 |
| Taos, NM Fall 2017 |
For the last few years we have seen the re-discovery of an
old political strategy. It is not new,
but for a while it had gone out of vogue.
Voters demanded that their
representatives tell at least a semblance of the truth. But bald-faced, “I-know-and-you-know” I am
lying has made a big comeback. It is heard every day from both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue. Unfortunately, it
is also starting to creep (double meaning implied) into the Supreme Court
Chambers. We are seeing the resurgence
of strategic lying.
Lying has been part of human society since the first new
mother asked, “Isn’t she the most beautiful baby ever?” Humans have used lying, in various forms, to
influence enemies and build alliances.
I am from Texas.
The tall tale is part of our heritage.
It is an exaggeration of facts that is accepted as part of the cultural
language. Everyone in Texas knows that if
you cut the story in half (more for some folks) you will have some semblance of
what actually happened. But strategic
lying exists is a whole different ballgame.
Strategic lying occurs when a political figure stares
straight into a camera with a “Cheshire cat grin” and makes a statement knowing
that it contradicts what he or she has said just the day or week before. It is a known lie that is spoken and defended
as truth in order to gain some expected benefit. There is no subtlety or suggestion of
truthfulness. It is told and accepted as
truth despite it being known but unacknowledged as a lie. Unfortunately, the strategic lie is used by
both the right and the left. It is used
by the middle and by those who describe themselves as non-partisan and
independent. It is a fact of life in our
political discourse in the United States in 2018.
In this essay I will explore why I believe that this is a
very dangerous tactic and that the voters cannot tolerate it from anyone who is
asking for their support or vote.
Lying and the Social Contract
Open societies like ours are called voluntary associations. They depend upon a broadly accepted social
contract. This contract is defined
by social theorists as an implicit agreement among the members of a society to
cooperate for social benefits. It grew
out of the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in a book titled On the Social Contract
that was first published in 1762. His
ideas grew out of far more ancient ideas that circulated throughout the
societies that clustered around both sides of the Mediterranean for millennia.
His and the ideas of Locke, Hobbes, and others were the foundations of the
French Revolution, the revision of the British parliamentary system, as well as
the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
One of the principle tenets of the social contract is that
in order for the relationship to be viable some measure of trust must exist
between those who govern and those who are subject to their governing. But trust is a very fragile part of any
relationship. Even the most committed
relationships can be destroyed in short order by a violation of trust. When trust begins to weaken, the relationship
begins to lose its integrity. We may
prop up the relationship for a while, but ultimately, if trust is not restored,
the relationship will fall apart.
Weakening trust erodes the social contract. And lying erodes the trust. I have seen it too many times in failing marriages. It may begin with infidelity. But infidelity is forgiven much more often
than the lies that are used to cover it up.
The lying cuts the relationship off at the roots so that trust can no
longer feed or support the marriage.
The same applies to the social contract. A politician that makes a bad choice in a
vote can be forgiven as long as she or he retains the trust of the voter. But the politician that is seen as lying to
the voter will not be forgiven for poor judgment or a bad voting record. When trust fails the relationship is in
trouble.
If the trust is not strong enough to maintain the
relationship between the governed and the governors, the social contract will
not survive. With the loss of a social
contract, the voluntary association will dissolve. Trying to maintain it will result in involuntary
association. This process is called civil
war and it will likely end in fascism. At
root of this lack of trust is the strategic lie.
The Strategy of Lying
Who lies? I do not
know everyone, but I strongly suspect everyone lies. This is especially true of the person who
says they never lie. Lying is simply one
way we cope with uncomfortable facts and situations.
What is a lie? Lying is stating something as fact that is
either not true or being held as a fact that has not been proven. To be considered a lie, it must be understood
by the speaker to be something less than fully true. Lies come in many degrees and shades. We have hundreds of words and phrases that
help us communicate the idea of a lie.
We tell “white lies” and “whoppers.”
We can commit slander, perjury, cast aspersions, and engage in
hyperbole. We are very creative in our ability
to lie.
Why do we lie? In my opinion, there are four reasons we
engage in serious lying such as strategic lying.
First, we lie to protect another. We may tell a falsehood to protect the
feelings or situation of the hearer or to protect the reputation or livelihood
of a third party.
Second, we lie to deceive another. We tell a lie to make the other person
believe something other than the truth.
It may also protect them or another, but the primary reason is we want
to deceive them. There is always a
malicious intent at play when we are seeking to deceive them.
Third, we will also lie to protect ourselves. This is ego-based lying that seeks to hide a
truth about ourselves from others.
Again, it may also protect others, but the primary intent is to protect
ourselves from some negative outcome of truth-telling.
