Authored by William Robert Barber
Within the generally accepted mores of our modern society, but particularly in the communicative contextual of politicians, seemingly, respective of the politician’s choice of expressiveness, truth is not a requirement. Like never before, the rhetorical inventories for politicians consist of exaggeration, disinformation, misinformation, and outright distortion; such far less than the truth expressions have overwhelmed straightforwardness, honesty, and candor. But most regretfully, nowadays the public considers such bombastic lying as the norm.
It seems that in the current era of mass media what is demonstrably true and what is believed to be true is negligible. Indeed, for the majority of constituents the greater part of a politician’s persuasion is not presumed to be founded on the pragmatic experience of sensory observation but on the politician’s particular style of delivery. The merit of a speech’s content is judged more by the eloquence of intonations, the stage from which the oral appeal is presented, instead of the actual of what is being said.
With political speech, evidence that deductively form the basis of truth is set aside. No matter the depths of its veracity, evidence always looses when contested with the simplicity of an often repeated catchy phrase or slogan. Repetition’s only requirement for believability is reiteration of the same message over and over again.
In other words, when politicians speak, the objective truth of the concern has only the slightest of relevance as to its truthfulness. Although we persons of the modern era pride ourselves as logical and scientifically founded, in the full view of all media outlets politicians have seized upon the populous inclination to compromise, tolerate, and lower truth’s criteria. Wherein the objective measure of truthfulness is ostensibly valued as the sum of deductive inquiry, this empirically definitive platform is not the criteria of or for popular believe. Hence in today’s America politicians can maneuver and manipulate the truth at the will of the last poll or focus group findings.
Because of lazy minds and the lenient characteristics of inductive thinking the “average Joe or Mary” equates general information as if it was the result of specific intelligence gathering. They encompass rumor and innuendo as factual or at worst something close to the fact.
I do want to believe that when it comes to items of material consideration such as national security, legislation, presidential edicts, orders issued by the judicial system, and strategic military decisions, I truly need to believe that the contextual composition of these considerations are prepared free of rhetorical distortion or purposeful ambiguity. I want to believe that the propagated intent of the politician is founded on the resolute, willful utility of truthfulness — but of course I do not.