Why Speaking Truth is Good Politics

In Aaron Sorkin's brilliant, if uneven, new HBO series, "The Newsroom", a central theme involves the desperate need of our society to hear the truth.

Not the "absolute truth", of course - for no one can rationally claim to possess that - but the truth as we know it.  Truth analogous to what scientists talk about:  observable facts, treated with reasoning devoid (to the extent possible) of logical fallacies, leading to whatever hypothesis best explains the state of our knowledge thus far.

Such truths are conditional, of course.  Circumstances may change.  Additional information will certainly come in.  A brilliant mind might offer a new, insightful way of analyzing the known data. 

But a rational individual - or a rational nation - should base its decisions, to the extent possible, on the truth as we know it.  Not on ideology, or what we prefer to believe.  And certainly not on blind faith.

There are many examples of truths which Americans too seldom hear, such as:

• A refusal to pay taxes sufficient to cover the cost of present services - including debt service -   inevitably imposes costs on future generations.

• Continuing to operate schools which prepare our young people for the industrial economy of    yesterday, instead of preparing them to be agile, adaptable, self-reliant entrepreneurs, assures     less prosperity for them, and for the nation as a whole.

• Global climate change is real, and serious, and significantly influenced by human behavior.  It     could also be slowed, if not reversed, by changes  in human behavior.

Political discourse too seldom takes place in the context of such truths, because neither major party offers candidates willing to speak the truth. 

But perhaps there is a solution...

If a third party is to take its place in American politics, it could do worse than to embrace a commitment to telling the truth. 

Politics has always been something of a hostile environment for truth-tellers.  All too often, until the truth comes hammering at the gates of a civilized state - with the hordes of destruction hard on its heels - we decent folk tend to prefer the comfort of our delusions.  Those who tell the truth, before the public is ready to hear it, often sacrifice their public careers.  For every Churchill who finally achieves glory, a thousand will die in obscurity, their names barely registered in even the thickest historical tomes.

Still, in a democratic republic - or any society determined to survive - the sacrifice is essential.  And a third party, with no immediate prospect of power, is ideally placed to make such a sacrifice.  Indeed, there are purely practical, baldly political advantages to speaking out on subjects which major parties fear to address.

For one thing, many citizens admire courage.  It should not be forgotten that not a few citizens have shown courage in their own lives - and they respect it.  Many others wish they could show more courage, and will look upon a party which does so as showing leadership.

As for those who are skeptical about our political system - a goodly number - a candidate or party willing to speak plainly will come across as a refreshing alternative to the usual choice between violent diatribes and timid political correctness.

Of course, there will also be people who share a belief in an unpopular or inconvenient truth.  The American people are not nearly as ignorant or stupid as the media, political scientists, and major parties would have us believe.  Given a choice between two fallacious world-views, most citizens opt for the lesser of evils.  But given a chance to vote for a stubborn little party which tells the truth and won't go away, there's a fair chance many would begin to vote for candor.

Most important, a party which speaks the truth can begin to change the terms of the political debate in this country - which is the whole point of starting a political party, or any political movement, to begin with.  The public is increasingly suspicious of both major parties.  There's an opening for a party voters can actually trust.

Of course, there's always the "belling the cat" problem.  A third party may choose to embrace truth as a principle, but it can only bring that message to the public by running candidates.  And these candidates, as individuals, will bear the greatest part of the burden of saying unpopular things to voters accustomed to pandering platitudes.

To be sure, a third party can make itself attractive to people with  political experience and know-how.  It might even draw in a few veterans of public office willing to run again with little prospect of winning.

But there must be a pay-off.  And a third party - especially one dedicated to speaking truth - must act with just as much strategic calculation as a major party concerned only with winning the next election.

For such a party, two types  of candidates would seem to be ideal:  Veteran candidates who have held office - and left office - and who know that losing an election, or several, will not kill them.  And young candidates willing to learn the ropes in campaigns  they will not win - in preparation for winning future campaigns when public  opinion has come around to their views.

For the Commonwealth Party, I would recommend a policy of seeking candidates of these two types.  Further, I would commend seeking candidates with the ability to speak the truth in the way a great teacher would:  Calmly, rationally, and firmly - without anger or hysteria. 

The model might well be a fictional character from much farther back than Mr. Sorkin's latest drama - Atticus Finch, the heroic lawyer and father of To Kill a Mockingbird.

But the key is to make truth telling part of the DNA of the new party.  Begin with honesty.  Begin with confidence that - if a majority of voters are not yet willing to hear the truth, there is minority for whom an honest party, and honest candidates, will come as an unlooked-for blessing.

Among such people, you can begin building your party.