More Evidence that Inconvenient Truth Is Irrelevant to the Tribe

The Washington Post article, Doctored images have become a fact of life for political campaigns: When they’re disproved, believers ‘just don’t care’, adds to evidence that dark free speech[1] continues to poison the minds of Americans. The WaPo observes that we are experiencing an explosion of online disinformation from politicians. Despite the immorality of deceit, politicians know that deceit works and there’s not enough social repercussion to deter the tactic.

The brazenness of politicians called out for asserting lies to the public is evidence of how far morality has fallen in American politics. A key goal of even blatantly obvious lies is to reinforce existing beliefs, not necessarily convincing anyone of the asserted truth of the lie. That tends to make compromise with political opposition impossible. The deceiver’s audience already believes or feels a certain way about a politician and their tribe. When they discover the lie many people don’t care. Their rationalization tends to be along the lines of ‘people say it could have been true’ or ‘that actually reflects who the attacked person really is.’ In some cases tribe members just do not care at all that they were lied to because it was their lie and thus morally neutral or good.

The WaPo writes:

To back his assertion that President Barack Obama had coddled the world’s top sponsor of terrorists, Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.), cited an unusual source: a clumsily altered image of a nonexistent handshake between Obama and the Iranian president. The doctored photo, once used in TV ads supporting Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, had been repeatedly debunked since it first surfaced on an Egyptian Islamist political website in 2013. 

But when critics last week chided Gosar for showing hundreds of thousands of people a faked image of an imaginary event, the fifth-term congressman said they, the “dim witted” ones, were in the wrong. “No one said this wasn’t photoshopped,” he declared. “The point remains … The world is better without Obama as president." 

For ginning up political resentment and accentuating your rivals’ flaws, nothing quite compares to a doctored image. It can help anyone turn a political opponent into a caricature — inventing gaffes, undercutting wins and erasing nuance — leaving only the emotion behind. 

On Monday, Trump, who has more than 70 million Twitter followers, retweeted a fake image of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) cartoonishly altered to show them in a turban and hijab. The tweet, which falsely claims that the two most powerful Democrats in Congress have “come to the Ayatollah’s rescue,” has been retweeted more than 17,000 times.

Clearly, the GOP leadership sees lies, deceit and irrational emotional manipulation as acceptable tactics. There is no obvious resistance from America's political right to being lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated. The ends, maybe a republican-populist utopia of some sort, justify the means. The degree to which democratic politicians have sunk to this new low level of immorality isn't clear.

Does immorality ever fade into evil?

In her book, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, moral philosopher Sissela Bok argued that lies and deceit are usually immoral to some extent. Some circumstances may exist that some people see as justifying politicians who deceive the public for its own good. However, she convincingly argues that those are rare situations. Other writers point to the standard use of dark free speech against societies as a powerful, necessary tool in the rise to power of tyrants, oligarchs, murderers and kleptocrats. The path and tactics the modern GOP is following fits the standard pattern in the rise of authoritarianism and corruption and the fall of democracy and the rule of law.

Does the current intensity and quantity of dark free speech the GOP leadership uses against American society, in particular the president, rise to evil or something close to it? Do the ends that the president and his party aim for justify means that rely heavily on a constant stream of lies, deceit and irrational manipulation?


Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism. (my label, my definition)