A Boston Tea Party …(Truth? What Version?)

In college I took a course on logic and truth. A person can be logical while still making untrue statements. If you start with an untrue statement, logic will make your reasoning untrue. Logic also removes emotion from the decision process.

As the election gets closer, each party tries to sound logical while the truth (fact) seems to become more and more blurred. As a believer in the truth, it continues to amaze me how the Democrats and to a lesser extent the Republicans distort the truth and more importantly, why we the people allow it.

Democrats continually suggest that President Bush is a liar. A local Democratic talk show host was stating this to a caller last week. When the caller asked him to tell him how he knew Bush is a liar; he answered by saying he just believes he is and nothing can be done to change his mind. Even if confronted with overwhelming evidence, his opinion that Bush is a liar was not about to change. If his statement that Bush is a liar is based on fact then it would seem there must be two versions of the truth. One is the actual truth while the other is the truth he is willing to accept. An argument with this type of person would be futile because logic states there is only one correct version of the truth. Logic also states the opposite of true is false. What would logic say about a person willing to believe in something that is false? Very simply, logic would say he is wrong.

I usually watch “Meet the Press” with Tim Russert each Sunday. Yesterday, he had Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the RNC, and Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the DNC, as his guests. Not surprisingly each chairmen’s version of the truth was the direct opposite of the other’s. The truth lay somewhere in between. I instantly grew frustrated and wondered the following logical thoughts:

What kind of man would sit across the table from these two guys and not point out the distortions of the truth?
Does Russert feel his show should inform the public? If so, then why not force them to the truth? If they don’t, then cut that person off. My hunch would be that McAuliffe would not get to say much.
If a draft were a possibility, as Mr. McAuliffe states, under President Bush then it would also be a possibility under a Kerry Presidency.
What if the only way a political ad could be placed on television or radio was if it were entirely accurate? Maybe a committee of citizens should make up the truth police and would edit every ad before it went public to see if it meant a truth standard. The public would then be better educated about each candidate and better able to make a decision of who to vote for. “The whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God” should not just be required in the courtroom but also from anyone running for political office.

You listen to a guy like Terry McAuliffe and it is easy to see why politicians are rated lower than lawyers. The man and his party have their own version of the truth. A version created to fit the circumstance. The version the Democrats hope will defeat Bush. The version that says it is Bush’s fault that there are not enough flu shots available. The version that scares old people with social security reform and young people with the draft. A similar version created from circumstance allowed O.J. Simpson to get away with murder. Logic says the Democratic Party is comfortable with ANY version of truth that supports their beliefs and therefore should lose.