SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Minab school bombing
Trump and Hegseth: Modern Ahabs Harming Whales for Oil
In the war for oil, they are obviously not interested in hearing about collateral damage, including the approximately 50 Rice's whales left in the Gulf of Mexico.
Apr 11, 2026
Nicknamed the “God Squad” for its power to rule whether economic or national security interests outweigh the possibility of wiping out an animal species, the Endangered Species Committee has granted two exemptions to the Endangered Species Act since it was created by Congress in 1978. It is composed of the secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and the Army, and the heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Council of Economic Advisers.
The last time the committee granted an exemption was in 1992 when it allowed logging in sensitive areas for the northern spotted owl. Public outcry and litigation ultimately led to that requested exemption being withdrawn.
Last month, the committee was convened at the request of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. As gasoline prices in the US have soared past $4 a gallon and diesel fuel past $5 during President Donald Trump’s reckless war on Iran, Hegseth told the committee it was “a critical matter of national security” that fossil fuel extraction in the Gulf of Mexico be prioritized over any species at risk of extinction.
Never mind that one of those species is the Rice’s whale, which NOAA itself acknowledges is one of the rarest in the world. The whale exists only in the Gulf, with perhaps 50 or so left.That obviously means nothing to Trump and Hegseth, who are both so maddened that they have become modern Ahabs chasing a Moby Dick. In his right-wing Christian crusade, Hegseth openly prays for every bullet and missile to “find its mark” in war. In the war for oil, he obviously is not interested in hearing about collateral damage, saying: “Disruptions to Gulf oil production doesn’t hurt just us, it benefits our adversaries. We cannot allow our own rules to weaken our standing and strengthen those who wish to harm us. When development in the Gulf is chilled, we are prevented from producing the energy we need as a country and as a department.”
Fifty whales by themselves don’t stand a chance against the rhetoric of keeping gas under $5 a gallon.
Rice’s whale is hardly the only creature that could be decimated with ramped-up oil production. According to NOAA, the gulf is also a habitat for the endangered sperm whale; the endangered hawksbill, leatherback, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles; and the endangered pillar coral. There is also a host of other animals listed as “threatened,” such as loggerhead and green sea turtles, Nassau grouper, the giant manta ray, and queen conch.The committee, chaired by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, unanimously granted the exemption, based on Hegseth’s “findings.” Typical of Trump’s government, there is no description of those so-called findings. Burgum did not explain why this country’s pursuit of petroleum justifies further endangering endangered species. All Burgum said in a statement was that oil production in the Gulf “must not be disrupted or held hostage by ongoing litigation.”
The truth is that there is no evidence that the Endangered Species Act has “chilled” oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, let alone held it hostage. During the same week that Burgum’s committee granted that exemption, the Interior Department that Burgum leads announced that 2025 was the best year ever for the production of offshore oil. It is likely we will see a record-breaking output from the Gulf this year.
In fact, any argument that we need to risk eradicating more wildlife for oil was blown away by Trump himself. During last week’s address to the nation regarding his attack on Iran, he told Americans not to fret because “under my leadership, we are the No. 1 producer of oil and gas on the planet.” He said, “We don’t need” oil from the Middle East. He boasted, “We’re now totally independent of the Middle East.”
Even under current protections, wildlife is constantly being sacrificed for oil and gas. The biggest recent single hit to the Rice’s whale’s population was likely the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. NOAA estimated the population of Rice’s whales may have plummeted 22%, as nearly half its habitat in the eastern Gulf was exposed to oil. The spill, according to NOAA, also killed up to 200,000 adult, juvenile, and hatchling turtles, and the deaths of dolphins, on top of the whales, became the largest cetacean mortality event ever recorded in the Gulf.
