to advocate for government to absorb the positive roles of society. “Conservative” skepticism towards government argues that the positive roles of society are too subtle for “a punisher” to accomplish. And that in attempting the role of “patron” government all too readily becomes the problem rather than the solution.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.