“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” (Isaac Asimov, 1980)

I remember a night in the 1960’s when Frank Reynolds, a nightly reporter for ABC News, was doing a special show on the civil rights movement. He invited George Wallace, then Governor of Alabama and fiery segregationist, to speak on the show, reasoning that it was the duty of the media to portray the issue of civil rights from the perspective of those who were fighting for it and those who were fighting against it.

The proponents of civil rights were able to give mountains of facts and research into the history of white supremacy, and the harm done to citizens by racist views and policies. Wallace had no facts on his side. He couldn’t give viewers informed reasons to oppose civil rights. Wallace did not provide anything but his passionate feelings and beliefs, drawn from deep roots in southern slave ancestry.

What happens when the general public is given facts to support one point of view, and beliefs, lies, feelings, deliberate distortions, conspiracy theories, or misinformation from the opposing point of view? That depends on how well-schooled we are in researching the facts for ourselves. Particularly in the age of social media, where anyone can say anything, the onus is on us to find out the truth behind the statements that grab our attention.

“CoVid is nothing the President did. He gave the governors everything they needed. He brought in the ventilators and all the equipment. Shame on all the governors for the corruption in their states.”

I’m paraphrasing here, but these are the essential points of one side of the argument that the President has handled the virus well and correctly. You can find such statements throughout Twitter and Facebook. These statements are not backed up by any facts. They are all generalizations that require us to investigate on our own.

You can also find these statements. “The President hasn’t attended a CoVid meeting for months. Supplies such as PPEs and ventilators were diverted away from governors who ordered them and given to governors who support Trump.” Both statements sound factual, but it is our responsibility to do the research to see if they are true.

In this season of a presidential election, and in this age of social media, we are facing a stewpot of claims made by both candidates. What we need is solid information. What programs do you want to enact? Who will that particular program help and how? How are you going to make these programs happen? What will be the cost? Where will the money come from? What do you expect the outcomes to be? How will you research the results so that we know whether the programs were effective or not?

This is exactly what the Secretary of State does for the state we live in. Every time there is a question on the ballot, we receive a detailed narrative on the issues involved. When we have to vote yes or no on the ballot, we receive a booklet in the mail well ahead of time explaining each side of an issue. Someone who is a leader of the “for” camp for that issue writes a detailed account of why that issue is important, the positive impact it will have, and what will change if we vote for that issue. Someone who is a leader of the “against” camp writes a detailed account of the problems presented by that issue and the ways in which it will have a negative impact.

We should expect no less from our presidential candidates. Ignorance does us no good. We need knowledge, and we need it to be factual, detailed, mailed to every household, and provided to us in a form that we can read, reread, and discuss with others.

Like the ones we get from the doctor explaining a medical condition, or the effects of a new medication. Like the ones we get from a school, explaining a program we might apply for. Like the ones we get with every new appliance.

We can’t even begin to work towards equality or treat one another as equals if we don’t have access to the same information.