Even though Rice’s whales dive during the day as deep as 400 feet to feed, studies cited by NOAA have found that they spend the night within 50 feet of the surface where the hard-to-see creatures can be struck by vessels. NOAA’s website reports that the top threats to the remaining population are vessel strikes and the noise from vessels and energy pollution and says, “For Rice’s whales to recover, we must address existing and emerging threats to the species and their habitat.”
Yet even NOAA yielded to Hegseth’s demand for an exemption.
NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs promised that despite the exemption, oil and gas activities would still include “various protective measures for the Rice’s Whale.” Given Trump’s crippling of the Environmental Protection Agency and rollbacks of regulations under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, Jacobs’ statement is about as comforting as the statement from the American Petroleum Institute praising the exemption, claiming with a straight face that the oil and gas industry “has a long track record of protecting wildlife while developing offshore energy responsibly.”
There is reason to be optimistic that, like the ultimate withdrawal of the 1992 spotted owl exemption, this one for the Gulf of Mexico will eventually be blocked by litigation and public protest. The day before Burgum convened the Endangered Species Committee, a federal judge in California invalidated several Endangered Species Act rollbacks concocted during the first Trump administration that allowed agencies to increasingly ignore the harm of projects to wildlife.
The judge, Jon Tigar, said the administration made “serious” errors in an “arbitrary and capricious” effort to gut the Endangered Species Act. Let us hope that the courts continue to find yet more errors with the exemption for the Gulf of Mexico. Fifty whales by themselves don’t stand a chance against the rhetoric of keeping gas under $5 a gallon. The Trump administration is today’s Ahab lunging over its ship with a harpoon. This time, the whale really could be killed in the hunt for oil.
This piece was originally published by MS Now. It is shared here with permission of the author.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A To-Do List for Congress: End the War, Stop Weapons to Israel, Impeach Trump
We live in a flawed but still functioning democracy. The American people are solidly, sensibly against this stupid war, and need to make sure their lawmakers get the message.
Apr 11, 2026
Reasonable people wonder if it was a coincidence the escalation (and now fragile ceasefire) of the massively unpopular, senseless, illegal US-Israeli war of aggression on Iran occurred while Congress was away from Capitol Hill for two weeks. Maybe so, but speculation aside, it soon won’t matter, as Congress returns to Washington to resume legislative business Tuesday, April 14.
In the wake of President Donald Trump’s monstrous nuclear threat to obliterate Iran’s civilization, calls for his removal from office are rising, understandably. Doing so via the 25th Amendment, which would require Vice President JD Vance and the spineless supine sycophants in the Cabinet to certify Trump unfit for office, is the longest of long shots, though US Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former Constitutional law professor and ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, notes the amendment mentions the ability for Congress to establish its own mechanism to remove an incompetent chief executive.
While that seems remote, the more familiar route would be impeachment by the House of Representatives, followed by a trial by the Senate, and removal from office. Trump is of course familiar with this as he was impeached twice by the House, but not convicted by the Senate. US Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) recently filed Articles of Impeachment, and for what it’s worth, the betting platform Kalshi put the likelihood of it succeeding at 27%, higher than it had been, but still low.
Anyone who wants to rein in this traitorous regime should press in any way possible, including calling for the 25th Amendment and impeachment, but should not expect those to bear fruit anytime soon.
Political calculations aside, any and all attempts are welcome to stop this awful war, to end the needless death and suffering of Iranians, Lebanese, Israelis, Americans, and people in the Gulf states, and to alleviate the shock to the global economy.
However, Congress will soon be forced to vote on Iran War Powers Resolutions (WPRs) to declare its opposition to the war on Iran, and Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs) to prevent transfers of US bombs and bulldozers to Israel.
On War Powers, recent votes were close, and almost entirely partisan; with only a few exceptions, Republicans in both houses of Congress voted against, and Democrats voted for, rebuking the administration and reclaiming its clear constitutional authority over the grave matter of taking the country to war. The House might muster the votes to pass an Iran War Powers Resolution, sponsored by US Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), though the Senate is unlikely to do so. While it would not end the war immediately, a House vote in favor of the WPR would be important in representing the clear will of the American people, and clarify the president has no legal authority for its war of choice.
