ABSTRACT
To describe our political climate as “post-truth” is both compelling and poisonous. It is compelling, I argue, because it captures the lack of confidence between groups with divergent political outlooks. To illustrate, I portray two groups with different political outlooks: the heartlanders, whose concern for truthfulness is anchored in personal and relational integrity, and the metropolitans, whose concern for truthfulness is anchored in impartiality and cosmopolitanism. In this tale of two tribes, each group exhibits qualities of truthfulness – sincerity and accuracy – in ways that the other group does not recognize. The result is that each group interprets the other group’s political participation as an abandonment of truth for the sake of power, thereby undermining political legitimacy. Building on the work of Bernard Williams and John Stuart Mill, I argue that finding common ground is necessary if truth is to play a role in the resistance of tyranny. I critically examine several ways to restore a common concern for truth between the two tribes, offering reasons to doubt that they will succeed. Instead, I propose a rethinking of the widespread acceptance of a strict dichotomy between facts and values. Since public deliberation is characterized by a complex interplay between facts and values, I suggest that a better way forward is to openly explore this interplay, instead of impugning each other’s commitment to truthfulness. I conclude that, in the absence of a widely shared political outlook, it is politically poisonous to describe our age in “post-truth” terms.
