I am always wary when someone says, “Power to THE people!” I’ve learned they usually mean, “Power to MY people!”
Senator Joe Biden/September 1974
Biden was the keynote speaker at the annual meeting of the Council of State Community Affairs Agencies in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The topic was the consolidation of several legacy programs administered by the the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Instead, the monies would become state block grants allowing each jurisdiction to determine the allocation among a number of eligible uses (e.g. housing, sewer and water projects). NOTE: The proposal was shelved until the 1980s when block grants became a centerpiece of the Reagan administration’s domestic policy.
I start with this story because Biden’s words made me reassess my own understanding of the words “power” and “empowerment.” Both now seemed more temporal and less absolute. Power was good in the hands of people who agreed with my values and ideology. Less so if held by those who did not. From then on I was skeptical of any debate over the consolidation or decentralization of power. It may be the reason why I hesitate to advocate eliminating the filibuster, though my skepticism is waning. But that’s a topic for another day.
Bottom line? Regardless of one’s view whether power is good or bad, the word itself confuses more than it clarifies. Which brings me to today’s topic. I now believe the word “truth” may be the root cause of the political and cultural divisions within the United States. The proverbial phrase “absolute power corrupts absolutely” also applies to truth.
In Jon Huer’s examination of academia titled Tenure for Socrates, the author explores the misconception facts and truth are one and the same. He correctly points out facts are discovered; truths are created. He offers the following as evidence.
Truth, if rejected, is found to be false. Facts, if rejected, are to be incorrect…Truth is determined by the inquirer’s intention; facts by the inquirer’s outcome.
No truth has been changed by applying further knowledge. Many a fact, however, has been discarded when proven incorrect.
Consider one of the most iconic exchanges in filmdom history, the court martial confrontation between Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) and Colonel Nathan Jessep (Jack Nicholson) in A Few Good Men.
KAFFEE: Jessup, did you order the Code Red?
JESSUP: You want answers?
KAFFEE: I want the truth!
JESSUP: You can’t handle the truth!
Jessup then lays out HIS truth based on his personal values and experience. “Son, we live in a world with walls that must be guarded.” Does Kaffee challenge Jessup’s truth? No! He abandons the quest for truth in exchange for the facts.
KAFFEE: Did you order the Code Red?
JESSUP: You’re goddamn right I did!
Even as Jessup is dragged out of the courtroom, he continues to justify his actions based on HIS truth. As Charlton Heston might say, “Jessup will give up his truth when you pry it from his cold, dead hands.”
This fictional example helps explain why the misconception about facts and truths may also be at the heart of tribal divisiveness in the American body politic. Consider the current debate over critical race theory (CRT). The concept, introduced in the 1970s at Harvard Law School, posits centuries of institutional racism still have a lasting effect on the financial, legal and social status of minorities in the United States. At the same time, some of the loudest CRT critics decry the reexamination of pre-Civil War America, including the demotion of confederate generals and political leaders from “heroes” to “seditionists.” They argue, slavery was critical to half the fledgling country’s economy, without which the U.S. would not have become the commercial powerhouse it is today. In other words, slavery was an unfortunate but necessary chapter in the nation’s history.
These seemingly conflicting views are not incompatible. Both admit slavery and antecedent dependence on minority labor, often compensated below the levels of non-minority workers, exist. That is a fact. But one tribe’s “truth” is that years of incremental progress on issues of race have adequately addressed past sins. The other tribe believes those injustices have not yet been reconciled. And as Huer suggests, no new knowledge or data will loosen the hold those opposing truths have on either tribe.
In closing, let me paraphrase what I heard Joe Biden say 47 years ago. “Be wary when someone says they are on a quest for THE truth. What they mean is that they are seeking to affirm THEIR truth.”
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP
“Truth” is a process that results in a “truth” – more or less. The Enlightenment freed up the process and began to evaluate and assess the results of the process as more or less leading to the “truth”. It’s all in “deductive” or “inductive” reasoning processes that are based on credentialed input from those that actually have a margin of credentials. Einstein was assessed by his cohort’s qualified “experts” – and we went from there by give, take, conclusion – and onward to fusion technology. Courts of law must do this every day – using juries, established law, rules of evidence, and oversight of “witness” testimony under oath by competent attorneys and a competent – relatively impartial and competent judge. Expert testimony is codified in several formats – Federal and State. Experts are critical in certain areas. But not all. I can’t discuss brain surgery, but I can opine on seeing a car run a red light. The point…”truth” involves a seeking process. A credible, functional seeking process. Without guardrails, truth becomes whatever the loudest mouth claims it to be.