KLEIN News

Politics and Truth

15.01.2023

Dr. Dimitrios Karathanassis 

In: ContraLegem 2019/1, S. 34ff. 

  • The relationship between politics and truth 
  • The claim   that  politics  uses truth as the basis of its actions is important, but more important is a fundamentally critical attitude towards politics. 

Fake news and alternative facts.  These terms have been haunting the media since  Donald Trump took office. The term fake news may have existed for over a hundred years, but  it  was only through social  media that  it  became a  certain prominence.  In addition,  Donald Trump  regularly uses it to  discredit what  he  sees as false reporting. The term “alternative facts”, on the other hand, is a word by  Kellyanne Conway, advisor to Donald Trump, who thus obviously made false statements by the then White  House press secretary. , Sean Spicer,  tried to justify the  number of visitors at Donald Trump’s inauguration in front of the Capitol. “Alternative facts” was voted “Unword of the Year 2017”  in Germany and Austria.  

Both terms,  especially with  regard to Donald Trump, have provoked enormous outrage in intellectual circles.   Critical voices rise  and warn that these terms would pose a threat to  the democratic order,  and  comparisons are drawn to Orwell’s 1984.  In  addition,  various media keep constantly   updated lists  of  Donald  Trump’s alleged lies and never tire of emphasizing how  often and how intensively he lies.  

The core of   the outrage, from regulars’ tables to   feature pages, is the  following: The President of  the   United States lies and tries to justify his policy with facts that are not the  Truth. It is criticized that  politics (specifically: Donald Trump)  no  longer feels bound to the truth, but tries to seduce  the people  by lying. A Pied Piper who does not  play the flute, but strives for the alternative facts. And because truth is such  a noble value,  almost everyone  feels called to join this crusade in defense of truth. From  the pulpits of  the media houses, the fight to defend the truth is  proclaimed and armed with facts and investigative journalism is drawn   into the field.  

One   may  agree with this goings-on, one may even endorse it  (who does not love the truth?), but one must  also recognize the great danger.   Without any justification,  politics is exposed to the demand to  be guided by truth.  But truth, this is  simply misunderstood, is not a concept for politics.   Truth is a philosophical, religious and partly metaphysical concept.  Politics,  understood as a struggle for domination, has  nothing to do with truth  . The idea that  politics should be guided by truth is,  of course,  not new. In Plato’s Politeia this is clearly propagated, but Plato does not make  the mistake of using the concept of truth in politics by  politicians or by a  democratic one.  To want to  fulfill order. In its  ideal political state, which is  subordinate to truth and  committed to it,  the rule lies with philosophers. They alone, who have recognized the truth, may govern and  impose one, namely their  , ideal state  on the governed.  It is not    without reason that   Plato’s concept, although philosophically appealing, has been called fascistic 35.   For the truth of one does not have to be  the concept according to which     another must  be guided in his way of life. This also applies, however much they resist it  , to the natural sciences with their epistemic and falsifiable/verifiable methods.  Truth is   absolute only if  it is accepted and recognized  as such. 

     Propagating that politics should be guided by truth ignores the fact that this  has never been the case historically.  Politics is  the struggle for domination  and in the struggle for  domination all means  are always used. And if  politics   is   not conducted by the means of the strongest, but by   democratic means,  then politics  is always an attempt to convince the majority.  .  That this  should  be done on the basis of truth is perhaps a pious wish, but certainly not reality  and  not a realistic undertaking.    Persuasion is always an act of trying   to  declare subjectivity to be  objectivity.  To what extent this  is  compatible with truth is  not clear. 

The misuse  of means for the purpose of domination  and attainment of domination is not prevented by the fact that the  politicians (  the rulers) adhere to   the truth, but that   whose striving for domination is limited by laws. It is the law and the  legally defined and legitimized institutions that prevent  the abuse of power, not a narrow-lipped confession that domination in  Truth would be coupled.  Donald Trump had to experience this for himself at this year’s Shut Down. The  lack of laws and legally defined and legitimized institutions may  well lead to rulers presenting their truth as true  and   acting  on it. .     Recall  Colin Powell’s remarkable appearance in the  UN Security Council in February 2003, a few weeks before the Iraq war,  and the lack of   order.  I would like to    ask   the President-in-Office of the Council whether he is   prepared to accept the Commission’s proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment and the protection  of  the environment. 

 But the law and its institutions alone are  not enough.  In  addition,  responsible citizens are needed who  are willing  to form  their own picture of the facts  and events  and thus arrive at a truth. What is needed are these responsible citizens who  critically and constantly question the promises of  politicians and politicians who treat fake news and alternative facts as   what  they do. are: opinions and interpretations of events. 

