A Sense of Decency Or, as Harold Balazs would say, Transcend the BS! By Rev. Dr. Todd F. Eklof October 18, 2015

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "A Sense of Decency Or, as Harold Balazs would say, Transcend the BS! By Rev. Dr. Todd F. Eklof October 18, 2015"

Louisa Fletcher
6 years ago
Views:

1 Or, as Harold Balazs would say, Transcend the BS! By Rev. Dr. Todd F. Eklof October 18, 2015 I want to begin by considering the classic meaning of two words, sophism and autism. Sophism originates from the ancient Greek word meaning, I am wise. It initially referred to anyone thought to have a particular skill or expertise, and later to smart people in general, and later still, to those who made their living teaching wisdom or philosophy to others. Protagoras, who lived 25 hundred years ago, is considered the very first professional sophist. His famous dictum, Man is the measure of all things, emphasizing the fluid, relative, and subjective nature of truth seems to have left its imprint on sophism from then on. A hundred years later Plato came along and began criticizing sophists for using their rhetorical skills to spin the truth for a fee. The result, as the Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, is the term sophistry has come to signify the deliberate use of fallacious reasoning, intellectual charlatanism and moral unscrupulousness. 1 Although this is probably an unfair overgeneralization, sophism today refers to those willing to spin the facts to their own advantage with little regard for the actual truth. Nowadays such sophism is rampant among our politicians and journalists. We listen intently to our politicians and candidates, panning their rhetoric for some unintentional nugget of truth, a brief moment of honesty, a gaff, a slip of the tongue that might reveal just a little of their true character and thoughts. We listen critically and skeptically to our leaders because sophism spin, deception, and rhetorical arguments have become the norm, people saying whatever is most advantageous at the time. We must read the paper or watch the news with same level of scrutiny, knowing that bias in the media has become the new normal, ever since deregulation of the industry allowed just five mega-corporations to buy up all the papers, magazines, television and radio stations in the nation. Whether it s Rush Limbaugh on the radio, Bill O Reilly on Fox News, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, or just the forecaster standing in front of the local green-screen saying it s going to be another sunny day because she ll get fired if she mentions global warming, we ve learned that if we re going to read or watch the news we better have our waders on. The other word I mentioned, autism, is thought these days to refer almost exclusively to a terrible spectrum of socially debilitating disorders that make it difficult for those with the condition to relate in usual ways with others. But the term, also from the Greek language, autos, meaning, Self, has been around a lot longer and has classically been used to refer to anyone who has difficulty coping with empirical reality, with the facts outside their own desires and beliefs. Before 1

2 Freud came along, earlier psychologists tended to use autism the way we now use the words subconscious and unconscious, as a kind of self-deception, or inability to check our biases and hidden motivations. Jean Piaget, for example, the founder of Developmental Psychology, once explained, the sole functions of autistic thought is to give immediate and unlimited satisfaction to desires and interests by deforming reality so as to adapt it to the ego since autism is ignorant of that reality shared by all, which destroys illusion and enforces verification. 2 So, classically speaking, autism, for which the terrible condition has been named, more generally refers to the tendency any of us might have to deny empirical reality in favor of our own inner wants and biases. So what do these two words have to do with each other? Quite simply, autism is a tendency to ignore what s happening around us, and sophism is the means by which we do it. If we can spin the truth to be whatever we want it to be, then we don t have to worry about being fact-checked by, as Piaget put it, that reality shared by all. Of course we wouldn t be bothered by those who prefer to live under the influence of their own delusions were it not that when their private autistic delusions are brought into the public sphere and justified by modern day sophists, a.k.a., the tongues for hire on Fox News and MSNBC, it ends up impacting the reality we all really do share, whether we like it or not. Denying the reality of global warming is a case major case in point. The situation only worsens each year as we continue debating whether or not it s even happening even as we re running out of time to do anything about it. Autistic sophism is a problem because, instead of dealing with our most pressing problems, we re wasting precious time arguing over whether or not they even are problems. I m sure this is what John Lennon must have been feeling when he wrote his protest song, Gimme Some Truth; I'm sick and tired of hearing things From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites I ve had enough of reading things By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians Or, as one of our most renowned local artist and member of this congregation, Harold Balazs more succinctly says, Transcend the BS! 2 Gruber, Howard E. & Voeche, J. Jacques, eds., The Essential Piaget, Jason Aronson Inc., Northvale, NJ, 1977, 1995, ibid., p

