Many believe truth is in short supply in 21st century American politics, which begs a bigger question: Is there really demand for truth anymore?
Once truth becomes relative, can anything be universally true?
At that point, maybe everything is true. Philosophers apply highly inclusive theoretical categories to truth: pragmatic theory (truth is what works), coherence theory (truth is logical consistency among a set of beliefs) and correspondence theory (truth is when a statement or belief matches reality).
The economist's take on truth might well be that if nobody wants it, expect fewer peddlers of it. But truth isn't, or shouldn't be, a commodity traded in a market. Truths should be foundationally solid.
Our national charter starts with a distinctively declaratory statement of several truths as "self-evident." That term means obvious, clear beyond needing proof. Self-evident truths aren't confusing.
As a nation, we hold as truth that people inherently possess natural rights that cannot be taken away. We also hold as truth that governments exist to secure those rights. And we declare as truth that when a government fails to secure those rights, people have the right to change the government.
Our Declaration of Independence would be a very different document--and we'd be a very different nation--had its language omitted self-evident truths and instead used verbiage along the lines of "we hold these theories to be subject to interpretation."
Variable truths probably make people feel better about themselves, but only in a delusional, destructive way. If we all recast our opinions as truths, the concept no longer matters. Intellectual and moral anarchy creates divisiveness in the nth degree because everybody doubles down on their own truths.
Pretty soon (and maybe we're already there), everyone gets comfortable with routine untruths.
Where's Big Pharma when we need some heavy doses of truth serum?
Consider the latest legal example involving human biology, specifically the definition of a "woman."
Last month, a U.S. district judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by University of Wyoming sorority sisters to disallow membership to a 6'2" 260-pound transgender student because the organization's bylaws didn't define the term "woman." The judge refused to issue a definition himself.
For 99.999 percent of recorded human history, the definition of what a woman is has been a self-evident truth.
Last March, Judge Ketanji Jackson refused to define "woman" during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. She essentially said that's a question for biologists. Except there are biologists these days who decline to define the term too. They might as well be saying, "I'm not a legal expert."
When the most educated, highly degreed elite among us are stymied by truths that cave dwellers understood, it bodes ill for the future of American civilization.
T wisting or abandoning truths to conform to ideological and political special interests is dangerous on many fronts.
Truths are truths, and truths involve realities and consequences for individuals, families, neighborhoods, communities, cities and our nation as a whole.
Get a foundational truth wrong, and a lot of what follows goes wrong, too.
The normality and stability of two-parent nuclear families goes back thousands of years. Statistically, single-mom parenthood is a situation fraught with great risk for children, regardless of whether liberal sociologists defend or promote that status as normal and stable today. Some kids do fine without a dad around, but the truth is it's much more challenging, and in the wake of greater challenges come more frequent failures.
Literacy is a major determinant of learning, employment and prosperity. Educators who accept a school system that routinely spends a small fortune to herd illiterate or low-literacy students toward a diploma are rejecting that truth. Their rationalization doesn't change its consequences in the resulting social ills such as drug abuse, lack of career choices, lawlessness and poverty.
Globally and historically, national debt beyond a certain percentage of gross domestic product has resulted in economic collapse in countries. In America, our national debt at $32 trillion is 123 percent of GDP. What's alarming is that only 40 years ago it was just over $1 trillion, at 34 percent of GDP.
The truth, however, is scarier still: The $32 trillion figure doesn't include unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security. Factoring those in pushes our true financial obligations to $122 trillion, which is 469 percent of GDP.
No matter how persuasive or popular with voters, political arguments supporting continuing deficit spending will not alter the fundamental truth of unsustainability at such high debt levels.
Even the "debate" that occurred this week between Republican presidential candidates is a case of contorted truth. That carnival sideshow was no debate.
A debate is supposed to present pro and con arguments on differing positions, with the purpose of giving viewers more perspective and understanding on issues. Formal debates have formats that support that purpose.
It's doubtful that anyone learned anything from Wednesday night's debacle. Talking points and soundbites only seek headlines. Few things can be well explained in 30 seconds, and nothing complicated can.
People unite behind principles rooted in truths. Maybe the only path away from current divisiveness is the one that restores self-evident truths above special-interest dogmas.
Dana D. Kelley is a freelance writer from Jonesboro.