Published: October 12, 2008 01:08 pm            

The truth in the public square

“But this is what you must do: Tell the truth to each other. Render verdicts in your courts that are just and that lead to peace. Don’t scheme against each other. Stop your love of telling lies that you swear are the truth. I hate all these things, says the LORD.”

— Zechariah (NLB)



There are two approaches to political discourse between which it is important to distinguish.

The first can be characterized, “I want to discover what is true, form my opinions based upon that discovery, and advocate accordingly.”

The second is, “I want what I want. And I will manipulate, distort, and misrepresent the truth in order to have it. Truth doesn't matter-getting what I want is what matters.”

This is a short column to address such issues, but let's do what we can.

If everyone in America subscribed to the first approach-sincerely seeking the truth-this would not represent a cure-all for every difficulty. Far from it. Because people of good will can and do disagree on how to interpret and act upon information which is completely factual. This disconnect is often because we do not have the capacity to obtain or to process every relevant fact. We lack wisdom. And we are flawed morally, which affects everything else we do. But an approach of seeking the truth is still the one we must affirm.

For example, let’s consider the debate over climate change. One sincere person can look at all of the available data and interpret that data to indicate conclusively that man’s activities are creating a change in the earth’s climate. Another person can look at available data and determine that there is no scientifically-demonstrated causation between the activities of man and the temperature of the earth. In such a discussion, we can have respect for both parties (although, they cannot both be right).

But a participant may also appear in this discussion whom we cannot respect. This is the person who decides, for whatever reasons, that he wants to advance one of these points of view no matter what. And in order to do so, he is willing to suppress information that conflicts with his position. He is willing to intimidate others who do not support his own position. He is willing to misrepresent any fact that may tend to argue against his position, and he is willing to misrepresent any weakness in his own position of which he himself is aware.

He is also willing to attack the character of those who disagree. In short, he just wants to win. And the truth ceased to matter a long time ago. He has made his mind up, he sees what he wants to see, and he attacks any perceived threat. Or he may simply be a self-serving liar who has something particular to gain and operates accordingly.

The point is, while there will be honest differences between those who seek the truth, they are all separated categorically and profoundly from those who just want their way.

As we evaluate political candidates, we should make note of which camp they seem to be in-most of the time, anyway. Even honest people have lapses.

An honest person who is seeking office does not misrepresent his opponent's positions. And to “misrepresent” does not mean, necessarily, to lie in some legal or technically-defined way. To misrepresent means to give the wrong impression, even if the means of doing so meets some exacting definition of “not a lie.” An honest candidate will advocate for his own views and, in drawing contrast with his opponent, represent those other views accurately-even if negatively.

In addition, an honest person does not misrepresent his own positions, deny past statements, or obfuscate past actions. He tells the truth. It is not always easy to do, but it is fairly simple. He just tells the truth, plainly and consistently.

I am concerned when a politician seems more concerned about advocating positions designed to “get votes” as opposed to being true and sincere, and whose beliefs change with the latest public opinion polls.

I am concerned when a politician will look right into the camera and flatly deny that he said something which he plainly said a week ago. Or deny that he voted in a certain way, which he plainly did. And I am even more concerned when this kind of astonishing lying and denial is just accepted by much of the public.

The truth matters, and it always will.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.