Clause 61: The Pushback Blog

Because ideas have consequences

Posts Tagged ‘truth

Michael Hayden’s Complaint

leave a comment »

On Sunday, Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA and the NSA, was on Face the Nation to discuss his new book, The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies. His quotes are taken from this transcript.

Hayden claims that we have entered what he calls a “post-truth world.” What does he mean by that? He identifies three contributory causes:

And, frankly, the first problem is us. It’s the broader society. It’s our social discourse or lack of social discourse. We’re making decisions based not on facts and data but on emotion, preference, grievance, loyalty, tribalism. We have a president who recognized that as a candidate, exploited it as a candidate and, frankly, I think, worsens it as a president by some of the things he says and does. And then, finally, we’ve got a foreign power coming in recognizing and exploiting both one and two above. And it’s all based on our moving away from basing our lives, our decisions, our dialogue on a view of objective reality rather than preference.

For this discussion, I want to stop at point one. It is valid, but it is not a new development. Almost one hundred years ago, Irving Babbitt was telling us that we were going to come to grief if we continued to move in the direction of placing emotion, preference and grievance above facts and data.

The Eighteenth Amendment is striking proof of our loss of grasp, not only on the principles that underlie our own Constitution, but that must underlie any constitution, as such, in opposition to mere legislative enactment.
Democracy and Leadership (1924), p. 250.

Babbitt was a proponent of what he called the New Humanism, which he sharply distinguished from what he identified as humanitarianism. As Babbitt saw, humanitarianism gave free play to expansive sentimentality, and no self-restraint was possible under such an ethos. He saw the religion of The People and the worship of progress for its own sake as opposite sides of the same coin.

The humanist exercises the will to refrain, but the end that he has in view is not the renunciation of the expansive desires but the subduing of them to the law of measure. The humanistic virtues-moderation, common sense, and common decency-though much more accessible than those of the saint, still go against the grain of the natural man — terribly against the grain, one is forced to conclude from a cool survey of the facts of history. Such, indeed, is the difficulty of getting men to practice even humanistic control that one is led, not necessarily to revive the dogma of original sin, but to suspect that the humanitarians, both Baconian and Rousseauistic, are hopelessly superficial in their treatment of the problem of evil. The social dualism they have set up tends in its ultimate development to substitute the class war for what Diderot termed in his denunciation of the older dualism the “civil war in the cave.”
— “What I Believe” (1930)

Babbitt found that right living requires both the intellect to know what to do and the will to do it. It is the will, more than the intellect, that falters.

In any case the assertion that one attains to more abundant life (in the religious sense) by getting rid of the don’ts sums up clearly, even though in an extreme form, the side of the modern movement with which I am taking issue. This book in particular is devoted to the most unpopular of all tasks — a defence of the veto power.
Democracy and Leadership, p. 5.

Babbitt called for more self-reform and less social reform at a time when the current was running very much the other way. Thus, few listened to him. At this time, we would do well to go back and understand what he had to say.

Already by Babbitt’s time, we had sufficient history to provide examples for those having eyes to see. Babbitt looked critically at the French Revolution:

In theory, Robespierre is, like Rousseau, rigidly equalitarian. He is not a real leader at all — only the people’s “hired man.” But at critical moments, in the name of an ideal general will, of which he professes to be only the organ, he is ready to impose tyrannically his will on the actual people. The net result of the Rousseauistic movement is thus not to get rid of leadership, but to produce an inferior and even insane type of leadership, and in any case leadership of a highly imperialistic type. This triumph of force can be shown to be the total outcome of liberty, equality, and fraternity in the Rousseauistic sense. Rousseau himself, as we have seen, would force people to be free. The attempt to combine freedom with equality led, and, according to Lord Acton, always will lead, to terrorism. As for Jacobinical fraternity, it has been summed up in the phrase; “Be my brother or I’ll kill you.”
— Democracy and Leadership, p. 127.

For Babbitt, there was plenty enough to learn, not only from how the Revolution progressed to how it ended, with Napoleon. Babbitt cited Burke’s predictions from as far back as 1790 that a military adventurer would ultimately sweep in and pick up all the marbles. Napoleon did not get much pushback from the acolytes of The People; most of them fell over one another to welcome and praise him.

After an experience of the theory that has already extended over several generations, the world would seem at times to have become a vast seething mass of hatred and suspicion. What Carlyle wrote of the Revolution has not ceased to be applicable: “Beneath this rose-colored veil of universal benevolence is a dark, contentious, hell-on-earth.”
Democracy and Leadership, p. 131.

