American partisan politics has become a smear machine, each side spouting derogatory language to marginalize the other. It’s corrosive. On the receiving end, I for one am tired of being characterized as a “MAGA Republican” or a “semi-fascist.”

And as much as I detest those ridiculous labels, tops on my hit parade of derogatory terms is “denier” — as in “election denier” or “climate denier.” With the midterm elections already in progress and with Hurricane Ian’s wrath still very much in evidence, we hear both daily. As commonly used, the term denier implies that the person so labeled categorically rejects established truth and therefore has no standing in legitimate conversation. He or she is dismissed as hopeless, irredeemable.

Having been in those crosshairs, let me push back.

Election denial first. In short, election deniers are generally assumed to be folks who have swallowed whole Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was stolen. Who could be so impervious to truth? After all, we know that the 2020 election was fair and transparent, that assertions to the contrary are baseless, and that Joe Biden is the president. There’s no room for argument, right?

Wrong. There’s vast middle ground here. Most of those dismissed as election deniers simply remember what they witnessed in 2020 with their own eyes. That election was a mess, far from fair and transparent, serving up multiple reasons to question the outcome.

My belief, and one that I expect is shared by tens of millions of Americans, is that Biden got more electoral votes than Trump in 2020 and is therefore our duly elected president — but also that the improper influence of social media, election process changes adopted under the guise of COVID, and gobs of money may well have made the crucial difference that boosted lackluster candidate Biden over the top. The propriety and impact of those factors have never been adequately assessed.

Let’s be clear: Distrust and challenge of election results is hardly treasonous, or un-American, or anti-democratic. It’s commonplace in American elections. Has anyone noticed that the sanctimonious voices who today shout “Big Lie!” are the same ones who for three years claimed that the 2016 election was hacked and stolen, and that Trump was an illegitimate president?

Then there are the climate deniers. Last week, as Hurricane Ian pummeled Florida, we watched sage politicians and pundits shaking their heads derisively at the pinheads who stubbornly cling to their denial.

But what exactly are those climate deniers denying? Do they actually think the climate is not changing? A few perhaps, though most are eminently sensible folks who accept the obvious reality that the climate is changing, but who emphatically reject the notion that our nation’s aggressive climate agenda will achieve any meaningful reduction in the adverse consequences of that climate change.

The earth’s climate has been changing for billions of years. Climate is not weather. Storms as powerful as Hurricane Ian have occurred many times before, and there will others in our future. Mankind’s actions have accelerated global warming to some degree, but reduction of future greenhouse emissions can at best slow the inevitable warming — and only at great cost and consequence.

Is there value in expressing informed denial? I’d offer a resounding YES.

That question is a part of the broader issue of free speech vs. disinformation that has been racking our nation. Who is the arbiter of truth? If we allow smug, self-appointed authoritarians to tell everyone else what they can say or think — or worse, what they cannot say or think — then our core value of free speech is meaningless.

Election security and climate change are real, controversial, and multi-dimensional issues. In both cases, embracing false narratives will inevitably lead to counterproductive policies and action.

Regarding elections, many worry about the threat to democracy caused by our former president’s alleged incitement to insurrection. But a much more proximate threat to democracy is posed by less secure voting and greater election influence by third parties (such as social media) that can dramatically undermine the democratic process. Do we really want Facebook and Twitter to elect our next president?

And in the climate arena, precipitous reduction in fossil and nuclear electricity production won’t fix the climate, but it will cause immense economic damage, decrease the availability of electricity while raising its cost, and harm our national security. It’s the wrong answer for America and the world.

So please sign me up — along with millions of others — as informed deniers of those prescribed election and climate narratives.