Verifiable or alternative facts — which is it?

“Alternative facts,” the phase made famous by Kellyanne Conway in 2017, uttered in defense of a lie put forth by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, has always intrigued me, both as a scientist, as well as an artist. When questioned by the news media, Conway utilized alternative facts to explain away the difference between inauguration attendance numbers provided by the White House versus verifiable figures promulgated by several federal agencies. By her action, Conway ushered in and, thereafter, condoned a new standard operating procedure, namely, misdirect the narrative by employing biased opinions to transform verifiable facts into either alternative facts or the now infamous deflector — “fake news.”

Could verifiable or alternative facts, opinion and a new ingredient, emotion, solve a perplexing mystery for me? As an artist, I am often faced with the conundrum of why a specific painting was rejected by one juried exhibition, while given an award in a different juried venue. Upon reflection, could exhibition judges/juries also be guilty of employing “alternative facts” to justify their decision-making? Why? The painting in question is exactly the same physically — same colors, same texture and same style. Given these identical verifiable facts, how does one juror/judge reject it while another presents it with a prize. Therefore, could these same verifiable facts be altered by personal opinion and emotion? No, as a scientist, facts are facts. Yes, as an artist, emotions, passions and opinions could be a prism (filter) which temper the acceptance of facts as true or not. Could this same psychological phenomenon provide a segue to how alternative facts, opinion, fake news and emotions influence our understanding of how politics were conducted within the first Trump Administration, as well as now during his second term?

In our current political climate, this question of emotions, opinions and fake news, influencing the acceptance of verifiable facts, appears to “sway” the somnolent-like MAGA followers of Mr. Trump versus those citizens who truly wish to pursue justice and truth. In the face of numerous state and federal court findings, special committees and congressional investigations, Trump still insists that the 2020 election was “rigged” and he is really the rightful choice of the American people. Even although a virtual mountain of evidence exists to the contrary, a significant number of MAGA/Republican voters, verifiable facts notwithstanding, with their emotions and rigid opinions intact, still believe in his every word and actions (Trump: King of the unthinking,” Storm Lake Times Pilot, Oct. 24, 2025).

Therefore, could exhibition jurors be made to reverse their initial choice (of acceptance or rejection of the same painting) by virtue of presenting them with verifiable facts? From my experience as an artist — no. Can MAGA voters, or other supporters of Trump, on the other hand, be made to alter their support of him by the presentation of verifiable facts? From my training as a scientist, it would appear not, because his followers are only driven by alternative facts, fake news, unsubstantiated opinions and the emotions said factors evoke.

Our long-established system of local, state and national governance is currently under attack by extremes, namely, far right versus far left, verifiable or alternative facts, and fake news promoted by rogue media-platforms. Therefore, as a country, can we ever move toward the center of the political spectrum, and conduct the business of this nation fairly, evenly and efficiently, if alternative facts, unsupported opinions and unfettered emotions are more relevant to making important choices/decisions than the acceptance of verifiable facts, truth and honesty? Even although these latter aforementioned elements are, at times, inconvenient and awkward, these same elements stand between chaos and order.

In all future elections, especially in this year’s Midterm elections, Americans will have the opportunity to vote on whether or not to accept alternative facts, fake news and unfiltered emotions, or rather enthusiastically endorse the utilization of verifiable facts (truthfulness) to govern our country. As a scientist relying on verifiable information, coupled with an artist’s passion, I rather sincerely hope all Americans will select and support the latter choice. If not, a true democracy may cease to exist.

In the end, maybe Hannah Arendt had the most thoughtful perspective on our current political climate, when she said “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist.”

John M. Mishler is both an Oxford University (England)-trained biomedical scientist and a Gold Medal-winning artist, whose artworks have been featured in juried exhibitions held throughout the United States. He resides in Harpswell, Maine.