Has truth become irrelevant in politics? The "post-truth society"

[bigdaddy1204]

The Oxford Dictionary, that great institution of the English language, has decided that "post-truth" is its word of the year. Post-truth is defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’. The Oxford Dictionary notes that the term gained widespread popularity due to Brexit in the UK and the election of Trump in the US.

In other words, facts have become irrelevant. Intelligent analysis and nuance are seen as undesirable. Stupidity, simplification and outright lies are fashionable and indeed successful. In the post-truth society, ideas that have been proved false are treated as though they were true. My feeling is that if incorrect ideas are made into policy, the result will be disaster.

Has truth become entirely irrelevant in politics? What are the implications?

[Incontinenta Buttox]

The Oxford Dictionary, that great institution of the English language, has decided that "post-truth" is its word of the year. Post-truth is defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’. The Oxford Dictionary notes that the term gained widespread popularity due to Brexit in the UK and the election of Trump in the US.

In other words, facts have become irrelevant. Intelligent analysis and nuance are seen as undesirable. Stupidity, simplification and outright lies are fashionable and indeed successful. In the post-truth society, ideas that have been proved false are treated as though they were true. My feeling is that if incorrect ideas are made into policy, the result will be disaster.

Has truth become entirely irrelevant in politics? What are the implications?

Politicians and the mainstream media have been lying through their teeth for decades. It's nothing new. Whats changed is that nobody is falling for it any more.

The cry of ‘post-truth politics’ merely represents another elite smear against the plebs. Elites have always liked to sneer at the great unwashed. Today’s smug liberal left are scared that the masses are no longer going along with their self-serving agenda


This is the irony. Those who pronounce to know the ‘real’ truth as opposed to the uneducated odious masses are little better than conspiracy theorists themselves.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

Politicians and the mainstream media have been lying through their teeth for decades. It's nothing new. Whats changed is that nobody is falling for it any more.

The cry of ‘post-truth politics’ merely represents another elite smear against the plebs. Elites have always liked to sneer at the great unwashed. Today’s smug liberal left are scared that the masses are no longer putting up with their .


This is the irony. Those who pronounce to know the ‘real’ truth as opposed to the uneducated odious masses are little better than conspiracy theorists themselves.

So what about the "non-mainstream media"?

[Incontinenta Buttox]

So what about the "non-mainstream media"?

Brietbart, The Young Turks, they're all full of shite. They're all pushing an agenda. However it's the mainstream media that doing all the whining about "post-truth" because no-one believes them anymore. Brexit and the US election clearly showed up just how partisan and biased much of it is.

[hellheaven1987]

Has truth become entirely irrelevant in politics? What are the implications?

It is always like that anyway, including Clinton's 90s.

[Maiar93]

I actually don't think truth has lost its meaning. Majority of people still care. But we have a very vocal minority... created by the vacuum of internet.

[Muizer]

Hmm, been thinking about this. Have you seen this?

http://perils.ipsos.com/slides/

A study conducted in 33 countries of how public perception relates to facts. It reveals some startling perceptions I tell you. I was not much surprised about the factual outcome but the reported perceptions I found really hard to believe. Like in France, apparently people on avarage think 31% of people living there in 2010 were Muslims when the real figure is 7.5% and in Italy the numbers were 20% (!) and 3.7% (!!) respectively. People apparently also believe that in a 10 year period, the percentage of muslims went up by 10% when the actual figure is 1%.

I find these figures really hard to countenance. How any person could arrive at such a figure is beyond me, but these apparently are averages. There's people who must believe these figures are even higher. If this is truely the case, then I've been grossly misinformed about the impact of misinformation

Add to this we live in times when the 'common man' insists they know better what is true than the established media and that they know better how to govern than their elected representatives and a really ugly picture emerges.

The biggest mistake our politicians and media have been making is to treat everyone as a consumer and treating the client as king. And the mistake 'we the people' are making is to think the media are there to tell us what confirms our views, rather than to inform us about what we do not, but should, know about, and to think politicians are there to do what we think ought to be done rather than to act in our interest. Funny thing is, you would not insist on this with your banker or your car mechanic would you? Those people you pick for knowing better than you what ought to be done. And so we should with media and politicians.

[athanaric]

Has truth become entirely irrelevant in politics?

When has it ever been relevant in politics?

[bigdaddy1204]

Have you seen this?

This is a brilliant point. Public perception is so out of touch with reality on some issues that the consequences are dangerous. Faith/ethnicity is the most obvious, but there are plenty of others e.g. economics (no, you can't cut taxes and increase spending at the same time), the likelihood of dying from various causes (you're much more likely to die from a road accident or from obesity caused by poor diet than terrorism, yet billions of dollars that could have been better spent on improving road safety or improving public health are allocated to fighting terrorism, etc.)

