On Government & Lying In Politics
By Marpheen S. Chann-Berry
Intro: Third essay for my political theory class. Written in context of Arendt’s “Lying In Politics” and lectures by Dr. Ron Schmidt.
If democracy is indeed a form of government founded upon the ideal that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, then it is near treasonous to propose the idea that lying and deception are necessary means by which we can preserve and protect that form of government. For if a government is the subject of the people and the people the subjects of their government, then it is vital that in order to protect such a system of government, that both the government and the people should be intermingled to such an extent so as to allow utmost scrutiny of every government action. This denotes a kind of reciprocal relationship, one where the government and the people must engage in a continuous struggle, a give and take if you will, for democratic equilibrium (since democracy does not exist in perfection). With that said, I would argue that there exists no greater threat to a society and a system of government than the threats that exist from within, specifically the corruption of government and the failure of the governed to address it. In laying out this argument I would first like to layout what I believe to be American-ness, with particular focus on certain articles of the Bill of Rights and how they contribute to our exceptional democracy. Secondly, I will examine Counter-Subversion in light of Arendt’s arguments in Lying and Politics in order to lead us to the conclusion that propaganda and counter-subversion is a corruption of democracy and works to disrupt the democratic equilibrium that should exist between a people and their government.
Before doing so, however, I would like to point out that I use American-ness and American Exceptionalism interchangeably, in that it is the essence of a thing that makes it exceptional and therefore to observe the exceptionalism of a particular thing is to also observe its essence. With that said, I will move on to addressing the question of what exactly is American-ness and why it makes America exceptional as compared to other systems of government. In doing this, however, I would like to stress that my belief in American Exceptionalism is not grounded in the idea that it should dominate geo-politics in terms of its military strength and its economic prowess, as purported by various public figures, but it is established on what distinguishes America from the rest of the world. Being the conception of a collective of distinguished fellows and intellectuals, it is only natural that we turn to what they produced, specifically the Bill of Rights, in determining what exactly is “American-ness”.
American Exceptionalism exists in the principle inherent within the freedom of religion clause in article one of the Bill of Rights. This was indeed a unique departure from the Old World, which was divided not only by culture and language but also by religion, and in Europe’s case, varied views and doctrines. The freedom of religion clause laid the foundation of what Thomas Jefferson would call “… a wall of Separation between Church and State,”1 arguing that the clause restricted the government from levying its power against opinions. In prohibiting the government from legislating in respect to religion, it prohibited it also from favoring one religion over another. This paved the way for a government quite different from European forms in that no matter your religious opinions, your right to hold them are essentially protected under the premise of “natural rights”.
Freedom of Speech and of the Press is yet another ideal held within article one through which American Exceptionalism is manifested. The idea that American’s have the right to free speech, specifically in regard to the public and political scene, put further regulations upon the government in that it could be held accountable by the very words of its citizens and access to varied opinions. Freedom of speech and of the press also provided an avenue in which the average American could engage in and partake of public life. This in essence kept the nature of American politics in flux and was by nature lively.
Finally, I would argue that American exceptionalism exists in the protection of private property and of a person from unlawful searches not warranted without a probable cause. Article IV of the Constitution has in the last decade been a hot issue given the War on Terror and certain Counter Subversive acts of the Bush Administration through the Patriot Act, and most recently with the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act. Protection of Privacy is vital in laying out American-ness in that the United States was to be even more different than the old world in that it departed from the tendencies of authoritarian and tyrannical regimes to invade the privacy of its citizens and subjects. It is the protection of privacy and the issue of counter-subversion that leads us into my next point, examining counter-subversion in the context of Arendt’s Lying and Politics and how it serves as a corrupting force in regards to American democracy.
Hannah Arendt addresses the problem of corruption in Lying In Politicswith specific reference to the Pentagon Papers and is quick in pointing out that it is a testament to the deceptive and secretive side of government. Secrecy and deception, here, are defined by Arend’t as, “…what is diplomatically called ‘discretion,’ as well as the arcana imperii, the mysteries of government - deception, the deliberate falsehood and the outright lie used as legitimate means to achieve political ends…”2 Laying the foundation for her overall examination of deception in government, she argues that lying in politics is easy because of the fragile nature of truth. She seemingly attributes this partly to the human capacity for imagination. In her view, the exclusive human ability to deliberately lie, to change facts, and to act are contained within the concept of imagination. In imagining something or an “end,” a person is in a sense denying reality for but a brief moment as they produce something from which actions (the means) arise. Because actions require imagination and imagination the denial of reality, Arendt argues that the inability to affirm and deny reality would surmount to no action being possible at all. Furthermore, Arendt argues that the fragility of truth is inherent in its non-compelling nature as well as the existence of contingent facts, which are facts that may or may not be true given a set of circumstances.3 Arendt uses the circumstances surrounding the Pentagon Papers as an example of how contingent facts were used to protect what the Defense Department perceived to be America’s “image”. She first argues that the DOD first claimed that the objective of US involvement in Vietnam was primarily for the assurance that South Vietnam was free to determine its own future and as a “counter-subversive guarantor” against communism and the influence of China. Because of the collapse of the South Vietnamese government later on, the DOD then had to procure another justification for US involvement, this time stating that its role was to urge “…Hanoi to resist the Viet Cong and Pathet Lao.” As the situation degraded, however, the Pentagon justified US presence in Vietnam by describing its role there in terms of convincing the enemy of no assurance of victory, and when that didn’t work, they moved on to saying that continued US presence was to “avoid a humiliating defeat.”4
This is all said in order to support Arendt’s argument that the Pentagon was seeking to protect its perceived “image” of America. She says this when stating on page 11 that they, “lied not so much for their country - certainly not for their country’s survival, which was never at stake - as for its ‘image.’” I would go even further in saying that the Pentagon was not only protecting its “perceived” image of America as a dominant power, but was also seeking to protect the image of the persons involved in the decision making process that lead to the US’s prolonged involvement in Vietnam. I would even say that the procurement of the image of America as a dominant superpower, whether accidentally or intentionally, able to secure its interests unhindered throughout the world essentially became an “imagined” American empire in the minds of policy makers. The American role on a global scale became essentially that of preserving an idealized “pax-americana,” where America served as a counter-subversive force against the spread of communism and an assurance against the dominance of the Sino-Soviet Bloc, which never existed to the degree that the Pentagon purported it to be. Here I am referring to when Arendt refers to a New York Times report claiming that Mao and Chou En-lai had approached Roosevelt in 1945 in order to ease their reliance on the Soviets. My personal opinion being that if this was in fact true, that we could have avoided many modern problems with China if we had ignored the delusional theory concerning the relationship between China and the Soviet Union. This again denotes a sort of deception on the part of the Pentagon and the administration at that point in efforts to continue in their counter-subversive measures.
