I'm from one of those states in the South that voted heavily against Obama (though I hesitate to call it a red state, because it's just not that simple), and I often find myself in political arguments with friends and family members on Facebook. These are not arguments about divergent political philosophies but arguments over basic empirical facts that are verifiable. Not long after Obama took office, I took great pains to prove to someone, because it's true, that TARP was passed at the end of Bush's term, before Obama's election in November. But apparently I'm only one of 34 percent of Americans who know that.
A New York Times story a few days ago got into how politically toxic TARP has proved to be for everyone who voted for it, not just the Democrats, and how it's even more of a political liability than the health-care reform bill. Dan Amira at Daily Intel snarks that this is among the things that must make Obama want to give up on America. But at a certain point, that's not so jokey. TARP, and the financial-sector crisis that required it, wasn't that long ago. If the adults we trust can't bother to keep their facts straight, what do we do to call them out on it?
This is, to some extent, a problem for journalists, who dutifully reported the TARP vote at the time but who also don't necessarily take pains to point out the inconsistencies in the way political arguments about it are presented now. There's a sense in the media that representing all points-of-view as valid is fair, but ignorance is not a point of view. Citizens also have a duty to be informed, and it's unclear what, exactly, is preventing them from being so in this instance.
-- Monica Potts
