A Grain of Truth
By Patrick F. Cannon
I’ve never quite understood what the phrase “a grain of truth” actually means. Some people seem to think it means that in a loaf of lies there may be hidden just a single grain that, isolated from the rest, could possibly be true, thus making the loaf palatable enough to swallow.
Increasingly, politicians of both parties are counting on us to think that just a little truth is truth enough. Here’s an example from my home state, Illinois. Unless you don’t watch television (in which case, congratulations), you’ve no doubt been told in ads from his opponent J.B. Pritzker that Governor Bruce Rauner is personally responsible for the state’s undoubted fiscal mess. Now, I happen to think that he is about as inept a politician as it’s possible to be, but I also believe he actually tried to put the state on a better fiscal course.
Why did he fail? Could it possibly be that he inherited most of the mess from someone else? And that the “someone else” preferred to keep doing business the same way? From 2003 until he took office in 2015, both the governorship and both houses of the legislature were controlled by the Democratic Party. They still control the latter, which, by the way, is responsible for passing a balanced budget. And the party itself is still controlled by Michael Madigan, a Chicago legislator who has been representing a district of roughly 100,000 souls for 47 years and is the longest serving speaker of any legislative body in the United States.
In the expected tit for tat, Rauner’s ads accuse Madigan and his cohorts of running a “corrupt” government. Using the old guilt by association tactic, he accuses J.B. Pritzker (a fellow billionaire) of corruption by association. As it happens, Madigan has never been indicted for any crime. He is an expert in gaming the system; a system, it must be said, that he has been largely responsible for designing. Official corruption is an actual crime (as Chicago and Illinois citizens know to their sorrow), so accusing Pritzker of corruption is crossing the line unless he can back it up with facts.
I do know folks who say it’s OK to stretch the truth a little, but only for the candidate they favor. When the other side does the same thing, somehow it becomes dishonest. Now, I do think there are occasions when it’s acceptable for politicians to lie. I’m reminded of Winston Churchill’s statement about World War II that “in wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” Despite what many might think, running for office is not the same of fighting a war. So, it’s OK to lie to the Nazis, but to the voters?
Lying by politicians has become so pervasive that one of the world’s most accomplished liars became president of these United States. He continues to lie with abandon, confident that his supporters are satisfied with just the merest grain of truth. When we excuse a candidate who lies about his or her opponent because we agree with some of his or her positions, we have participated in the debasement of our politics.
When was the last time you saw a campaign ad that actually told you what the candidate stood for or planned to do, rather than highlighting the fictional crimes of the opposition? Are you truly satisfied with just a grain of truth in an army of lies?
######
Copyright 2018, Patrick F. Cannon
cannonnadedotcom 
“When was the last time you saw a campaign ad that actually told you what the candidate stood for or planned to do…?” Well, that would have to be the 2016 campaign for “one of the world’s most accomplished liars (who) became president of these United States.” Not only was he crystal clear about what he stood for and planned to do, since elected he appears to be doing exactly as he said he would. And with significant success, given the fact that the entire establishment opposes him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A bad man is a bad man. Hitler delivered on his promises and more! I believe any Republican president would have succeeded in doing the same things.
LikeLike
Truth is a slippery concept, and it makes people unhappy. Politicians, dedicated to avoiding blame, have little to gain from it. Politics is the art of persuasion, and what better way to persuade, if sums of money are unavailable, than through dire narratives of injustice and moral outrage? As with the Puritanical posturing in the Kavanaugh media circus, declarations are deemed most true when they come from someone portrayed as a victim of grievous wrongs, whether real or imagined. Our outrageous and contrarian president has been surprisingly candid in his unpopular statements and positions about the economy, illegal immigration, or relations with China, Europe and other countries. Are they lies? Maybe, but Machiavelli had a point: where there is no higher authority to judge an action, you need to look to the results.
As for Illinois, the foxes and wolves are guarding the hen house.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do understand the politics of it all, but to me a bad man is a bad man. Any Republican would have gotten the same or better results.
LikeLike
Probably, if they had won the primary. Aside from debatable issues on trade, I can’t come up with anything he’s done in office so far that merits the apocalyptic hatred he generates. As for his cringe-worthy character, I’ll let Saint Peter be the judge, but I don’t see a Hitler parallel.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, St. Peter doesn’t have a vote in this realm. It’s not what he’s done — he’s been stopped many times by the courts — it’s who he is. As I said, he’s a bad man. Perhaps I’m an absolutist. Hitler actually believed in what he did.
LikeLike
He may very well be. But where’s the pain? The Dems never forgave him, or themselves, for his beating their meal ticket Hillary. They concocted this goofy red herring about Russia to keep him under investigation and distract from their own role in trying to fix the election. For the Reps he’s been the visitor who wouldn’t leave. He attacks the press, but they kinda deserve it. He’s been right about immigration, China and the entrenched Washington bureaucracy. He has an odd taste in women but his women seem to have a corresponding taste for money. I can’t say if he’s a bad man or not, I am not an apologist for him and I certainly don’t see greatness here, but I know Saint Peter has the only vote that counts.
LikeLike
I mostly agree with your analysis, but in his case my vote is the only one I care about. And I don’t think there will be any heavenly accounting he has to worry about. He’ll just die like the rest of us, but I’ll try not to leave as much damage behind.
LikeLike
Well in any case he’s no Walter O’Malley!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Walter as I recall was convicted of high treason in the Brooklyn Court of Public Opinion and should have hanged!
LikeLike
Dante placed him in the circle with Judas, Cain and Lucifer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Surely there was lower circle?
LikeLike