Kelly O'Connell asks, is the central purpose of communication to persuade an audience, or to tell them the truth?  Of course, a combination of both is the goal of effective and ethical speaking.  But has this question ever sprung to Barack Obama’s mind when rising to pontificate?  Contra, it appears Obama’s entire approach to communication is simply using words to service political goals.

He continually sacrifices honesty to expedience in his "Pragmatic" manner.  In short, Barack is a "sophist," misusing words to create false impressions of reality to fool people into supporting his policies.

Unfortunately, given the mainstream media’s liberal default, we can’t often discover inconsistencies in their favored figures.  So we often don’t know when leftist leaders are lying.  Contra, media bogeymen receive coverage either warped, or wholly falsified.  Consider when Dan Rather offered "proof" President Bush had dodged Vietnam, itself a transparent forgery.  It’s dangerous when the 4th Estate utterly abandons any pretense of unbiased reporting, simply operating like brain addled celebrity hacks; functionally no different than a star-struck high school girl "reporter" doing a feature on the quarterback/homecoming king.

I. TRUTH VERSUS POWER

A. What is a Demagogue?

Demagogues use dishonesty to shape opinions.  Webster defines one as "a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power."  But, does it matter if our leaders deceive us?  After all, everyone knows politicians lie -- so why not just adjust expectations?  Actually, political lies are very costly to a democracy, quite easily destroying not just public good will, but the very country itself.  Besides, America’s greatest leaders, such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, were famed for honesty.  So, why should we accept any public lies to begin with?!!

B. An Ancient Debate

Humanity’s oldest argument probably ponders which ideas, goals and actions represent the "Good Life."  In America, we’re currently debating whether models of socialist-big-government create a better life than capitalist-small-government-democracy.  In ancient Athens, philosophers frequently debated the Good Life, including those covered in Plato’s Dialogues.  These starred his teacher, Socrates, using questions meant to discover answers to important topics.  According to Alasdair MacIntyre, in "Whose Justice?  Which Rationality?" -- Plato believed the Good Life wasn’t about seeking money or power, but justice, via truthful communication.

C. The Sophists Versus Truth

Sophists were a Greek intellectual school from whom comes the word "sophism."  Webster’s defines this as "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation."  In several dialogues, Plato writes of Socrates debating truth in speech, in works like Gorgias, the Sophist, and Statesman.  Sophists were traveling debate teachers famed for coaching pupils on unethical and dishonest tricks for winning arguments.

In "Gorgias," Socrates expresses scorn for tricky speeches, saying these are…"a phantom of a branch of statesmanship…a kind of flattery…that is contemptible."  This is because the words are meant only for the speaker’s benefit rather than the good of listeners.  Worse, Plato writes these speeches are… "designed to produce conviction, but not educate people, about matters of right or wrong."  Here, Socrates makes Gorgias (an actual Greek Sophist) admit his "art" (technê) deals with opinion (doxa) instead of knowledge (epistemê); and his goal is persuasion rather than instruction.  Gorgias reveals ambivalence towards "truth," boasting, "Rhetoric is the only area of expertise you need to learn.  You can ignore all the rest and still get the better of the professionals!"

Good stuff, continue reading here . . .

Closing paragraph: The greatest leaders in history, from Christ to Plato and Washington to Reagan, opposed demagoguery.  Is there a reason to accept a third-rate, incompetent, tin-pot despot as a leader if these bad habits block effectiveness?  No.  How can one claim to "lead" a democracy if it presumes a well-informed populace making choices between real options while the leader only offers lies?  Can one imagine a doctor lying to patients so they feel better while dying?  In these days of desperate problems and failed policies, we desperately need politicians who at least tell the truth if we hope to overcome our problems and regain national health.  The first thing, then, is to demand honest leaders, and the rest of good government should follow.