I’m trying to think about it in the broader context. Recently I’ve read a book about the success of the “science” in the last centuries, which claimed that people started to really appreciate facts and gradually stopped believing in the dogmas not supported by facts, and that that all started with the discovery of the new continent, against the knowledge of the then-highest “authorities” (including, of course, the religious ones). According to the book, the beginning of modern sciences had to take the terminology from the court procedures — “establishing” (without a doubt) the “facts.”
Maybe being a lawyer primed you to recognize the growing trend in the party you supported where the “facts” became less of value?
I’ve also read this article that I find very significant:
Donald Trump is a self-help apostle. He always has tried to create his own reality by saying what he wants to be true…www.politico.eu
Now I think that maybe the general attitude of effectively accepting to live in delusions was the trend that, step by step, started to dominate the party: regarding to the topic I’m interested in, the climate change, I’ve read that the non-acceptance of the facts (in the ancient “well established” sense) is fundamentally based on the ideological premise of considering “dangerous” (“a ploy by the political opponents”) any attempts of the “regulation” and maybe all that was supported too much by the modern beliefs originating in the “positive thinking,” especially the particular approach to the “reality,” the one which teaches you to stubbornly believe your own narration until it becomes the “truth,” as discussed in the Politico article.
In short, maybe the article I’ve linked recognized a belief system that directly influenced much more people than just Trump, and which made socially acceptable not valuing the process and the products of “establishing” the facts, contrary to the trend of more centuries. I really think that that attitude has spread over more than just one party, one country and even one continent (but not by accident).
In my view, the problem is really among those who decide about the long-term directions for the whole body. The voters aren’t the real problem, most will never question their loyalty, they have to accept what’s given to them. That’s how I can also imagine that your brief is more directed to the leadership than to the every member.