CONFRONTING THE FACTS

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Machiavelli, The Princ

The quote above suggests to me a possible answer to the apparent difficulty many people are having with confronting the facts of the current political situation, and why so many people are willing to accept misinformation, easy answers, and things that are obviously untrue and often nonsensical.

In my most recent book, Transformation: From Potential to Practice, I explore in detail how what I call a “perfect storm” of neuropsychological predisposition, psychological development, and the need to determine the answer to the question “What do I have to do to survive around here?” combine to influence humans to see ourselves as deficient – full of shortcomings, at the effect of others’ actions, and of circumstances beyond our control. This is, of course, is the Victim role in the well-known “Drama Triangle” formulated by Steve Karpman in 1968.

In my book I propose an alternative, the Transformation Triangle, as an alternative to the Drama Triangle. This model also has three parts:

Karpman’s Drama Triangle

This model starts with a profound relationship with what is – an unflinching confronting of the facts or data; “what happened is…” (not “this is what happened to me”). From there, one asks the question “What is important to me that I am committed to related to the situation? And finally, given these circumstances and my commitment, what are the appropriate and available actions to take.

In contrast to the Drama Triangle which is driven by blame, this dynamic is based on awareness and accountability in the sense that it recognizes that while I may have no choice about what happens to me, I do have domain over how I relate to what happens.

Confronting the facts requires understanding what facts are. Facts are either true or false. To test if something is a fact it must meet three criteria:

1. Is it real? The opposite would be it is imaginary, something someone told me, etc.

2. Is it evident? Is there evidence for it existing or having existed. For example, there is evidence that Tyrannosaurus Rex existed – therefore we can conclude they were real. There is no evidence that dragons existed; we cannot, therefore, conclude that they were real.

3. Is it demonstrable? Can other people see, hear, smell, or touch it, or am I the only one who can?

Any phenomenon that meets all three of these criteria will be deemed true, or a fact. Any that does not will be false or not factual. It is important to note that there are no judgments involved. If something is not a fact, that does not make it bad or wrong, it just puts it into a different category.

If something exists in language but is not a fact, then what is it? The answer is that it is an interpretation, a conclusion, an inference, an explanation or any of a number of other language acts. For simplicity we will lump all these under the umbrella term “interpretation.”

An interpretation is always about something that is considered a fact. To ask if an interpretation is true or false, right or wrong is meaningless. Rather, the test for an interpretation is validity or fit. Does the interpretation fit the facts. If I look at a the sky during the setting of the sun (fact) and say it is “beautiful” or “colorful” that is a valid interpretation. If I say it is “obscene” or “dishonest” these interpretations are invalid, not to mention nonsensical.

As an example, let’s take the current controversy around the Signal group chat regarding plans to attack the Houthi forces in Yemen. Some consider this a major breach of security protocols that could have endangered US troops and revealed classified information. Others, mainly in the Administration, have said it was, essentially, no big deal.

If we apply the threefold test for facticity to the claims of “no big deal,” this is what we find:

• Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor of the Atlantic, was accidentally added to the chat.

• The group chat involved high-ranking officials including the Secretary of Defense.

• Despite claims that no classified information was shared, some experts argue that the details discussed could be considered sensitive or classified.

• The discussions included operational details such as targets, weapons, and attack sequencing.

• National Security Adviser Mike Waltz took full responsibility for the mistake and stated that the administration would no longer use Signal for such communications.

• President Trump and other officials have downplayed the incident, emphasizing that no classified information was shared.

• A watchdog group, American Oversight, sued Trump officials to preserve the Signal communications, citing concerns about federal record-keeping laws.

• U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered officials to safeguard these communications and submit a status report on their preservation efforts.

Based on this, it seems clear that those who are seeking to downplay the incident are not stating facts. That the National Security Advisor admitted it was a mistake and that Signal would no longer be used, and standard practice to use only the most secure means for discussions of this type suggest that it is extremely unlikely that classified information was not shared.

The evidence, including the transcripts that have been released, suggest that the claims of non-importance are not supported, i.e., not evident. That there is controversy to the extent that a Federal Judge has taken the case, suggests that the claims are not demonstrated.

So confronting the facts shows that the arguments used to downplay the incident are not factual or true. If we are standing in accountability and bringing critical thinking, that would lead us to examine what we are committed to – not because of the facts, but in light of the facts. For me, I am committed that there NOT be serious breaches of security, this leads me to the action of opposing any plans to sweep the issue under the rug.

And that brings us back to Machiavelli’s assertion. If I am committed to taking the lead in establishing a “new order of things,” Machiavelli warns, and history has shown, that I am opening myself up to a world of hurt and a strong possibility of failure. It is far more comfortable to go to sleep, believe what I’m told, and not throw any hammers at any TV screens (a la the old Apple ad). It is in this way that freedom will erode and democracy will die in America.

So I challenge you, reader – when you hear anything asserted as facts – whether from the left or from the right, ask yourself if it really is a fact? If it’s not, if it’s an interpretation, I’m not suggesting you reject it, just query your commitment to it and then take whatever action is consistent with your commitment.