The Absence of Evidence

I learned a new aphorism the other day: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps you may have heard it before but it perfectly crystallized some thoughts I've had about the willing suspension of disbelief on the part of many of my countrymen regarding the current state of affairs. As I suspect many of you have asked, how is it possible that so many do not question the statements emanating from the highest office in our land given a widely acknowledged pattern of deceit and fabrication, to say nothing of gross exaggeration? Is this mass delusion, the result of a successful propaganda campaign, or something else entirely?

Let's put aside for a minute those who are ideologically aligned and only question those thoughts and ideas which veer from their cherished perspective. Surely this accounts for a hardened circle of true believers whose allegiance cannot be shaken. But beyond these are there yet others who may yet harbor doubts, who know a lie when they hear one but cynically look the other way in the belief they are serving a greater good? That might explain religious leaders and their followers who are able to justify the glaring contradictions between the actions of our leadership and the teachings of most faiths.

Beyond this circle are those who believe the deceptions are only aimed at others and are willing to write off the obvious as hyperbole as long as their personal interests and aims are met. Nothing will persuade them to alter their view except injury. For this group all politics are beyond local, they are personal.

Finally we come to what I suspect is the largest group, those who accept what is said even in the face of fact finding, believing in the absence of evidence to the contrary. And by that I mean the absence of critical thinking. How many simply accept what they hear or read without asking themselves what motivates the speaker? Let's try a little thought experiment. In one of the now infamous late night riffs on social media we learned that our leader knows more about grass than anyone --ever. This was said in the context of a rambling missive about restoring parks in Washington, DC, apparently using the National Guard as gardeners.

This is not in any sense the first time we have heard that he knows more about a subject than experts, those whose profession is exclusively devoted to a subject. The list of such subjects is apparently endless. I've heard people dismiss this as a normalized form of what anyone else would call egregious exaggeration, nothing to take too seriously. No one in this group ever says, if he would lie about this, what else is untrue? Instead they accept that such behavior is not revealing of an underlying character, that somehow it is merely a manner of speech.

So, habituated to the small lies the greater ones are subjected to little or no scrutiny. This group watches as predictions of executive megalomania unfold, as the highest laws and conventions of our democracy are routinely ignored and subverted and do not question where this will all end. Not only do these folks proffer the lack of what many of us would take for clear evidence of misdoing, they contrive explanations that defy cognition. Any attempt to apply even the slightest logic or reasoning to expose the contradiction leads to a blustering rejection based on thin air, or attempted misdirection changing the subject to question some other political figure's actions.

Outside our country, in the rest of the world leaders and the general public rub their eyes in disbelief at our acceptance of this behavior. They may dissemble out of economic or political necessity, but they have not taken leave of their senses. Why have we?