Truth is elusive in political talk

Amid the plethora of messages we encounter in our mediaculture—via the Internet, television, radio or other media—are those that spread lies. Often these lies are presented as facts; other times they are hoaxes meant to persuade readers of a particular political or other perspective.

We’re in the midst of a presidential campaign, and the claims and innuendos are abundant. And the true believers—those loyal supporters of each candidate—are convinced the person they support would never lie or misrepresent the truth.

When some nonpartisan fact-checking organization points out the falseness of a statement, it’s too late. People have moved on.

Cara Lombardo, in her article "Deconstructing the Rightwing Spin Machine" (The Progressive, February) offers an example. On Oct. 19 and 20, 2015, Sean Hannity told Fox News viewers that President Obama unilaterally decided that the United States was going to let in 250,000 refugees from Syria and other war-torn regions. Five days later, Donald Trump cited this figure in New Hampshire.

 

 

The claim, however, was completely false, Lombardo writes.

The fact-checking outlet PolitiFact traced the claim back to what appears to be a hoax article on a website called RealNewsRightNow. The article attributed the figure to a "Cathy Pieper" at the State Department. "We could find no Cathy Pieper working for the State Department," PolitiFact reported.

You can also check PolitiFact, which has won the Pulitzer Prize, for a list of 20 false statements by Hillary Clinton. Here are a few: "We now have more jobs in solar than we do in oil." "Every piece of legislation, just about, that I ever introduced (in the U.S. Senate) had a Republican co-sponsor." "We now have driven (health-care) costs down to the lowest they’ve been in 50 years."

False information can spread quickly. Following the Navy Yard shooting in 2013, writes Lombardo, "the far-right website Breitbart reported that guns are banned on military bases, suggesting that laxer laws may have saved lives." NRA member Ted Nugent repeated the claim on Twitter, and multiple Fox News contributors followed suit. The fact is that the rule does not ban all guns; one of the first Navy Yard victims was an armed security guard.

Politics has always drawn what Lombardo calls "strategic fibbing." For example, when Thomas Jefferson ran for president, a Connecticut newspaper cautioned that his victory would mean that "murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced." A Jefferson supporter then said John Adams was a "repulsive pedant" who had sent his vice president overseas to bring back mistresses.

Lombardo quotes Lucas Graves, journalism professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of the forthcoming book Deciding What’s True: The Fact-Checking Movement in American Journalism: "Some politicians will continue to make a claim as long as they think it’s useful, no matter what the mainstream media or experts say."

Thus for years certain politicians have questioned the legitimacy of President Obama’s birth certificate, a matter that was settled, and then settled again.

The truth is usually complex and nuanced—partly true or true sometimes. But most people want simple answers or statements, and those who offer the nuanced truth are often not elected.

Usually corrections to false claims come after the claims have been disseminated. And, Graves says, "Even when presented with new information, people tend to stick to what they have heard."

Racism in hiding

Mennonite Church USA, like other Christian denominations, is committed to becoming an anti­racist church. One of the things that makes that difficult is that racism, like many systems and like the “powers” described in the New Testament, is pernicious and likes to remain hidden from our awareness. Part of becoming antiracist is keeping our awareness of racism alive.

The opposite of that awareness is denial, and such denial runs rampant in our society. We like to pretend we aren’t as racist as we may be. A recent article in The Atlantic (September) helps call us to task.

In “Fear of a Black President,” Ta-Nehisi Coates, a senior editor at the magazine, writes that as our first black president, Barack Obama has avoided mention of race almost entirely. He goes on: “In having to be ‘twice as good’ and ‘half as black,’ Obama reveals the false promise and double standard of integration.”

The fact that Americans elected a black president is often cited as evidence that we have moved beyond race as a factor in our politics. But that notion is shown to be false.

This does not mean that opposing policies of the Obama administration signifies racism. Racism is a much subtler system.

Coates points to an irony of the United States: “For most of American history, our political system was premised on two conflicting facts—one, an oft-stated love of democracy; the other, an undemocratic white supremacy inscribed at every level of government.”

Coates shows this irony in the events around the death of Trayvon Martin last February. As soon as Obama addressed the parents and said, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” the case moved from a kind of national mourning to what Coates calls “racialized political fodder,” and he gives numerous examples.

Historically, Coates writes, African Americans have been limited to protest and agitation in addressing the disconnect between democracy and white supremacy. Now, when Obama pledged to “get to the bottom of what happened” in the Martin case, he was not appealing to federal power—he was employing it. “The power was black,” Coates writes, “and, in certain quarters, was received as such.”

