Do you believe we have the "truth" on our side?

[kentuck]

If so, do you believe that "truth" will ultimately prevail. No doubt, all sides believe their side is the side of truth. Except I have to believe that some Repubs know that their entire Party is based on lies and deceit. But they do it well. The truth cannot get its shoes on befoe their lies have traveled around the world.

[Discord]

1. The Truth? You can't handle the truth!!

I'm sorry, but someone was bound to do it. :P

[leftofthedial]

2. yes

the other side has made truth its enemy.

[ewagner]

3. Yes, I do

I believe that we are representing the truth and, in fact, the most morally correct position....


but....

as Lakoff pointed out (correctly I think) truth doesn't mean much to the other side because their beliefs are more important than the truth. Lakoff said, I believe, that a belief that "the truth shall make you free" is dangerous because the truth means nothing to the other side. They react on the emotional level and facts, and truth will not penetrate that emotion.

[TheFarseer]

8. funny, they say the same about us

[bush_is_wacko]

4. Yes, and I do believe the truth will ultimately prevail, but I am fully

aware that some times that truth takes a tragedy like the death of 6 million Jews to bring it to light. My goal is to prevent that kind of tragedy at all costs. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Isreal... are tragedies of major proportions right now. I just hope we can wake up the sheeple before they become tragedies of insurmountable proportions!

[Nite Owl]

5. Yes, we do.

Whenever I write in to some msm organization I always state that no one is asking for a liberal media. We don't need a liberal media all we need is the truth. Our Dem leaders better start getting those running shoes on and start pounding on it soon. The right wing liars have been at this for a long time and and yes, they do do it very well but they have no opposition either.

[Enquiringkitty]

6. The freedom to think, speak, believe and live without censorship is

having the truth on our side because that is the world we want to live in. They want a world where everyone must be controlled and fear having an original thought. There is no truth in suppressing and censoring half of the population.

[Nimrod]

7. If the truth ever prevails

There won't be anybody left to say "I told you so". Human being are far too extremist, idealogical, and stupid to ever even contemplate what the truth might be, let alone allow it to influence them.

There is no truth. It's too much of an inconvenience.

[stillcool]

9. You want the truth?

Its subjective, fluid, and highly personal...

[eallen]

10. Those who have "truth" on their side frighten me.

The simple truth, which few want to admit, is that moral principles cannot be grounded in facts, and so have no ultimate resolution. That allows me, for example, to be a fierce defender of free speech, while compromising a bit when it comes to child pornography. There are conflicts between different goods, and also between the political interests of different groups.

Those who try to disguise their moral principles or political interest as something factual, whether by appeal to some Hegelian dialectic or to a god who shares their views or to some other idealized philosophy are politically dangerous, precisely because that kind of idealization prevents them from engaging in normal political discussion. That is the flaw behind every variety of fundamentalism, and every ideology from Objectivism to communism that drives people by their hidden passions rather than by reason.

[kentuck]

12. Do you believe that Bush lied in going to war with Iraq?

Or do you believe all truth is subjective? There are facts and reality (what is reality?) that prove certain beliefs or thoughts to be true after the action. If we philosophize and contemplate too much, we will be run over and end up as roadkill on the road to destruction. We know it is a fact and a truth - from our experience (John Locke?) - that when you drop a bomb, people are killed and maimed. We don't have t contemplate it.

[eallen]

13. Yes, Bush lied. Politics is a mixture of the positive and the normative...

It's important to try and keep the two separate, in your own mind, otherwise your thinking will be hopelessly muddled.

[kentuck]

15. If we say that "Bush lied", then we are saying we know the truth....

to be something different. We cannot say one without admitting we know the other.

[eallen]

24. Sure. But that doesn't say anything about one's political views.

For example, someone who favored the Iraqi war could believe that Bush lied, and that that actually hurt US ability to wage that war vis-a-vis what it might have been, with an honest leader.

