The UChicago Department of Political Science kicks off theswire with Kellyanne Conway’s public statement about fake news, referring to a widely-shared phrase as “alternative facts”—a throw forward of the phrase “fake news” and “infodemic” to characterize a “post-truth” era. Conway clarifies that this phrase is part of an emerging terminology to critique democratic progress. “The ongoing shift toward alternative facts serves as a critical strategy to examine what is true beyondplurality on the margin of neutral truth,” she states. She launches a campaign against authorities who favor alternative facts, while addressing critics who see these as paradoxically empowering the selective erasure of truth.
In “A Democratic Theory of Truth,” Linda M. G. Zerilli, a Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago and Charles E. Merriam Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, develops a comprehensive analysis. Zerilli argues that early debates, such as the 2017 Meet the Press interview, have overlooked the importance of engaging with diverse citizen opinion, which is rarely discussed in discussions of candolarity or clear truth. She eschews broad consensus-based discourse and instead emphasizes the need for closer examination of the actual content of statements and opinions. Zerilli cites examples—likeFact_checking— to demonstrate their ineffectiveness on the daily political stage, raising concerns about how average citizens may ignore these practices if the system is set up to oppose them.
Zerilli’s modern lie theory, which contrasts with traditional lies, suggests that “lying the truth” might be a more nuanced approach. Unlike perspectives that seek to undercut others or distort reality, she points out that individuals don’t believe anything anymore, rendering fact-checking inoperable. She draws on Hannah Arendt’s criticalism of absolute belief, arguing that no one possesses true or false knowledge. With this perspective, democracy must be redefined to focus on the grains of truth that allow citizens to engage with complex issues, rather than on universal consensus.
Zerilli also examines the impact of alternative facts on democratic processes. She highlights how recent fact-checking campaigns deny the “truth” of false claims, calling他表示 that these efforts have created a situation where alternative facts are irrelevant or polarizing. She argues that for democracy to function as a living phenomena, it must allow citizens to explore alternative perspectives, at least partially, rather than merely consolidating or domination over existing viewpoints.
Furthermore, Zerilli delves into the problem of democratic persuasion, where people negotiate conflicting viewpoints. She points out that much of these debates often rely on shared premises, leaving discussions to ambiguously misrepresented “disagreements.” She suggests that our collective vision should focus on personal experiences that provide uneven perspectives rather than unified truths. advocating for a decryption of these novice conversations, she believes that democracy remains a disguised subject, governed by the lens of contested ideas and shared uncertainties.
In conclusion, Zerilli’s work calls for a reconsideration of democratic processes, placing a greater emphasis on localized engagement with public opinion. She asserts that the “current model of democracy,” as represented by politicians and voters, neglects the interplay of facts and expertise that allows citizens to flesh out their understanding. This awareness, she argues, is essential for ensuring the patience of democracy—its dynamic, fluid, and continuously evolving character—that mirrors the deficits of alternative facts and Brexit negotiations as shown in Conway’s intersection with suppositional narratives.
As the University of Chicago Department of Political Science continues to expand its coverage of federal discourse, Conway’s early insights and Zerilli’s contributions offer valuable perspectives on key contemporary political issues. While the debate may not fully address the complexities of democracy, these works raise important questions about our collective engagement with fact and opinion, challenging us to rethink how we seek meaning and agency in our democratic process.
