So, as Bill G has suggested, the constructivist perspective is gaining momentum. The grand narrative has crumbled. There are all sorts of narratives around the world. And here in the United States, there are a bunch of people who have offered a different construction. And alternative facts are, in fact, alternative constructions. There is an extraordinary book that was made into a play concerning the life of facts, essentially the short life of facts. The book and play feature two men. One is an old codger like most of us, and the other is a bright young African American journalist. This is a real story. The old codger is writing an article for the Atlantic magazine. And he wants to make it into a very powerful, thoughtful, compelling narrative. So, he changes things a little bit, modifying it to make it a little bit better story.

Well, this young man is hired to do editing corrections. And this young man keeps pointing out that factually, there were mistakes here. We got to get it right. And the old codger says, but it’s not a good story. People won’t listen to what we’re saying, because we’re trying to change people’s minds about violence and other things, and abuse. We need to make the story better. And the kid says, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, it’s not true. And so, the struggle is there. And it’s related to what Bill G’s talking about. Where are the young kids, basically, are saying, well, we want to get the facts right about healthcare and about the importance of family medicine. Now Bill G. has become an old codger. He said, yeah, but apparently that’s not convincing people.

Bill G

One of the other things that Bill B comments on is the fact that we sometimes view the objectivism and constructionism as static. And in fact, they’re fairly dynamic. One of the things that struck me comes from a biography of Ronald Reagan. This is in the age before social media. Reagan was continually modifying his stump speech throughout his presidency. He actually had people out in the audience, whenever he gave a speech, who would listen to all his taglines. They had three-by-five cards on which they’d write down reactions. Reagan would go through those cards carefully after any speech. He continued to throw out bits that didn’t seem to resonate. And he would retain bits that resonated. Furthermore, he constantly and dynamically modified his pitch, the great communicator that he was. It strikes me that Trump, in the age of social media, is clearly doing much the same thing. While he’s a pretty perceptive person regarding audience feedback, his advisors do exactly what Reagan’s advisors did. So, Trump continually tries to tailor his message to his audience and to modify it based on the positive feedback he gets. It’s a constantly evolving narrative.