by Ron Paul
Plato may have given birth to the noble lie concept in The Republic in 380 BC, but it has survived the centuries. Machiavelli in The Prince (1513) glorified government lying and argued that it was good for both parties, the government and the people. Religious reinforcement of the noble lie has been commonly used throughout history. Plato argued that its benefits are a moral good, while in the twentieth century it has been argued that modern-day rulers have license to lie because of their natural intellectual superiority.
Present-day champions of the noble lie are the neoconservatives, and their influence is strongly bipartisan. The principle of lying and deception for the people’s “benefit” is endorsed by each administration regardless of party. The lies are considered noble since a cohesive society is sought. Modern-day neoconservatives have been largely influenced by Leo Strauss, who studied and was influenced by Plato and especially by Machiavelli. According to the neoconservatives, lying is reserved for the nobility; it’s not for the common person who may lie on an IRS form. Lying is reserved for the powerful and those who claim they are the only ones who can take care of the ignorant and disillusioned masses.
Adolph Hitler took the concept of the noble lie into something even worse. In Mein Kampf, he argued that if governments made their lies “colossal,” nobody would challenge the notion that anybody could deliberately make up something so far from the truth.
Hermann Goering, second in charge to Hitler, had an even more cynical understanding of how to use lying and patriotism. Goering said from his prison cell in Nuremberg in 1946, as recorded by G. M. Gilbert in his Nuremberg Diary:
Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a communist dictatorship… that is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifist for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Leo Strauss came to the United States in 1938 at the age of thirty-nine and built a reputation at the University of Chicago, where he influenced a lot of future advisers and appointees of the George W. Bush administration.
Some of the well-known neoconservatives who influenced our foreign policy over the past decade include Paul Wolfowitz, Abram Shulsky, William Kristol, Irving Kristol, John Podhoretz, Michael Ledeen, Stephen Cambone, and Richard Perle. There are many others. Each has had some connection to Strauss and has been influenced by him directly or indirectly.
The ideas that stem from Strauss are quite frightening and when accepted can only lead to consequences that are hazardous to morality and political stability. These views are based on absolute rejection of trust in a free society. Unless they are refuted, only tyranny can result.
Here are some of the ideas that permeate the neoconservative philosophy.
The elite have a responsibility to deceive the masses.
Rulers are superior and have a right and obligation over those who are inferior.
A cynical use of religion is important for delivering the message to a compliant society, arguing that this prevents individuals from independent thinking.
External threats unite the people; fear is a necessary ingredient for success. According to Machiavelli, if an external threat does not exist, the leaders must create one.
This unites the people and they become more obedient to the state. Neoconservatives argue that this is in the best interest of the people since individualism is basically evil and the elite must meet their obligation to rule the incompetent.
Religion, lies, and war are the tools used by the neoconservatives to suppress individualism and fortify a ruling elite. These views in various degrees and on certain issues are endorsed by the leaders of both political parties. This is why individualism is under constant attack and why the philosophy of the Founders has been so severely undermined. Neoconservatives will always deny they believe in these principles (part of their noble lying) since it would blow their cover.
They actually do the opposite, claiming title to superpatriotism, and anyone who disagrees with their wars and welfare schemes is un-American, unpatriotic, nonhumanitarian, against the troops, and on and on.
Revitalizing the spirit of liberty could be achieved if the people demanded to hear the truth; that is exactly what the neoconservatives dread. Today, most government lying, in cooperation with the main street media, is propaganda and spin. This is recognized and accepted by those who are seeking truth. War propaganda is a well-known phenomenon and even though many are aware of it, its incessant use by government officials and media works rather well in pushing people into a pro-war frenzy.
In Congress, I do not attend the top secret briefings for any updates on a current crisis. I’m convinced I’ll only hear propaganda (lies) and spin (for political cover). Truth can be found elsewhere. It is much more likely to pop up on the Internet than in one of our so-called top secret briefings.
Fortunately, we still get whistle blowers coming forth and revealing the truth. The availability of the Internet has provided a great alternative to the major media, but it continues to struggle to compete with or refute the political bully pulpit and the progovernment bias of the major networks and well-covered political speeches. Nowadays, you can be pretty sure that if there is some important revelation about the workings of government, it comes not from major networks but from independent website operators. These are the people who are willing to take the risks and release the truth regardless of the fallout.
WikiLeaks is the most recent example. It has been charged that Julian Assange, the Internet publisher of the information he has gained access to, has committed a heinous crime deserving prosecution for treason and execution or even assassination. But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government can charge an Australian citizen with treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he himself did not steal?