Really interesting how many countries drastically over-estimate the size of their Muslim population and especially how big it's going to be in 2020. This is proof that the standard media narrative, "We're being overrun by Muslims" which is peddled by the right wing media, is actually the hate-filled, paranoia-driven baseless nonsense that I thought it was all along. But what matters is what statistically large portions of the population think, since that decides how they will vote, and therefore what policies will be implemented.

The conclusion is that something urgently needs to be done about the media, to correct this deluge of misinformation and ensure that citizens have the correct facts at their fingertips. Otherwise, democracy simply cannot function.

[Phier]

Add to this we live in times when the 'common man' insists they know better what is true than the established media and that they know better how to govern than their elected representatives and a really ugly picture emerges.

The common man, who is this guy?

[Garbarsardar]

The fact that pharmaceutical companies were (and are) funding and publishing dubious (or worst) studies about the efficacy of their products does not magically make homeopathic brews, intercessory prayer, detox concoctions and dietary supplements a valid alternative.

"Post-truth" is just a posh way to say "lies".

[Cyclops]

I think "post truth" would be more correctly applied to Bush II and Cheney's corrupt regime, they actively undermined their own country's intelligence agencies to clothe dishonourable war, torture and what amounted to outright theft of public funds in a thin garment of legality.

The advent of Trump's success has shocked a media and political establishment that were pretty comfortable with the agreed syntax of power. Typically if a politician is caught making an obvious error its assumed they are unfit for office and they crawl away in shame: Trump made a number of idiotic gaffes (as well as possibly cunning apparent errors claimed as 3 D chess but more likely just clever footwork) but refused to self destruct which stunned observers used to the much derided swamp creatures actual adherence to rules.

He proved immune to fake news and even thrived off it, throwing a little of his own into the mix as camouflage when one or two real points came up. The tax return thing proved wounding, but failed to stay on the front page as it was crowded off by stale and cynical nonsense like the decade old smutty talk tape. Astoundingly that put a hole in Trump (that was one bit of the code many ordinary people did not enjoy seeing broken) but he recovered whereas Clinton was sunk by one fat juicy bit of bulldust.

"Not playing by the politicians' rules" and "having no shame whatsoever" and "thinking any news is good news (and making it work)" are not post truth behaviours, they are business behaviours. This sounds like sour grapes from politicians on all sides whipped by a hard working, fairly lucky bastard with a different rulebook.

Trump plays crazy Ivan, making random turns from time to time to shake tails and disguise his overall direction so he's probably telling the truth some of the time just to keep people guessing: he may actually be more honest than most politicians. He's not repeating the stock lies from the agreed list, that's a main problem here.

[Ludicus]

Has truth become entirely irrelevant in politics?...

I hope not, but people are willing to be deceived.
Machiavelli,

It is necessary to know how to conceal this characteristic well, and to be a great pretender and dissembler. Men are so simple, and so subject to prone to be won over by necessities, that a deceiver will always find someone who is willing to be deceived

In fact,
Post-Truth Politics: Art of the Lie - The Economist

...post-truth politics is more than just an invention of whingeing elites who have been outflanked. The term picks out the heart of what is new: that truth is not falsified, or contested, but of secondary importance. Once, the purpose of political lying was to create a false view of the world.

CONSIDER how far Donald Trump is estranged from fact. He inhabits a fantastical realm where Barack Obama’s birth certificate was faked, the president founded Islamic State (IS), the Clintons are killers and the father of a rival was with Lee Harvey Oswald before he shot John F. Kennedy.
Mr Trump is the leading exponent of “post-truth” politics—a reliance on assertions that “feel true” but have no basis in fact.
And he is not alone...

The post-truth world: Yes, I'd lie to you - The Economist

WHEN Donald Trump, the Republican presidential hopeful, claimed recently that President Barack Obama “is the founder” of Islamic State and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, the “co-founder”, even some of his supporters were perplexed.
Surely he did not mean that literally? Perhaps, suggested Hugh Hewitt, a conservative radio host, he meant that the Obama administration’s rapid pull-out from Iraq “created the vacuum” that the terrorists then filled?
“No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS,” replied Mr Trump. “He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.”
Mr Hewitt, who detests Mr Obama and has written a book denouncing Mrs Clinton’s “epic ambition”, was not convinced. “But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them,” he pushed back.
Again, Mr Trump did not give an inch: “I don’t care. He was the founder. The way he got out of Iraq was, that, that was the founding of ISIS, OK?”

For many observers, the exchange was yet more proof that the world has entered an era of “post-truth politics”.