[kentuck]

25. So someone could be honest and support the war even though

they knew there were no WMDs and Iraq was not a threat to America? They could believe that Bush lied and still support the war? To thine ownself be true.

[eallen]

26. Of course. They might have thought it a good idea for other reasons.

Obviously, someone who didn't believe Iraq had WMDs would not support the war for that reason. But they might support the war for a different reason. And they might think some other reason so important that they would support the war even though it was being prosecuted by a dishonest leader.

[kentuck]

27. Like what?

We're looking for honesty and truth.

[eallen]

28. There are any number of reasons someone might have supported the war.

Someone might approve the US acting as global cop, and welcomed the war purely because it puts the US in that role, even though Iraq would not have been their first choice. Or they might have believed that the war on Iraq would improve global oil supply. A Halliburton stockholder might have favored the war entirely from financial motive. Or a jihadist, thinking the US attack on Iraq was a blunder that would strengthen their cause, might have favored it for that reason. An Iraqi Kurd might have favored anyone toppling Saddam for any reason at all. Someone else might have had a particular hatred for Saddam on more personal grounds. In all these examples, the war proponent might disbelieve the fiction about WMDs, but might honestly support the war for reasons very different from the ones Bush gave.

Any disagreement can be based on a difference over the facts, or a difference in goals and outlook. It's important not to confuse the two. Strangely, these differences don't guarantee disagreement. Two people might agree on a the desirability of some action, even though they differ over both the facts and the ends that action will accomplish.

[kentuck]

29. None of them justified or moral....?

If there is such a thing as a "moral" war? Even with animals like Hitler, isn't it possible to take them out, without killing millions in the process? We are looking for the undefinable "truth". I guess we can all take one side or the other, but is one more "right" or "moral" than the other and is that the side we are on or is "right and moral" open to the same interpretation? I start with the premise that the war was wrong and immoral - propagated by lies in which many tens of thousands have died. Or are we frozen in contemplation of our navel buttons?

[eallen]

30. Didn't you start by asking for honest reasons?

Someone might have very different moral views from you, in particular with regard to war, yet still be honest. They might recognize Bush as someone who is not honest, yet still support his decision to go to war.

Life is complex that way. :)

[kentuck]

31. Yes, life is complex but...

"Yet still support his decision to go to war..." ?? Even though they know Bush is not honest and even though they realize afterwards the war was based on a lie and they still support the war?? Someone is not being honest with themselves or either they could not be trusted any further than you could throw them, in my opinion. Life is not that complex that you accept a lie because it supports your initial decision which was wrong and immoral. Confusion creates absurdity.

[eallen]

36. I think you're being naive.

The issue isn't accepting a lie, but supporting a common cause with people whose thinking you don't respect. Here is another example: gay marriage. Consider this mix of circumstance.

(1) There are some Chistian churches that support gay marriage. Some of them argue that there is nothing in the Bible that opposes homosexuality.

(2) I think they are lying to themselves about the nature of Christian scripture and tradition on this subject. I think it is very clear that both Paul and the Old Testament condemn homosexuality, and that these liberal believers attempt to read the relevant passages in a liberal fashion simply because they want both to hold a liberal view of homosexuality, yet retain their ties to a religion that has a reactionary tradition on this subject.

(3) I'm not a religious believer. More, I think Christian faith is irrational. The liberal varieties are less harmful than the fundamentalist varieties, but none of it makes an ounce of sense. Tertullian got that right. I support gay marriage, because that follows naturally from a liberal belief in civil liberties.

So, should I accept these liberal Christians as allies on the issue of gay marriage? Or should I reject them out of hand, because I think they are not entirely honest with themselves? Should I work with them politically only once they have the mental fortitude to leave their religion behind? To me, that would seem both arrogant and politically disadvantageous. If you can politically support a cause only with allies whose reasons you share, and only with people who don't have any conflicted thinking, you will be pretty lonely in your political activities! :)

[kentuck]

37. If I agree with you on this point....?

How does that invalidate other points that we were discussing in regards to the pursuit of the truth. One example is only a drop in the ocean. You must choose to work with those with whom you disagree according to your own principles. You can pick and choose which "lie" to accept. I choose to look at the truth in a bigger picture.

