Truth and Democracy

In many of my posts so far, I’ve written about President Trump’s disdain for truth.  From his insistence that the crowds at his inauguration were bigger than Obama’s to his claim that the recent tax bill contained “huge” breaks for the working and middle class, the President repeatedly offers lies in the face of documented truth.  The New York Times recently listed 108 unequivocal lies in the President’s first eight months

These lies are each bad enough individually.  They create misunderstandings, enforce the prejudices of his base, deny inconvenient science, and so on.  It’s hard to know whether Trump is completely divorced from reality, incapable of determining the truth even for himself, simply pursuing agendas that would make no sense if one knew the truth, or, more likely, some shifting combination of all three.  The larger question, however, is: What happens to a country when there is no-agreed upon truth?  As William Raspberry has asked, “Can a democracy function without a commonly accepted chronicle of events and encyclopedia of knowledge?” 

Our democracy depends on our collective decision making in the face of multiple competing values and opinions. For instance, even if there were general recognition of the truth of climate change, there would still be irreconcilable differences in opinion about what should be done:

• Do nothing and assume humanity will acclimate to the new reality?  
• Do nothing and assume that future technology will solve the problem?  
• Invest heavily in renewable sources of energy without government regulation of carbon emissions?  
• Enforce government-mandated carbon pricing or emission limits?

In a pluralistic democracy these decisions require political wisdom, the ability to compromise, a modicum if trust in the wisdom of the whole and a willingness ultimately to accept even decisions you oppose. But what happens if there are no agreed-upon facts? What happens if there is no agreed-upon way to prove that global climate change is not just a liberal conspiracy perpetrated by a cabal of dishonest, self-interested scientists?

No, a democracy cannot function if we can’t agree on what constitutes truth or even on the possibility of determining the truth. Democracy cannot ultimately survive if the President can convince one-third of voters of “alternative facts” and hold democracy hostage to his version of the truth

So then the question becomes: Is American democracy strong enough to withstand a President with no regard for the truth, especially when no one from the ruling party is willing to hold him accountable, to insist on bringing the truth into debates about the most important topics confronting the government?

While the answer yet hangs in the balance, the recent elections in Virginia, Alabama, and New Jersey are hopeful signs. There is good reason for hope that this one man will not be allowed to destroy our most important national treasure.