International Writers Magazine:
Truth and Lies - From our Archives
Lies, Truth and Opinions
politicians lie? Niccolo Machiavelli thought if politicians did
not lie they would surely fail because lying was fundamental to
politics. Not to lie ignored reality. That is different, however,
than saying only a compulsive liar can succeed in politics, an inference
our political leaders are sociopaths. Even extreme cynics are not
prepared to go that far.
There are philosophers
such as Plato and Leo Strauss that say lying is essential to the politicians
art. Only by lying, they declare, can leaders make the public see what
benefits them. Not to lie, given the quality of public understanding,
viewpoint is so conditioned by the "relativity" stressed by
the natural and social sciences, lies are accepted as integral to the
political process and treated by the public with a sort of "I hope
it is true" wish fulfillment. The public hears so many lies from
so many politicians they dont stop to think of the consequences.
When asked to comment on political lying, the public replies: "All
politicians lie, so what is the big deal?" And sometimes what they
suspect are lies, are not really lies, but opinions, the difference
being unknown to them.
Let us therefore make a quick and simple definition of what is a lie,
what is a truth, and what is an opinion. In this essay truth is synonymous
with fact, something objectively provable that cannot be changed by
singular or collective human will. However, this lie or this truth does
not necessarily refer to causation surrounding a fact. An example, the
United States invasion of Iraq in 2003 actually happened. It is a fact,
a truth. Whether or not the invasion was justified is another matter.
A fact can be buttressed by lies or opinions. Did Saadam Hussein aid
Bin Laden in his 2001 terrorism attacks on New York City and the Pentagon?
If true, that fact helps justify the invasion. If its proponents knew
it was not true, it is a lie. The area between factual truths and actual
lies always has to do with shades of opinion.
Political lying is a complicated, many pronged entity, often described
by supporters as a creative act. This creativity to the liar hopefully
either replaces or influences reality. Modern consultants, advertising
specialists, spin doctors, instruct the politician to lie so as to manipulate,
and convince an unsuspecting public that something horrible is only
preventable by governmental action. If the public goes along with the
recommendation, and if the government lied about WMD and the Bin Laden
and Hussein tie-in, political lies changed reality in the Middle East
forever. The recent billions of dollars paid in public tax dollars to
bailout Wall Street, may also change history. Were all those scare tactics
necessary? We will have to wait and see.
It is crucial we differentiate lies from opinion. Before the invasion
of Iraq, the Bush administration claimed Saadam Hussein possessed weapons
of mass destruction. It was later discovered that he did not. Was this
a lie by the Bush Administration? Were these accumulations of innuendos
and "expert opinions," as stated in the United Nations by
a Secretary of State known for his integrity, actual lies? Those saying
no would claim everything pointed toward the weapons being there and
collectively added up to a fact. Later, when no weapons were discovered,
the administration said they had been misled by all those "facts"
and were not guilty of lying, rather misinformed. Therefore, the facts
had disappeared and their actions based on mistaken opinion. One thing
is certain: those false facts, honestly believed or not believed by
the Bush Administration, invoked fear, and from that fear a lukewarm
public acceptance of the United States invasion. When these so called
facts became later disapproved, a high percentage of the pubic disapproved
of the invasion.
This indicates we, the public, must be highly critical of politicians
so called empirical facts, even if stated by their own government. We
must understand the difference between facts, lies, and opinions, so
we can at least listen tolerate our politicians and continue a political
dialogue. A difficult task, to say the least. There has been so many
past mistakes in understanding it is impossible to list them all. The
imagined attack of North Korean gunboats on United States naval ships
and the resultant Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that led to the Vietnam
War, was certainly one. Supposedly, the Navy fired at these North Vietnam
gun boats to defend themselves. Years later, Lyndon Johnson admitted
that for all he knew the Navy may have firing at whales that day. Yet
this so-called attack was used as a pretext by a complacent Senate for
the war, and therefore drastically reduced national debate on the subject.
Surprisingly, this truth surrounding the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is
not well known by Americans.
However, a revisionist interpretation of a famous historical incident is becoming
more and more accepted; it has been long rumored, and often stated by
historians such as James Beard, that Franklin Roosevelt provoked the
Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor. Research has now shown that not
only did *FDR provoke the Japanese, he knew the exact day and time the
Pearl Harbor bombing would take place (the United States had cracked
the Japanese secret code weeks before December 7, 1941.) Roosevelt not
only did nothing to prevent the attack, he encouraged it. As terrible
a revelation as this is to most Americans, it has become accepted by
many diplomatic thinkers, Henry Kissinger being the most notable. In
his book "Diplomacy" Kissinger not only acknowledges that
FDR knew the Pearl Harbor attack imminent, but allegedly praised the
President for his deceit, calling it courageous because it allowed the
United States to enter the Second World War in time to save the Allied
cause. *This may not be true.
Should our leaders lie to protect us? The Gulf of Tonkin resolution
and its acceptance by the United States Senate allowed LBJ the luxury
of skirting a national debate over the wisdom of going to war in an
obscure Far East nation. In that war Americans eventually lost over
50,000 troops, untold billions of dollars, and faith in what their nation
was all about. LBJs lie caused a disaster. On the other hand,
FDRS lying about Pearl Harbor led us into a war that we not only
helped win, but afterwards emerged the strongest nation in the world.
One must remember the difference between a lie and an opinion can be
subtle, made even more so in a market
economy where opinions are tossed around as facts often to the point
nobody bothers checking out the truth. "Of course, a business will
claim such and such is true, if you believe it they make money,"
says the public. But like it or not, the public must become attuned
to the difference between truth and opinion, and understand that even
though a factual truth may be a nuance, it is still factual and a basis
for either truth, or an opinion based on truth. If the public succeeds
in discerning the truth, they can see beyond their leaders opinions,
perhaps understand their motivations, and reject or accept a course
of action that is in their interest.
Such public wisdom might also save the leader from self-deceit. Leaders
who believe lies that the public believes as well, may base policies
on their whims, and that could prove catastrophic. When the lies are
discovered, the leader will be disgraced, the nation harmed. Facts stick
around longer than opinions or lies. Despite elimination of Trotskys
name in Soviet history books, today Russians know he played a major
role in their 1917 revolution. The majority of United States citizens
will soon realize the "Day of Infamy" at Pearl Harbor meant
more than Japanese duplicity. Perhaps looking further back in or history,
they we will also realize the main motivation for the Mexican-American
War arose from Manifest Destiny (translates as the United States deserving
land because it desired land) more than a border dispute with Mexico.
Facts, although often at first not having the power of opinion, don't
go away, and when discovered can change opinion. Facts provide continuance
in history that stem from permanence in thought and deed. They act as
the pillars, the props, that make history something more than lies and
insufficiently researched opinions passed down by political leaders
and tendentious historians. In other words, truth will win out among
those whose precepts stem from the Enlightenment.
There are objections to such optimism, one being that in a fast moving
world such as ours, does historical truth have the time to win out before
lies engulf us all?
© James Morford
all rights reserved - all comments are the writers' own responsibility
- no liability accepted by hackwriters.com or affiliates.