The attempt  to put politics and politicians on a leash of truth may  seem noble  and sublime, but the  result is  the  delegation of responsibility, away   from  the governed to  the rulers. The people, the original sovereign, hand over the  responsibility of   determining the truth to the rulers,  thereby empowering them to assume the position of   sovereign. This  may be very  convenient, this may    be very relieving and the hope for a good, fair and  truthful ruler may be lived. But at  the  same time it is not only the abandonment of the (sometimes  perceived as annoying) individual responsibility of   everyone, but also the abandonment  of sovereignty and the voluntary subordination to each other.   a concept of truth that, even if  ideally based on scientific facts,  is an imposed concept of truth. And as a result,  an imposed concept of truth may lead to  calm and relief, but  also to the  restriction of freedom and sooner or later   into  a fascistic entity in which truth and its definition  mutate into the  task of  the state and  are withdrawn from the individual. 

One  might object that  the         media’s   outcry  against  Donald Trump’s  alleged  lies  at least  makes each   individual  more sensitive  to truth and facts.   36.  This, however,  would   require that the media  would  indeed primarily  exercise    their  role as the  fourth  (control) power. And indeed, any  journalistic ” looking  at the fingers  of politics” is  helpful, but the stark  divergence  between  the listing  of alleged  lies  of Donald Trump compared    to    those  other  politicians           suggest that  it   is less  about  convicting a  notorious  liar  to  save democracy  (because  such  liars  are  present in all      In    this context,    it is important to stress the importance of the role of the social partners in the development   of  newspapers     and online  subscriptions.  Trump polarizes  and attacks  against  Trump are    just sales-promoting. Truth, in other  words,  is defended not   because   it is   the truth, but  because  its  defense    is  economically  valuable. And  as much   as the venerable  media houses  try to   present  themselves  as guardians    of the   truth, the  more it  becomes  clear that  they  too    Subordinate the search for truth  to their  economic  and power-political  interests.      Above all , however, the control function  of the media  cannot be     equated  with  the reputation that  politics must   be  guided  by truth .   The former  is capable of   revealing  certain  transgressions  on the part of politicians  and politicians, whereas  the latter   is  not  only  an  ideological  undertaking, but  also  implicitly  suggests that   the media      To master truth  and   always defend it  without  weighing  interests.    Various examples show that  this is not  always  the case   (keyword  Claas  Relotius).         

  If truth is  to be understood  in a political context,  it can only mean  an individual’s search for truth  as his protective mechanism against domination and against the collective  . The attempt  to  bring truth into  the politics and responsibilities of the rulers is not only absurd, but also dangerous, because  this individual concept leads  to  a concept  that can legitimize domination. This is fine, for  example, for religions and their  institutions, because they not  only derive their  legitimacy  from this self-defined truth, but also their doctrine and  doctrine.  their world view. Europe has  experienced several centuries of the rule of  institutions  such as the churches, with the claim   to  be able to speak truth and  define truth. It required enlightenment  and the   idea that truth  must  not be dictated and predetermined by third parties, who in the worst case also exercise domination.  , but that the  definition  of truth must be  an individual matter, as the responsibility of the responsible person to qualify the statements of others and  to  take action against them  .  or to agree with them). It is   therefore not surprising that  every  dictatorial regime, every proto-fascist order, sooner or later establishes  a universally valid truth that contradicts  the Individual  is not allowed (Orwell sends his regards). 

The talk and excitement about fake news and alternative facts  is certainly not aimed directly at creating such an order.   But by formulating  the claim to tie politics to truth,  the breeding ground is  created for  the possibility of  a policy and of politicians who are precisely   the  serve supposed truth in order  to gain domination  and   legitimize domination. What  can  still seem appealing at first glance is in the end the creeping development  to  de-individualize truth in order  to  make it suitable for the masses   and thus   to create  a To create a concept of domination   (keyword Plato). 

  The claim that  politics   must  be guided by  truth is only a little removed from the admission that politics may define truth. From  the former to the  latter,   only a few measures are needed; history  bears witness to many examples.   If this happens and a dominion receives (or acquires)  the privilege of   defining truth,  then the downfall of 37 freedom is  also initiated.  Freedom,   however one may define it,  always begins with being able to  define and classify one’s environment and the events in it.  Freedom without the right to live one’s own truth is  not freedom. The restrictions   imposed  on freedom in  a  constitutional state are a compromise based on the observance of  universal rules for the purpose of peaceful coexistence. ,  but not with the intention  of  prescribing concepts of thought and  truth. Thoughts  are free. And they must remain so. 

If  one demands of politics that  it should  be  true and  that  it should be   based on the truth,  one gives up responsibility.  If, on the other hand, one does not expect   truth  from politics,  one remains sharpened and critical of  all statements of the rulers or those who  want to become rulers.     Rather,  such a  sharpened and critical attitude forces individuals to  engage with politics, to get  actively involved and not in anticipation of a   good ruler to  give up responsibility and thus freedom. The individual thus becomes  a “Zoon Politikon” and a free human being.