As it turned out, this was not only true of the French Revolution, but of the Soviets and the volksgemeinschaft of the Nazis.

For Babbitt, Rousseau was the leading figure, though by no means the final word, in the development of expansive sentimentality as the preferred standard of judgment. Rousseau moved the locus of the struggle for good and evil outside of the individual. Rousseau wrote, “man is naturally good and it is by our institutions alone that men become wicked.” This grants the Rousseauvian the license to give way to his expansive desires, since they are perceived to be naturally good.

Since Babbitt wrote, we have seen the full development of emotivism, the idea that ethical claims are based on emotional attitudes. Emotivism is sometimes known as the hurrah/boo theory, because it recognizes no higher standard than what a person feels about an ethical idea. It is the total realization of decisions based on emotion, preference and grievance. It is the extreme end of the scale in this regard. A person might have a sense that this is not the way to make decisions, but could she articulate her basis for knowing that this is wrong? How would she explain why emotivism goes too far?

Meanwhile, a man in the position of Hayden is left way out on a limb. He wants to base his life and his decisions on objective reality, but in the service of people who want to base their lives and decisions on emotion and preference. He wants to uphold institutions, in the service of people whose philosophy tells them that their institutions are the source of corruption. As this plays out over time, he finds himself being ground between rollers moving ever closer together, leaving no escape. He wants to be providing means based on objective reality to people who choose their ends based on sentiment, but this is a source of increasing frustration to his public because the means do not reach the ends. He perceives, correctly, that the people blame him and those like him for not being able to magically produce the ends they desire.

What’s it like, trying to lead an organization whose function depends on recognition of objective reality, answering to people who don’t care about objective reality? Solzhenitsyn provided a compact summary:

And there were some bright engineers who pointed out a fourth reason as well: that, so they claimed, the necessity of setting up a perimeter fence at every step, of strengthening the convoy, of allotting a supplementary convoy, interfered with their, the engineers’, technical maneuverability, as, for example, during the disembarkation on the River Taz; and because of this, so they claimed, everything was done late and cost more. But this was already an objective reason, this was a pretext! Summon them to the Party bureau, give them a good scolding, and the cause will disappear. Let them break their heads; they’ll find a solution.
The Gulag Archipelago, vol. II, pp. 584-585.

We don’t have to care about your facts and data, Michael! Data is all in your head. Our feelings outrank your excuses. We can want whatever we want, and either you and your people break your heads to provide it or we’ll find someone else who will.

From this point of view, Donald Trump has produced two effects. First, he has raised the intensity of the game to the next level. More important than this, however, is the fact that he has shown the door can swing both ways. Many of the people who advocated sentimentality and good intentions assumed that people in power would always share their sentiments (Yes, we can!), and that those with whom they disagree are on “the wrong side of history.” Now, it seems history has turned a corner, heading in an unsatisfying direction. Thus we observe a sudden awakening of interest in facts and evidentiary data.

… the new American life-style has become a Disneyland version of the Weimar Republic for the whole family.
— Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (1987), p. 147.

The Weimar Republic didn’t end well; it voted itself out of existence and tossed the keys to the Napoleon wannabee of the era. I am not going to compare Trump to Hitler; I don’t find such comparisons warranted. The comparison Bloom made, of our contemporary society to Weimar, is much more apposite. Most of Part II of the book is his argument in support of this claim. Bloom also called our approach, “nihilism with a happy ending.” It will turn out that there are no happy endings for nihilists. The evidence for this is accumulating monthly.

If I can have my truth and you can have your truth, why can’t Donald Trump have his truth? Yes, it’s a little more scary, since he is in a position to do more with his truth, like sic the IRS on you or start a war. But either any of us get to have our own individual truth, or none of us do.

“We are approaching,” Rousseau declared, “the era of crises, and the age of revolutions.” He not only made the prophecy but did more than any other one man to insure its fulfillment.
— “What I Believe”

If each of us can have our own truth, then there is no possibility of settling our differences with words. If they are to be settled at all, that only leaves bullets as a means of settling them. Do not construe that I am endorsing violence. I would much rather be able to work out political disputes with words. But without a common truth on which to base an argument, any attempt to try to persuade another person with words is a fool’s errand. Rational citizens are scared of the eventuality of violent resolution, and rightly so, which is why so many critical issues go unresolved. The unresolved issues are piling up, weighing on us, demanding resolution.

Perhaps Trump can convince people that being out of power can even happen to nice people like you, and when it happens to you, process suddenly becomes important. Possibly, through his negative example, he can illustrate the consequences of cutting loose from facts and data when they are not emotionally satisfying, making these consequences come to life in a way no book can. If he is able to accomplish this, before we are reduced to violence, he will have done a great service to the country.