The votes on Joint Resolutions of Disapproval on bombs and bulldozers to Israel, brought forward by US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), with cosponsors Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), will be interesting, to put it mildly. The Trump administration, as it has often done, bypassed the usual congressional notification on these weapons transfers, spuriously claiming a national emergency. The “emergency” is Israel may be running low on bombs to drop on the people of Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Israel is also running low on interceptor missiles, but this JRD is only about the delivery of 12,000 half-ton bombs. The Caterpillar bulldozers have long been used in demolitions of Palestinian homes, to make room for expanding Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, mostly in the West Bank.
The political dynamics of these JRD votes will be relatively simple. Expect all Republicans to vote no, with the possible exception of Rand Paul (R-Ky.). On the Democratic side, while the most recent JRD votes on other weapons sales to Israel last July garnered (for the first time), majority support among Senate Democrats, they still lost decisively. The difficulty for certain Democratic Senators such as Cory Booker (NJ), Chuck Schumer (NY), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both of California) and others who are rightly slamming Trump’s unauthorized war on Iran, is they never vote to prevent weapons transfers to Israel. Their constituents, facing increased economic hardship caused by this foolish war, which as The New York Times reported Trump was all too easily persuaded to wage by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will certainly be unhappy with this contradiction.
Going forward, if the administration comes to Congress with a war funding request for up to $200 billion (on top of its unprecedented proposal for $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon’s “regular” budget), possibly dressed up with sweeteners such as farm aid (necessary as farmers are hurting not just from increased fuel and fertilizer costs from the war, but also from Trump’s tariffs), said senators will be challenged to adopt Sen. Van Hollen’s position of “hell no,” not another dime for the Iran war.
Political calculations aside, any and all attempts are welcome to stop this awful war, to end the needless death and suffering of Iranians, Lebanese, Israelis, Americans, and people in the Gulf states, and to alleviate the shock to the global economy.
We live in a flawed but still functioning democracy. The American people are solidly, sensibly against this stupid war, and need to make sure their lawmakers get the message—Congress, do your job, and stop this madness, by any and all means at your disposal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress, Pass a Windfall Tax on the Oil Companies Profiting From Trump's Iran War
The oil and gas companies that invested at least $75 million in Trump’s reelection are cashing in on the instability he has caused.
Apr 11, 2026
Our dependence on fossil fuels does more than pollute our air. It destabilizes the world and empowers the ultra wealthy to profit off of that volatility, leaving working families to pay the price.
This dynamic has been on full display since President Donald Trump’s attack on Iran.
Trump’s invasion of one of the world’s most oil-rich regions jolted energy markets, sending gas prices soaring to the highest level in either of his terms. In 2024 he campaigned on cutting them in half. Instead, Americans are now on track to pay roughly $720 more for gasoline this year.
The full cost to working families will be much steeper as high gas prices drive up prices on consumer goods across the board. We’re already seeing that ripple effect take hold, as the US Postal Service has proposed a temporary 8% fuel surcharge on package deliveries to offset rising transportation costs tied directly to the war-driven spike in oil prices.
To reclaim our foreign policy from those who see a global crisis as a line item on an earnings call, we must break the billionaire grip on our energy system, economy, and democracy writ large.
At the same time, the oil and gas companies that invested at least $75 million in Trump’s reelection are cashing in on this instability. A recent Financial Times analysis estimates that US oil companies could collect an additional $63 billion in revenue this year if crude prices remain at these wartime levels. In March alone, the industry is expected to generate $5 billion in extra cash flow.
This type of windfall isn’t a fluke. We’ve seen this pattern for decades.
