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.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS