I second this comment, with the addendum that the decline in "truth value" is the result of a toxic mix of corporatist discourse (PR, advertising, campaigning, etc) and religious discourse, both of which have very troubling relationships to any definition of truth.  Sam Harris' book "The End of Faith" makes a convincing argument for the necessity of keeping faith discourse out of civic life (among other arguments), because of the total lack of a basis in evidence and no commitment (in fact, a hostility) to working toward justice or other social values based on intersubjective processes like debate, investigation, or research.  Accepting any social construction of truth requires abandoning the notion of a divinely-inspired text, and the whole house of cards comes down.  Needless to say, I hope, corporatist discourse isn't much better - when the only imperitive is to sell, sell, sell - (as David Mamet showed brilliantly in Glengarry Glen Ross) basic humanity is right out the window. 

Mamet and Harris paint commerce and organized religion with broad brushes, it's true, but these are points we should heed. Even seemingly necessary institutions grow cancerous in their drive to survive and grow.  America has been a fascinating example of the intertwining of the spirits of enterprise and faith since (at least) the Great Awakening, today we're just seeing the lastest, and perhaps most powerful, manifestation of it. 

Posted at June 20, 2005 1:16 PM in response to Sui Generis or Same Old Song and Dance?

I've also been dismayed about the lack of public outrage.  But it's not denial.  Contrary to the collective howls on lefty blogs about poor coverage of these issues, plenty of evidence has been presented of either incompetence or outright corruption to turn the heads of people that pay scant attention to the news.  Even the "secondary" flow of news (such as Newsweek's recent flogging) serves to get the underlying issues into the public mind.  Still, no outrage.  Perhaps a bit of parlour skepticism, but that's all.  We have to face the fact that most Americans' relationship to national or international issues of war, poverty, disease, etc., are entirely grounded in the personal.  Or, to be more cynical, grounded in self-interest.  The tide wasn't turning against McCarthy until he immolated himself by picking the wrong enemies and Murrow trained his camera on it.  The tide turned against Vietnam when the draft expanded to college campuses.  Public opposition is not based on higher ideals.  In fact, calling it "public" opposition is misleading--it's a million individual furies that change the course in times like these.  We don't have those numbers.    9/11 is an empty slogan already.  Thus far, these issues that have enraged the centrists and progressives are NOT creating widespread, personal impact for everyday Americans--the impacts are all abstract or diffuse (like the opportunity-cost of  the deficit), the cost in blood is horrible, but not overwhelming, and gas prices are even falling.  Americans have lived off the spoils of the long war for a long time.  We are used to disaster outside our borders - in most people's minds, that's right where it belongs, right where it has always been.  As long as gas is cheap, food is cheap, and the TV is on in America, the natural order is being maintained.  Someday we'll get the historiographic treatment we deserve, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted at June 7, 2005 12:06 PM in response to Understanding our National Denial about Iraq