Truth or Consequences: Not just a town in New Mexico

In response to the announcement by the host of the radio quiz show "Truth or Consequences" that he would air a program from the first town that renamed itself after the show, Hot Springs, NM won the honor officially changing its name on March 31, 1950. And, to my mind ironically, the program was broadcast from there on April 1st or April Fool’s Day.

On the show, contestants received roughly two seconds to answer a trivia question correctly, generally an off-the-wall question that no one would be able to answer correctly before the buzzer went off. If the contestant could not complete the "Truth" portion, there would be "Consequences," usually a zany and embarrassing stunt. From the start, most contestants preferred to answer the question wrong in order to perform the stunt.
At this juncture of history, political theater has become a twist on this improbable theme. The President of the United States has chosen to “answer the question wrong” (even the most straightforward and earnest questions posed by respected journalists and concerned citizens) with shockingly wrong and inane answers, and following the game show format, seemingly in order to perform “zany and embarrassing” stunts in front of the widest audience imaginable. The notable twist is that we the people are the ones who are and should be embarrassed. And as for POTUS, it is well known that those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder are unable to see themselves as others do and he seems completely immune to shame.

I have been heartened to see that even among those most politically aligned Senators and members of Congress there is backlash about this violence being done to truth. Perhaps nowhere more eloquently and stridently than in Senator Jeff Flake’s scathing message to the Senate from the podium on Jan. 17, 2018. He opened his remarks saying “Mr. President, near the beginning of the document that made us free, our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident...” So, from our very beginnings, our freedom has been predicated on truth. The founders were visionary in this regard, understanding well that good faith and shared facts between the governed and the government would be the very basis of this ongoing idea of America.”  The speech was lengthy and full of salient details and I will only quote a few of his particularly pungent remarks:

   “It is for that reason that I rise today, to talk about the truth, and its relationship to democracy. For without       truth, and a principled fidelity to truth and to shared facts, Mr. President, our democracy will not last.”

    “2017 was a year which saw the truth – objective, empirical, evidence-based truth -- more battered and             abused than any other in the history of our country, at the hands of the most powerful figure in our                   government. It was a year which saw the White House enshrine “alternative facts” into the American lexicon,     as justification for what used to be known simply as good old-fashioned falsehoods.”

     “It was the year in which an unrelenting daily assault on the constitutionally-protected free press was                launched by that same White House, an assault that is as unprecedented as it is unwarranted. “The enemy        of the people,” was what the president of the United States called the free press in 2017. Mr. President, it is      a testament to the condition of our democracy that our own president uses words infamously spoken by          Josef Stalin to describe his enemies. It bears noting that so fraught with malice was the phrase “enemy of          the people,” that even Nikita Khrushchev forbade its use, telling the Soviet Communist Party that the phrase      had been introduced by Stalin for the purpose of “annihilating such individuals” who disagreed with the            supreme leader. And, of course, the president has it precisely backward – despotism is the enemy of the            people. The free press is the despot’s enemy, which makes the free press the guardian of democracy. When      a figure in power reflexively calls any press that doesn’t suit him “fake news,” it is that person who should          be the figure of suspicion, not the press.”

     “No longer can we compound attacks on truth with our silent acquiescence. No longer can we turn a blind        eye or a deaf ear to these assaults on our institutions. And Mr. President, an American president who                cannot take criticism – who must constantly deflect and distort and distract – who must find someone else        to blame -- is charting a very dangerous path. And a Congress that fails to act as a check on the president          adds to the danger.”

      “We are a mature democracy – it is well past time that we stop excusing or ignoring – or worse, endorsing -      these attacks on the truth. For if we compromise the truth for the sake of our politics, we are lost.”

When in college I majored in Philosophy and was drawn to the field by a class I took in Ethics. A close study of ethical traditions throughout human histories and cultures inseparably links ethics to truth telling. As some of you are aware I serve as an Ambassador for the Parliament of the World’s Religions and in preparation for a talk I recently gave to a Quaker Meeting on the Parliament’s Mission, Vision and Approach I re-read the Parliament’s initial declaration at the first modern Parliament in 1993, Towards a Global Ethic. I had forgotten the great emphasis that was placed on the importance of truthfulness. This document was drafted by Hans Küng, President of the Foundation for a Global Ethic (Stiftung Weltethos), in cooperation with the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religion’s staff and Trustees and experts. Küng is a noted German Catholic Theologian who has long been willing to speak truth to power and was stripped of his authority to teach Catholic Theology in part for his stance against the dogma of Papal Infallibility, a notion that is close to the understanding that many have of the authority of the President of the United States.

