Truth, Post Truth, and Post-Post Truth
Truth can be complicated.
Most historians and philosophers would tell you that multiple, seemingly contradictory truths can coexist due to the very simple fact that one’s perspective causes one to see and understand events differently than those having a different perspective. Here, perspective can refer to the literal geographic positioning and vantage point or it can refer to ideological or cultural positioning. Numerous historical examples exist testifying to this, just consider the various names different groups use for the same event:
The Civil War vs. The War of Northern Aggression
The Vietnam War vs. The American War
World War II vs. The Great Patriotic War
Independence Day vs. Al Nakkba
Also consider the competing narratives surround individual historical figures:
Is Alexander the Great considered a hero to the Asian populations he conquered?
Is Napoleon seen as a hero and son of the French Revolution or a traitor to the ideals of the Revolution?
Is George Washington the Father of our country and defender of freedom or a slave owner? Is he a Patriot or a traitor? What of Benedict Arnold - traitor or loyal royal soldier?
Perspective matters… to a point. The examples above deal with complicated events and complex individuals. It is only logical that there would not be uniformity regarding their legacies and meaning. Rational people may debate George Washington’s legacy, but what they do not do is debate his literal existence. Historians can make solid cases for both Alexander the Great and Alexander the Terrible, but that Alexander existed is beyond contestation.
Things happened or they didn’t. People existed or they didn’t. One’s opinion or perspective is irrelevant.
At some point in the last twenty to thirty years we as a society entered into a Post Truth epic. It was not one moment, but rather a slow yet consistent decline in our devotion to objective truth. Instead of objective truth we began to offer a tyranny of opinion; one in which all opinions must be given equal weight and prominence. What an absurd reality that is. Why should all opinions be given equal weight? Why should I care about the opinions of individuals who have no experience or expertise? When I have a medical concern I do not turn to Facebook for the opinions of my social media friends (although some folks actually do this) I seek out a doctor - whose opinions stem from years of study, training, and experience. Yes, sometimes they are wrong, but I’m still not going to ask a former classmate of mine who may have failed tenth grade biology about anything related to medicine or science. The Post Truth epic thrived in the digital and social media age which is a breeding ground for misinformation and conspiracy.
That being said, the Post Truth epic still relied on some objective truth. Take climate change for example. Most folks tend to admit that the climate is changing. Climate change is observable and measurable - it is happening. Prior to the Post Truth epic society would have turned to our experts and said, “Okay, now what?” These experts would offer some guidance, some ideas, and possible solutions, and we would, for the most part, take their advice and turn it into action. The Post Truth epic, while accepting that the climate is changing, balks at the very idea that it is caused by humans. They claim that the Earth’s climate is constantly changing and has changed many times over the course of many millennia and thus our current climate crisis is not caused by humans and so we need not do anything about it. These “Climate Truthers” are immune to the opinions and studies of experts. They have an opinion, based on what they wish to be true rather than what the available evidence supports, and nothing will change that opinion.
As dangerous as the Post Truth epic is, I believe we have entered another, even more dangerous epic, the “Post-Post Truth.” Stemming from the same absurd belief that all opinion is created equal, the Post-Post Truthers completely deny objective truth because it is either unpleasant to them or because it is difficult to square it with their own version of reality. Post-Post Truthers completely deny objective fact and offer what Kellyanne Conway once called, “alternative facts.” If the objective facts hurt your narrative, you can simply create a new set of facts more consistent with your desired narrative. I would argue that it is far easier to identify the birth of the Post-Post Truth epic than the Post Truth…. Donald Trump.
Donald Trump once said that when the World Trade Center fell he saw hundreds of Muslims celebrating in the streets. He did not. That never happened. He said he had evidence that President Obama was born outside of the United States. He did not have such evidence. During his campaign he openly mocked a reporter’s disability. This was filmed, we literally watched him do it. He simply denied it and his supporters denied it as well. These early examples were tests, tests of the public’s willingness to either accept or push back against verifiable lies. Millions of people wanted these things to be true and they mistook that desire for fact. They became fact even though they were obvious lies… and the Post-Post Truth epic was born. It continues with the Big Lie that the 2020 election was somehow fraudulent. Dozens of court cases and legal challenges were thrown out and no evidence of voter fraud has been provided and yet millions of people, who are unhappy with the election of President Biden, placed their feelings over objectivity. The facts do not matter, only feelings and opinion.
Then came January 6, 2021: the greatest day so far in the Post-Post Truth epic. Prior to the assault of the Capitol, we watched President Trump give a speech in which he called the election fraudulent, argued that the Supreme Court was in on it, said he was going to march with the protestors down Pennsylvania Avenue, told the masses that if they do not, “fight like hell” they would not have a country anymore. Then, of course, we have Rudy Giuliani telling the crowd that we should have, “trial by combat!” Post-Post Truthers deny that these speeches were inflammatory or had anything to do with the violence that was to follow. Let us, for the sake of argument, give them the benefit of the doubt and say that these speeches had nothing to do with the events that followed.
Those events, of course, included the march to the Capitol and its eventual breeching by a host of very angry Trump supporters. We watched on live television as people forced themselves into the building, assaulted police officers, and called for, “heads on pikes!” (yes, one insurrectionist literally said this on camera). Video has been released of members of Congress fleeing the Senate and House chambers while others were barricading the doors. The insurrectionists were attempting to stop the certification of the 2020 election because the believed Trump’s Big Lie of massive election fraud.
The following days and weeks saw many members of Congress denounce the actions of the insurrectionists and many pointed the finger directly at Trump himself. One of these members of Congress was the former Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. He gave a speech on the Senate floor in February during which he said, “There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the event of that day.”
Now, fast forward six months later. GOP members of Congress are now claiming that the events of January 6, 2020 were little more than standard tourists visiting the Capitol. They claim that it was not Trump supporters, but Antifia (one of their favorite boogeymen) that stormed the building. They also claim that it was Black Lives Matter that organized the assault on the Capitol. Is there any evidence to support any of this? No, of course not. Does that matter? No, of course not. Did you forget already? We are living in the Post-Post Truth epic. Deny, deny, deny.
Those in charge deny and then the rest of us are expected to simply sit down and play along like those dudes playing their violins as the Titanic went down.
The Post-Post Truth epic we are living in amplifies opinion and muffles objective fact. No longer can we simply disagree on the meaning of a thing, we can now just deny that the thing itself even exists. We have become entrenched in our opinion no matter what the facts tell us:
I don’t want to wear a mask so I will spread misinformation about the dangers of wearing a mask.
I want everyone to wear a mask so I will spread information about the dangers of not wearing a mask.
We come to a conclusion and then attempt to warp the available data to fit that conclusion. This is working backwards. And though I believe the level of misinformation and willful ignorance is at an all time high, the elevation of opinion is not necessarily new. For as Bertrand Russell observed,
“Most people go through life with a whole world of beliefs that have no sort of rational justification, and that one man’s world of beliefs is apt to be incompatible with another man’s, so that they cannot both be right. People’s opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people, is a secondary consideration.”