Oil has a way of appearing in the background of every chapter of US military intervention in the Middle East and beyond. Iran nationalized its oil industry in the 1950s, and a CIA-backed coup followed. Iraq, sitting on some of the world’s largest reserves, was invaded in 2003. And earlier this year, the US invaded Venezuela and immediately began plans for a taxpayer-backed oil industry takeover.
Dependence on fossil fuels keeps us trapped in this cycle. Oil executives have spent billions to maintain this status quo, backing politicians like Trump who will protect their profits. As the oil industry rakes in eye-popping profits, it gains more power to elect leaders who prioritize policies that ensure Americans remain reliant on fossil fuels.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Congress considered a windfall profits tax on large oil companies that would capture the excess profits generated by the crisis—and return the money to American households. Roughly 80% of Americans supported the idea.
Failure to advance that legislation cost us. Researchers calculated that if the US had redistributed the portion of fossil fuel profits that exceeded 2021 returns, every American household could have received $1,715.
As oil executives profit off the war in Iran, Congress must once again push for a windfall profits tax on the largest oil companies. This isn’t an outlandish idea. Other countries have already done it. After the 2022 energy shock, the United Kingdom enacted a windfall tax on oil and gas companies, raising about $3.3 billion in its first year and roughly $4.5 billion the next—money used to help households pay their energy bills.
The current situation in Iran underscores how unchecked extreme wealth fuels corporate control, leaving working families vulnerable. New data from Impact Research for Tax the Greedy Billionaires shows that voters blame billionaires for the affordability crisis and want leaders to do more to address this. In fact, 77% of voters nationwide—including 65% of Republicans, 75% of Independents, and 91% of Democrats—support raising taxes on billionaires.
Under the Trump administration, war profiteering has reached new extremes. Confronting corporate power and taxing the ultra wealthy isn’t just about economic fairness—it’s a national security imperative.
To reclaim our foreign policy from those who see a global crisis as a line item on an earnings call, we must break the billionaire grip on our energy system, economy, and democracy writ large. If we want a democracy that works for the people, we must stop letting it be sold to the highest bidder.
Keep ReadingShow Less
On Loyal Liars, Fact-Checkers, and Why We’re Bumping into Things
Both truth and lies serve overarching social purposes. The better we understand those purposes and the choices entailed in pursuing them, the better we’ll understand ourselves, each other, and the society around us.
Apr 11, 2026
Sorting fact from fiction in statements by President Donald Trump and members of his administration can be demoralizing and cringe inducing. The ratio of untruths to truths is astonishing—and many of the lies seem almost pointlessly cruel.
Trump lies at a pace that’s puzzling. What conceivable purpose could this behavior serve? And why are his most transparent lies so enthusiastically parroted by his underlings?
My aim in this article is not to engage in partisan lie shaming, but rather to better understand human nature. Why do people—and especially large groups of people—spew and cling to falsehoods?
As we’ll see, the distinction between truth and untruth is fuzzy at the edges, and discussions about the nature of truth can quickly spiral into rarefied philosophizing. In this article, we’ll entertain the centuries-old philosophical question, “What is truth?” only to the degree that’s useful in helping clarify my main thesis—which is that both truth and lies serve overarching social purposes. The better we understand those purposes and the choices entailed in pursuing them, the better we’ll understand ourselves, each other, and the society around us—and the better we will navigate the Great Unraveling which lies before us.
The Social Usefulness of Lies
Lies told by individuals typically serve some immediate need—often to avoid blame or to improve one’s status in the eyes of others. However, lies also serve a larger social function arising from human social evolution.
Kaivan Shroff hinted at that function in a recent article about Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, whose untruthful statements to the press are widely documented. What’s interesting is Shroff’s speculation on why McLaughlin lies so much:
The reason McLaughlin and other people who speak on behalf of the administration say things on television that are demonstrably false is not to try to convince ambivalent people of the merits of Trump’s policy decisions. Persuasion is not their objective. Their objective is instead to offer a demonstration of loyalty to the president and his political project—costly loyalty: The price is their own credibility. The more indefensible a claim, the clearer the signal.
