Well, I do think that honest people can disagree in good faith over complicated topics, like how to run the economy, or how much of a problem global warming is, or what to do about illegal immigration.

So how about some simple, unambiguous fact that should submit to easy verification?

As of late last year, about 42% of Republicans polled disagreed with the assertion that Obama was born in the US, while only 27% of Republicans agreed [1]. Plus the fact that our current sitting president was instrumental in formulating and then popularizing this lie.

I submit this to you as a good example of 'know-nothingism' -- if there's some piece of information that challenges your world view, then you will do your damned best to know nothing about it.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-persiste...

Ouch. That is an excellent example.

Just a little history of the term FYI because it seems to be thrown around a lot here without knowing the background.

"Know-nothingism" derives from the Know Nothing party of the late 19th century that was known for its anti-immigration views. The Know Nothings originally held secret meetings and would tell people "I know nothing" when asked about it. So it was not originally a derisive term.

Then starting in the 20th century, nativist political sentiments (and this includes the "America First" mentality espoused by our current president) was called "know-nothingism" by liberal commentators.

So now it has morphed into a term of derision, however it still maintains its attachment to nativism, although anti-intellectualism is obviously a big part of the stereotype.

This is all to say that yes, know-nothingism is sort of a shorthand for Trumpism as far as I can see it, so it's kind of a truism to say that know-nothingism is prevalent on the right. As far as whether it's poisonous, or equally as poisonous as the cultural relativism of the left, I will demur.

"People in this country have had enough of experts" -- Michael Gove, in 2016, then Secretary of Justice in the Conservative Party government of the UK

I believe this was said while he was campaigning for Brexit. And it worked. There's a fascinating article in the FT today where people who voted leave are asked what they think of the current status. It is astonishing how uninformed the vast majority were and are. One person, for example, thought that we'd be out of Europe a week after the vote. Another - 6 months. Nobody understands why there should be a transition, negotiation, or the reasoning for the poorly named 'divorce bill'. Unfortunately, people listened to Michael Gove instead of the experts. They didn't even pay a cursory glance to expert opinion and now we're in a situation where even the people who 'won' the vote are unhappy. All of this could have been avoided by listening to the experts instead of an ex-journalist.

Your comment implies people who voted the other way were more informed, which I really doubt. This happens every election. Someone does a survey and finds out the majority of voters know nothing about the candidates or issues. The majority of people don't even know who their representatives are. Democracy is terrible.

That wasn't what I was trying to imply at all. My point was - maybe we should listen to the experts instead of self-serving politicians.

But which 'experts'? If the public doesnt already know, anyone well spoken can be propped up as an 'expert' for either side. With the lack of critical media, the public are left to decide with woefully incomplete information, and an untrue sense of 'what the experts think'. I honestly dont see how to solve it as everyone will just look back to 'older trusted experts' even more entrenched in the power for power system.

Edit: runon and typo

Besides Trump?