The belief that sentimentality and good intentions can provide an effective guide to morality is playing out before your eyes. Persons such as Hayden provide valuable testimony of the consequences of these ideas.

The day of reckoning is coming. Hayden provides one more item of evidence that it must come. When it comes, Irving Babbitt is still waiting to show us the way forward.


Written by srojak

May 8, 2018 at 11:13 pm

Truth, Justice and the American Politician

leave a comment »

There seems to be a lot of confusion and selective hearing about truth, particularly when it comes from politicians. Let’s step back and try to unpack all this.

Hillary Clinton Goes to Bosnia

Here is an excellent case study. In 2008, Hillary Clinton claimed:

I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.
— Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, 2008.

In fact, nothing like that happened. Here is a video of Clinton’s arrival in Bosnia in 1996.

So did she lie? I do not believe that she did. Here rendering is not truthful, but I don’t believe it deserve the status of a lie.

Why do I say that?

I believe that Clinton had an image in her mind of the person she wanted to be, and she remembered what happened at Bosnia in 1996 in those terms. What actually happened was irrelevant.

Cognitive Dissonance

The theory of cognitive dissonance was first put forward by Leon Festinger in 1957. At the time, the idea was truly revolutionary, as psychology was in the grip of behaviorism. Festinger found behaviors that behaviorism could not explain. Subjects would change their opinions to achieve consonance with their previous behaviors.

Festinger, with Henry Riecken and Stanley Schachter, had written When Prophecy Fails, a book recording the beliefs of a small cult who had predicted a flood would destroy the world on 21 December 1954, both before and after the non-event. Not only did many cult members refuse to abandon their beliefs when the flood did not occur; they committed to them even more intensely.

Both women were greatly upset by the disconfirmation of the  morning of December 21, Edna Post being hit especially hard. Nevertheless, throughout the period of disconfirmation both these women unquestioningly accepted the messages, predictions, and rationalizations that Mrs, Keech and Dr. Armstrong worked out for the group. Both of them simply repeated the rationalizations of disconfirmation that the leaders elaborated and glowed over the wonder and beauty of the plan. Their faith, too, remained firm all through the time that we maintained contact with them. On January 24, Daisy while en route to Virginia wrote to one of the authors, saying, “Believe me, we certainly have had divine guidance all along the way. We get orders from ‘upstairs’ en
route.” And “Give our ‘best’ to the other two from Minneapolis, Tell them we know the future is ‘rosy.’ We’ve been promised many wonderful things and we still know who our Director is. We go as his guests — his representatives.”
— Festinger, et al., When Prophecy Fails (1956), p. 195.

The behavior of various public figures is often attributed to lying and covering up, but cognitive dissonance offers a better explanation and one that does not require mendacious intent.

It takes some degree of ego to run for national public office. A candidate has to appeal to others, raise funds for the campaign and prevail against hostile counteraction from competitors and their supporters.

Consider a newly elected Senator, arriving into what is often called “the world’s most exclusive club.” There will be overwhelming pressure to believe that he deserves to be there, reinforced by the bubble of staff that the Senator has accrued through the campaign. The realities of politics require that the Senator will have built a narrative about himself, his motives and his actions that can survive the attacks of others, armed with opposition research and seeking to show the voters inconsistent behavior in the Senator’s history.

Now, the Senator will not be able to obtain everything he wants; he must engage in barter and log-rolling, giving his vote on some issues on which he does not agree in order to obtain the support of others for items of higher priority. He must bring home patronage to influential constituents if he is to be re-elected. All these pressures reinforce the need for a narrative that can preserve his own self-image in the face of inconsistent behavior.

Thus, I find it hardly surprising that Clinton remembered herself coming into Bosnia under fire or that Jeff Sessions did not remember conversations with the Russian ambassador during his confirmation hearings. These people construct narratives about themselves, remembering incidents in terms of the self-image they want to have. What actually happened is irrelevant.

It would seem a damn fool behavior to willfully lie about episodes that can be researched by the press or have video evidence on YouTube for anyone to find. I don’t believe the processing ever gets past the brain stem. The politician first deceives herself. She squeezes her memory of events, forcing them to fit the story about herself that she not only wants to tell others, but needs to believe about herself.

What’s Good for Me Is Good for America

I do not mean to exonerate people for this behavior. If my explanation is accurate, it is actually more disturbing than if the people involved had simply lied. It is saying that they can’t tell truth from falsehood. They have commingled their identities with the country. It speaks to delusions of grandeur.

