In 1974, during the Watergate era, a major
textbook publisher (Scott Foresman) invited me [Hugh Rank] to edit a high school
text on "the language of Watergate." My editors were enthusiastic
and helpful during the editorial process. But, at the last moment, the publisher
intervened and killed the project because he felt both the title (Liars
in Public Places) and the essays within were insulting to our country's
president. Soon afterward (August 9, 1974), our country's president (Richard
Nixon) resigned in order to avoid impeachment. The introduction (below) to that
censored book was later published as an essay in English Journal
(October, 1975). See also:: "Watergate and the
Language"
Liars in Public Places
Over fifty years ago, the poet Ezra Pound wrote [in "Hugh
Selwyn Mauberly"] of the disillusionment of the "Lost Generation,"
of those who had fought in "the war to make the world safe for democracy,"
believing that it was "the war to end all war," and of those veterans
who came home to find "liars in public places."
Ironically, the poet's phrases seem even more significant when read today. After
a decade of wars and bombings, of domestic strife and riots, of nuclear threats
and international crises, we are only now becoming aware of the depth of duplicity,
the scope and extent of the lies and liars in our own generation.
To call our political leaders liars may be strong language, but,
it is accurate: President Eisenhower lied about the U-2 incident; President Kennedy
lied about the Bay of Pigs; President Johnson lied about the Viet Nam War; President
Nixon lied about Viet Nam, Cambodia, Watergate. And these are but a few of the
exposed lies of some of our more prominent politicians. Each lie, of course, has
been defended, explained, and rationalized-usually in terms of "national
security." In the Cambodian bombings, for example, it was no secret to the
communists that they were being bombed by American planes; Hanoi, Peking, and
Moscow knew what was going on. But the Nixon administration, instigating a complex
cover-up and falsifying military records, kept the Cambodian bombings secret from
the Congress and from the American people all in the name of "national security."
To call our business leaders liars may be strong language, but it is accurate-,
Deceptive advertising by major "respectable" corporations is rather
common; many major corporations pay a great deal of public lip service to the
ideals of "free enterprise" and then secretly subvert that system by
covert price-fixing, by lobbying for tax favors and loopholes, by bribery, and
by other forms of individual and corporate corruption. Add to this the "less
respectable" businesses denounced by all, those vicious fly-by-night operators
who defraud millions of dollars, year after year, from the very poor, the very
young, the very old, the most naive, and the most gullible.
Some people might infer, erroneously, that my criticism of American political
and business institutions is an endorsement of some other country or economic
system. Not so. One should not ignore the history of systematic repression and
duplicity of the various socialist nations (e.g. Russia, China) or the various
fascist regimes (e.g. Spain, South Africa), nor should one ignore the malice and
violence in many parts of the world today (e.g. Ireland, Egypt, Israel, Greece,
Turkey, etc.). But, it's probably healthier, psychologically, to examine our own
environment first, to recognize certain problems within ourselves and within our
country. Certainly virtue or vice is not confined to one nation, one political
party, or one era.
Nor should one assume that my focus here on contemporary liars in
public places denies the existence of lying in the past, or of
liars in private places. Lying is a rather common, age-old, widespread human activity.
From ancient writings (e.g. the Bible, the Koran, etc.) through all periods of
recorded human history, writers have been describing lies and liars, criticizing,
warning, damning, and railing against them. We must assume, realistically, that
if people have lied in the past, they will do so in the future.
But the situation is not hopeless. In this country, especially, one of the great
sources of hope is our genuine democratic spirit, an idealistic sense of justice
and equality, and a legacy of practical politics inherited from our "Founding
Fathers' -- people like Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin. They knew
well that the capacity for good and evil exists within every person and that power
tends to corrupt. Thus they constructed an intricate system of government with
various power groups checking and balancing each other. It hasn't worked perfectly;
often the failures are obvious and gross, especially in contrast to the idealized
goals. But, in the wider context of thousands of years of human history in which
people lived under tyrants, under rules of force and fear, we can find cause to
be hopeful. Democracy, so fragile a dream, has partially worked;
our society, at present, is relatively free.
