Thinking about Truth (pt 2)
So … should we blame it all on Harry Reid? Oh, wait a minute — let me catch up to myself.
This time, I want to pay attention to the problematic third part of the Merriam-Webster definition of Truth I mentioned in pt 1 — “a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true”. To be more pointed, I might even take the liberty of inserting a few words near the end, and say “a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or asserted to be, and then accepted as, true”. I think many of us would agree that there’s far too much asserted as truth these days, with no support, whether due to a shortage of critical thinking, or just exhaustion from the unceasing flow of information. And far too many people are willing to accept those unfounded assertions, form beliefs based on them, and act based on those beliefs.
A brief digression: In the golden days of radio, and the early days of television, there was a game show called “Truth or Consequences”, first developed by famed producer Ralph Edwards. It was so popular that its producers were able to persuade the town of Hot Springs, NM to rename itself Truth or Consequences; now it’s better known as T or C. Wonder if there’ll someday be a town renamed “Apprentice, KS” or “Bachelor, MS”? But … Truth or Consequences … how about Truth and Consequences, and Untruth and (more dire) Consequences? The consequence of sustained Truth-telling, gradually earned, is Trust. The consequence of repeated Untruth-telling, even if it’s sporadic, is not just a lack of Trust but a subsequent unwillingness to accept Truth from the same or similar sources.
Believe it or not, I do blame (former) Senator Harry Reid, not alone but as one among many others. Earlier cases of wilful falsehoods in the service of a political agenda date back (in this country) at least to the Presidential campaigns of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, but they seem, at least from this distance, more easily encapsulated and less likely to be relied on. (A good historian might tell us I’m treating them too dismissively; we’ll see what comments follow.) And Harry Reid, with his claims that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for multiple years, was not the first in recent memory. Who among us can forget the incredible (in the true meaning of that word) depictions of “death panels” as a particularly odious attempt to undermine serious discussion of the ACA. Or the Red Scare, more than a generation earlier, which led to the destruction of so many people’s lives and careers (and the insertion of “under God” into what was already a perfectly serviceable Pledge of Allegiance)?
Each time a figure of authority wilfully pushes a falsehood, or restates (retweets?) something which could have easily been verified or disproven, but which no one took the few minutes to independently confirm, the consequence is that all such figures of authority become a little less Trustworthy. (I sometimes wonder which is worse: the person who utters the false statement knowing it’s false, or the person [in authority, mind you] willing to utter and believe it with no evidence.) Of course, the other obvious consequence, as I noted above, is that too many readers or listeners are willing to accept the statement as fact (“I heard it from a Senator”), and we’re all stuck in a mire where death panels, Kenyan presidents, and the like have validity in many minds.
However, the second-order consequence is perhaps more troubling, and certainly more lasting. Each time such a figure makes an unfounded claim, and holds to it beyond the moment, it lessens the social/political cost for the next liar (yes, it’s time to use that word). I’m looking at you, Harry Reid, but also at numerous others from all points on the political spectrum, and from the commentator class as well as those elected to serve. The reason, it seems, is that we as a population become somewhat inured to the falsehoods, assume them as an acceptable (can it be?) part of the political or commercial process, and don’t count them against whatever credibility we otherwise attribute to the speaker. In other words, our whole social/cultural/political zeitgeist is coarsened.
I hope this is a reversible, correctable situation. In the words of a recent film, “I’m a closet optimist.” Still, it’s not a correction which can be made by a noble few; how do we attract more support for the idea that Truth still matters, and how do we bring about Consequences for Untruths? Can Superman help? Can Ralph Edwards? Anyone?