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.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS