The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
John M. Mishler is an award-winning artist, whose artworks have been featured in juried exhibitions held throughout the United States. He resides in Harpswell.
“Alternative facts,” the phase made famous by Kellyanne Conway in 2017, uttered in defense of a lie put forth by White House press secretary Sean Spicer, has always intrigued me. When questioned by the news media, Conway utilized alternative facts to explain away the difference between inauguration attendance numbers provided by the White House versus verifiable figures promulgated by several federal agencies. By her own action, I believe Conway ushered in and, thereafter, condoned a new standard operating procedure, namely, misdirect the narrative by employing biased opinions to transform verifiable facts into either alternative facts or the now infamous deflector: “fake news.”
Could verifiable or alternative facts, opinion and a new ingredient, emotion, solve a perplexing mystery for me? As an artist, I am often faced with the conundrum of why my submitted painting was rejected by one juried exhibition, while the exact same artwork was given an award in a different venue. Upon reflection, could exhibition judges also be guilty of employing “alternative facts” to justify their decision-making? Why? The painting in question is exactly the same physically — same colors, same texture and same style. How, given these identical verifiable facts, why does one juror reject it while another presents it with a prize? Therefore, could these same verifiable facts be altered by personal opinion and emotion?
No: Facts are facts. Yes, emotions and opinions could be a prism (filter) that temper the acceptance of facts as true or not. Could this same psychological phenomenon also provide a segue to how alternative facts, opinion, fake news and emotions influence our understanding of how politics are now conducted?
In our current political climate, this question of emotions, opinions and fake news, influencing the acceptance of verifiable facts, appears to “hang heavy” over the followers of Donald Trump versus those citizens who, in my opinion, truly wish to pursue justice and truth. In the face of numerous state and federal court findings, special committees and congressional investigations, Trump still insists that the 2020 election was “rigged” and he is really the rightful choice of the American people. Even though a virtual mountain of evidence exists to the contrary, a significant number of Republican voters, verifiable facts notwithstanding, with their emotions and rigid opinions intact, still seemingly believe in his every word and actions.
Therefore, could exhibition jurors be made to reverse their initial choice (of acceptance or rejection of the same painting) by virtue of presenting them with verifiable facts? From my experience — no. Can MAGA voters, or other supporters of Trump, for that matter, be made to alter their support of him by the presentation of verifiable facts? Apparently not, because his followers appear to be driven by alternative facts, fake news, opinions and the emotions said factors evoke.
Our long-established system of local, state and national governance is currently under attack by extremes, namely, far right versus far left, verifiable or alternative facts, and fake news promoted by rogue media-platforms. Therefore, as a country, can we ever move toward the center of the political spectrum, and conduct the business of this nation fairly and efficiently, if alternative facts, unsupported opinions and unfettered emotions are more relevant to making important choices and decisions than the acceptance of verifiable facts, truth and honesty? Even although these latter aforementioned elements are, at times, inconvenient and awkward, these same elements stand between chaos and order.
In all future elections, especially those in 2024, I believe citizens will be afforded the opportunity to vote on whether to accept alternative facts, fake news, unsupported rhetoric and unfiltered emotions, or rather enthusiastically endorse the utilization of verifiable facts, truth and honesty to govern this country. My sincere hope is that all Americans will select and, thereafter, support the latter choice. If not, I fear a true democracy will cease to exist.