For the last few weeks, I’ve been trying to grasp the concept of “alternative facts.” I must admit to failure. Until January of 2017, I was pretty darn sure that facts were facts and rarely did they take qualifiers.
Oh, sure, there were inconvenient facts, embarrassing facts and even questionable facts. That last one comes the closest I can get to “alternative facts,” because “questionable” implies they might not be facts at all, but falsehoods.
But it’s still not quite there. Alternative facts suggest that different, interchangeable facts are perfectly OK, even if they contradict the originals.
That seems like science fiction, like the existence of an alternate or parallel universe.
Of course, a lot of people in recent times seem to have moved their permanent address into a parallel universe. Putting a different name to it – alternative facts – shouldn’t be such a shock.
For example, we got a letter last week from an occasional letter writer who had sent a letter recently that didn’t get published. It wasn’t published for a very good reason – it never got here.
An ardent conservative, she accused us of being one-sided, presumably because her letter didn’t get printed, therefore we don’t give equal space to conservatives.
That is an alternative fact.
The fact I am comfortable with is that we print letters in roughly the same proportion that we receive them. My unscientific estimate, based on editing this page for 22 years, is that we get two to three conservative letters for every liberal letter.
So, normally we print about 2.5 conservative letters for each one printed from the other side. Not every week, but most of the time.
Of course, the last few weeks have not been normal.
I’m pretty sure what was sticking in this woman’s craw was that since the inauguration of Donald Trump, liberals have awakened from their slumber and fired off letters in numbers that approach those of the conservatives. So lately, it’s been more of a 50-50 mix.
Obviously, more letters written means more letters that won’t make it in the paper. That also is a concrete fact.
The letters are a tiny example of what is going on around us.
I am not going to cite any Trump or Kellyanne Conway examples of alternative facts, though I will give the courtesy and credit to Ms. Conway for inventing the term. It is perfect.
For some time, the Great Divide in America has had its citizens on either side of a giant fissure, like two groups of people watching each other across an earthquake crack as it gets wider and wider.
The farther apart any of us gets from “the other,” the less able we are to see or hear them. They are just blurry, scary things on the opposite side of the chasm, yelling and throwing things at us – as we yell and throw things at them.
Alternative facts represent the latest milepost in alienation. Now we’re not just yelling and throwing, we are creating our own realities with alternative facts.
Intelligent conversation is impossible if the two parties speak different languages, or base their beliefs on conflicting versions of reality.
Another relatively new concept – fake news – is a natural outgrowth of this, but that wasn’t even necessary. People now can and do tailor the information they get to come from whichever sources they are most likely to agree with. God forbid you concede the tiniest point to the other side.
In addition to making America a frequently unpleasant place to engage in civic debate, it makes it harder to build coalitions and make progress if Scorched Earth Annihilation of Enemies is the only approach.
In a way, bemoaning this is like taking a stand against negative campaigning. Individual politicians all say they hate it, but unless they have an unlosable race (And is there such a thing anymore?), they almost all do it.
Nearly all Americans are glad when campaigns end because they are so negative and divisive.
The new problem we face is that the 2016 campaign continues. Enemies must be demonized or protested. Results must be purified and made even better, even by the winners, no less.
This spreads into public debate, where the question is not about how to move the state or the country forward, but how evil and misguided the Other Side is. It’s not just, “I’m Right and You’re Wrong.” It’s, “I’m Going to Stomp You into the Dust.”
Suggesting a return to a kinder and gentler America may not play, now that outrageous and nasty has won.
But it’s still closer to what America is, and what we eventually will return to, God willing.
I hope history does not prove that prediction to be an alternative fact.
