Is There Any Non-Partisan Truth Left?

A retired colleague of mine posted on social media a scorecard that showed which national politicians lied the most. The scorecard was based on a non-partisan study of at least 50 public statements each of the politicians had made. The scorecard had a scale that indicated how many of the claims made by each politician were true, how many were partial truths, and how many were completely fabricated (flat out lies). According to the scorecard, the ones who lied the most were actually the ones who most frequently accused the others of lying. 

The Democrats fared a lot better on his scorecard than Republicans, so my Republican friends who responded to his post cried "foul!" They were absolutely certain the study was biased,  either a total fantasy of my friend's demented thinking or nothing more than propaganda from the left.  We have reached a time in the history of communications when nothing has to be verified as true before it is published as the truth, so critics were justified in their skepticism. Even if the scorecard was amassed by researchers with blinders on, the party that scores worse on it will deny its validity. That's the way of politics these days.

In 2016, a civil conversation about political differences is as rare as a high temperature of 75 degrees or less on an August afternoon in Alabama. Civil political conversations occur only when both parties admit that their opinions are biased toward the party and candidate they prefer.  The human condition of original sin continues to plague even those of us redeemed by grace so that we delude ourselves to believe our truth is objective and reliable and our opponent's truth is subjective and unreliable. The problem is so pronounced during this presidential election season that showing a lack of disdain for the candidate the local and vocal majority opposes will get you pigeonholed as ignorant or a radical, if not a lunatic.

Prophets were seldom if ever honored in their time for speaking inconvenient truth. Many of them were accused of treason and imprisoned or killed for their words whose truth time would confirm. Their words rang true sometimes centuries after they announced judgment or blessing.  Eighty-four years ago, Reinhold Niebuhr published a book titled Moral Man and Immoral Society in which he offered a theological perspective on social and political issues as current as today's news. The year was 1932, before the Nazi movement and its excesses became a serious concern to the US and its allies and long before the civil rights movement pressed for equal rights under the law for all races. Read the following statements written by Niebuhr. Think of American and world history since he wrote these words. Think of our current reality and draw your own conclusions. 

“There is a paradox in patriotism…[because] patriotism transmutes individual unselfishness into national egoism…The unqualified character of this devotion is the very basis of the nation’s power and of the freedom to use the power without moral restraint.”

“The moral attitudes of dominant and privileged groups are characterized by universal self-deception and hypocrisy.” They conflate (and confuse) “the unconscious and conscious identification of their special interests with general interests and universal values.”

“Will a disinherited group, such as [African-Americans], ever win full justice in society [through negotiation]? Will not even its most minimum demands seem exorbitant to the dominant whites, among whom only a very small minority will regard the inter-racial problem from the perspective of objective justice?”

“Contending factions in a social struggle require morale; and morale is created by the right dogmas, symbols and emotionally potent oversimplifications.”

A partisan view sees any truth in these statements as a critique of our opponent or enemy but does not see it as applicable to us.  A non-partisan view of these statements says, HE NAILED US. The partisan approach is denial. The non-partisan approach is contrition, a synonym for repentance. The only non-partisan truth that remains is confession of our own sins, mea culpa. Accusing our opponents of their many sins does not count as confession. Acknowledging our own failures and learning from them so that we do not repeat them is confession and repentance.  We would have smarter politicians if we allowed them to acknowledge their mistakes, learn from them, and continue to serve except with a little more humility and gratitude afterwards. As long as partisan politics determines who gets elected as our governmental leaders, confession and repentance will amount to political suicide, a self-incriminating admission to weakness. It is nonetheless the only way to start recognizing and telling non-partisan truth, and that is the purest kind. 

Hughey Reynolds