Transparency, Tweets, Trump

The monokini, designed by Rudi Gernreich in 1964, consisting of only a brief, close-fitting bottom and two thin straps, was the first women's topless swim suit. His revolutionary and controversial design included a bottom that "extended from the midriff to the upper thigh" and was "held up by shoestring laces that make a halter around the neck." Some credit Gernreich's design with initiating, or describe it as a symbol of, the sexual revolution. (Wikipedia)

In 1968 Yves Saint Laurent presented the “see-through” look. Diaphanous fabrics had been used before, but the modern age of “transparency” had now arrived. And, though gossip publications had appeared earlier, People Magazine, which first appeared in 1974, was a success in satisfying the public's wish to hear about everything. Social media, including Twitter, more recently increased the availability of “facts,” whether true or not. (Recently it has become the method of choice for the quick transmission of political messages.) We all wanted to share everyone else's secrets – physical and intellectual.

And political – perhaps like the others not for the better.

We demand to know everything that our government is doing, disregarding the implications of sensitive actions being revealed to the world. And in response to the demands of voters, our representatives made “Freedom of Information” of most political and governmental processes, entitlements. And in the few instances when statutes tried to protect governmental secrecy in the name of security, we encouraged, and published, whatever “leaks” we could find. That the leaks were violations of the law, and potentially harmful to our country, was irrelevant. (The media, of course, defend them usually on First Amendment grounds and contend that we deserve to know. And in addition, leaks sell newspapers.)

Transparency has developed over time. And with extensive opposition. “Spin artists” have been around for a long time, and are utilized by both major parties (and advertisers of all types), to present a story told in their words and perspectives, rather than those of their opponents. Truth is not the issue – particular “information” is. We want transparency that supports our opinions – it doesn't create them, it just provides ammunition for us. If it doesn't say what we already believe, it is fake.

In the past, privacy and secrecy were respected by the media in general, and there was reporting only of generally relevant, and non-sensitive information, with “private matters” and those related to security – health, family issues, sexual proclivities and the like, in addition to secrets of state – considered to be off limits. But those days are over. We're eager to protest loudly against anything with which we disagree even if we have no information to back up our protests; however if we have anything to support our claims – and it doesn't matter if it is true or “spun” – all the better. Protests were far more limited in the past, but nowadays, with a mindset that tells us that we're entitled to have everything the way we want it, and with the promotion of group identity, they're very much in style. We refuse to countenance any disagreement with our views.

It is intolerable, then, if the information questions or contradicts our perspective. Transparency is only valid if it supports our point of view. It can only be believed if we can use it to support our preconceived notions. Otherwise it is not true transparency but spin and lies – the propaganda of the opposition – and should be akin to see-through clothing which is rejected by many as corrupting and pornographic (you “know it when you see it” – or see through it).

But voyeurs want a reason to gape. And ideologues want whatever will help them rant. And they feel entitled to it. That's what transparency is all about and that's what we deserve. It makes no difference that it was denied us in the past (probably justifiably) – even as recently as the last administration – we want it now.

If it helps us.

Happy Bastille Day.