Gresham's Law and Politics

Gresham’s Law states that ‘Bad money drives out good’; if counterfeit or debased currency is accepted at face value, people will use it, and will horde their gold, specie, or any other currency with intrinsic value until the counterfeit currency is no longer accepted.  

The same theory applies to political discourse.   

If a position based on research, with a solid foundation of facts, logic, historical precedent, and economic theory is given no more weight than wild delusional pronouncements, grounded in nothing more than the ephemeral whim of the speaker—no sooner spoken than retracted or contradicted—there is a decreased incentive to research and validate positions before publicly stating them.  Research and validation require time and resources; in the absence of a premium for credibility, these investments will not be made.         

Eventually, the only criterion left is entertainment value.  With a credulous audience, hyperbole is the norm; the more outlandish, the better.  As with a counterfeit currency, it more and more extreme claims are required to claim the same attention.

Economic forces eventually reveal the lack of value in a debased currency; leading to its hyperinflation, and eventual extinction.  Unfortunately, the only analogous natural protection against degraded discourse is the common sense, taste, and discernment of the audience – protections which have been sadly eroded in our society.  People become acclimated, and come to not only accept hyperbolic promises and outrageous charges and countercharges – but to insist upon them.  People want to be surprised, which means that each round of invented crises, fantastical promises, ad hominem attacks, and sophomoric insults must exceed the ones before.

In an imaginary, dystopian end-state, one might see this continuing to the point that a presidential debate would include tit-for-tat insinuations about candidates’ penis size, or candidates insulting the attractiveness of each other’s wives.  Worse yet, the participants may even be rewarded for this crude farce.  

William F. Buckley Jr. once said, “There is an implicit conflict of interest between that which is highly viewable and that which is highly illuminating.”  It’s clear that many Americans have opted for the highly viewable; civil, illuminating political discourse is the first casualty.

Fact-Checking Trump; Why Bother?

Another group published a fact-checking report against Donald Trump’s claims – and, as with all the previous checks, the results were abysmal.  

I don’t know why organizations even bother to publish these reports.  Seriously, try to imagine somebody who has ridden the Trump Train up to this point, looking at the results and deciding, “Hell, I can’t support this guy any longer; he’s just making all this shit up!”

No, these people are not (to borrow from Steven Colbert) ‘Factistas’.  Trump’s biggest supporters think, and vote, from the gut.  Highlighting the distance between their hero’s claims and reality makes them really angry; not at Trump, but at reality – further straining an already cold, distant, dysfunctional relationship.