Epistemology in the present U.S. political crisis

benfell

See updates and errata through November 27, 2020, at end of post.

I’m sure somebody out there was hoping that the 2020 election might actually resolve something, you know, like maybe putting Trumpsters in their place, like affirming science, like rejecting hate.

I hope most of my readers are wise enough to understand that the polarization in this country is deeper than that. In fact, I first acquired this domain name, disunitedstates.org, at the end of 2003, the same year I returned to school, and the same year I took a public speaking class and argued, for my persuasive speech assignment, for breaking up the United States.

I’ve been seeing the differences that divide this country as intractable, as irreconcilable for a while. I’ve come to understand that we do not trust each other’s sources of information, do not trust each other’s motivations.

None of this—absolutely none of it—is going away on account of a silly little election, or an even sillier aftermath, with Donald Trump alleging fraud and disputing the results even as the courts mostly dismiss his lawsuits and judges embarrass his lawyers with the utterly unexceptional demand for actual evidence.[1] Also, remaining potentially on tap are various maneuvers, at least some of which would pervert the electoral college process.[2]

The risk seems less that Trump will succeed in any of these maneuvers and more, as a quick perusal of the headlines reveals, that a significant chunk of the population will continue to believe his claim that the election was stolen. Look again at what I wrote a couple paragraphs ago: I’ve come to understand that we do not trust each other’s sources of information, do not trust each other’s motivations.

One of the things I look at as a human scientist is epistemology, which is all about the question of how people ‘know’ what they claim to know. There are lots of answers to that question, which we call ways of knowing, more than I can remember, and certainly more than I’ll list here. But on the Left, we tend to favor ‘science,’ which isn’t always as scientific as it claims to be (I’ll return to this point), and empiricism, here as a solipsistic post-modernist former department chair in my masters program defined it, as being about actual experience.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend toward a naturalistic fallacy, operating from an assumption that especially given the uncertainty of science (I’ll return to this point), we are better off working from how things should be, rather than what positivism (scientific method) or empiricism find. Conservative ways of knowing—at least the ones I’ve identified—include faith (authoritarian populism, social and traditionalist conservatism), culture or tradition (authoritarian populism, paleoconservatism, traditionalist conservatism), so-called “free” markets (all conservatives to greater or lesser extents, but especially capitalist libertarians), and perhaps weirdest of all, a universalist ideology of the U.S. political and economic system as superior for all people everywhere (neoconservatives). Note that just as multiple tendencies of conservatism may coexist within any particular individual,[3] so too may their corresponding ways of knowing.

We on the Left tend to dismiss most or all conservative ways of knowing as ideologies and as delusional, but in truth, there are ideological aspects on our side as well, including a notion that we can “know” anything even with intense study and even with the rigorous application of methodology. This much too often relies on linear, rather than mutual, causation[4] as exposed through experiments or on the misuse of statistical methods, where correlation is taken as proof or even as the next best thing. Indeed, peer review and “scientific consensus” rely heavily on an appeal to popularity—you’re supposed to recognize that as a fallacy—within the scientific community, but popularity nonetheless.

When operating in good faith, and I assume this mostly to be the case, scientists claim not so much truth as a tentative closest approximation they and we (I include human scientists here) have been able to work out. This is not objective (as in omniscient or “God’s eye”) truth, but truth as we’re presently best able to perceive it, truth from our perspective—subjective truth. For conservatives in varying degrees, this lack of absolute certainty is a severe or fatal shortcoming that admits their own absolutist ways of knowing.

The difference between conservative and other ways of knowing means that we have no common ground. It’s sometimes suggested that we live in different universes, especially as Trump’s supporters seem to draw their ‘knowledge’ from whatever he says and he gets it from the paper in his toilet bowl, otherwise known as Fox News.[5] It raises the question: How, indeed, can we resolve differences when even our arguments proceed from entirely different premises, premises we each regard as foundational, and premises that contradict each other?

It might not quite be as bad as that. As a ridesharing driver, I’ve had more than a few Trumpsters in my car. They are often vociferous to a degree that strongly suggests to me not so much certainty as a desire for validation.[6] I don’t know what to do about that, how to exploit that doubt, because it’s all too easy to answer any discrediting of what people fervently want to believe with yet another conspiracy theory. Or a claim that “God” may work in mysterious ways. Or by asserting “common sense.” Or by confounding capitalist success with “truth.” Or perhaps by means appropriate to conservative ways of knowing I have yet to identify.

Did I mention that human scientists learn some real humility with regard to truth?

That’s a humility we all need to learn if there’s any hope of resolving the profound political differences rending the country asunder. And that’s inherently going to be harder—if not inconceivable—for many conservatives than for many other people.

Update, November 13, 2020: Jonathan Freedland thinks that even as Donald Trump is utterly failing in his attempts to challenge the election results and clearly resisting those results,[7] he is preparing to set up a sort of “government in exile,” running in parallel with Joe Biden’s presidency, to undermine the latter.[8] On the other hand, Trump might just be aiming to set up a competitor to Fox News.[9] Either way, Freedland is right that something like half the country does not accept Biden as having won the election[10]—I still see lots of Trump signs, banners and flags as I drive around Pittsburgh—and either plan would exacerbate this situation. Which Trump undoubtedly wants to do.

