My Facts Trump Your Facts

Here's a relatively simple example of a big problem we have to deal with in some way: Sarah Palin misquotes a Wall Street Journal story to back up her earlier incorrect analysis of grocery store prices.

The actual details of the story aren't all that exciting. She said in a speech in Phoenix that grocery store prices had risen substantially. This was shown not to be the case by a journalist from WSJ, and she quoted the WSJ as supporting her statement: a quote from an article that actually contradicted her statement.

Grocery store prices aren't my concern here. Neither is Sarah Palin. In a minute when I start talking about government, don't think I mean Palin. What is my concern is that this case gives us an example of disagreements on two different levels. The first level, what do we do about the set of facts that we are faced with. That's a healthy, robust, necessary discussion. The second level, what the set of facts are. That is a dangerous, dangerous place to have a disagreement.

It's dangerous because disagreement on level 1 and disagreement on level 2, you'll find, are often used as mutually-supportive. When this happens, when two sides of a disagreement don't even have a common arena (e.g. the factual world) in which to disagree, the whole conversation is a lost cause.

What happens? No conversation. (In fairness, I should juxtapose that link with this one).

What's lost in all of that is that these disputes are being held at the level of governance. Which means, underneath some rather infuriating, obstinate fist-pounding ("My facts are the real ones, yours aren't!"), are real ordinary people, leading ordinary lives, who would rather have a functional government with some elasticity to handle the inevitable crises on our horizon.

But now we're faced with the problem of trying to sort out whose facts are correct (and convince the people who thought they had them that they really didn't. Good luck!). That can't be done perfectly, i.e. completely, but "most of the way done" or even half way would really be significant progress.

So, let me put on my Nostradamus hat for a second and predict that all kinds of candidates are going to be accused of blocking up the political process in 2012. When that happens, please remember, it's actually everyone's fault. Even ours.

The Great Manipulation

It is truly a sad thing to have to acknowledge, but it's time we stopped laughing at the Tea Party, and started to think seriously about what's going on. It could be that people such as Christine O'Donnell are making a mockery of running for the Senate. Or, it could be a genuine grass roots movement made up of people with genuine beefs with our government. Or, it could be a way of manipulating people.

Today, I'd like to consider the possibility that the Tea Party is just a way of manipulating people. Let me be clear, though, on what I mean by manipulating, because it is obvious that we are all manipulated in all sorts of ways on a nearly constant basis: there are peer pressures, societal pressures, gender norms, advertisers, and so on. Being manipulated in this sense isn't always bad, e.g. educators manipulate the minds of their students, or a well-written novel plays your heartstrings like a harp (and no, anti-feminist Twilight novels simply don't cut the mustard).

But I mean the more insidious sort of manipulation. These people--the followers, the people attending the rallies, and not the pink-faced speechmakers--are being manipulated.

That sure seems obvious. Especially when you ask these people questions about their criticisms, and you find that the criticisms are vague and targetless. However, the charge of manipulation is much easier to make than it is to substantiate.

What is clear, is that our attitudes and beliefs are influenced and manipulated by all sorts of things. What is also clear is the link between what we believe and what we do. What is less clear, is any specific causal relation between a particular influence and a particular action. Unless, of course, you specifically cite Glenn Beck as the reason for your action. Even in that case, there is a problem with the reliability of self-reporting. It's terribly easy to lie to yourself about your motivations.

So, we're left with open questions. If these people are being manipulated, who is manipulating them? And to what purpose?

None of that is really clear. Nevertheless it is a very effective accusation to make, given the state of our discourse, because no one wants to think that they're being manipulated. We all like to think that we're in the driver's seat of our own lives. We all like to think the best of ourselves, and when you have a vague sense that something is wrong in the world, and someone hands to a pre-packaged diagnosis of what's wrong, there is a strong pull to go with that diagnosis. You shouldn't, you should think critically about what you've been told. Clearly, people don't do this.

I am sticking with manipulation. It is otherwise too great an irony for these people to be paying for tickets to hear Palin tell them how the government is taking their money.