Truth is very much on people’s minds these days. Our search for it is a noble effort, certainly, but seems fated to endure many setbacks.
Like many words and concepts, truth frequently suffers bruising encounters with politics, and has an often puzzling relationship with opinion, public and private. Both its bruises and its relationships are often visible in at least four critical areas of our lives: our legal system, our intelligence establishment, our news media and even economics.
Truth is a key element in our legal system, but there it is parsed and qualified into the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth — a recognition that even an absolute like the truth can be subjected to shading or embellishment.
We have the best legal system in the world, and it is the one where an individual has the best probability of justice. But, as we know, it does not always reveal the truth. Like all human endeavors, it is imperfect, though, and resembles democracy itself which, in the words of Winston Churchill, is “the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
In our legal system, though, the truth can be, and sometimes is, weaponized. Then it is no longer an absolute quality but something to be shaped to win a legal battle in court. There, during the proceedings, conflicting testimony is often given, and juries are left to decide which witness is more credible and use that to determine the truth…and, for all practical purposes, it is the truth in that trial.
We also have the best intelligence service in the world, but it contains one of the truth’s puzzling relationships — with opinion. The development, analysis, and presentation of intelligence findings are not devoid of opinion — often on the most basic and important issues.
The libel lawsuit brought by General William Westmoreland in 1982 against CBS News, for example, revealed a lot about how key intelligence information on the Vietnam War — at issue was the size of the enemy forces we faced — was developed and then shaped by various opinions before it was presented to policy makers. It also revealed, to a certain extent, how in an environment of uncertainty, where intelligence work dwells, differing opinions can be valued.
Irrespective of the outcome of the case, which succeeded principally in making everyone look bad, it did provide the public with some insight into the level, and the role, of opinions in shaping what is “known” about our numerous enemies around the world.
What the Westmorland libel case revealed most importantly was that despite the marvelous developments in technology, reliable intelligence analysis still requires people of integrity, discretion, perspective, and loyalty. Without people possessing those qualities the system devolves into a jukebox full of free range opinions.
We have a news system that could be excellent. All too often, though, it displays signs of its decaying finances and standards. Its fixation on headlines and sound bites has been a part of the news business since its beginnings, but it does the least damage when it is under control. There is little hope for that, though, in the present context of crimped budgets, partisanship and shrinking attention spans. If we are looking for the truth in the news, each of us has to get a lot better at critical thinking and in seeking out original documentation and data sources.
Economics has always had its share of different opinions, especially in the area of economic policy. Until the very recent past, however, these differences were largely confined to disagreements over economic theory and how accurately it portrayed the reality of commerce and finance.
One of the saddest days in the history of economic analysis came when we accepted the legitimacy of economic identities such as “liberal economist” and “conservative economist” and the even more partisan identities such as “Democrat” and “Republican” economists.
If our leaders truly want the most effective economic policies, there is only one category, or identity, of economist to provide it, and that is the “best.” In today’s world, though, it is increasingly difficult for economists to gain the stature necessary to influence economic policy without making a political choice.
It is difficult to believe that truth can flourish in a thoroughly politicized environment. Fortunately, though, the scarcity of truth is not a hopeless situation. In economic policy, for example, there are very few subjects that lack extensive writings and research — all published, available and widely unread.
We have to renew our independence by seeking the truth ourselves rather than accepting substitutes. There is nothing inherently wrong about opinions or politics. They often make good companions to the truth; adding depth and perspective to it. But they cannot be left in charge of it.
James McCusker is a Bothell economist, educator and consultant.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