The problem is not limited to government; private sector organizations also have to contend with it.

Billy Graham had a man named Grady Wilson who yelled “Horseshit” — however you say that in Baptist — at him whenever he took himself too seriously. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons the Graham organization has been so successful. I had a Chairman of the Executive Committee who used to blow a launch-caller at me. Every chief executive should find someone to perform this function and then make sure he can only be fired for being too polite. Since the leader must lead the battle against institutionalization, it’s to the leader that you should look for early signs of losing the war. Is he getting confused about who’s God? Polishing up the image instead of greasing the wheels? Preoccupied with the price of the stock? Listening to the public relations department? Short-tempered with honest criticism? Are people hesitating before they tell him?
— Robert Townsend, Further Up the Organization, p. 107.

In my experience, it takes an person of unusual moral strength to accept Townsend’s advice. The key difference being that when private sector organizations go senile, they ultimately fail and are replaced. They don’t take the whole country with them.

There is a great howling right now about truth and facts, but a failure to understand the human behavior that leads to the incidents we have observed. Perhaps it is comforting to think that we have been lied to and ill-served. We the People can believe a narrative about ourselves, that we have been taken advantage of by malicious operators. Throw the rascals out and get in a new lot. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Cognitive dissonance is not limited to people in power. Even nice people like you and I are susceptible.

Written by srojak

March 6, 2017 at 5:22 am

Interviewing Kellyanne Conway

leave a comment »

This video (6:31 long) from Vox was brought to my attention. It raises a number of interesting questions. Laid over with questions about Vox itself and the media in general, we have even more questions. It is a very layered story, and worth some time to dig through the various layers.

Let’s start with the subject at hand, then open the lens to the bigger picture.

Being a Representative

Conway’s role on these shows is to represent the administration. Within a circumscribed, forest-for-the-trees perspective of the role (more on that later), I think she does an outstanding job. She is determined and relentless. When she has a strong hand, she plays it; when she has a weak hand, she bluffs like crazy.

She knows that many of her interviewers want to pin her down. They want to face her. They want to force her to fold, to make concessions. She has no intention of doing that. It’s a test of wills.

I have some experience in representing myself; I represented a software company in sales efforts. Conway is a walking illustration of the very ethos of a successful software sales representative: “They promised you beachfront? You don’t want beachfront. Swampland is the future!”

Being Donald Trump’s Representative

Overlaid on top of this is the fact that she is representing the administration headed by President Trump. I don’t think I am being unfair to Trump by saying that this is no ordinary presidential administration. He consistently promised something out of the ordinary on his campaign, and he is delivering in abundance.

Given the nature of Donald Trump, the person, there are going to be some striking challenges in being his representative. For openers, he pops off at the mouth — or the tweet — much more than the typical organizational leader. Then his representatives have to go forward and try to control the damage.

I believe that Trump did not further his own cause by calling Judge James Robart a “so-called judge”, but he did. I believe that a more nuanced approach to the limitations of the press would have been preferable to calling them “The enemy of the American people.” But Trump doesn’t do nuance. We’ve had years to figure this out. The man is, as of this writing, 70 years old; he’s set in his ways.

So you, the representative, get the task of appearing in front of the press, who are howling like a scalded dog after having been called the enemy of the American people. You can’t unsay his remarks. You can’t disown them. You can’t cut and run. How are you going to navigate this?

So, yeah, Conway “reinvents Trump’s positions into more defensible versions of themselves.” How else would she keep her head above water? Jeff Lord has been doing the same thing as a Trump flack on CNN for the entire 2016 campaign. When Trump made totally outrageous, foot-in-mouth statements that would appear indefensible, Lord simply replaced them with positions from an idealized, Trump-like candidate that existed in his own imagination. What would you do on camera in front of a national audience? Concede the point? That’s not what you’re there for.

Some Perspective on Representatives

None of this is new; it’s just a matter of degree. The British series Yes, Prime Minister contained an episode titled “Official Secrets“, which first aired in 1987. Here is a link to the video. If you’re pressed for time, skip forward to about the 23:00 mark.

Bernard, what made you think that, just because someone was asking you questions, you had to answer them?
— James Hacker, “Official Secrets”

Further on, Hacker instructs Bernard in how to handle difficult questions. He has eight ways to defect questions. The net of his advice is:

If you have nothing to say, say nothing. Better still, have something to say and say it, no matter what they ask. Pay no attention to the question; make your own statement. If they ask the question again, you just say, “That’s not the question” or “I think the more important question is …” Then you make another statement of your own.
— James Hacker, “Official Secrets”

As a representative, you don’t have the option of having nothing to say. So you have to have something to say and force your will to prevail over the will of your questioners. Conway is very good at this.

