Politics and Truth
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.
