| Truth, Trump and other lies... | ||
| We feel that, whenever a politician opens his mouth, it is to lie to us. Such a perception however is far from new. In Ancient Greece, for instance, the Sophists – who can be thought of as the equivalent of modern political spin doctors – were highly sought after for their rhetorical skills, skills which could sway public opinion. The increase in democracy, especially in Athens, had led to a demand for successful strategies in political oratory, and hence to the development of specialized techniques of persuasion and argument, a need willingly fulfilled by the well-paid Sophist educators. They prided themselves in being able to support, apparently quite rationally, virtually any argument, whether good or bad. In the drama Julius Caesar, Shakespeare gives Mark Anthony a very famous speech at Caesar’s funeral which uses a very effective form of rhetoric, no doubt introduced by the Sophists. He makes no outright accusations against the assassins, but seeks gradually to introduce doubt into the public’s mind as to the motives of Brutus and his co-conspirators: Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: If it were so, it was a grievous fault, And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it. Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest-- For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men-- Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral. He was my friend, faithful and just to me: But Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man. He hath brought many captives home to Rome Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; And Brutus is an honourable man.... I’m not suggesting that Trump is the equivalent of Shakespeare in his use of English, but I do see some similarities in how Trump presents his alternative ‘facts’, his questioning of established opinions. He tends not to deny that something is so initially, and says instead: “I don’t know, but...” or “I’m just asking the question...”, and then asks if something contradictory might be true instead. He, of course, provides no substance to back up his ideas. And then over subsequent rallies, he does a triage of those ‘facts’. He firms up those ideas given an enthusiastic welcome by his supporters and abandons the others. My own cynicism about government spokesmen comes from the days of Blair and Alastair Campbell, his spokesman. It is from them that we have the word ‘spin’, meaning to put a positive interpretation on things. Campbell was particularly prominent in this practice during his press briefings. In the age of Blair, however, spin was mainly limited to presenting the best aspect of a situation, rather than telling deliberate untruths. This was in view of the opprobrium any UK politician would be subject to both from Parliament and the press if caught in an actual lie. Resignation inevitably followed. But now we have the rise of the ‘alternative facts’ and ‘fake news’ presented by Donald Trump at a time when he dominates his party and most of the press and ‘influencers’ in the States. It is a style which takes no notice of truth or to the immorality inherent in lying. He and others with a similar disregard for the truth feel that there are no longer any constraints. And society is coarsened and divided as a result. He is encouraged in all of this by Musk. When Musk took over Twitter there was an immediate change of policy. No more would there be fact-checkers or any attempt to remove lies from its tangled web. The war of ideas was instead to go into full and immediate combat mode. In the name of absolute freedom of speech, opinions and ‘facts’ were not to be checked (‘censored’), but rather 'stress-tested' in the market-place of ideas. Those which ‘won’ would have shown themselves to be worthy of their place. It was to be the Darwinian version of the truth. A form of natural selection. But of course there is no single market in which ideas can be tested. There are many corners of the internet where arguments will take place and where, depending on the nature of the related echo chamber, an opinion will gradually become accepted as ‘Truth’ by those particular participants. Unfortunately, without any real attempt to verify matters, what is accepted as ‘truth’ may in fact be anything from actual truth to an outright lie. And in any event, Musk’s version of natural selection cannot make white black, no matter how many people agree. Although convincing to his supporters, his whole idea is a category error and so very misleading and also very divisive. In the days of the renaissance there was an inevitable tension between those using what we would now call the scientific method and those following the old ways based on superstition and tradition. Having said that, it took a long time for the change to bed in and for superstition to be recognised for what it was. We all know that the scientific genius, Isaac Newton, for example, had some very odd mystical ideas (no doubt heretical), including trying to discover the nature of the philosopher’s stone. And, strangely, there is now, mainly in the world of conspiracy theorists and particularly amongst younger people, a rejection of science and, in its place, a resurgence in reliance upon astrology, tarot cards, mediums, crystal and ‘natural’ forms of healing and other types of superstition. In America at least, after a long-term decline, there is now even a slight upturn in the number of people saying that they subscribe to one or other of the forms of Christianity. This appears to be a phenomenon associated with Christianity’s strange support for the extreme right in politics. The quid quo pro appears to be an increasing acceptance that being religious is an integral part of holding right-wing views. After all, if the ‘right to life’ is a major part of the Right’s agenda, they have at the very least to believe that humans have a soul as well as a corporeal existence. Those not used to critical thinking welcome simplistic explanations given, with confidence, by someone they think is on their side. And the increased willingness to accept obvious rubbish as truth means that there is less commonality in the accepted factual background to our lives and particularly in the world of politics. All of this helps to explain the widening divide between us. There is an increasingly vociferous and belligerent attitude which makes discussion of ideas so much more difficult. We certainly see evidence of this in the USA with a complete breakdown of communication between Republicans and Democrats, but also to a lesser extent elsewhere in the world with increased support for the extremes. France is a particularly good example, a country with no effective legislature. We have the party led by Marine Le Pen on the far right and La France Insoumise on the far left, neither able to speak to the other or, it seems, to any of the centrist parties. Altogether, we seem to be seeing societies formed, not of people who try to get on with each other for the common benefit, but societies increasingly consisting of cults, cults which ‘know’ that they are right and so will brook no disagreement or discussion with others. What have we come to? I wish I had a solution... 2 March 2025 Paul Buckingham |
||
|
|