[eallen]

39. I'm arguing for some flexibility in viewing those with whom you disagree.

Not everyone who supported the Iraq war believed Bush's line. Just as complex alliances form among liberals with different views, so do they form among conservatives. There is even a liberal argument for the war.

Painting all opponents with the same brush is a flaw of the right. We're all dope-smoking, jihadist praising, ACLU card carrying Marxists. Never mind that that mixture is just about impossible. In their warped view of the world, it's all the same as.

Let's be careful not to fall into that trap ourselves, when thinking about viewpoints distant from our own.

[kentuck]

40. I'm not saying anyone has a monopoly on the truth....

But there are certain facts that cannot be discounted. We went to war because we were told there were WMDs and Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden and he was a threat to us and the world. They lied. If you accept that, under any other pretense, then you are only deceiving yourself. We didn't go to war because you or anyone else didn't like Saddam Hussein. We went to war because George W Bush and this Administration wanted to go to war with Iraq and it didn't matter what anyone else thought. They were the only ones with the power to declare war.

We can try to shade that in various ways but the truth is there. Just because someone calls you names and promotes propaganda does not make it "true". If you work with someone politically because you know they might be effective at painting you as a "dope-smoking, jihadist praising, ACLU card carrying Marxists", then you may be doing that out of political expediency but not that you don't know the truth. As Abe Lincoln said, "
You can call a horse's tail a leg, but that doesn't make it so."

[AirAmFan]

34. 'Any disagreement can be based on a difference over the facts, or

a difference in goals and outlook.'

So far so good. But from this point on, your argument starts creating the 'straw men' of many different sets of goals and outlooks that might lead different people to favor the widespread violence of war or invasion.

IMO, there are only a handful of reasons most people would find sufficient to justify an invasion of Iraq, the most common being, "our own country was in danger from WMD".

On lthe other hand, there are INFINITE numbers of 'reality filters' different people might be using. It seems more constructive to discuss those 'reality filters' than to opine about multiple opinions about what constitutes a sufficient casus belli, especially in a thread devoted to differences in perception of 'truth'.

[Just Me]

38. The "rule of law" is missing, huh. n/t

[Blue Shark]

11. No...and here is why...

...If Americans face the truth...first they willnot believe even a fraction of it. If it were the truth after all, wouldn't the media have covered it?

...Second and more important, if the truth becomes known, half the American public would find that they were complicit in allowing a monumentally poor government to control, rule, and suppress that same truth.

...Richard Nixon was president 30 years too soon. All his shenanigans look tame compared to the fraud, deceit, and genereal ineptitude of BushCo. ...and he never would have been taken to task for Watergate because we have no free and independant press.

...The truth is...we have just entered "1984" (Orwell-style)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. You are SO right ! Nixon doesn't look as bad. But I wonder

if it is just the press absence. I am starting to think that people just don't give a shit anymore too. They have lost their convictions and do not know what is right and decent and fair deep down in their gut anymore. B** has created a bizarro world where wrong is right. And the blind sheep are following. Why is it so easy for us to see? Maybe the only people left are those who had deep convictions?

[AirAmFan]

14. Yes, but I recognize that for different people 'the truth' may be different

I know that, for people whose perceptions of political reality come straight from the Fox News broadcasts they've seen, and who never have spent much time with anyone whose perceptions are different from theirs, 'the truth' IS whatever the White House says it is.

I feel my education and life experiences have allowed me to understand the viewpoints and "reality filters" of many different kinds of people, so that MY reality and MY truth are more comprehensive than most people's.

