In his fine book Enlightenment 2.0, philosopher Joseph Heath notes an effusion from former (and prospective) presidential candidate Rick Santorum. The Republican described how in the Netherlands elderly patients are \u201ceuthanised involuntarily\u201d\u009d and its fearful residents seek medical treatment abroad. Mr Heath observes that Mr Santorum \u201cseemed not to realise that the Netherlands was a real place, where people might hear what he said, and hope to set the record straight\u201d\u009d. But Mr Santorum was unmoved; a spokesperson explained to a Dutch reporter, without retraction or apology, that the former senator \u201csays what\u2019s in his heart\u201d\u009d.<\/p>\n
Truthiness is not confined to the right of the political spectrum. An article in the magazine Rolling Stone provided a graphic description of a horrific gang-rape of \u201cJackie\u201d\u009d, a student at the University of Virginia. Jackie allowed two years to elapse before telling the story to a visiting reporter. After the account was published, the Washington Post sent its own reporter, who established, as did the police, that few of the reported \u201cfacts\u201d\u009d of the incident checked out. Rolling Stone later withdrew the piece.<\/p>\n
But for Jessica Valenti, a columnist at the Guardian, \u201cit doesn\u2019t matter. Jackie is now another woman who is not believed.\u201d\u009d Ms Valenti is rightly indignant that so many women in America suffer assaults like the one Jackie alleged, and that true stories of such attacks are often disbelieved. And one can see how that indignation expresses itself in her vow of truthiness: \u201cI choose to believe Jackie. I lose nothing by doing so, even if I\u2019m later proven wrong.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n