Update, November 14, 2020: It occurs to me that when I say “people fervently want to believe” misinformation,[11] I am reaching to motivation: An obvious question is, why do conservatives choose to believe what they do?

I have only a partial answer and some hypotheses. But I remember an earlier translation of the Tao Te Ching (I could not find this in the the more recent edition now in my possession[12]) speaking eloquently of weeds growing where an army had passed. I think this speaks to the origins of authoritarian populist[13] resentment in wars, famine, and disease in Britain migrating to settle in what Colin Woodard calls Greater Appalachia.[14] In essence, authoritarian populists do not trust authoritative information because they have too often and too long been exploited as means to authoritarian ends.[15] Even if they do not know the truth, and may at some level even doubt what they profess,[16] they have every reason to suspect that they are being misled in furtherance of those ends.

On the traditionalist side, I repeatedly saw Russell Kirk, George Nash, and Richard Weaver all write of knowledge of the senses—empirical knowledge—as “temporal” rather than permanent.[17] Hence a diminution of what I described as “truth as we’re presently best able to perceive it, truth from our perspective—subjective truth.”[18]

As well as preferring ideology,[19] or as I put it, “tend[ing] toward a naturalistic fallacy,”[20] Conservatives generally are more authoritarian than others.[21] Broadly speaking, the choice of a way of knowing often seems to be a self-serving way to advance their own power over others. For capitalist libertarians, this is simple capitalist greed: What makes them richer, that is, what increases their economic power, is what works, a “pragmatic” theory of truth, and must therefore be right. We might suspect something similar of functionalist conservatives and neoconservatives with regard to political power, of paleoconservatives with regard to white privilege, and of many conservatives generally with regard to the social power of self-righteous indignation.

As I said at the beginning of this update, this answer is tentative. But social injustice appears to underlie all of these choices of ways of knowing. As Donald Trump twists and turns, wreaking havoc in his exit from the White House,[22] we are reaping what we have sown.

Correction, November 27, 2020: In associating various ways of knowing with tendencies of conservatism, I had previously neglected to clarify that neoconservatives “know” from a universalist ideology of the U.S. political and economic system as superior for all people everywhere. This has now been corrected.