“Racism is not merely a simplistic hatred,” Coates writes. “It is, more often, broad sympathy toward some and broader skepticism toward others.” He notes several studies that have shown the role of race in voting patterns and in opposition to and support for health-care reform. After Obama’s election, the rhetoric of fear became much more prevalent. Signs at Tea Party rallies read, “Obama plans white slavery,” and one congressman complained that Obama “favors the black person.”

The double standard of having to be twice as good “haunts and constrains the Obama presidency, warning him away from candor about America’s sordid birthmark.” Coates points out that in the first two years as president, “Obama talked less about race than any other Democratic president since 1961.”

The myth of “twice as good,” writes Coates, “holds that African Americans—enslaved, tortured, raped, discriminated against and subjected to the most lethal homegrown terrorist movement in American history—feel no anger toward their tormentors.”

Coates makes clear he does not agree with all of Obama’s views. He particularly abhors his embrace of a secretive drone policy. His point is about the pernicious presence of racism in our politics. “Race is not simply a portion of the Obama story,” he writes. “It is the lens through which many Americans view all his politics.”

The problem goes beyond politics and affects—infects—every area of society. Love, not fear, should guide us.

The cult of the individual--part 3

For decades the mainstream media generally ignored religion. Now we see articles on religion, which is a major factor in American society, with some regularity. For example, the April 9 issue of Newsweek proclaimed on its cover, “Forget the Church: Follow Jesus,” while the April 16 cover of Time ran the headline “Rethinking Heaven.” Even more notable than the prevalence of articles on religion is that many are written with some understanding of religion.

 

Even though I don’t agree with everything in the two articles I’ve mentioned, they are worth reading and discussing.

Andrew Sullivan, a Catholic, writes in Newsweek about “The Forgotten Jesus.” He laments how in America faith has become too politicized. Early in the article he asks two questions: “What does it matter how strictly you proclaim your belief in various doctrines if you do not live as these doctrines demand? What is politics if not a dangerous temptation toward controlling others rather than reforming oneself?”

He refers to Thomas Jefferson’s Bible, from which he removed all but those passages he thought reflected the actual teachings of Jesus. Jefferson (and Sullivan, apparently) considered this “a simpler, purer, apolitical Christianity.” That’s naïve, to say the least.

Sullivan assumes a certain framework for "politics." In Chapter 4 of my book Present Tense I use the word in a different sense, that of a community making decisions together. Jesus had plenty to say about politics (see John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus, for example), but he wasn't talking about American politics. 

Sullivan goes on to point out that organized religion is in decline, largely because churches have pursued power rather than faithfulness to Jesus’ teachings. He notes the Catholic hierarchy being exposed as “enabling, and then covering up, an international conspiracy to abuse and rape countless youths and children.” Mainline Protestant churches have declined rapidly, he writes, while Evangelical Protestants, to give one example, is the group that American pollsters have found to be most supportive of torturing terror suspects. He writes: “This version of Christianity could not contrast more strongly with Jesus’ constant refrain: ‘Be not afraid.’ ”

Sullivan claims that Christianity (and he means in America; he ignores Christianity in other parts of the globe) is in crisis. He notes that “many Christians now embrace materialist self-help rather than ascetic self-denial,” that “the fastest-growing segment of belief among the young is atheism” and that “many have turned away from organized Christianity and toward ‘spirituality.’ ”

His solution? Christianity needs to go back to Jesus by emulating Francis of Assisi, who did not seek power but lived nonviolently.

Sullivan makes an important point when he says this does not imply a privatization of faith, which has been a typical American response to religion. He writes that great injustices, such as slavery, imperialism, totalitarianism and segregation, “require spiritual mobilization and public witness.” But the greatest examples of such movements renounce power and embrace nonviolence.

The cult of the individual enters when we pit "Jesus" against the "the church" without designating what those words mean. The church becomes a monolithic bogey man that is the locus of all evil, while Jesus generally represents a nice person who embraces all my beliefs. We end up with an unspecific, simplistic "church" and thousands of Jesuses, all made in our image. 

Thomas Jefferson, a deist, exemplified this individualistic approach when he made a Bible that included only Jesus' teachings. Where did he think those teachings came from? Did he—do we—not recognize that Jesus was a Jew, a member of his religious community who loved Israel (the people, not the country) and criticized it from within?

There's no doubt churches and other religious groups have done horrible things, but they have also done wonderful things. And who made each of us arbiter or judge of those entities?

Generally I like Sullivan's article. But I don't like the cover title. It sets up a false dichotomy.