Towards a Global Ethic details four major principles or directives. This document draws on many of the world's religious, spiritual, and cultural traditions, identifying the Golden Rule: “What you wish done to yourself, do to others!” as an "unconditional norm for all areas of life".  It asserts that these four principles "can be affirmed by all persons with ethical convictions, whether religiously grounded or not". The third principle is Commitment to a Culture of Tolerance and a Life of Truthfulness, which upon careful consideration are inseparable precepts. Although I encourage everyone to read this beautifully crafted, well-reasoned document in its entirety (click this link) I am quoting the entirety of this third principle as central to the issues I’m addressing in this article:

3.   Commitment to a Culture of Tolerance and a Life of Truthfulness

Numberless women and men of all regions and religions strive to lead lives of honesty and truthfulness.  Nevertheless, all over the world we find endless lies and deceit, swindling and hypocrisy, ideology and demagoguery:

• Politicians and business people who use lies as a means to success;
• Mass media which spreads ideological propaganda instead of accurate reporting, misinformation instead of information, cynical commercial interest instead of loyalty to the truth;
• Scientists and researchers who give themselves over to morally questionable ideological or political programs or to economic interest groups, or who justify research which violates fundamental ethical values;
• Representatives of religions who dismiss other religions as of little value and who preach fanaticism and intolerance instead of respect and understanding.

a) In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the directive:  You shall not lie!  Or in positive terms:  Speak and act truthfully!  Let us reflect anew on the consequences of this ancient directive:  No woman or man, no institution, no state or church or religious community has the right to speak lies to other humans. 

b) This is especially true

• for those who work in the mass media, to whom we entrust the freedom to report for the sake of truth and to whom we thus grant the office of guardian.  They do not stand above morality but have the obligation to respect human dignity, human rights, and fundamental values.  They are duty-bound to objectivity, fairness, and the preservation of human dignity.  They have no right to intrude into individuals’ private spheres, to manipulate public opinion, or to distort reality;
• for artists, writers, and scientists, to whom we entrust artistic and academic freedom.  They are not exempt from general ethical standards and must serve the truth;
• for the leaders of countries, politicians, and political parties, to whom we entrust our own freedoms.  When they lie in the faces of their people, when they manipulate the truth, or when they are guilty of venality or ruthlessness in domestic or foreign affairs, they forsake their credibility and deserve to lose their offices and their voters.  Conversely, public opinion should support those politicians who dare to speak the truth to the people at all times;
• finally, for representatives of religion.  When they stir up prejudice, hatred, and enmity towards those of different belief, or even incite or legitimize religious wars, they deserve the condemnation of humankind and the loss of their adherents.
• Let no one be deceived: There is no global justice without truthfulness and humaneness!

c) Young people must learn at home and in school to think, speak, and act truthfully.  They have a right to information and education to be able to make the decisions that will form their lives.  Without an ethical formation they will hardly be able to distinguish the important from the unimportant. In the daily flood of information, ethical standards will help them discern when opinions are portrayed as facts, interests veiled, tendencies exaggerated, and facts twisted.
​
d) To be authentically human in the spirit of our great religious and ethical traditions means the following:

• We must not confuse freedom with arbitrariness or pluralism with indifference to truth.
• We must cultivate truthfulness in all our relationships instead of dishonesty, dissembling, and opportunism.
• We must constantly seek truth and incorruptible sincerity instead of spreading ideological or partisan half-truths.
• We must courageously serve the truth and we must remain constant and trustworthy, instead of yielding to opportunistic accommodation to life.

 
To reiterate these points made by Küng and adopted by the Parliament of the World’s Religions, “Speak and act truthfully!  Let us reflect anew on the consequences of this ancient directive:  No woman or man, no institution, no state or church or religious community has the right to speak lies to other humans.” This imperative is noted as “especially true” for four named groups: journalists and those charged with the public trust of media; artists, writers and other creatives; political leaders and parties of all stripes; and representatives of religion. The declaration repeatedly uses strong, emotive language with words like “courage”, “sincerity”, “humaneness”; it forcefully points to consequences. And so Truth or Consequences is not just the namesake town of a defunct gameshow, rather it is the pivot point about which the ancient Greek, dual-faced mask of tragedy and comedy spins so precipitously.