So Why Invite Her?

The host of the Vox piece says at the end:

Just remember, she’s doing her job. It’s the news shows that keep booking her that are letting you down.
— Carlos Maza

Why do they bring her on? Part of it is the unwritten co-dependency story of how Trump got to be President in the first place. The news networks have 1,440 minutes a day to fill, 365 days a year. They’re crazy for content. They don’t know what else to do.

There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.
— Oscar Wilde

Trump has exploited this dependency mercilessly for his entire campaign. By saying and tweeting outrageous things, he dominated his opponents through airtime. While career politicians were cautious and scripted, Trump was spontaneous and outrageous. The received wisdom was that you couldn’t win an election doing that. Evidently, the received wisdom was wrong.

No, having flacks on a news show to evade questions is not helpful to us as citizens. It never was. The extremes of this administration just throw the issue into bright relief. Neither was having teams of opposing flacks to shout at one another and talk over one another during the 2016 campaign. Evidently, it is all the cable channels can think of fill time.

Journalists seem to think that the reporting of peoples’ opinions constitutes reporting facts. It may be a fact that the person you’re interviewing has that opinion, but it’s still an opinion. Postmodern journalism happened long before Donald Trump threw his cap in the ring.

Consider a real issue: last year, there was an announced change in Department of Labor policy that was later blocked by a federal court injunction. How much of this issue did you hear on cable news? How much did you read about it in your favorite print outlet?


The people at Vox are good at identifying behavior from Conway when it comes from people they don’t like, such as Conway. But do not lose sight of the fact that they have their own viewpoint to push — everybody does.

Some further reading:

What is Truth?

Most of us accept something called the Correspondence Theory of Truth. Simply put, if you accept this theory, than in order for a statement to be true, it has to correspond in some meaningful way to objective reality. This requires acceptance of a bundle of premises:

  1. There is an objective reality;
  2. We can know it;
  3. We can all obtained a shared common knowledge of it;
  4. We can take a statement and measure the correspondence with that shared common knowledge of reality, and therefore the truthfulness of that statement.

A full treatment of these implications is going to have to wait for another post, because this is a subject in itself.

It is clear to me, from his conduct, that Donald Trump does not subscribe to this theory. His truth is more pragmatic in nature: what is useful to me right now? This may seem shocking and even immoral, but it has an intellectual lineage going back to William James and Charles Sanders Pierce:

‘The true’, to put it very briefly, is only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as ‘the right’ is only the expedient in the way of our behaving. Expedient in almost any fashion; and expedient in the long run and on the whole, of course; for what meets expediently all the experience in sight won’t necessarily meet all farther experiences equally satisfactorily.
— William James, Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Lecture VI (1907)

So something can be true today, because it is expedient, and then untrue tomorrow, because it is no longer expedient.

I direct the interested reader to the entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Pragmatism for further discussion.

It is not necessary for Donald Trump to have read William James for him to think in this way. The notion has been rattling around out there for over a hundred years.

The question of truth introduces a professional challenge to the journalist: what are you reporting? The truth or someone’s truth?

For the journalist who does accept the Correspondence Theory of Truth, it presents also a personal ethical challenge: what do you do about this? Do the standards of journalism require you to refrain from inserting your own beliefs, or do you have an ethical responsibility upon to advocate your viewpoint as to the nature of truth?

It is clear that many of the people trying to get “the truth” out of Conway and those like her are not formally aware of these issues. They sense something is not quite right, but I don’t think they could articulate what the problem is.



Written by srojak

February 20, 2017 at 12:45 pm

Happy Birthday, Eric Blair

leave a comment »

Better known to the world by his pen name, George Orwell. Born 25 Jun 1903.

Quotable quotes from George Orwell.


  • Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
  • Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
  • In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
  • Political chaos is connected with the decay of language… one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.
  • So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.


  • People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
  • The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.


  • There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.
  • The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.
  • We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
  • The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.


  • Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
  • Not to expose your true feelings to an adult seems to be instinctive from the age of seven or eight onwards.
  • To an ordinary human being, love means nothing if it does not mean loving some people more than others.
  • Many people genuinely do not want to be saints, and it is probable that some who achieve or aspire to sainthood have never felt much temptation to be human beings.
  • When it comes to the pinch, human beings are heroic.
  • At fifty everyone has the face he deserves.

Written by srojak

June 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm

Posted in People

Tagged with , , , , ,