[AirAmFan]

17. Re your 2nd question: 'Will the truth ultimately prevail?' Maybe,

but not with the tactics and strategies Democrats have been following since Bill Clinton left office.

Democrats must find ways to BREAK THROUGH the artificial realities in which millions of Americans have been trapped by Fox News, tabloid newspapers, the 'Christian' right, and all the other reality filters right-wing 'social issue' extremists and their pocket-picking corporate partners have put in place.

Every time people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and other Democratic spokespeople appear in the mass media, they MUST use much more evocative language to try to WAKE UP the millions who have been duped by the Rethugs. They need to talk about how the White House is planning to EMBEZZLE FROM and PHASE OUT Social Security, SHIFT the entire tax burden onto the middle class and poor, CLOSE all public schools, FORCE WOMEN to bear children against their will, REPEAL the Bill of Rights, etc.

And Democrats need to push a positive agenda again, to put Republicans on defense for change. Pushing proposals to raise the minimum wage, lower the age of eligibility for Medicare, impose national fairness standards for elections, allow re-importation of prescription drugs, and put voting into the Bill of Rights would be a good start.

[kentuck]

18. "...use much more evocative language ..."

I agree with that statement. It will take very evocative language to wake up the people. However, we must be careful, otherwise, they will try to paint our language as "over the top" - much like they did with Byrd's remarks about Republican policies and actions as "Nazi-like".

[AirAmFan]

19. Yes--that's important. But many Dems have mastered the art of being

'controversial' and getting publicity, without getting the 'Dean scream' treatment.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. I think Kerry talked about a lot of those things that you mention

in your last paragraph above, but truly being objective, I think there were some missed opportunities to tug at america's heartstrings and speak from the heart to move people toward what is truly right. Here's an example from the town hall debate. A woman said that her mom was in Europe and saddened that everyone hates us now. What an open opportunity. I sat here and thought -- wow, you could knock that one out of the park...

---Talk about how almost EVERYONE was behind us after 9/11. What a wonderful feeling that was despite our deep grief. How that goodwill was squandered and how NOW in many countries Bush is more hated and feared than Osama. In Canada 40% of the youth think Bush is an evil man.

---Many may remember or have seen clips of Kennedy in Berlin. How wonderful that was when we were respected in the world.

Just some rough examples. All my point is that we must have leaders that speak straight from the heart with strong conviction. They will not fall for Bush-like bullshit -- like calling Kerry on the "global test". Because you and I both know that either of us could have defended against that is five seconds flat.

[AirAmFan]

32. 'Speak from the heart to move people toward what is truly right'--I like that!

That phrase, and the very thought-provoking lead paragraph from kentuck, remind me that political climates can be changed by real leaders, real writers, real journalists, and real documentarians like those Democrats had during the 1960s.

The War on Poverty of the mid-60s was ignited more than anything else by one brilliant book: 'The Other America', a 'man-from-Mars' description by someone named Harrington of the abject poverty under which a third of America lived, making it plain to the other two thirds. 'Sixty Minutes' made a name for itself with journalistic efforts like 'Harvest of Shame', an expose of the disgraceful conditions under which migrant farmworkers produced much of the food most Americans ate at the time.

Forty years have passed, cheap video and other documentary technologies are available to just about everyone, there are HUNDREDS MORE TV/CABLE stations on the air, and EVEN WORSE conditions are widespread now. But where are our Michael Harringtons and our 'Harvests of Shame'?

What would Michael Harrington write today about a million HOMELESS people, eating garbage in plain sight daily in the most heavily-traveled sections of every major city? A five-year limit on welfare payments for children was enacted EIGHT YEARS ago, and tens of thousands of families have been broken up for economic reasons. Tens of millions are without health insurance, in a "health care" system where the poorest are charged the highest prices. The incarceration rate for African-American men is EIGHT TIMES the rate for white men.

