Prof. Zimmer:
Thank you for writing down what I also observed was missing from Pres. Biden's SOTU.
In your previous article regarding fake populism and the IRS, you noted that "the idea (on the left) that the political conflict is ultimately about better arguments is flawed."
(And your observation therein that it is impossible to communi…
Thank you for writing down what I also observed was missing from Pres. Biden's SOTU.
In your previous article regarding fake populism and the IRS, you noted that "the idea (on the left) that the political conflict is ultimately about better arguments is flawed."
(And your observation therein that it is impossible to communicate with lie-infected Magats is, once again, perfectly illustrated in Robert Carmichael's vulgar "comment" below.) As Hannah Arendt noted, in describing the conflict between democracy & authoritarianism, "“Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts themselves are not in dispute.”
I wonder if we need better terminology to discuss the rift (the gap, the breach) between those who care about the validity/legitimacy of facts and those who don't. President Biden's SOTU was a direct appeal to the former.
Magats and their thought leaders in rw media have been described as "shameless" because of their willingness to hurl lies and embrace lies. But I think it goes deeper than that. They don't just believe the lies, they believe that any statement, any act, any decision, by any member of their party and media is valid/legitimate simply because it emanates from their clan.
In other words, everything that the former guy did and said was "perfect," not because he was a good guy but because he was their guy. Every counter-factual insult hurled at Democrats is true because their person said it. The Big Lie is true simply because the Fox talking heads and so many other members of their clan said it was.
But it's not just the facts that are in dispute, it's the principles that define our nation and society that are in dispute.
This tribal mentality, this core belief that facts, civil discourse, and the Golden Rule are for losers, is frightening. There must be agreement on the set of principles at the core of democracy in order for democracy to thrive. And as you note, the widening chasm needs to be addressed. But how?
Prof. Zimmer:
Thank you for writing down what I also observed was missing from Pres. Biden's SOTU.
In your previous article regarding fake populism and the IRS, you noted that "the idea (on the left) that the political conflict is ultimately about better arguments is flawed."
(And your observation therein that it is impossible to communicate with lie-infected Magats is, once again, perfectly illustrated in Robert Carmichael's vulgar "comment" below.) As Hannah Arendt noted, in describing the conflict between democracy & authoritarianism, "“Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts themselves are not in dispute.”
I wonder if we need better terminology to discuss the rift (the gap, the breach) between those who care about the validity/legitimacy of facts and those who don't. President Biden's SOTU was a direct appeal to the former.
Magats and their thought leaders in rw media have been described as "shameless" because of their willingness to hurl lies and embrace lies. But I think it goes deeper than that. They don't just believe the lies, they believe that any statement, any act, any decision, by any member of their party and media is valid/legitimate simply because it emanates from their clan.
In other words, everything that the former guy did and said was "perfect," not because he was a good guy but because he was their guy. Every counter-factual insult hurled at Democrats is true because their person said it. The Big Lie is true simply because the Fox talking heads and so many other members of their clan said it was.
But it's not just the facts that are in dispute, it's the principles that define our nation and society that are in dispute.
This tribal mentality, this core belief that facts, civil discourse, and the Golden Rule are for losers, is frightening. There must be agreement on the set of principles at the core of democracy in order for democracy to thrive. And as you note, the widening chasm needs to be addressed. But how?