Mr Trump appears not to care whether his words bear any relation to reality, so long as they fire up voters. PolitiFact, a fact-checking website, has rated more of his statements “pants-on-fire” lies than of any other candidate—for instance his assertion that “inner city crime is reaching record levels”, which plays on unfounded fears that crime rates are rising

(see chart 1)

...Post-truth politics is advancing in many parts of the world. In Europe the best example is Poland’s ultranationalist ruling party, Law and Justice (PiS). Among other strange stories, it peddles lurid tales about Poland’s post-communist leaders plotting with the communist regime to rule the country together. In Turkey the protests at Gezi Park in 2013 and a recent attempted coup have given rise to all kinds of conspiracy theories, some touted by government officials: the first was financed by Lufthansa, a German airline (to stop Turkey from building a new airport which would divert flights from Germany), the second was orchestrated by the CIA.
Then there is Russia...

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Maybe those of us who think you have to found something to be the founder are just sticklers.

[hellheaven1987]

Otherwise, democracy simply cannot function.

Consider how ancient Athens often ran their democracy in emotional way and actually helped the state pulled through several major crisis, the above statement is clearly a lie too.

I find these figures really hard to countenance. How any person could arrive at such a figure is beyond me, but these apparently are averages. There's people who must believe these figures are even higher. If this is truely the case, then I've been grossly misinformed about the impact of misinformation

Na, even they accept the data they still want that 1% Muslims out. The reality is no one like stuff which is quite different than their normal life, and consider how Muslims portray themselves pretty bad recently, that is not a big surprise.

[Basil II the B.S]

So, ''post truth'' is basically another buzzword like populism and an equivalent of ''fake news''. An attempt to demonize malcontent, dismiss it and silence it because ''racist and sexist'' do not work anymore. It's getting insane how self proclaimed liberals are trying to find ways to suppress freedoms because people do not agree with their policies anymore. They truly deserve the title of lugenpresse. Dangerous times.

[Ludicus]

So, ''post truth'' is basically... An attempt to demonize malcontent, dismiss it and silence it because ''racist and sexist'' do not work anymore

Simply put, the so-called"post truth" happens when lies replace the truth, when/ where debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion, not to reason. It happens that Trump persistently appeals to the rhetoric of emotional demagoguery.

[fkizz]

The fact that pharmaceutical companies were (and are) funding and publishing dubious (or worst) studies about the efficacy of their products does not magically make homeopathic brews, intercessory prayer, detox concoctions and dietary supplements a valid alternative.

So basically we have to eat the food on the plate even knowing beforehand it's rotten or has toxic elements anyway, and pay premium for it, and experimenting alternatives is 100% wrong?
Not speaking of cases like cancer or cirurgies, or any other stronger disease; but smaller ilnesses that wouldn't require strong medication anyways but are prescribed such.

I doubt a teenager depressed because his highschool sweetheart doesn't return his feelings really requires anti-depressives as a "treatment".

[Basil II the B.S]

Simply put, the so-called"post truth" happens when lies replace the truth, when/ where debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion, not to reason. It happens that Trump persistently appeals to the rhetoric of emotional demagoguery.

I wish but nah.

I look at the OP's article and examples of ''post truth'' things are ''Obama founded Isis''. Now that's blatant crap, but Obama's allies in the Gulf fund Isis, just like US weapons regularly end up in Isis hands and those are facts, but they make Obama look bad and righfully so.
So should we sweep everything under the carpet because they look similar to the claim that ''Obama founded Isis''? Not really.

The article also mentions Brexit and Trump a result of ''post-truth'' politics. So, let me guess, that fear mongering campaign that accompaigned that UK referendum by the Remain field and that got overwhelmingly proved wrong, was what?
How exactly is it ''post-truth'' only when the establishment loses? Why aren't the endless lies by the establishment in the last decades ''post truth''?
Why didn't anyone have qualms about coining terms like ''post-truth'' before Brexit?

Then no thanks, post truth is another one of those elitist terms to prevent criticism of the establishment and sweep their mistakes under the carpet as conspiracies. The truth is one and simple: people are revolting and the elite is responding with censorship.

[The spartan]

I wish but nah.

I look at the OP's article and examples of ''post truth'' things are ''Obama founded Isis''. Now that's blatant crap, but Obama's allies in the Gulf fund Isis, just like US weapons regularly end up in Isis hands and those are facts, but they make Obama look bad and righfully so.
So should we sweep everything under the carpet because they look similar to the claim that ''Obama founded Isis''? Not really.

The article also mentions Brexit and Trump a result of ''post-truth'' politics. So, let me guess, that fear mongering campaign that accompaigned that UK referendum by the Remain field and that got overwhelmingly proved wrong, was what?
How exactly is it ''post-truth'' only when the establishment loses? Why aren't the endless lies by the establishment in the last decades ''post truth''?
Why didn't anyone have qualms about coining terms like ''post-truth'' before Brexit?

Then no thanks, post truth is another one of those elitist terms to prevent criticism of the establishment and sweep their mistakes under the carpet as conspiracies. The truth is one and simple: people are revolting and the elite is responding with censorship.

You can also look up what Post-truth politics is instead of generalizing it and attack what the phrase isn't implying.