In the western Russian city of Kirov last month, citizens spoke out fiercely in defense of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine. Olga Akishina, whose boyfriend was killed by a US-supplied missile, denounced supposed “NATO bases in Ukraine” and the “extermination” of Russian speakers there.
A thrice-wounded army officer said: “The US and NATO gave us no choice... I’m going back [to fight] because I want my kids to be proud of me. You have to raise patriots. Otherwise Russia will be eaten up.”
These people, and more like them, were speaking to Washington Post reporters closely monitored by Kremlin officialdom, so it would be naive to imagine that this was an exercise in free speech.
Illustration: Mountain People
However, I see few signs of doubt that Putin’s war, which in its first months in 2022 bewildered and dismayed his people, now commands strong national support, as does his narrative of national victimhood, which might even be reinforced by Ukraine’s incursion into Russia.
This represents, of course, a triumph for falsehood.
The Kremlin’s master, like Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), sustains such rigorous control of all broadcast and print outlets, together with social media, that every voice of dissent is stifled ruthlessly and effectively.
All this, and much else around the world, confounds the dream that we were all invited to share 25 or 30 years ago, when the Internet was in its infancy. This supreme tool for the dissemination of knowledge and increase of understanding, said the experts and prophets, augured the doom of dictatorships. Their peoples would enjoy unchallengeable online access to truth, such as they had historically been denied. The “big lie” would become unsustainable.
In reality, of course, dictators have devised systems, deploying unprecedented armories for electronic surveillance, which shut out almost all information from what US propagandists once called “the free world.”
Yet many of us find the truth desert in Russia, China, Iran and North Korea less frightening than the similar environment occupying swaths of the West, and most conspicuously the US.
I wrote for Bloomberg four years ago about academic studies showing that Americans, members of the richest and most successful society on Earth, are more willing to swallow falsehoods and conspiracy theories than any other Western people.
This gullibility constitutes a major strategic vulnerability. It has since grown worse, as tens of millions of US voters embrace the campaign of former US president Donald Trump and US Senator J.D. Vance, whose untruths might yet empower them to govern our greatest democracy.
We should not forget that Trump in 2011 became one of the most foremost advocates of “birtherism” — the claim that then-US president Barack Obama was not rightfully an American. A 2010 opinion poll showed that one-quarter of all Americans claimed to harbor doubts about Obama’s origins, untroubled by the absence of evidence.
Elon Musk’s X has become one of the principal vehicles for disseminating far-right lies, a source of alarm to counterterrorism authorities. Musk himself, reveling in possession of power such as few national governments can match, lies prodigiously on his own account.
Peter Thiel uses his PayPal billions as a club to silence critics and to denounce the alleged evils of democracy.
It has become a cliche to shrug that we now inhabit “the post-truth age.”
However, we should not idealize the past. In the pre-post-truth age, which covered everything from the dawn of time, kings and priests, then politicians, lied to their peoples.
Former US presidents lied. Franklin Roosevelt lied. John F. Kennedy lied. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon lied prodigiously.
So, too, did Ronald Reagan — remember the Iran-Contra scandal?
What seems different now is that the deceits peddled by Trump and his acolytes are designed to destroy trust not merely in their Democratic opponents, but in the principal institutions of the US and, especially, of its instruments of justice. They reject the doctrine of moderation, the fundamental reality — which most of us have been educated to take for granted — that wisdom is chiefly to be found in the middle ground.
We in the mainstream media face constant pressure, in the name of “balance,” to grant equal time to those pitching such snake oil, as to those rehearsing evidence-based narratives.
An important element in the rise of populists around the world is the willingness of their leaders to legitimize nonsense doctrines that find favor among ignorant people, in opposition to the hated elites.
One such leader said at a rally of his followers, in which he spoke of the “miraculousness” of the gathering: “Not every one of you can see me and I cannot see every one of you. Yet I feel you and you feel me. It is the faith in our people that made us small people great and that made us poor people rich, that has given courage to us wavering, discouraged, fearful people.”
This could be a snatch from a speech by any of the many populist leaders on both sides of the Atlantic.
However, in truth, these were the words of the 1936 leader of Germany. Hitler convinced his followers, the little people, those who thought themselves powerless against the powers-that-be, that he was on their side, the outsider against the insiders. His lies made them feel good, just as the lies of Trump and Vance make their supporters feel good today.
The supremacy of elites was by no means necessarily a formula for good government: Journalist David Halberstam gave his great 1972 book on how the US got into Vietnam the ironic title The Best and the Brightest. The folks who led the way into that quagmire — and lied about it — were some of the smartest people in the country.
Yet in every Western society, people need to relearn the art of thinking for themselves; recognizing in every action and decision of their daily lives that most of the stuff they see online is at best unedited, unproven and is often willful falsehood.
If we go on uncritically swallowing what we see on social media or what we hear from snake-oil salesmen, we are headed for a very bad place indeed.
Max Hastings is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
Historically, in Taiwan, and in present-day China, many people advocate the idea of a “great Chinese nation.” It is not worth arguing with extremists to say that the so-called “great Chinese nation” is a fabricated political myth rather than an academic term. Rather, they should read the following excerpt from Chinese writer Lin Yutang’s (林語堂) book My Country and My People: “It is also inevitable that I should offend many writers about China, especially my own countrymen and great patriots. These great patriots — I have nothing to do with them, for their god is not my god, and their patriotism is
RSS