It’s safe to assume that if the elites who want to run our lives justify lying, they obviously have something to hide and are doing things they ought not to be doing. Liars hide the people from the truth. Government secrecy becomes necessary to protect the facade that allows domination over the people. The citizens’ privacy must not be allowed or else the people will plot against the government and expose its corruption.
Irving Kristol actually argued that there should be different sets of truth for different categories of people. He believed that the idea of one set of truths for everyone is a modern-day fallacy. Communism was based on the belief that only the party established the truth, and it was not rigid; it changed according to political priorities. Without a belief that truth exists apart from what government says it is, peace, prosperity, and progress are impossible.
Thompson, C. Bradley. 2010. Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea. New York: Paradigm Publishers.
PATRIOTISM
To be an American patriot means to love liberty. That’s not the definition used today however. It’s amazing and discouraging to see what is argued for in the name of patriotism. If you do not support funding for undeclared and illegal wars, you’re frequently called unpatriotic. If you do not support a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, you’re said to be unpatriotic. Not being blindly obedient to the state or simply to challenge the power of the state is considered unpatriotic. It is readily assumed that unquestioned loyalty to government is synonymous with patriotism. Others, though, believe that a good patriot is one who is willing to stand up to his or her government when the rights of the people are being abused and when the government pursues bad policies. True patriotism requires supporting the people even under dire circumstances and threat of government punishment. Great danger is imminent when any criticism of the government is considered unpatriotic. Patriotism never demands obedience to the state but rather obedience to t
he principles of liberty.
Quite often when I listen to demagogues in Washington stating their views on patriotism to garner support for more and more government meddling, I’m reminded of the 1775 quote of Samuel Johnson regarding patriotism. Patriotism, according to Johnson, “is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” and there are quite a few of those in Washington. The arrogance and manipulation of naming a piece of legislation that severely undermines the Fourth Amendment and calling it the Patriot Act says it all.
Call it patriotism and opposition disappears. It’s easier to go along than do the work to explain the hypocrisy of the process. Politically, it’s always tempting to take the easy way out and appear to be doing the right thing and do it with “patriotic” enthusiasm—even if the opposite is being accomplished.
Just think about how many lies U.S. citizens have been told over the years to rally their support for lost causes once military hostilities start. The propaganda and lies accelerate to prevent the people from failing to support the effort, even with great economic pain. Logic does not work; false patriotism does.
Patriotism to me is to always support the cause of liberty, and it turns out that governments over the ages have notoriously been the chief abusers of liberty. The original American patriots declared independence from an abusive government.
The aphrodisiac of power overwhelms many well-intentioned individuals who go into government with high ideals. Championing change as an outsider is easily morphed into a patriotic fervor to protect the state once the politicians become part of what they previously argued was the enemy. It’s a powerful argument for not giving power to elected or unelected officials, since so few remain diligent defenders of individual rights.
Blindly accepting the false patriotism that permeates our political system has significantly altered behavior, and always in a negative way. Loyalty to bad policy for patriotic reasons, no matter how harmful it’s been to us, is always folly. Patriotism always demands victory and success no matter how foolish and harmful. No one is permitted to acknowledge a mistake in policy. Bad policies are continued for “patriotic” reasons, even when seeking a victory or success that’s elusive.
Because admitting mistakes—since policy mistakes are so egregious and indefensible by logic—is impossible, an emotional appeal is required to keep the people engaged and supportive. This obsession of never being willing to admit grave errors applies to both domestic and foreign policy errors. Patriotism evokes a support comparable to the divine right of kings. It was once heretical to challenge “God’s will.” Today, if one demands a true change in policy and by doing so admits to our egregious past errors, charges of disloyalty and lack of patriotism are loudly heard. Today’s heresy is to challenge the state, something not tolerated by the elites in charge of our government. This obedience in the name of patriotism provides the support from the masses that is required to keep the current system going. There’s great moral hazard to this evil and deceptive use of patriotism.
This requires an ever-watchful eye, with true patriots insisting that governments cannot act in secrecy. Government transparency is the credo of a patriot. Loyalty to the people should not be confused with loyalty to the government. If one is forced to make a choice between the two, it’s evident that the government has excessive power. When the two are in conflict, it’s the responsibility of the patriot to expose the danger and work on behalf of the people, even if doing so requires opposition to the government.
Some say that defending government actions—right or wrong—is required of a patriot. Yet it is better said that a patriot’s responsibility is to condemn the evil actions of government rather than endorsing them by either supporting them or ignoring them in the name of patriotism.
