Some years ago, I wrote—not original thoughts—that the purpose of the free speech amendment was designed to distill truth from a reasonable discussion of the facts of a matter. The idea here is that when we discuss, argue, or debate a proposition, the purpose is to arrive at some form of objective truth. That idea is passé these days as people often bring their own facts to a debate and insist that those facts alone are the ones that are truthful. Nothing gets resolved in that sort of back and forth, because, if you cannot agree on a fact set to form the basis of a discussion, what will result at the end is merely the beginning of the contest. Nothing gets resolved. Truth is not distilled, because the contenders can’t settle on a set of facts upon which to base their arguments. That is frustrating.
You see it frequently on cable news when two sides bring their own facts to a debate. And sometimes what is proffered as a “fact” is merely a well-held point of view that isn’t factually based at all, but rather is simply a point of view, an opinion. It may be a fact that you have a particular opinion, but your opinion may not be fact-based. Unfortunately, that distinction is frequently lost in the discussions we witness today on television, across the radio, or at a family gathering. Facts tend to be whatever suits a person’s argument.
It makes you wonder if people really know what facts are. Our second President John Adams—indeed most of our Founding Fathers—understood what facts were. Adams knew this well. In 1770 he was asked to provide a legal defense for British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. It was a troubled task because his fellow colonists were extremely hostile to the soldiers who shot and killed civilians. Adams knew then that providing legal counsel to the offenders might destroy his legal practice. But he did. Here is what he purportedly said in court.
“I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you, gentlemen—Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact. If an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear, they had right kill [sic] in their own defence [sic].”
Facts are indeed “stubborn things.” But people can be equally stubborn in ignoring the realty of a fact. Take for example people who think that there are more than two genders or sexes, as we would have said in years past. Male and female. One has an X and a Y chromosome and the other two X ones. This is fact. Scientific fact. Long held and acknowledged until someone wakes up one morning and decides that nature—God, I would say—got it all wrong. “I’m not a man, I’m a woman.” No, you’re a man who wishes he were a woman. And that wish will remain a fact even if you decide to alter your dress and body to suit your wish. Alas, you are what you are. That’s a fact.
Not convinced? Try this. Some argue that we are a democracy. Others say we are a republic. The fact is that we are a republic as clearly defined in our Constitution. It does not entertain democratic rule, but rather the election of leaders who are granted the power by us to rule. When people elect representatives, it’s called a republic. Yet how often do you hear gasbag politicians wax on about “protecting our democracy.” They’re factually wrong. If they wanted to be factual, they would say, “we must protect the republic.” I guess many of them missed the history lesson concerning the Grand Army of the Republic, the title given to the Union Army veterans who, well, saved the Republic. Facts are stubborn things indeed.
So, what’s the point? I think the point is that we need more facts than opinions in our discourse. And unfortunately, in this social media age, we are awash in opinions that frequently crowd out the facts in emotional debates that come our way. It makes one weary.
Consider the election recount going on in Pennsylvania where a local board in Bucks County has openly contested a fact delivered to them by the state supreme court that unsigned or undated ballots cannot be counted. Doing so would violate the law. That law is a fact. The court ruling upholding the law is a fact. And when the board counts illegal votes, it’s a fact that they are breaking the law and acting with contempt to the court.
Stubborn facts indeed.
0 Comments