  1. [1]Aaron Blake, “Trump lawyers suffer embarrassing rebukes from judges over voter fraud claims,” Washington Post, November 11, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/11/trump-lawyers-suffer-embarrassing-rebukes-judges-over-voter-fraud-claims/; Mark Bray, “Trump’s Baseless Fraud Accusations Are Already Sparking Far Right Violence,” Truthout, November 9, 2020, https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-baseless-fraud-accusations-are-already-sparking-far-right-violence/; Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein, “Trump team eyes legal, political Hail Marys as options for comeback fade,” Politico, November 6, 2020, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/06/trump-legal-political-lawsuit-election-434786; Marjorie Cohn, “Trump’s Frivolous Lawsuits Are the Tip of the Iceberg in His Refusal to Concede,” Truthout, November 11, 2020, https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-frivolous-lawsuits-are-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-in-his-refusal-to-concede/; David Nakamura, “Trump’s bid to discredit election raises fear that he will undermine a smooth transfer of power,” Washington Post, November 8, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-concession-transition-power/2020/11/07/2b4cf640-20e4-11eb-b532-05c751cd5dc2_story.html↩
  2. [2]Max Boot, “What if Trump loses but insists he won?” Washington Post, July 6, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/06/what-if-trump-loses-insists-he-won/; Rosa Brooks, “What’s the worst that could happen?” Washington Post, September 3, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/09/03/trump-stay-in-office/; Marjorie Cohn, “Trump’s Frivolous Lawsuits Are the Tip of the Iceberg in His Refusal to Concede,” Truthout, November 11, 2020, https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-frivolous-lawsuits-are-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-in-his-refusal-to-concede/; Eric Lach, “What Happens if Donald Trump Fights the Election Results?” New Yorker, August 21, 2020, https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/what-happens-if-donald-trump-fights-the-election-results; Robert McCartney, “Here’s one way Trump could try to steal the election, voting experts say,” Washington Post, August 17, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/heres-one-way-trump-could-try-to-steal-the-election-voting-experts-say/2020/08/16/b5bf0c2a-de66-11ea-b205-ff838e15a9a6_story.html; Timothy E. Wirth and Tom Rogers, “How Trump Could Lose the Election—And Still Remain President,” Newsweek, July 3, 2020, https://www.newsweek.com/how-trump-could-lose-election-still-remain-president-opinion-1513975↩
  3. [3]David Benfell, “Conservative Views on Undocumented Migration” (doctoral dissertation, Saybrook, 2016). ProQuest (1765416126).↩
  4. [4]Fritjof Capra, The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems (New York: Anchor, 1996); Joanna Macy, Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory (Delhi, India: Sri Satguru, 1995).↩
  5. [5]See David Benfell, “Doubting the ‘Fox News bubble,’” Not Housebroken, October 11, 2020, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/09/07/doubting-the-fox-news-bubble/↩
  6. [6]David Benfell, “Doubting the ‘Fox News bubble,’” Not Housebroken, October 11, 2020, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/09/07/doubting-the-fox-news-bubble/↩
  7. [7]Aaron Blake, “Trump lawyers suffer embarrassing rebukes from judges over voter fraud claims,” Washington Post, November 11, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/11/trump-lawyers-suffer-embarrassing-rebukes-judges-over-voter-fraud-claims/; Marjorie Cohn, “Trump’s Frivolous Lawsuits Are the Tip of the Iceberg in His Refusal to Concede,” Truthout, November 11, 2020, https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-frivolous-lawsuits-are-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-in-his-refusal-to-concede/↩
  8. [8]Jonathan Freedland, “This is no conventional coup. Trump is paving the way for a ‘virtual Confederacy,'” Guardian, November 13, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/13/trump-coup-virtual-confederacy-race-legal-trumpian↩
  9. [9]Mike Allen, “Trump eyes digital media empire to take on Fox News,” Axios, November 12, 2020, https://www.axios.com/trump-fox-news-digital-media-competitor-25afddee-144d-4820-8ed4-9eb0ffa42420.html↩
  10. [10]Jonathan Freedland, “This is no conventional coup. Trump is paving the way for a ‘virtual Confederacy,'” Guardian, November 13, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/13/trump-coup-virtual-confederacy-race-legal-trumpian↩
  11. [11]David Benfell, “Epistemology in the present U.S. political crisis,” Not Housebroken, November 13, 2020, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/11/12/epistemology-in-the-present-u-s-political-crisis/↩
  12. [12]Lao Tsu [apocryphal], Tao Te Ching, trans. Gia Fu-Feng and Jane English with Toinette Lippe, 3rd ed. (New York: Vintage, 2011).↩
  13. [13]David Benfell, “Conservative Views on Undocumented Migration” (doctoral dissertation, Saybrook, 2016). ProQuest (1765416126); David Benfell, “Barack Obama asks, ‘Why is it that the folks that won the last election are so mad all the time?’” Not Housebroken, November 4, 2018, https://disunitedstates.org/2018/11/04/barack-obama-asks-why-is-it-that-the-folks-that-won-the-last-election-are-so-mad-all-the-time/↩
  14. [14]Colin Woodard, American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America (New York: Penguin, 2011).↩
  15. [15]Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas? (New York: Henry Holt, 2005).↩
  16. [16]David Benfell, “Doubting the ‘Fox News bubble,’” Not Housebroken, October 11, 2020, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/09/07/doubting-the-fox-news-bubble/↩
  17. [17]Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind (Washington, DC: Regnery 1985/2001); George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1976/2006); Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order (Louisiana State University, 1964, Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995).↩
  18. [18]David Benfell, “Epistemology in the present U.S. political crisis,” Not Housebroken, November 13, 2020, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/11/12/epistemology-in-the-present-u-s-political-crisis/↩
  19. [19]David Benfell, “Conservative Views on Undocumented Migration” (doctoral dissertation, Saybrook, 2016). ProQuest (1765416126).↩
  20. [20]David Benfell, “Epistemology in the present U.S. political crisis,” Not Housebroken, November 13, 2020, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/11/12/epistemology-in-the-present-u-s-political-crisis/↩
  21. [21]David Benfell, “Conservative Views on Undocumented Migration” (doctoral dissertation, Saybrook, 2016). ProQuest (1765416126).↩
  22. [22]Mike Allen, “Trump eyes digital media empire to take on Fox News,” Axios, November 12, 2020, https://www.axios.com/trump-fox-news-digital-media-competitor-25afddee-144d-4820-8ed4-9eb0ffa42420.html; Aaron Blake, “Trump lawyers suffer embarrassing rebukes from judges over voter fraud claims,” Washington Post, November 11, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/11/trump-lawyers-suffer-embarrassing-rebukes-judges-over-voter-fraud-claims/; Mark Bray, “Trump’s Baseless Fraud Accusations Are Already Sparking Far Right Violence,” Truthout, November 9, 2020, https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-baseless-fraud-accusations-are-already-sparking-far-right-violence/; Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein, “Trump team eyes legal, political Hail Marys as options for comeback fade,” Politico, November 6, 2020, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/06/trump-legal-political-lawsuit-election-434786; Marjorie Cohn, “Trump’s Frivolous Lawsuits Are the Tip of the Iceberg in His Refusal to Concede,” Truthout, November 11, 2020, https://truthout.org/articles/trumps-frivolous-lawsuits-are-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-in-his-refusal-to-concede/; Jonathan Freedland, “This is no conventional coup. Trump is paving the way for a ‘virtual Confederacy,'” Guardian, November 13, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/13/trump-coup-virtual-confederacy-race-legal-trumpian; David Nakamura, “Trump’s bid to discredit election raises fear that he will undermine a smooth transfer of power,” Washington Post, November 8, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-concession-transition-power/2020/11/07/2b4cf640-20e4-11eb-b532-05c751cd5dc2_story.html↩