 |
 |
 |
|||
Legal
|
Politics Of TruthFacts Are Not TruthsI am constantly reminded that truth is not universal. Truth is individual and filtered through that person’s beliefs and politics. Truth is really a person’s viewpoint - not an absolute. Facts, much like truth, can be interpreted in at least two ways: positively or negatively. Although the facts are true, the information inferred from those facts may not resemble truth or reality. Truth is based in facts but the interpretation of those facts do not always produce the same truths. Noam Chomsky has written a book titled Hegemony Or Survival, America’s Quest For Global Dominance. Within this book many facts are presented as truths. I can accept the facts as true but I do not agree with the truths he has deduced from those facts. As an example, Noam Chomsky states that the US government dislikes Castro because he refused to follow Washington’s directions, which to a limited extend is true. However, he makes no mention of the atrocities committed by Castro against Cuba and its people once he gained power. Yes, he had US help and it was expected Castro would deliver a better form of government; instead, he decided to become a dictator. Noam Chomsky properly chastises the US government for its actions but does not seem to mind Castro’s actions. His dislike for the US government’s actions appears to blind him to the faults of the opposing side. This is the theme throughout his book: the US government is evil and the other side, regardless of which side, is at least less evil. Very little is said about why the US backed a particular dictator or despot and he provides many examples of how terrible the US actions were. Noam Chomsky reasons that the actions of the US government were based on promoting the power of the US and making other countries toe the American line. I realize our government has made many terrible mistakes. Our government and we the people therein have sponsored terrorism and allowed people to suffer and die to accomplish less than noteworthy aims. These are facts but to suggest there is a great plan or plot of world domination behind these actions is barely credible. For Noam Chomsky to read a consistent thread in the actions of our government since its inception can only mean that the people in power either have the same goals or are being directed from a common source. For him to be correct, this source must not only control the two parties but also the news media. This source must be able to control liberals and conservatives to the extent that there are few differing independent voices available to tell us what is really happening. While I cannot deny the possibility of such a source, the likelihood approaches the extreme. This source would have had to exist since before the founding of America. Is this common source a group, or a constant belief, or a product of human nature? Governments are run by people who interpret the laws and rules according to their backgrounds and according to their desires. As in our government, some are elected, some are appointed and the whims of these people determine to a large degree the actions taken by our government. As times change and needs change, the interpretation of these laws change because much like any live language the agreement of what was meant changes. Because I doubt the existence of such a group, there must be a more likely answer. This answer is, I believe, a natural progression of power based on survival. Every successful nation has displayed the same characteristics. To survive that nation or empire expands until it meets a greater or equal foe. This is true of organizations and beliefs as well. Throughout his book, Noam Chomsky complains about the way the US government handled things but he never offers a better vision. While he chastises the right and the left, the liberals and the conservatives, he provides no solutions. His anti-government, anti-corporate stance plays well with the anti-American and anti-establishment crowd. His views appear to be "hate all governments" and is an elite, intellectual, ivory-tower position but it is a limited, unrealistic world view. A view that allows him to be loved be those who hate. A view that he uses to attempt to set himself apart and to define his uniqueness. My question is simple, "If the US had done nothing in all the cases he mentions, would we be better or worse off today?" The world is imperfect as are the people in it. Any action that helps one group will always be viewed as detrimental to another group. Progress is about compromise and making tough and often undesirable decisions without enough information and without the benefit of hindsight. Progress and the future are based on best guesses. Author: Don Miller
|
2004 Articles |
|||