Post-Truths and Populism

     The following text comments on the Wall Street Journal articles by Dr. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein and William A. Galston on March 17, 2018.  This review seeks to explore whether “post-truth” ideology is to traditional assertion as contemporary populism is to liberal democracy.

     Goldstein argues that “post-truth” refers to “something radically screwy” in contemporary politics.  Disagreement between democrats and oligarchs goes back to Athenian times, but modern pseudo-assertions of post-truths are not endorsements of propositions but declarations of ideological loyalty.  This re-purposing of propositions confuses political discourse, because people tend to lose track of what kind of assertion they are dealing with as an argument progresses, or as an emotional encounter degenerates.  It seems that some political factions find it expedient to develop a series of quasi-Gnostic emanations: A purported relativity of truth leads to “post-modernism,” which leads in turn to “post-truth” declarations of tribal loyalties.  No matter what faction originates this scheme, all parties to political disputes can advance systems of “post-truths,” endangering political debate.  Thus, in Galston’s context, both the populists (e.g., Trump or Brexit supporters) who represent an ignored subpopulation, as well as the transnational elites who govern technocratic power structures do not engage in real dialog and solve real problems.  This leads to a more precarious existence for liberal democracy itself.  This instability is a truly novel development in politics, ultimately based on a pernicious language game.  Post-truths are untethered from traditional assertions.  Contemporary populism is disconnected from traditional liberal democracy.  Appeasing the purveyors of extravagant speech means losing site of the philosophical coastline of experience that Kant prescribed for the voyage of reason.  Appeasement is as problematic now as it was in the twentieth century; only the “post-truth” spin is new.