Epistemic breakdown is a fancy way of saying “destruction of a shared reality.” As a recent essay pointed out, that destruction is politically useful.
We’ve just seen an example in the administration’s propaganda about the murder of Renee Good. “Don’t believe your lying eyes”– believe the “revised” reality we offer instead. But that example is a small part of a sustained assault.
If–like so many Americans–you’ve found the administration’s attacks on science and education mystifying, the essay offers a frightening and detailed explanation.
If you can convince a large segment of the population that experts cannot be trusted, institutions are corrupt, objective truth doesn’t exist, and loyalty matters more than evidence, then power no longer depends on performance or results. It depends on identity and obedience.
Science, especially, has characteristics that the author notes are fatal to authoritarian politics: it produces falsifiable claims that can be tested, and if found to be wrong, require us to update our beliefs. Science is also institutionally distributed. No single leader controls it. Like most scholarship, it requires peer review and subsequent replication. And–importantly–research undermines what the essay calls “charismatic authority.” Scholars and data don’t demand loyalty.
Authoritarian movements cannot survive in an environment where people accept that some claims are simply false, expertise matters, and reality constrains power. So science isn’t debated, it’s delegitimized.
Anti-vaccine rhetoric is particularly effective because vaccines sit at the intersection of government authority, personal autonomy, fear of harm, complex science, and immediate bodily stakes. That makes them ideal for narrative manipulation.
Anti-vax rhetoric accomplishes several things simultaneously: it reframes public health as tyranny, converts inconvenience into persecution, turns expertise into elitism, casts personal feeling as equal to evidence, and creates an “us versus them” moral divide.
Once that framing is accepted, any future policy can be painted the same way: climate action, election integrity, court decisions, civil rights protections.
The essay makes a further point that is hard to believe, given the sheer incompetence and lunacy on display in this administration: the author claims that the lies are often “deliberately obvious.” The objective is a demonstration of loyalty; those who accept the blatant lies prove their loyalty. Those who reject or dispute them self-identify as outsiders, as people who cannot be trusted. As the author points out, this is a tactic used in cults and authoritarian regimes. “The lie becomes a bonding ritual, not a claim about reality.”
When propaganda and lies are understood in this way, it becomes clear why “fact-checking” doesn’t work.
The endless cycle of “Trump said X, but actually Y” doesn’t expose the strategy, it amplifies it. Every fact-check is free publicity. Every debunking is another news cycle. The lie has already done its work by the time anyone “corrects” it.
From a power perspective, this strategy delivers a base that cannot be peeled away by evidence, immunity from scandal or failure, a permanent grievance engine, justification for extraordinary measures, and a population conditioned to accept coercion “in defense of freedom.”
It also creates an enemy class: scientists, journalists, doctors, judges, educators. Once labeled as corrupt, they can be ignored, sidelined, or purged.
The essay provides a long list of the way the strategy has been–and is being–employed, and it will look very familiar to those of us who have been blindsided by assertions that are self-evidently bonkers: vaccines don’t work, elections have been rigged, public schools are indoctrinating our children, etc. etc.
Historians are just beginning to trace the way in which the Right has developed and pursued this strategy over the past 50 years. (The essay includes a timeline, and it names names.) It didn’t start as a coherent plan, but it developed into one over time. As the timeline shows, the destruction of Americans’ shared reality wasn’t random or accidental–it was built systematically “by specific people making specific moves at specific times, each building on what came before.”
The author breaks the history down into segments: the blueprint, the think-tank infrastructure, the merging of religion and politics, the building of the political machine, and so on. You really need to click through and read the lengthy essay in its entirety–it explains what the author calls the “parallel reality structure” we now inhabit–built by a stolen Supreme Court and nurtured by constant norm destruction, media capture, and Project 2025.
When courts enable rather than restrain, legislatures normalize rather than confront, executives reward loyalty over law, media profits from distortion, and capital hedges instead of resists, elite-led correction becomes structurally improbable.
For U.S. democracy to survive, enough ordinary Americans need to make authoritarianism too costly.
I know it’s long, but read the whole thing.
Comments