Finally, we lie in order to deceive ourselves. There are some truths that are too painful to
admit. We will tell a lie in order to
convince ourselves that it is true. This seldom works for long but when it does
the damage to the self is immeasurable.
For example, we believe that lying is what bad people do. I am not a bad person. Therefore, I always tell the truth. By telling this over and over we hope to make
it true. It does not work. We become not only a liar, but a
self-deceived liar.
How do we lie? We have two main methods for lying.
First, we lie by misrepresenting facts. We tell a falsehood with no basis in fact. It is more than a shading of truth. It is a bald-faced lie. This is the lie that can be told without a
beard to hide our facial expression. It
looks the hearer straight in the eye and tells an unqualified, absolute untruth.
The second method is a misinterpretation of facts. This is the origin of the old Mark Twain
quote about statistics being damned lies.
It is what Stephen Colbert referred to as “truthiness.” It sounds true. It sounds like it ought to be true. From a particular perspective is seems all
but true. Unfortunately, it is a lie
based on a faulty set of assumptions that plays into one’s hopes and desires
rather than to our reasonable self. A
popular, truthy lie that is current at the moment is, “All Mexican immigrants
are criminals. Why else would they be
sneaking into our country claiming asylum?
Why wouldn’t they just wait their turn through legal means?”
Strategic Lying Destroys the Social Contract
In the final section of this essay, I will explore how
lying erodes our social contract and what we can do to reverse the trend.
The social contract breaks down when we can no longer
trust that those who govern are telling the truth. This is degree sensitive. We can handle white lies. We can tolerate a politician lying to us to
protect us from something. We do not
need to know the secret negotiations that take place between countries as long
as we trust that they are being conducted for the greater good. If our trust in their motives is strong
enough, we can forgive and even applaud an obvious lie. However, trust evaporates if they fail to do
what they have promised and lie about their intentions. When the entire government lies in order to
serve the interests of a few individuals or a select group of people at the expense
of the many, trust ebbs. If the lying
continues, the lack of trust will destroy the social contract that supports the
voluntary association of governing.
Is all lying self-serving? Do people lie just to get their
way? I do not think habitual lying is a
simple matter of serving our needs.
Nearly everyone believes that lying is bad. Many folks, however, become so accustomed to
shading the truth or outright lying, that they no longer see it as bad. It is “deal-making” or being “street
smart.” It is not really lying. It may begin with a “harmless little lie.” But then bigger lies begin to slip into their
stories. Lying becomes easier with
practice as we self-justify it and redefine it as something that more closely
aligns with our desired, public persona or self-concept. I am a deal-maker and this is what I do to
make my deals. I would never lie, but I
am smart enough to not put everything on the table.
This slide into lying then leads into the final assault on
the social contract. Once we know (though
we may not admit it) that we have told a lie from time to time, it is easy to
assume that others have also told a lie.
This is called projection. If I
lie, then everyone else must lie as well.
When someone states a fact that we disagree with, we
protect ourselves from that truth by declaring that they are lying. They may call it lugenpresse or “fake news.” They
will ascribe negative motives to why the other person would lie. They may call them ignorant, dishonest, disloyal
or manipulative. Most often, they will
draw on their own personal motives to describe the liar’s motives. The other lies for the same reasons I would
lie, if I ever lied.
When the game reaches this level, the those who are
governed will turn on those who govern and the trust decays further. The voluntary association goes on life
support.
This trust will fall more quickly if the governed or those
who govern are unfamiliar with the assumptions involved in a particular statement
of fact. Without understanding the
basics of climate change, the whole argument supporting the human role in global
warming become unintelligible. It can be
passed off as a natural phenomenon. The
only inference the uninformed can make is to declare that those who talk about
human influence on climate change are lying.
Without trust in the institutions of science or our government, the
bonds that hold us together continue to grow weaker and weaker.
Once we suspect the motives of someone to be less than
honorable then anything they say can be easily dismissed as a lie. This will be especially true if we cannot see
the assumptions that support their statement and we do not want to acknowledge
that what they say might be factual.
As our perceptions harden, our trust becomes weaker and
weaker. The voluntary association we
share with them begins to dissolve.
If it is a friendship, we may simply walk away. Or we find a way to maintain the relationship
if it is useful to us. This changes the
nature of the relationship to them from being a friend into becoming a
resource. These mechanical, tit-for-tat,
relationships become highly reciprocal and manipulative. This is most common in a work relationship
where neither enjoys the association but only tolerates it because it pays the
bills. If this type of relationship
happens within a family, it becomes very formal and distant. The association becomes uncomfortable and no
longer serves its purpose. It is
tolerated only for what it provides those involved.
If this mechanical relationship no longer serves their
needs, they divorce. In the world of work,
they either quit or are fired. In a
family, they become estranged. If it
happens within a nation or culture, it leads a division such as East and West
Germany, India and Pakistan, and North and South Korea. These are all examples of cultural
divorces. Trust became impossible and so
one or the other decides to leave the relationship and the association dies.
But what happens when one of the parties refuses to leave
the relationship? If they are to
maintain the relationship, it must become an involuntary association and ways
must be found to enforce the complex, highly-manipulated relationships that
will be required. This was the case
between the Union and Confederacy in North America. The
ultimate expression of a broken association that is struggling to create an
involuntary association is civil war. It
seeks to control a fractured culture, workplace, or family.
How do we avoid either divorce or civil war? I believe that truth-telling, alone, can
re-establish the social contract and return it to a voluntary association.
Genuine truth-telling is more than spitting out factual
information. The information must be
true to the best of our knowledge. But it
demands more than a scrupulous attention to stating something honestly. There are several other conditions that
apply.
Truth-telling requires that we speak the truth so that it
can be heard. We need to speak in ways
that it is reflective of the hearer’s experience. It needs to be in a shared language. It needs to use words and illustrations that
help the hearer understand what you are saying.
It must also avoid creating so much emotional noise that it prevents the
hearer from being able to hear.
The speaker must accept full responsibility for the
communication process if they are to tell the truth and have it heard. Is this fair?
No. Is it easy? No.
Will it always work? No. But we tell the truth because we have a need
to do so. We are not trying to change
their minds or help them see the light. Our only concern should be to ensure
that they understand what we are saying because it is the truth. To accomplish this, we must accept
responsibility for the process of communicating this truth.
What can we do if others refuse to hear our truth as we
have spoken it? If we have done our best,
we move on. Truth, when heard, carries
its own reason to be believed. Perhaps
we are not the person to speak to this particular person about this topic. We can move on knowing we have done our
best. The situations may change, and we
may be able to return to this conversation.
But I can guarantee that “Yes, it is!” and “No, it isn’t!” does not
count as truth-telling. In fact, it only
fills the process with so much emotional noise that the truth gets lost.
When we engage in truth-telling we need to be fully aware
of the assumptions we are making. We
need to speak with deep humility confessing with Mr. Monk, “I may be wrong, but
I don’t think so!” And then we need to listen as they correct our observations
and thus reveal our assumptions. It is
always possible that we are wrong.
Truth-telling always involves acknowledging that we may have
inadvertently misstated something.
Generally, we need to speak the truth gently and
quietly. Shouting seldom adds truth to a
statement. It only adds noise and raises
suspicions that more is going on that simple truth-telling.
We need to let go of any agenda other than seeking to
speak the truth. Truth-telling is not
intended to convince or convict. It is a
statement of the truth as we know it, in that moment. Any taint of self-interest or hidden agenda
will taint the truth and make it more difficult to hear.
If we have an agenda we cannot avoid, then it is best if
we admit it up front and hope the hearer can filter it out of your
truth-telling. Only by cancelling the noise
will they be able to hear and receive the truth.
But, by far the most important condition for truth-telling
is to speak only after listening to another’s views so thoroughly that you can
restate their views to their satisfaction.
It is unlikely that we can ever speak truth to someone who believes that
we do not respect, understand, or care about.
Truth-telling begins with respect for the hearer as much as it does with
respect for the truth. (By the way, it
also grows out of self-respect, but that is another essay.)
With this kind of truth-telling, trust can begin to fill
the space between us and strengthen the voluntary association that binds us
together. It will help heal shattered
feelings and offer an open hand, palm up, to those with whom we disagree. If honesty and trust grow, that hand will be taken,
and the voluntary association will be strengthened.
Before closing I, want to deal with that feeling when we
feel that we are drifting toward an involuntary association and the possibility
of fascism? One word, “Resist!” How? By continuing to tell the truth. Protect and defend the weak and vulnerable as
best you can. But do not yield to lying
and the sort of tactics that are being thrown at you. Tell the truth. Do not expect to be honored for your
truth-telling. Do not expect people to
welcome your truth-telling. But allow
the truth you speak, so that once heard it will begin to change minds and
hearts.
The only defense against the dark art of strategic lying
is a radical commitment to telling the truth.
In doing so we can lay a foundation and a renewed social contract can
find new footing. Tell the truth as you
know it. Let the truth set you and your
neighbor free to live in an open and life-giving society.
Always hopeful,
Bob Dees
Bob’s new book, Whispering Presence: Inviting Mystery to
be Your Daily Companion, is now available from amazon.com in both print and
kindle editions. You can download a free
excerpt from Amazon. If you want a
companion who can help you find something more in your life, get your copy
today.
No comments:
Post a Comment