SNOBELEN: A bizarre presidential debate where facts weren't facts

Article content

I guess we can finally dispense with the archaic notion of fact-checking. Facts have died a hard death.

There was a time when facts were held in high regard. It was generally accepted that, while a person was entitled to their own opinion, they were not entitled to their own facts.

That seems kind of quaint these days.

A fact is knowledge or information based on real occurrences. Something is real when it exists objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or convention.

In Robin Williams’ words: “Reality. What a concept!”

It might surprise Williams that we now have arrived at a place and time where fact-checking has been rendered obsolete, the victim of a disease called alternate facts.  Facts died an ignoble death, largely at the murderous hands of experts.

Remember the pandemic? Remember the daily dose of facts from experts who ended up being hilariously wrong no matter how often you washed your groceries?

Or perhaps you recall some of the counterfacts from the internet experts who caused a run-on horse wormer. Facts were plentiful and generally unhelpful throughout the whole pandemic experiment.

Experts, the internet and otherwise, helped kill facts. Politicians, media hacks and bloodless bureaucrats finished off facts.
Witness the public health experts who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge facts that run counter to their preferred reality regarding the “safe” supply of opioids. Or the expert fact-picking on any number of “science-based” debates from global warming to nutrition.

Any dim hope that facts remained relevant was extinguished this week in Philadelphia. The presidential debate hosted by

ABC might be remembered as the night facts took their last breath.

Political debates have never been home turf for facts. As a notable bright light, Harvard lecturer and former prime minister, Kim Campbell once opined that political campaigns are no place for serious policy discussions.

Political debates are to facts what wreck ‘em races are to Formula One. Fact-checking is pretty much hopeless.

But the debate between Trump and Harris moved into entirely new territory. Well past facts, we now must wonder what reality the candidates are living in.

Reality is, at least in the sane world, that which exists objectively and in fact. Politicians, poets and troubadours have licence to paint a future reality in the colours of their choosing.

But they must do so from a grounding in the current reality. Sprouting words not linked to reality is madness.

Trump has often proved he lives in a reality of his own creation, devoid of fact and objectivity. Egged on by Harris, he slipped into the realm of madness during the debate.

Immigrants eating people’s dogs in Springfield, Ohio isn’t a falsehood. It’s madness.

Obsession with crowd size isn’t just megalomania. Refusing to accept election defeat isn’t simple bravado. The entirety of Trump’s debate performance points to a person with a deeply distorted sense of reality.

Forget fact-checking. It’s time for a reality check.

Fortunately, we won’t be subjected to another presidential debate. Trump, who claims to believe he won the debate (more evidence of altered reality), has said he will not debate Harris again — out of kindness, I suppose.

I’m not against inventing futures. I’m generally in favour of being unreasonable. Darned if I don’t like poets. But people who want to lead change must have the courage and wisdom to face reality in totality and then push beyond.

Donald Trump does not have that kind of courage.