Watergate, some people claim, proved that "the system worked," because
even the most powerful are still held in check -- even the President and his staff
cannot violate the law. But, the system almost didn't work; a vast illegal conspiracy
and cover-up almost succeeded. If it were not for an accidental discovery of a
taped door, the stubbornness of a skeptical judge, the probing of a few newspaper
reporters, the integrity of a few witnesses, and the accidental discovery of the
existence of the White House tapes, it is quite possible that the flagrant abuses
of presidential power would have never been discovered and checked.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned from Watergate is the same which Ben Franklin
preached two hundred years ago: The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Each
generation must re-examine, reform, and attempt to re-balance the various power
groups within the society, In our political process, we can strive for good laws
and good leaders; in our educational process, we can strive for a more informed,
more sophisticated citizenry.
Watergate disillusioned many people. While it might be good to lose one's illusions,
it's still very painful because it means that one has to admit one's own error
or recognize a betrayal by others who had been trusted. Some of the most agonizing
scars of the recent political scandals are borne by those honest citizens who
had supported, believed, and trusted Agnew and Nixon. Millions of Americans felt
betrayed and were deeply affected; some became cynical and lost all belief. In
reaction to this cynicism, President Ford and other leaders began a campaign to
"restore confidence" in our government and in our institutions.
It is no wonder that kids growing up today in America are disillusioned with what
they hear and with what they see. We live in a society of sweetened slogans in
which the purest ideals are being preached, but often, not practiced. The words
are one thing; the deeds, another. One of the purposes of schools can be to disillusion
young people even more, to take away some of their illusions, and to replace them
with realistic information, practical attitudes, and approaches to cope with language
manipulation by the powerful persuaders in our society.
This is not to suggest that teachers should turn students toward cynicism. But
if a democratic society is to remain free, citizens should not be encouraged to
be docile, trusting, and naive. Governments and their functionaries, corporations
and their products, are always begging for our trust, our belief, our confidence
in them. "Trust me" is the standard pitch of every politician and practically
every product peddler.
Who, then, can be trusted? Reach in your pocket. Look at the coins or the bills.
The official motto of this country is "In God We Trust." And the unofficial
ending hallowed in American folklore, and found in restaurants and bars and stores
from coast to coast, is that bit of folk wisdom which says, "All others pay
cash!"
Such a folksy realistic attitude might be called a "healthy skepticism."
Certainly one of the most important survival skills which parents, teachers, and
schools can encourage today is an attitude of healthy skepticism, a moderate position
avoiding the extremes.
Most people, in their daily person-to-person communications with others do avoid
the extremes; they know that different people can be trusted, or not trusted,
in varying degrees, By experience, we gradually make these judgments about our
friends and acquaintances. Yet some people have a tendency to take on an all-or-nothing
position when dealing with corporate communications, with those constant messages
and ads being sent out to us by governments and corporations. But, here too, we
need a healthy skepticism. We must avoid being either fools or cynics. We cannot
survive if we believe everything, nor if we believe nothing.
Foremost among our modern survival skills, in a corporate society with such sophisticated
persuasion techniques, must be the ability to analyze language and to make critical
judgments, to transform vague trust or distrust into specific acceptance or rejection,
and to evaluate as to whether those who seek our trust and confidence are, or
are not, liars in public places.
Of related interest, see: David Corn,
The Lies of George W. Bush (2003) | From the Introduction:
"George W Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small. He
has lied directly and by omission. He has misstated facts, knowingly or not.
He has misled. He has broken promises, been unfaithful to political vows. Through
his campaign for the presidency and his first years in the White House, he has
mugged the truth -- not merely in honest error, but deliberately, consistently,
and repeatedly to advance his career and his agenda. Lying greased his path
toward the White House; it has been one of the essential tools of his presidency.
To call the 43rd president of the United States a prevaricator is not an exercise
of opinion, not an inflammatory talk-radio device. This insult is supported
by an all too extensive record of self-serving falsifications. So constant is
his fibbing that a history of his lies offers a close approximation of the history
of his presidential tenure."