Shroff is saying that, for McLaughlin, status within her social group—i.e., the Trump administration—outweighs accuracy or veracity.
Shroff’s explanation dovetails nicely with the discussion of social evolution in my book Power: Limits and Prospects for Human Survival. As humans developed prodigious linguistic ability, we evolved to become an ultra-social species. There are many other social species (ants, bees, chimps, chickens, crows, and more), but symbolic language greatly amplifies sociality, heightening both its advantages and costs.
Lacking language, many other species still engage in deception (like the mimic octopus, which impersonates toxic sea creatures to discourage its potential predators). But language opens the door to fiction, exaggeration, and just plain fibbing on a scale that no other creature can begin to match. Also, our main targets for deception aren’t other species, but members of our own kind who use the same language.
The biggest advantage of sociality is that greater cohesion among individuals makes any given group more powerful vis-à-vis other groups of similar size. While increased cohesion yields a payoff for the group, there is also a payoff for individual members: Acceptance by a cohort confers a sense of security. Alone, life is dangerous and hard. But if you’re with a tribe, there’s the sense that others have your back. Indeed, we all tend to feel strong psychological pressures to align with any social group in which we want to maintain membership.
Lying is not the only possible demonstration of group loyalty. In “big god” religions, tithing, self-flagellation, and long pilgrimages emerged long ago as signs of sincere dedication to the faith. The key factor in such signs was their costliness: The more costly the demonstration, the greater the payoff in proof of group loyalty and therefore status in the group.
A price of entry for at least for some religious and political groups is belief in absurdities. Examples range from Christianity’s doctrine of the virgin birth to Stalin’s requirement that his followers give credence to his personal infallibility (George Orwell famously satirized such political gullibility mandates in his 1948 novel, 1984, wherein the sole function of the government’s “Ministry of Truth” was to create false historical records and news to align with the Party’s ever-changing narrative).
Absurdities are an affront to common sense, so believers must expend constant effort to justify them. This need for justification creates an employment niche for apologists. Theologians’ justifications for absurdities and contradictions in sacred texts have ranged from simple literalism (“the Bible tells me so”) to earnest hunts for allegorical and metaphorical meaning. For example, Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong says the virgin birth isn’t so much a fact as a teaching story meant to symbolize a new beginning for humanity. Such metaphorical interpretations relieve the anxiety that results from too much effort spent justifying an absurdity; in effect, they offer membership in the group at a discounted rate. Nevertheless, the absurdity still stands as a gateway test of group membership.
The Usefulness of Fact-Checking
The problem with lies is that, if you believe them, you can bump into things. If you believe a lie that there is no wall in front of you when there is in fact a wall, a few forward steps can induce severe cognitive dissonance. And if the collision occurs at a brisk gait, you might get a bloody nose or worse.
Here’s a familiar real-world example. In 2002 and 2003, members of the George W. Bush administration repeatedly made the case that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and that the United States must therefore attack the country and overthrow its government. Bombers flew, troops invaded, hundreds of thousands died, and Saddam Hussein’s regime fell. But the war is now generally regarded as having been a grave mistake and a strategic failure due to the ensuing destabilization of the region. The supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were never found, and Americans’ trust in government never recovered.
Individually and collectively, we need an accurate understanding of reality if we are to survive and thrive. Sometimes that’s easy: Facts can be plain to see and agreed upon by nearly everyone. Other times they can require hard work, math, and instrumentation to ascertain—and they may still remain controversial.
While factual truths are fragile and evolving, they are essential to a free society, serving as a necessary anchor for public opinion.
As important as microscopes, telescopes, and other sensory augmentations of the modern era are to grasping reality, certain mental habits and methodologies are even more essential. Those habits and methodologies have a history. Indigenous peoples used logic routinely, and the basic functions of reason have been observed in many nonhuman species. Aristotle (4th century BCE) has long been credited with the invention of formal (i.e., written) logic, but thinkers in India and China made independent similar contributions that were arguably as early. Later, Middle Eastern philosophers added mathematical rigor to the process of disciplined thinking. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the founders of modern science applied logic to the assessment of evidence from the natural world using a method that rigorously tests hypotheses—the scientific method. This method differs profoundly from the usual procedure of political or legal debaters, who gather and present evidence that supports their thesis. Scientists instead continually look for evidence to disprove their hypotheses, so they can improve or replace them.
Science has produced immense amounts of reliable information about the world and about us. However, scientists are still human and still susceptible to political and social influences. As Thomas Kuhn explained in his groundbreaking book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), major breakthroughs in science occur as the result of a long accumulation of anomalies that cannot be explained by existing theories. However, despite the existence of these anomalies, until a clearly better theory comes along scientists often tend to close ranks around the existing theory.
This happened, for example, in the field of geology, which in the 19th century was confronted by evidence of vast changes to rocks and ecosystems throughout hundreds of millions of years of Earth history. Wishing to distance themselves from theologians who saw such evidence as confirming the biblical story of Noah’s Flood, geologists developed the doctrine of uniformitarianism, which held that all geological evidence should be explained by slow processes (mostly erosion and deposition) that can be observed at work today. A few geologists protested, saying that the evidence also suggested occasional catastrophic events of which there are no ongoing examples, but until the 1970s these catastrophists were largely prevented from publishing prominently. Anomalies kept accumulating until it became clear that events like mass extinctions could only be explained in catastrophist terms. Today it’s fair to say that all geologists are part-time catastrophists.
French philosopher-anthropologist Bruno Latour (1947-2022) argued that all scientific knowledge is socially constructed. In his book Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (1979), he described facts not as objective truths waiting to be discovered, but as descriptions of the world that are generated within social networks of scientists. The exact extent to which commercial and social interests shape science is a question that echoes through today’s vaccine controversies.
Science is always changing. One year, drinking red wine is proclaimed to be good for you. A couple of years later, the same authorities say drinking any alcohol is bad. Science’s tendency to evolve is its virtue, but also its vulnerability: Many people assume that, because scientific understandings change, scientists are therefore often wrong and really don’t know much. Why bother learning what scientists think now when the consensus is bound to shift later? Hence the persistence of flat Earth believers.
Further, there are important questions science can’t answer. What existed before the Big Bang? Is there a creative principle behind the universe that could be equated with God? What is a good life? Methodically probing physical evidence won’t tell you.
Nevertheless, science has proven to be a useful tool in clarifying most day-to-day issues. If you’re a bridge builder and you want to know the tensile strength of a particular kind of steel, you can consult the outcomes of repeated experiments and have confidence in the numbers. Even though scientists can sometimes be swayed by social motives, that’s not a reason for abandoning science altogether, just for doing it better.
“Facts” are simply the current numbers, descriptions, and interpretations agreed upon by experts, based on the best current evidence. Yes, facts can be socially influenced and can change as new data emerges. But fact-checkers still have value. They’re usually right. They’re good at exposing lies. And, as we’ve seen, lies have consequences.
Foucault and Arendt
Social evolution theory isn’t the final word on why groups of people create false representations of reality. Two 20th century thinkers had some relevant insights on knowledge, truth, and lies that I need to touch upon here before we proceed.
French historian Michel Foucault (1926-1984) claimed that knowledge is constructed through systems of power and discourse. His concept of “power-knowledge” (pouvoir-savoir) asserts that power and knowledge are inextricable, and fundamental to the organization of societies. While power can operate through simple coercion, it also achieves its ends through discourse, defining “truths” that categorize, regulate, and control individual actions, making knowledge a force that shapes reality.
Foucault argued that knowledge is never neutral; it is always linked to power. Conversely, power is exercised through the creation and application of knowledge. Power isn’t merely repressive (saying “no”) but also productive, as it generates knowledge, discourse, and new ways of understanding the self and the world. Institutions (like medicine, psychiatry, and prisons) produce “truths” that determine what is “normal” or “abnormal.” These, in turn, regulate behavior and justify power structures.
Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) was a historian and philosopher who lived through the rise of Nazism in Germany before emigrating to the US. She argued that authoritarian power thrives not just by forcing people to believe lies, but by destroying their capacity to distinguish truth from falsehood, thereby inducing cynicism. By constantly changing fabricated narratives, totalitarian regimes destroy the factual basis of society, leaving citizens unable to think, judge, or act. The aim is to create a world where nothing is believed, resulting in a population that can no longer distinguish right from wrong, truth from lies. When people stop believing anything, they become “ideal subjects” for totalitarian rule because they stop caring about what’s true.
Arendt noted that totalitarian leaders try to replace factual truth with a fabricated, consistent narrative that feels more appealing than reality. While factual truths are fragile and evolving, they are essential to a free society, serving as a necessary anchor for public opinion.
Where We Are Now: Nothing Is True, Nothing Matters, and We’re Bumping into Bigger and Bigger Things
There’s a significant difference between a social reality in which experts and the public alike value truth but are often deceived via the influences of financial and political power (i.e., the situation described by Foucault), and a social reality in which elites pursue power at any cost, routinely asserting patent lies and deliberately undermining society’s commitment to reason as ways to exert and extend their advantages (the situation described by Arendt). Foucault was describing the social production of knowledge in most modern industrial societies; Arendt focused specifically on authoritarian, totalitarian states. With Trump in charge, the US is careening toward the latter condition.
Confirming this, Adam Serwer argues in a recent article that “gullicism” (a portmanteau of “gullibility” and “cynicism”) is the tenor of present-day America:
Gullicists see everyone’s hidden motives—except when they don’t. They are able to reject any claim rooted in actual evidence—whether in science, politics, or history—while embracing the most breathtakingly absurd assertions on the same topics. Indeed, documentation is often taken as further evidence of conspiracy, while assertion (that this or that will "detoxify" your blood or that COVID deaths were exaggerated) is taken as gospel.
Unsurprisingly, as gullicism spreads, we’re increasingly bumping into things, including:
- The disastrous Iran war, which is not simply based on lies (like the Iraq war), but on shifting and conflicting lies;
- A chaotic and short-staffed Justice Department that’s no longer able to investigate real criminals due to the Trump administration’s prosecutions of political enemies, which consume staff time, routinely fall apart due to lack of evidence, and cause mass resignations of career prosecutors (like science, the criminal justice system is ideally a search for truth and relies on evidence); and
- Entirely preventable measles outbreaks resulting from the Department of Health and Human Services’ spreading of scientifically questionable opinions and reversal of longstanding vaccine policies.
In some ways the ascent of Trumpism represents a contest between followers of the 18th century European Enlightenment, who still value reason and democracy, and those who say the Enlightenment was a mistake. In place of reason and democracy, Peter Thiel and other MAGA intellectual leaders promote an authoritarian “dark enlightenment.” But it’s a simple truism: In the dark, you’re more likely to bump into things.
If we don’t want to bump into more things, we must hold to logic and evidence. But we can’t do so in isolation. We’re all consumers of information, and now more than ever it’s essential to make a habit of evaluating our information sources for trustworthiness—based not on what “feels right” or what our social group thinks, but on a demonstrated consistency in testing statements.
Because we’re an ultra-social species with language, the tendency toward loyal lying will always be with us. We’ll never eliminate all lies, either personal or collective. But at this moment in history, as we face climate change and a Great Unraveling, we have a rough ride ahead of us one way or another, and the last thing we need is a sudden proliferation of fake road maps.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular