Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Historically I would argue politicians interpreted facts in their favor more than they created their own facts.

Certain demagogues are fond of nonstop lying, but in U.S. politics that hasn’t been the dominant approach until recently. It’s dramatically harder to compromise on governance when Congress stops agreeing on facts, instead of how to interpret facts and what conclusions to draw from them.




> Historically I would argue politicians interpreted facts in their favor more than they created their own facts.

Different pronunciations of the same word; what they do is a juvenile ritual on top of lying. They don't observe facts neutrally or build a solid argument that they test against reality, they start with the conclusion and work out what they need to say to get other people there. And I'm not saying it is a failing on the part of politicians - the voters demand that sort of behaviour from them. But if that is acceptable, flat lying is acceptable. The intent and outcome aren't different as long as bargains are honoured.

> It’s dramatically harder to compromise on governance when Congress stops agreeing on facts, instead of how to interpret facts and what conclusions to draw from them.

I don't know if there is any particular evidence that is a bad thing. The main lesson from the 2000s and 2010s was if Congress is united on a course of action it is probably going to be a disaster.

The US still hasn't managed to shake off the PATRIOT act or clean out the secret law court that was established. We seem to be well into a trend where every president will be subject to a spying campaign before entering office. The US economy has been out-capitaled by literal communists in China. It seems like an excellent time to have someone challenging the basic facts that the congress has been agreeing on.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: