Astigmatism

I'm troubled by the Trump presidency, but I accept the results. Perhaps I'm not as nervous as you, but I'm troubled. And there are many who tell me how to think about him.

What moved him was simply a craving for facile and meaningless banzais, for the gaudy eminence and power of the leader of a band of lynchers, for the mean admiration of mean men.

Indeed, another characterization labeled him as

the monumental fakir of history.

Those were the descriptions, however, not of our current leader, but of the first real “progressive” in American history, President Theodore Roosevelt, assessments by H. L. Mencken and Woodrow Wilson (as cited by David Greenberg in his book Republic of Spin, which is well worth reading). What they demonstrate is that even knowledgeable people may have slanted views of figures of their times. The terms they used then were comparable to what is said now about our president.

As I said in a prior message, history is not always correct – and even honest testimony of the times may be wrong. In this case they were misperceptions of honorable people, but they are more often the creations of politicians and their publicists. Those people have the job of convincing you that black is white, if you look at it the “right” way. And they have the responsibility for helping us form all our opinions in the manner they (are paid to) consider correct. And they also help us form images of the personalities they represent. Positive images, of course. Dedicated to truth and the American way. It's thought control.

But for every spinmeister who says “black is white” there is another who maintains that “white is black.” The script doesn't call for the view that black is black and white white. Accurate and objective determination of the facts is not part of the job; the challenge is to convince voters that there is only one way to understand the facts, and they'll tell you what it is, and anyone who disagrees – anyone who interprets events and people differently – is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Of course they are referring to those in the opposing camp.

Ideology is the prism of understanding. It is not only the moral and educated view, but the tool for convincing others of “Truth.” It's not always necessary. Some have internalized the prism and cannot see anything except through it. They're enlightened. Except to those with a different prism who consider them evil, while they themselves are virtuous.

“Spin-artists” are exemplars of this creative activity. They paint the activities of those they represent (and their families) in warm colors and attractive garb performing virtuous acts, while the opponents are depicted pejoratively, as unattractive stick figures out to do evil. And we can have no traffic with evil (except in a close election between unpopular candidates in which it may be necessary to proclaim our choice as the lesser of evils). And if we cannot tolerate evil we certainly cannot compromise with it. In the time until the next election we must stand our ground against those who aren't worthy of our admiration. In fact when the time comes we'll be pointing out whatever those specializing in spin tell us about the errors of the opposition. Almost all campaign publicity will be negative. It will be more a matter of why we should not vote for the opposing candidate than why we should vote for theirs.

When the election is over, then, we're faced with more contention than cooperation; with avoidance rather than action. And too often the supporters of those who were defeated are so convinced that evil has triumphed that they question the results, protest the acts of the winner, and refuse to cooperate with the opposition. Ideological purity, as defined by those hired to sell it, and teach voters to see it positively in every act performed by those they represent, is more important than honesty. Party loyalty and discipline trump doing the job for which the candidate ran, and for which some were elected. It is better to stand up for proclaimed virtue than to sit down and work things out with those whom your pitchmen have depicted as charlatans.

The challenge to us is to tease from the advocacy journalism we face – that of the spin doctors of the press – what we can of acts rather than the depictions of those acts by others. Difficult as it may be our job is to judge on the basis of accomplishments, not on the judgments of those who oppose those accomplishments.

“Spin” is not a new phenomenon nor a recent technique for controlling the mind of the listener, but it is a hindrance to objectivity. It is a barrier to intelligent evaluation. And it can – no, it probably will – obstruct any achievements by our government. That's the job of the practitioners of spin.

Happy Independence Day.  Make your mind independent of those who seek to take it over.

June 20, 2017