Why doesn't SOMEONE use the new technologies of the last four decades to RUB REPUBLICANS FACES in the conditions they've created? How can the 'Fox News' reality filter continue to exist for tens of millions of smug Republican voters?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

44. AAF - You are SO right. I am on the same page as you. I was

wondering just who does our advertising and pr? It is not my field, but I know I could put together a much more effective ad campaign. I am on a 1 year assignment in DC and am one block from headquarters. I wrote to Terry M and others during the campaign. I told them that I had plenty of free time and would gather ideas on campaign themes and ideas from grass roots democrats, compile them and send them to dem leaders. No response. I strongly believe that we do have better ideas than what we've seen. Maybe we could do that in preparation for 06? With the connections of people here at DU we could move our ideas up the chain?

I also believe that the leadership and candidates have been way too concerned about what the other side would say. "Class Warfare, "Giveaways," "Tax and Spend," etc. etc. The old cliches. But anyone with an analytical mind could stand up an counteract. We were reactive instead of being proactive. We touched what they wanted us to touch - when we had a wealth of horror that they could not defend - i.e. homelessness, health care, environment. What were our ads about ? Nothing comes to mind ! Nothing stood out.

I would certainly act now toward the African American community. They are ! I would get the footage of the people in line in Cleveland - remarkable ! All excited at the beginning of the day -- then all demoralized at the end after waiting in the "wrong" line for hours on end. I would send it first to BET (100% contributor to the democratic party). I would try to get it to as many AA churches as possible. What they did to disenfranchise is a crime.

What do you think >?

[dweller]

20. yeah, words like Peace

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1636146#1636383?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1636146

and Department of.....

ya'd think it would have a positive connotation?
dp

[librechik]

21. "there is no truth but absolute truth,

and there is no absolute truth. Therefore there is no truth." (TS Eliot, approximately)

however, I believe we have reality and context and justice on our side.

Everything else "true," frankly, is mere rhetoric.

[borg5575]

22. I don't think that anyone has a monopoly on truth.

It would be arrogant and condescending IMO for we Democrats to claim that we are the suppository of all truth.

I am old enough to remember when there was a Democrat sitting in the White House lying about our involvement in Viet Nam while a Republican in the Senate, Wayne Morse, was telling the truth about it.

But having said that, I agree that in this day and age with this particular administration in power and with the neocons controlling the Republican Party, we Democrats are a lot closer to the truth than they are.

But I don't think that we should be smug about it. (Not that the OP said we should be.) We should always keep open minds and look for the real truth wherever we may find it.

[kodi]

33. i would consider it more likely that we are on the side of truth

.

[kentuck]

35. I have faith that the truth will prevail...

even though we may have to suffer like hell before that reality bites us. Deceit and lies are like a snowball lying in the hot sun. Yes, it's a snowball, they say. Everybody can see it's a snowball. But, we say, it cannot last...it will melt and turn to water. They say, don't be so negative...it will grow and be like an avalanche of snow. There's the snowball....and we will convince the American people that if we put some of that snowball in other places, it will multiply and everyone will have more snow when they get older and wiser...

[Jokerman]

41. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. n/t

[dolstein]

42. Messenger and message trump truth

The fact is that the vast majority of Americans are simply too caught up in their daily lives or too skeptical about politics to spend their time investigating the accuracy of competing statements by political candidates. So clarity of message and the image and reputation of the messenger will matter far more than the "facts".

Was Kerry right on the issues? Sure, probably. But his message was so muddled, and he was such a flawed messenger, that he couldn't win over enough voters that weren't already predisposed to vote for him.

Don't forget, a wuss who speaks the truth is still a wuss. And a lot of people aren't going to vote for wusses regardless of what they say. Clinton understood that voters will go for someone who is strong and wrong over someone who is weak and right. So we need to find a candidate who is capable of speaking with clarity and conviction AND who people instinctively like and trust. We need the total package.

[kentuck]

43. I think what you say is mostly "true"..

:)