3 As John Lennon s 1971 Anti-Vietnam War song suggests, autistic sophism isn t just a modern phenomenon, despite the media monopoly that has only recently developed. It s been going on for a very long time in our nation, including, during the McCarthy Era, which may have been the most dramatic instance of an official witchhunt since the actual witch hunts. Freshman Senator Joseph McCarthy was relatively unknown to most the nation and had already become so unpopular among his Wisconsin constituents that it was unlikely he d win a second term. But things took a sudden and unexpected turn on February 9, 1950, when he gave a Lincoln s Day speech to a Women s Club in Wheeling, West Virginia. Less than three months earlier he d already given another speech to a group of Shriners, during which he said, We cannot blind our eyes to the fact that we are engaged in a showdown fight a final, all-out battle between Communist atheism and Christian Democracy. 3 But during his Lincoln s Day address, he showed up with a briefcase full of papers making the claim, I have here in my hand a list of 205 a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. 4 He never showed the evidence to anyone, though it later became known he was referring to 206 federal employees, out of 4,000, who were still waiting to be given new permanent positions after their wartime agencies had been shut down. The former secretary of state, James F. Byrnes, who gave McCarthy the number, never said any among the 206 were members of the Communist Party. In fact, McCarthy didn t even have the actual list in his hand. The paper he held before his shocked audience was just a page from his speech. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story. The small town speech, along with similar unfounded accusations during the following days, soon drew national attention. The New York Times initially, and correctly referred to McCarthy s antics as nothing but character assassination, 5 but most newspapers were far more willing to treat his accusations as legitimate, even without seeing any real evidence. You probably already know the essence of what was to follow. Within three weeks of his Lincoln s Day speech, the Republican controlled Senate put McCarthy in charge of a committee to investigate the Communist infiltration of the U.S. Government, an investigation that lasted almost five years, including 15 months between 1953 and 54 during which 169 hearings were held and 653 individuals had to answer to accusations of espionage and subversive activities. In addition to government employees, the investigations targeted educators, union activists, political liberals, and entertainers. Charlie Chaplin, Lucille Ball, Orson Welles, Danny Kay, Leonard Bernstein, Lena Horn, Paul Robeson, Pete Seeger, W.E.B. Du Bois, along 3 Giblin, James Cross, The Rise and Fall of Senator Joe McCarthy, Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, New York, NY, 2009, (Kindle version) loc Ibid., loc Ibid., loc

4 with physicists David Bohm and Albert Einstein, were among those accused and subsequently blacklisted in the process. Most of these were famous enough to eventually recover, unlike the thousands of ordinary Americans who lost their livelihoods because of McCarthy s unfounded witch-hunt. Many people understood the less than veiled political motivations behind the investigations, but they were powerless to do anything about it. Even Dwight Eisenhower, President at the time, said, McCarthy is making exactly the same pledge of loyalty that Hitler made to the German people. Both tried to set up personal loyalty within the government while both were using the pretense of fighting communism. 6 But, as a cartoon at the time, showing Eisenhower sitting in McCarthy s lap, suggests, even the President was powerless to do anything about what he called, the most disloyal act we have ever had by anyone in the government of the United States. 7 It wasn t until 1954 when McCarthy picked a fight with the U.S. Army that things took a turn. His lead henchman, attorney Roy Cohn, tried to pressure the Army into giving preferential treatment to one of his personal friends. When the Army complained, McCarthy retaliated by using his investigative authority to look for Communist infiltrators inside its top ranks. Before long an investigative subcommittee was established to look into the matter. The hearings were televised for nearly three months during which American s got to witness McCarthy s tactics for themselves. But it wasn t until June 9 th, 1954, during which they saw him confronted by the Army s attorney, Joseph Welch that McCarthyism would finally come to an end. As he d been successfully getting away with for years, McCarthy tried to attack the reputation of Welch himself by suggesting one of his firm s associates, a young attorney named, Fred Fisher was a Communist simply because he was once a member of the National Lawyers Guild, and alternative to the more conservative and racially exclusive American Bar Association. Upon hearing this, Welch had a belly full. Until this moment, Senator, he said, I think I never really gauged your cruelty and your recklessness. Then, with tears in his eyes, Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel to do an injury to that lad. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. 8 Finally, when McCarthy refused to halt his accusations, Welch butted in with what were to become his immortal words, Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? 6 Ibid., loc Ibid. 8 Ibid., loc. 3406f. 4

