Democracy, Truth and Reality

Sometimes progressives and other well-motivated people would have us think that democracy is the end-all and be-all of human organization. At root democracy is an agreement arrived at by the majority with due concern not to infringe the rights of the minority. There is however, a third element in this decision-making process, and one becoming of profound importance. It is reality. No matter what a group of humans agree upon, it is of no consequence for reality. For instance the Kyoto Protocol agreed to by the majority of the planet’s nations, is not a solution to global warming. It is, as the saying goes, a first step, but unless the remaining steps are taken within the time that reality requires, global warming, regardless of any human agreement, will produce the terrible consequences scientists have predicted.

In every group decision we reach there are at least two opposing sides plus reality. Notoriously, humans can reach agreements totally disregardful of reality. The agreement achieved may simply reflect an emotion-driven compromise in which cultural or other concerns are the focus of negotiations not reality. This is why democracy, while probably better than an ego-driven dictatorship, cannot be trusted to arrive at truth. With the power of humans to destroy themselves and much of the planet’s other life forms as great as it is and growing rapidly, the damage we can inflict requires an increasing focus on and concern for reality. Mistakes, often caused by focusing on the other party rather than reality can have momentous consequences. Every negotiation should begin with and retain reality as its focus.

But, it is said, reality is in the eye of the beholder. This is much less so than the cliché would have us believe. Depending upon the degree of precision required, testable or rigorously confirmed evidence is frequently available that constitute good indicators of reality. Even in the gross, complex, and deception-ridden world of foreign policy the experience of the Vietnam war was very telling evidence that the invasion of Iraq was not only immoral, but doomed to failure. The leadership of this country and the majority of Americans chose to disregard it. Reality was replaced by hubris in reaching the decision to invade Iraq. In any negotiation what reality may be replaced by, e.g. religious, moral or cultural beliefs, varies greatly depending upon the concerns of the negotiators.

At bottom reality cannot be negotiated. This is why scientific endeavors cannot be democratic. Those endeavors are focused on reality and must accept the evidence adduced. This is why we must be ever vigilant that our democracy does not pretend to deal with reality. The failure to do so lets groups like Christian conservatives promote creationism and indeed get laws passed requiring its teaching in public schools. They convince legislators that more people believe in creationism or intelligent design than believe in evolution and thereby these spurious beliefs, not only lacking, but incapable of any evidence, are permitted to be taught.

Progressivism, if it is to be effective in the 21st century, must have a fundamental motivating concern to discover the truth and to do that well before it begins developing proposals and pushing agendas. The truth is not to be found in one’s opponents nor in oneself nor in an amalgam of the two. It is to be found in a rigorous examination of facts and the evidence that intellectual honesty can adduce from them.

A note to readers:
I am simultaneously posting my blogs to the following address - http://thetemeculavalleyreflectiveliberal.blogspot.com/
I am in the process of copying all my posts to this blog to the new blog address. They are readable, but contain some formatting from the DFA web site. I hope you will visit the new blog and I look forward to your comments.

Bob Newhard