A Terrorist By Any Other Name . . .

Politicians and the Truth

In recent years we have seen various governments (all left wing, it should be noted) that have focused an awful lot of energy upon constructing and manipulating public perception. Labour under Blair in the UK, Labour under Clark in New Zealand, Labour under Rudd in Australia, and Democrats under Obama in the US have all had an unhealthy preoccupation with "spin", trying to massage a message, telling the electorate how they should think, not by constructing a coherent or compelling argument so much as by revising the vocabulary and the categories applied to anything and everything.

It is the politician as salesman. It is politics in a Wittgensteinian post-modern world. Now, to be sure, all politicians engage in this to a certain extent. It is part of the territory, sadly. But some administrations seem to substitute spin for effective government, as if they were one and the same thing. To govern is to spin--at least that's how it appears. "You can't handle the truth," seems to be the consensus view about voters and the public.

Of course, in the long run, it all wears a bit thin.
The administration that spins eventually becomes itself "spun" as weak, insubstantial, and above all, untrustworthy. Smart oppositions press the point constantly. So Tony Abbott's characterisation of Kevin Rudd can gain traction because the mud finds places upon which to stick: "(h)e has called Rudd dishonest, deceptive and a serial promise-breaker, a toxic bore, a prime minister who hides behind a "wall of incomprehensible words and an army of spin doctors"." (Sydney Morning Herald)

The Obama administration believes it is vulnerable to criticism over terrorist attacks. Its polling has told it that the public thinks it is "weak" on combating terrorism. It is currently very busy extolling every advance, and downplaying every reverse. In particular, every lawless terrorist act, is rapidly reframed to be called a criminal deed, rather than an act of terror. Why? Criminals are ordinary, a dime a dozen, part of everyday life. Consequently, the word "terrorist" has now lost a good deal of its meaning.

Major Nidal Hasan who shot colleagues at Fort Hood was definitely not a terrorist because he was acting alone, we were told. In the lexicon of the White House, a terrorist has to be part of a conspiracy; you have to be planning with other people to commit an act of terror. President Obama insisted in his first public announcement that the murderous beast who tried to blow up the Detroit bound airliner on Christmas day was acting alone. (He had to retract this later when it became evident that he was in fact part of a conspiracy.) But why was it important to make the point? Because in the White House lexicon it would mean that he was not a terrorist. He would be simply a criminal or madman. He could not be used as evidence that the Obama administration is "soft" on terrorism. Category revision is the classic move of a spin doctor.

In the most recent case of the murderous man who flew his aircraft into a building in Austin, Texas ,the first thing the White House spokesman wanted to communicate once again was that it was not an act of terror. Why? He was acting alone.

In truth all of these acts are terrorist acts. It is incumbent on leaders worthy of the name that they should tell the truth--especially on such life-and-death matters. Terrorism is nothing more nor less than the attempt to advance a political goal by killing or harming others, with the intent to scare people and governments politically, so they will do what the terrorist wants. There is always an intended public message in a true terrorist act. There is always murderous intent to kill innocents. There is always an intent to make others afraid so they will be cowed into compliance. It has nothing to do with whether one is acting alone or in concert.

Thus, Nidal Hasan's murders were a terrorist action. The suicide plane hitting a building in which the IRS was working was also a terrorist act. Most mass shootings are terrorist acts.

The more politicians attempt to spin it another way, the less credible they become. In the end people want the truth. They can handle it. They respect leaders who insist upon it--in fact, the credibility and authority of leaders who prove themselves honest rises substantially.

May God in His mercy grant us honest leaders.