Too many believe that not supporting a military effort, no matter how wrongheaded it may be, is a sign of weakness and unmanliness. The noble warrior image that has survived since primitive times forces many to persist in foolish policies. Look at how long LBJ and Nixon refused to admit the truth even at the cost of tens of thousands of American and Vietnamese casualties. Even today, walking away from a useless and stupid, senseless war in Central Asia is impossible because the American majority are still—in spite of recent and ancient history—demanding a macho victory regardless of cost and with nothing to be gained and lives to be lost.
It seems that if we want strong leaders, we should have leaders with enough self-confidence and strength of character to defy conventional wisdom and the chants of false patriotism and pride. The glory of victory in senseless war should never replace the dignity of peace in a sane world. Rarely is there enough victory to be found to enjoy the glory in a hollow victory. And there certainly is no glory in the outright defeat that can come from a useless war.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
The obsession with political correctness is epidemic. Many public figures are persecuted for speaking incorrectly according to the PC police. The worst part is that definitions of the violations are constantly changing. Some people are exempt from an infraction while others may lose their job or even an elected position. Candidates have been destroyed by a media intent on enforcing the code of political correctness according to their own unwritten rules.
But politicians have learned to be the aggressors. They mock their opponents for politically incorrect use of words, and the media are quick to join in the condemnation. It’s not officially an infringement of freedom of speech, but it’s very close. Though the punishment is not by legal sanction, it nevertheless can be quite damaging.
It’s all about control and power over others. There’s no decent motivation by those who play the game of political correctness. Sometimes people can be excused for making mistakes by saying, “Well, at least he has good intentions.” Not so for the ones who jump at the chance of scoring points at the expense of others or exerting arbitrary power over them or promoting a political agenda.
PC is never designed to protect the dignity of individuals or groups who might be insulted or maligned. It’s driven by cynicism, scoring political points, or trying to prove that the challengers to incorrect speech are morally superior. More likely, they are driven by a feeling of inferiority and are trying to prove to themselves with a pretense of moral outrage that they themselves deserve respect, not the “victims” of insensitive language. The whole process is a reflection of an authoritarian society.
By the dictates of the never-named supervisor or administrator of political correctness, there are now quite a few words we must be careful never to use. The original intent to stop outright racist, sexist, or homophobic language does nothing to change people’s attitudes and language. The silliness has made fools of those who get carried away with enforcing the extremes. People who are overly sensitive in a serious way and want political correctness enforced have to be insecure and easily intimidated.
The results of the equal rights feminist movement were not all beneficial. Sometimes it meant that women would be subjected to coercive and grueling conditions just as happened to men—like being placed in harm’s way in no-win undeclared wars. Most likely, when the draft becomes necessary and is reinstituted, the rules will dictate that women as well as men will be drafted. This is not an idle threat. All women should remember that if there were no plans for the draft, registration for the draft would have been eliminated a long time ago.
Political correctness has been used in the military to regulate language used by “tough marines.” Women demand inclusiveness, and yet when offensive language or jokes are told, many will rush to the authorities complaining that they are offended and the “guilty” parties must be reprimanded or punished.
This whole process of political correctness is a danger over and above the social stigma and penalties placed on the “guilty” parties. But it can get worse. Already there have been attempts at banning books and songs that contain words deemed offensive to particular groups. It will not take much for the political correctness movement to target the correctness of politica
l ideas. All totalitarian societies seek to control thoughts and ideas. I have been excluded from certain events because of my “controversial” political views.
We already have laws on the books that require lesser penalties for those who commit crimes against “straight” people because those crimes were not motivated by politically incorrect thinking. The hate police, or the thought police, are entrenched in our legislative and judicial process, and political correctness, though at times it seems silly and frivolous, might well evolve into a federal police effort to maintain order when society becomes unruly in difficult economic times. Maintaining order and safety is the goal at all costs in a totalitarian system. Under those conditions, liberty becomes the enemy.
PROHIBITION
Prohibition is not compatible with a free society. Prohibiting acts of violence is one thing, but laws that prohibit the use of certain substances—food, drugs, or alcohol—by adults is a dangerous intrusion on personal liberty. Prohibition is motivated by busybodies who have a gross misunderstanding of the unintended consequences of attempts to improve other people’s habits and character through government force. Time and time again, we are shown that it simply does not work. If there are to be any regulations on the use of certain substances in the United States, it was intended that this should be done by the individual states, not by the federal government.
The experiment with outright prohibition of all alcoholic beverages in the United States started with the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment on January 29, 1919. This climaxed a temperance movement that started well before the Civil War. The motivation was to stop drunkenness and the consequences of excessive drinking. Those who promoted prohibition showed no concern for the large majority who drank alcohol responsibly for enjoyment and whose rights would be violated by prohibition.