With the circumstances surrounding the Pentagon Papers, it seems as though this political culture of secrecy and deception has not waned in light of modern times, given the 9/11 attacks and the war on terror in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If we recall the various arguments used to justify the war in Iraq, they follow along the same lines as the justifications given in the Pentagon Papers and in what Arendt offers up as a “public relations” war. The first justification offered to the public was that Saddam Hussein had connections to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and that there was a possibility of his providing weapons to the terrorist organization. It is important to note, as the BBC did, that this was a claim largely purported by then Vice-President Dick Cheney. This justification for the war in Iraq was derailed when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence stated that Saddam was instead rather distrustful of the organization and had refused to provide aid.5 As the war in Iraq was drawn out, the Bush administration was forced to seek out other justifications, painting the war in Iraq in the context of a war between good and evil and the spread of democracy. We can draw several comparisons here in that the administration, in order to preserve its image, made the Iraq War into a war that was in essence protecting America’s global image of a combatant against evil and a force for the spread of democracy. We can also draw lines of comparison in that the intelligence community was, in both cases, reluctant in drawing the same conclusions as the administration and the Department of Defense.
Another result of what was overall purported as a “War on Terror,” was the controversial Patriot Act passed shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Controversial powers given to the government are held within the provisions that authorized the federal government to share information between the FBI, which was previously for the most part an agency dealing with domestic criminal activity, and the CIA, wiretaps that allow the government, with one authorization or warrant, to tap into multiple devices owned by a suspect, allowing investigators with warrants to conduct searches without first alerting the suspect, and broadening the law that allows the investigation of association with a terrorist suspect. The Patriot Act, however, was not the creation of new counter-subversive techniques but rather the expansion and the broadening of already existing laws. The critical difference lies in the fact that the previous laws had limited government activity to counter-act against criminal activity and had preserved a wall of separation between the FBI and domestic counter-criminal agencies and federal intelligence and counter-terrorism agencies.6
It seems as though the Bush administration not only sought to redefine what constituted torture, as was mentioned in class, but also sought to redefine what constituted probable cause in terms of the various methods adopted by the federal government in order to counter-act terrorist efforts. In my view, the administration was successful in “water-boarding” the general public into believing in its watered down definition of both torture and probable cause. In light of what Arendt argues in terms of the fragility of truth and the susceptibility of contingent facts to be used in further breaking down the non-compelling nature of truth, I would argue that attempts at “redefinition” on behalf of the government is in itself an example of lying in politics. Deliberate deception was used by government, in a sense, against the people in order to garner support for a war that had not stake in the survival of the US and for the invasion of privacy and proliferation of government surveillance and counter-subversive efforts.
In conclusion, certain efforts on behalf of the government to justify its actions, to serve as a “counter-subversive guarantor,” and as a vehicle of counter-terrorism has morphed it into a force counter-productive to the nature of democracy. American-ness was abandoned as corruption crept in and the government sought to project an image of American-ness in order to protect itself and to justify its actions. In lying and in deception it has raised a wall of separation between itself and the people and has abandoned the principle that government is of the people, by the people and for the people. In closing, I would like to quote Bob Schieffer who sums up my argument in saying, “As Americans, we do believe our system offers a better way. But the only way to convince others of that is if we live by our values. Real security begins with remembering who we are. We gain nothing by adopting the methods of our enemies.”7
Endnotes
1. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Danbury Baptists.
2. Hannah Arendt, Crises of the Republic. (New York U.a.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972.) page 4.
3. ibid. 5-6.
4. ibid. 14-16.
5. Adam Brooks. “BBC NEWS | Americas | Iraq War Justifications Laid Bare.” BBC News - Home. BBC News, 9 Sept. 2006. Web. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5329350.stm>.
6. ”The Patriot Act: Provisions Expiring Dec. 31 : NPR.” NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. NPR News, 18 July 2005. Web. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4754214>.
7. ”FreeSpeech: Bob Schieffer - CBS News Video.” Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. Web. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2007087n>.
Works Cited
Arendt, Hannah. Crises of the Republic. New York U.a.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Print.
Brookes, Adam. “BBC NEWS | Americas | Iraq War Justifications Laid Bare.” BBC News - Home. BBC News, 9 Sept. 2006. Web. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5329350.stm>.
“FreeSpeech: Bob Schieffer - CBS News Video.” Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. Web. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2007087n>.
“Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin.” Library of Congress Home. Web. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html>.
“The Patriot Act: Provisions Expiring Dec. 31 : NPR.” NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. NPR News, 18 July 2005. Web. 13 Dec. 2011. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4754214>.