5 The emotional confrontation, witnessed by millions of Americans, was the linchpin that soon led to McCarthy s downfall. His ratings plummeted and the Senate censured him before the year ended. McCarthy turned to alcohol and died just three years later, bringing a sad end to an even sadder chapter in American history. Unfortunately, his disgrace didn t close the book on the story of autistic sophism. Since then, McCarthyism has come to refer to any instances of public officials using lies to destroy others, especially their political foes. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges and Wikipedia says McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. I think most of us would agree such tactics remain a part of American life, perhaps more so now than ever. Yet I wonder if the same sense of decency Joseph Welch expressed might be the solution to all the lies we are told and tell ourselves to justify fear, and hate, and injustice in our own day. Would it be enough to remind the pundits on Fox News and MSNBC, or those politicians who will say anything to get elected or to stay in power, or ordinary people eager to sacrifice their freedoms and values and prosperity in the trumped up names of safety and security, that it is a disgrace to destroy the reputations and livelihoods of others with allegations based on lies? Would things change if, with every statement made, rather than cheering rhetoric that stirs our emotions, we demand to see the evidence, to see the blank document squeezed tight in the accuser s shaking fist? Would it be enough to say to those still insisting climate change is a hoax, or that scientists don t agree on what s causing it, or that doing something about it will destroy jobs, You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? Or to those journalists who helped beat the drums of war with Iraq, and now claim they too were misled by bad intelligence, intelligence the UN Inspectors on the ground in Iraq a the time swore was a lie, intelligence they never bothered to factcheck, intelligence designed to further an agenda set by key officials years before 9/11 even occurred, intelligence designed to take advantage of the fear spawned by that tragic day, Have you no sense of decency, at along last? Have you left no sense of decency? Or to those on the Texas school board who want to insert their religious views into textbooks, including teaching Creationism and claiming the founders of our nation were all Judeo-Christians who revered Moses, or who want to omit any references to Jim Crow or the KKK, or to change the word slaves to workers, Have you left no sense of decency? 5

6 Or to those still claiming, without explanation, that gay marriage is going to ruin the country and destroy the institution of marriage, At long last, have you left no sense of decency? Or to those calling Mexican immigrants rapists, criminals, and terrorists, Have you left no sense of decency? Or to those insisting the government wants to take away their guns, even though no legislators have ever proposed any changes to the 2 nd amendment, Have you no sense of decency? Or to those wasting millions of dollars investigating Benghazi in order to destroy their opposition s chance of getting elected, Have you left no sense of decency? Or to those who have voted more than 50 times to repeal Obamacare because they believe it s going to destroy the country without ever explaining how or why, Have you left no sense of decency? These are mostly political examples, but they are also liturgical issues of religious concern precisely because they reflect a moral problem that religion has been addressing for thousands of years. You re probably already familiar with the Hebrew command, You shall not bear false witness against our neighbor. 9 But the Quran says similarly, that one who falsely throws blame upon the innocent, has burdened oneself with falsehood and a flagrant crime. 10 Hinduism says, One giving false evidence or uttering falsehood goes to Raurava, 11 the tradition s most terrible level of self-created hell. And Buddhism says, Discord is the pleasure, delight, joy and motive, of one whose speech becomes intentional lying either for one s own sake, or for that of another, or for the sake of one s material gain. 12 So, as Welch s famous response suggests, autistic sophism, publicly spinning the facts for selfish gain, destroying the lives of others in the process, isn t just a political matter, it s a matter of decency. It is a moral issue. And, as people of faith, it is up to us to insist such decency be required in our society. We cannot afford to waste time on needless wars or costly investigations instead of facing the facts and dealing with real problems. As Unitarian Universalist, we sum it up best in our first principle, Respect for the worth and dignity of every person. Such respect reflects our sense of decency, the same sense of decency Welch demanded, the same sense of decency we must all continue to demand and demonstrate in our world. It s time to transcend the BS! 9 Exodus 20:16 10 Quran Markandeya Purana Majjhima Nikaya iii , Sevitabbaasevitabba Sutra 6

Army-McCarthy Hearing (1954)

Army-McCarthy Hearing (1954) This excerpt is from the transcript of the Army-McCarthy hearings. During the hearings, Senator McCarthy showed a growing disregard for the rights of the people who he accused