In the Time article, “Heaven Can’t Wait,” Jon Meacham, also a Christian, notes that while 85 percent of Americans believe in heaven, “we don’t necessarily agree on what heaven is.” 

Meacham explores the history of the afterlife and shows how understandings of heaven have evolved. He points out the difference between the New Testament's view of heaven and the way many Christians view it today. He quotes New Testament scholar N.T. Wright: "When first-century Jews spoke about eternal life, they weren't thinking of going to heaven in the way we normally imagine it." Instead, "eternal life meant the age to come, the time when God would bring heaven and earth together, the time when God's kingdom would come and his will would be done on earth as in heaven."

Today, Americans have different understandings of heaven. "Many Christians," writes Meacham, "often focus more on accepting Jesus as their personal savior and the subsequent enforcement of biblical laws in preparation for the world to come."

Others, Meacham writes, argue that “the alleviation of the evident pain and injustice of the world is the ongoing work that Jesus began and the means of bringing into being what the New Testament authors meant when they spoke of heaven.”

But Erik Thoennes, chair of biblical and theological studies at Biola University and a pastor, thinks this focus “tends to come from white dudes wearing skinny jeans who live in the suburbs and not poor, suffering people.”

Meacham seems to agree more with Wright, who is white but as far as I know doesn't wear skinny jeans, that this as the work of religion: “bringing reality closer to conformity with theocentric aspirations in a world in which loving one another as we would be loved is a sacred act and a way of expanding the dominion of God—or heaven—in the world.”

I also fall more on Wright's side, though I understand the need for comfort and encouragement in the midst of suffering, and I do believe God embraces us in life or death. One thing I like about this view Meacham describes is that it focuses on God's bringing justice to the entire creation. It's not just about my soul.

Both these articles are worth reading and pondering. They are also worth talking about with others as we do politics, discern together how we should act in our faith community.

The politics of inequality

Jeanne, my wife, sent me (bless her) the link below to a TED talk by Richard Wilkinson on the effects of income inequality in developing countries. It's almost 17 minutes long, but it's worth watching.

TED, founded in 1984, stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design and is a global set of conferences owned by the private nonprofit Sapling Foundation, formed to disseminate "ideas worth spreading."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

 Why is it worth watching? It describes a problem that affects many people, including you and me, and helps us understand what's going on. How we respond is another matter and one I will address briefly.

But first let me say a bit about the points Wilkinson makes, in case you don't watch the video (or even if you do). He shows that wealth makes no difference in life expectancy between countries, but it does within countries.His research teach used data from the United Nations and the World Bank.

The factor he delineates as key is how much richer are the richest 20% in a country than the poorest 20%. First, he looks at health and social problems and shows that countries with the least income inequality (i.e. greatest income equality) have the fewest problems.

His research team used the UNICEF index on child well-being, which includes 40 components and found the same trend. (He has helpful charts to illustrate these trends.)

The differences between us matter very much, he says. He shows that people in countries with greater income inequality trust each other less. The rates of mental illness are greater in countries with greater income inequality. I haven't said which countries these are. Unfortunately, the United States and Singapore have the greatest income inequality of the 20 or so countries included. Japan and the Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland) have the least income inequality.

Another factor (no surprise, and possibly the subject of a future blog) is the proportion of people in prison. And, Wilkinson says, this is not driven by crime but by more punitive sentences.

Then he looks at social mobility, which is greater in countries with less income inequality. He says: "If Americans want to live the American dream, they should move to Denmark."

How do countries reach more equality? he asks. It varies. In Sweden, where there is inequality in earned income, higher income is taxed more. Japan, on the other hand, has a more equitable income across the board.

Here in the United States, as you know, income inequality is great and getting greater, and the tax structure doesn't offset that much at all.

Wilkinson also points out that people's greatest stress comes from effects on self-esteem from social standing.

We are social beings, and these trends in our society affect us in different ways. They also affect our neighbors. Our spirituality needs to reflect this understanding. To live faithful lives in the Spirit, we need to recognize our social reality (and that of our neighbors) and strive for greater justice. 

If you follow the logic of Wilkinson's research, it's not only justice but our own well-being that calls us to seek greater income equality in our country.

But how? I use the dreaded word "politics" in my title. It's also the title of a chapter in my book. There I write that the word, derived from the Greek word polis, denotes a decision-making body. "Politics," I write, "reflects the workings of a community of people making decisions together to carry out their goals, the kind of life they've set for themselves."

We can try to work with others to make decisions that help create a better, more equitable environment. Doing so will help everyone.

Unfortunately, we have a politics of inequality in our country,one that tends to favor not only the richer 20% but the richest 1%. Helping bridge that gap helps us all.