Gary L. Geipel
Why This Matters
“Post-truth” describes an information environment characterized in particular by “truth decay,” to use a term coined by RAND scholars, in which verifiable facts are widely ignored or distrusted—replaced by opinion if not outright invention.[1] In this author’s larger analysis, the major components of our post-truth environment are (1) the embrace of “narratives” over fact-based accounts of the world, (2) increasing “tribalism,” and (3) a breakdown of corrective institutions, leading to the “entrenchment” of these conditions on a massive scale.[2] See Figure 1 for a summary graphic useful throughout this paper.
Based on the 2024 U.S. presidential election campaign—as thoroughly tribal and narrative-based as any in recent history—readers may find the notion that a new administration will care about “post-truth and national security” humorous at best. As president, however, neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump will be able to bask in the forgiving waters of their post-truth campaigns. Faced with actual decisions, a Harris or Trump administration will need to sort fact from torrents of fiction—or face potentially immense consequences. Where U.S. national security is concerned, the challenges and risks of post-truth continue to grow apace. Impressionistic, social-media-borne understandings of conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, for example, already have as much influence on U.S. policy as verifiable information and longstanding national or alliance interests. The next administration will face constant decisions about whether to ignore, manage, or try to shape a digital information environment full of alternative realities.
No comments:
Post a Comment