Where are the facts?

There is very little left to say about the election campaign in the US, and the media continue to surpass themselves on an hourly basis with stories purporting to be news but that generally offer little in the way of substance. My impression of the media has been confirmed by several months spent doing research in Colorado, with daily debates over coffee and many discussions with colleagues: it seems that 70 percent of reports centre around illegally obtained emails, videos and misogynistic statements and 20 percent around polling projections and strategies for the days left before the election, with the remaining 10 percent generally dedicated to the downfall of the Republican Party or of the system as a whole.

Whatever happened to substance?

So, the naive Swiss academic wonders: whatever happened to discussing facts and solutions? Whatever happened to the visions that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump stand for? These things are nowhere to be found. The reality is that Clinton, Trump and their respective parties are fighting not for their ideas but simply against one another. For both candidates, at least two thirds of Americans do not consider “honest” [1] to be an accurate description, while both are unpopular [2] and are yet to offer the US and the world any vision of how they intend to take the country forward. The debates and election campaigns are spreading hate and fear while condemning the current system and failing to present viable alternatives.

Although statements are checked for accuracy and consistency both independently and by the media, it seems that no one is interested in the results. Trump, for example, wants to implement massive tax cuts while at the same time putting over 500 billion dollars extra into infrastructure such as roads and bridges. [3] How is that supposed to work in a country where the public sector faces financial shortages across the board and where even children in affluent cities like Boulder have to bring their own paper and glue to school? Studies predict that Trump’s proposals will result in an additional shortfall in the national budget of several trillion dollars. [4] He wants to keep migrants out with a wall and deport all the illegal immigrants. He says nothing about the costs of this or its economic impacts or about the fate of those affected.

Climate change? A hoax invented by the Chinese, Trump tweeted a few years ago. [5] His running mate, Mike Pence, at least expresses a slightly different opinion, admitting that human activities have “some impact”. [6] That’s a big step for someone who was steadfastly denying any such connection 15 years ago. The Paris Agreement to combat climate change, which has now been ratified, would be terminated immediately under Trump. In an open letter, 375 members of the National Academy of Sciences, a highly respected institution in the US, have sharply criticised Trump’s statements on climate change. [7] But this doesn’t seem to matter either to the voters or to the press. Although Hillary Clinton is significantly more competent on substantive issues, she cannot single-handedly conduct an election campaign with an emphasis on substance over style if neither the media nor her opponents are interested in it. Here, too, only scandals are ultimately able to gain traction.

Polarised on all questions (of faith)

In the US, climate change is an example of an issue that has become polarised in a way similar to abortion, same-sex marriage and evolution: you either believe in it or you do not.

A look at the poll results over the last 20 years reveals a deepening rift between political parties when it comes to climate change [8], which is symptomatic of other environmental issues and, presumably, of domestic opinion-forming in general: the identity and position of the party becomes a personal identity; to be a good voter, it is essential that you toe the party line. Even the press, whose job it should be to take a critical look at Clinton’s and Trump’s arguments and positions, has lost all credibility. Just 32 percent of Americans and just 14 percent of Republicans trust the mass media (whose views are also polarised). [9]

When the media corrective fails

Is the media’s independent, critical stance weakened by financial and political influence or simply by the fact that, in the age of social media, people are no longer willing to read a newspaper article, let alone to pay for it? How did this system, itself a construct of the financial and political establishment, produce these two candidates in the first place? Why do we accept corruption, lies and discriminatory behaviour from politicians? “And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” said Trump in 2005, as if he were seeking to answer all of these questions at once. “You can do anything.” Although almost everyone is horrified now, he was right: he has been allowed not only to do what he likes, but even to become a presidential candidate.

However, when it comes to choosing the next president, our discussions should focus on topics such as who is qualified to take office, what their positions are, and whether these positions are borne out by the facts. Of course, in the climate debate, as with all social issues, it is possible to have different opinions about what political measures will be most effective. But without knowing the underlying facts, it is not possible to reach a sound decision.

Similar trends in Switzerland

My colleague Thomas Stocker recently highlighted [10] that the SVP’s 2009 position paper on climate change still reports that there has been no warming since 1998 [11], despite the emergence of new temperature records on a monthly basis. Clearly, there is a belief that sweeping statements and scaremongering arguments will persuade voters, without any need for a nuanced consideration of complex issues.

This cannot be a good thing in the long term. In order to form a well-founded opinion and to find effective answers to pressing issues, society needs to engage in constructive dialogue. Although those who separate the facts from personal values and political opinions generate fewer clicks in the short term than a scandalous video, they are more valuable to the next generation and the planet in the long term (see this blog post). So, after I return to Switzerland, I will continue to do what I can to present facts that are relevant to our society in a comprehensible form so that they form the basis of our decision-making processes. We can only hope that the politicians will actually listen.