In this post-truth world public figures have a tendency to talking solutions rather than rationally discussing the nature of a problem and reviewing the evidence which identifies it. The temptation to lie to support their case is emphasised. Just as important is their ability to deny expert evidence and call someone who is taking them to task a liar.
Extremist thinking leads to extreme expressions and extreme behaviour, well evidenced by the EU referendum campaign and the Trump presidential campaign in 2016. British politics is culturally unable to call a blatant lie a lie, partly because of a parliamentary convention aimed at avoiding extreme behaviour. There are no such constraints in the USA and their recent election campaign was the worse for it. Neither situation is desirable.
The Leave campaigners offered a simplistic solution to a complex problem, turned it into a populist mantra, and lied to achieve their objective. They had no plans on how to deliver a practical solution. Donald Trump identifies problems and talks solutions, but when he chooses a problem he fails to consider contexts and dismisses any evidence which either supports or denies the solution he has chosen.
The UK is the worse off for Brexit, the USA will be the worse off for Trumpism. It appears that Theresa May is being very level-headed, aiming to mitigate the damage caused by lies. We must hope that level-headed Americans will surround Trump and deliver rational policies.
In politics of course no-one ever makes a mistake. This extreme solutionism supported by self-justification based on level of volume, is a ‘movement’ or a ‘style’. Sadly it is being reflected in other areas of public life too.
In religion simplistic extreme approaches affect both Islam and Christianity. The jihadist view is based on selective literalism, they shout loud, put down co-religionists who disagree, and are violent. There are Christians who are just as selective and as literal, though not with the same violent intent. They can however use violent language to attempt to diminish other Christians who have a more considered faith.
Fortunately we do not often see this kind of behaviour in medicine, the denial of the MMR vaccine was perhaps the biggest example. There are some unsettling undertones in US based email lists where patients get advice, sometimes quite extraordinary, and viewpoints can get very vocal support. The hyping of drugs, manipulating media ‘experts’ and patient interest groups, and setting exploitative drug prices is all slowly being brought under control. However generally it is a area where evidence rules, and good science is appreciated.
The lessons of the medical world should be carried into political life. I would suggest for our politicians some New Year Resolutions, built on the medical research world.
Construct your argument rationally, without emotion, seek and recognise good quality evidence.
When you use evidence pay proper regard to the conclusions the researchers arrived at.
Don’t assume that someone with a view which opposes yours is stupid or telling a lie.
Don’t assume that an expert has an interest in denying a cause just because his evidence does not support it.
If there is a lie, and the evidence shows it to be one, say so.