Truth: The First Casualty of War -- and Politics

That war and truth have never coexisted happily is something a cliché nowadays. The phrase "Truth is the first casualty of war"  has been knocking about for centuries. The idea, if not the exact words, has been attributed to various figures from the ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus to Hiram Johnson, a 20th century US senator. 

People continue to debate who said it first, but the oldest traceable expression of the idea came from the pen of another Johnson, the 18th century lexicographer and essayist Samuel Johnson: "Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages." [The Idler 11 November 1758]

[Image: Samuel Johnson by Joshua Reynolds. Johnson as nearsighted]

Johnson's sentence not only contains the basic accusation -- war annihilates truth -- but an explanation: interest dictates lies and credulity encourages belief in them. "Interest" could be the interest of the country, but more likely, the interests of political leaders. "Credulity" refers to a public willingness to believe the leaders' claims without verifiable proof. 

Johnson's main target was journalists. With the emergence and expansion of newspapers and journals in the 18th century, the tribe of "scribblers" had multiplied. Their chief employment was "inventing new amusements for the rich and idle." 

The most necessary qualities of these new journalists was "contempt of shame and indifference to truth." War provided the scribblers with new opportunities to showcase their skills and make a living. Johnson's claims about journalists may seem unduly harsh, but his basic contention about war and truth has been proven correct again and again. 

But as he knew, war is not unique in abusing the truth. He also coined the phrase "politics is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Even in peacetime, politics is a kind of war: a fight for power. In the heat of political battle falsehood is a routine tactic. "Interest dictates" and "credulity encourages" lying. 

Credulity is essential to the success of political lies. To paraphrase the English poet Arthur Hugh Clough, credulity gives the lie wings to fly. Without credulity the lie would go nowhere and die. With it the lie can go "viral," especially in the world of social media.

History abounds with political liars, some successful, some not. The most glaring examples, like Hitler or Stalin, can be misleading. Their whoppers were so big we can easily overlook the more modest liars of today, in politics and other realms, like advertising.

Recent figures such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson have had a long history of playing fast and loose with the truth before emerging as leaders of their countries. In spite of that, they attracted huge support from the credulous, thanks in large part to a media that either spread their lies or allowed them to fly without serious scrutiny. 

Ask yourself, how could these mega-fibbing clowns be elected leaders of two great democracies? How could a deluded lightweight with crackpot ideas manage to succeed Boris Johnson as Tory leader and Prime Minister? I mean, Liz Truss?

We can't blame the meteoric rise of Truss on British voters. They had no say in the matter. A majority of Tory Party members, less than 100,000 people "elected" her as the leader of a nation of nearly 70 million. That almost makes the US Electoral College look like a democratic way of electing a president. 

It is true that her own Tory MP's pushed Truss out of the job in a few weeks, making her the shortest serving prime minister in British history. But she had enough time to do huge damage the British economy and help her old employers, Shell Oil, make record windfall profits. [Image: Liz Truss announcing her resignation]

Truss, like Boris, is a shameless opportunist who says whatever she thinks will achieve power. If her intelligence matched her lust for power, she would be a formidable force. If.

Why did so much of the media treat these amoral and incompetent characters as if they were credible leaders? What interests were directing their rise to power? Why were so many people credulous in the face of their lies, bogus promises, and fantasies? 

More importantly, perhaps, is there any prospect of change? Or are we condemned to an endless parade of charlatans and fools ascending what Benjamin Disraeli called the "greasy pole" of power?

A brief glance at what claims to be accurate media does not arouse a sense of optimism. Many media figures today are little different from the sort of scribblers Samuel Johnson denounced. Actually, they may be far worse and far more dangerous, as are the "interests" behind them. 

Consider Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and the general run of FOX "news" reporters. Multiply them by hundreds of others like them on TV, radio, and social media. Consider the scribblers write for tabloid newspapers such as The Sun, The Daily Mail, and The Daily Express. Have a nice day. 

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

Willie Sutton Explains Why We Must Tax the Rich

According to a much related story, a newspaper reporter once asked the renowned bank robber Willie Sutton (1901-1980) why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is," he is supposed to have answered. 

Sutton denied ever saying such a thing. It was too obvious, he claimed. Perhaps he didn't say that, but he did say he loved robbing banks. It gave him a tremendous thrill, he claimed. And he was very good at it. He never killed anyone. He even carried unloaded guns to make sure he didn't. [Image: Willie Sutton]

Sutton was no heroic Robin Hood, despite some attempts to romanticize his exploits. He robbed the rich, but kept the proceeds. He spent about half his life in jail, but savvy technician that he was, escaped from prison three times. He was a master of disguise and subterfuge. His nicknames included "Willie the Actor" and "Slick Willie."

Nevertheless, one can't help wishing that a man of Sutton's ability could help our world separate the filthy rich from their ill-gotten gains. Perhaps its too obvious to need saying, but defenders of obscene wealth keep pulling the wool over our eyes and dragging red herrings across our path. 

In the world today, the super rich and huge corporations are like an enormous vacuum, sucking up an astonishing percentage of global wealth. In the process, they have caused or exacerbated enormous economic, environmental,  and social problems. 

Think Exxon Mobil, Shell, and other fossil fuel giants. Think Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and their ilk. I will give a pass to Bill Gates for his well directed philanthropy, and a partial pass to the rich who urge governments to tax them more. 

Increasing taxes on the rich will not solve all our current problems. But it would help more than decreasing taxes on the rich, the default position of many countries in recent decades. 

The promises of "trickle down" economics have proved false. Much like the "opportunities" of Brexit in the UK, the benefits have not materialized, only the costs. 

Higher taxes on great wealth would also help to restore some sense of fairness in our society, a social contract that any healthy polity must possess. Our present trajectory is leading us to an apocalyptic world. 

So, the next time you meet with friends to have a drink, raise a toast to Willie Sutton and don't forget where the money is.

[[Image: Willie Sutton in 1966]

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!