You can't handle the truth!
John Schumann
Jesuit Seminar Series 2005
Adelaide
22 February 2004
Edited version of this paper published in Eureka Street,
15(3) April 2005
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I’m delighted to be here
this evening and I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute
to a discussion regarding truth and honesty. The topic is of tremendous
importance but, I regret to observe, of seemingly little consequence
to an increasing number of Australians, certainly if the results
of the 2004 federal election are anything to go by.
I want to say at the outset that I might very well, in the course
of my remarks here this evening, say some things that will offend
some of you. I want to say right up front that I don’t care.
I also want to warn you that I’m given to double negatives.
I remember, at Flinders, our English professor was lecturing on
linguistics. “In English,” he explained, “a double
negative forms a positive. In some languages, such as Russian, a
double negative is still a negative. However, there is no language
wherein a double positive can form a negative.” An Australian
voice from the back of the room piped up. “Yeah, right.”
Truth and honesty in daily life is a topic of awesome breadth and
depth. In an attempt to eat the elephant one mouthful at a time
– and given my own limited experiences - I’ve chosen
to consider truth and honesty in the arena of public life - specifically,
the conduct of our national affairs. I shall make my remarks this
evening from the perspective of one who, for good or ill, directed
and oversaw all the communications that emanated from the political
party that held the balance of power in the Australian Parliament
from 1998 until 2001.
In the discussion that follows I shall argue that truth and honesty
in public life require a great deal of those who live public lives,
those who report on them and those of us who sit back reading, watching
and listening. I shall argue that honesty in public life is as much
the responsibility of the public as it is the responsibility of
our elected leaders.
Further I shall argue that if we are to expect truth and honesty
in the conduct of our national affairs, as members of the electorate
at large, we have a responsibility to face up to the truth, whatever
it is, with courage and maturity.
In 1998, I very nearly wrested the very safe Liberal seat of Mayo
from the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer. Polling done just prior
to the 2001 federal election showed that had I run, I would have
almost certainly won the seat.
Despite this polling, I refused to run in 2001 for a number of
reasons, among which was my lack of enthusiasm for the then leader
of the party. That’s the truth - though at the time I intimated
otherwise in the interests of friends and colleagues still in the
party. However, there were other reasons as well and the lack of
honesty and truth in politics was among them. However, lest I be
accused of sanctimony and hypocrisy, let me say this: if people
all around me are spinning furiously to their advantage and my disadvantage,
it takes a better person than me not to get into spin mode too.
And that is the truth.
As you might expect, I preparing my remarks I consulted the dictionary.
The various definitions of ‘truth’ were instructive.
There is the predictable stuff about truth conforming to reality
or actuality, as a fact that has been verified; as being a true
statement. However, I suspect to the eternal gratitude of politicians,
spin doctors and journalists everywhere, truth is also exemplified
in several reputable dictionaries as “having the quality of
nearness to or close correspondence with reality or actuality”.
I don’t know about you but as a Strategic Communications
consultant I am mightily relieved to learn that truth is not absolute
and that, according to Webster and one or two other dictionaries,
“near enough is good enough”. I am sure Honest John
Howard, my dear friend Alexander Downer and indeed politicians from
all points on the political compass are relieved also.
Another aspect of truth which is immense consolation to politicians
and others is that truth can be subjective. What is true for one
might well not be true for another. One person’s truth as
derived from of a set of facts and/or events might well, and quite
reasonably, differ from another’s. This scenario, I’m
sure, is familiar to those of us who are married.
I have also heard some historians argue that there are ‘many
truths’. This is a fascinating notion and one which, I hope,
is not subscribed to by medical researchers and the aviation industry.
But one thing is that is true is that there’s nothing as
unpalatable to the general public as the truth.
I remind people of the almighty kerfuffle that surrounded taxation
reform. The undeniable fact is that at, one or time or another,
both major parties, along with almost every economic expert in the
country, inside and outside Treasury, had accepted the importance
and inevitability of taxation reform. However, when it was put back
on the agenda in 1998 and 1999, dishonesty and hypocrisy came crashing
down on the shores of our national discourse. One of the parties
mounted an unconscionable scare campaign, conveniently overlooking
its own failed attempt to reform tax. The media played a double
game, scaring ordinary Australians with half-truths and distortions
while at the same time running a supportive line to business and
industry.
Certain other individuals and groups used the furore to position
themselves with regard to their own agendas. And all the while the
public carried on as if the politicians were going to pocket the
proceeds themselves and the sky was about to fall in. Where was
truth and honesty in all of this? Nowhere to be seen.
On Four Corners last week we learned that, despite ministerial
statements in Parliament to the contrary, a senior and well-qualified
Australian admitted to being involved in, and had raised concerns
about, the interrogations of prisoner in Iraq. This was well before
the Abu Ghraib atrocities came to light. Truth is central to this
issue because despite ministerial statements to the contrary, the
Australian Government, at department level at least, was aware of
Australian involvement in interrogations of prisoners.
If the Minister had not been advised of Australian involvement in
interrogations, he can hardly be held responsible for interrogations
he knew nothing about in a prison run by another country on the
other side of the globe. And even if he had been advised of this,
there was no obligation on him to be pro-active about reporting
it to Parliament or the media. However, Question Time was the time
for truth and honesty.
We also learned that the same senior and well-qualified Australian
was among a number if UN weapons inspectors convinced that Iraq
did not have weapons of mass destruction or a WMD program. Further,
he repeatedly told this to Australian authorities. When his advice
was ignored or overridden, he felt compelled to resign - as did
inspectors from other countries.
So now there is even more compelling evidence to suggest that Australia
joined the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq on what it knew to be
a false premise.
If truth and honesty in public life were to prevail, a press conference
on the matter given by John Howard at Parliament House might have
gone something like this:
“Ok, you blokes. Here’s the story. Bush wants to invade
Iraq for a whole host of reasons, none of which make a lot of sense
to us. He’d like everyone to believe that Iraq has WMD and
a WMD program but the truth is there’s not a lot in it –
if anything.
“So our dilemma was this: do we go into Iraq with the US
just because we’re mates and we might need a mate in the future?
Or do we tell him to shove it? One upside of going in is that we’ll
be helping to knock over Saddam Hussein. One thing I think all Australians
agree on is that Saddam is a serious piece of work.
We are the elected government and we are charged with the responsibility
of making decisions, some of them very, very difficult ones. We
had to make a call here and we did. Today, as Prime Minister of
Australia I am here to announce that we’re going in.”
This scenario raises a number of questions:
Could the Australian public have coped with the truth as just outlined?
What would our response have been?
What would it have meant for our democracy?
What would it have meant for our capacity to participate productively
in international affairs?
If Howard had told it to us like that, would his reputation for
honesty have been diminished or enhanced?
Is such a scenario hopelessly naïve or refreshingly idealistic?
I don’t have the answers though, as you might expect, I have
some views. However, the main point is this: if we, for whom decisions
are made by our elected representatives, expect to be told the truth,
we have to be able to accept it. We have to be prepared to shoulder
the responsibility and the consequences. And we have to able to
resist the temptation to shoot the messenger. Honest politicians
are, more often than not, hounded or voted out of office - though
it does not follow that being hounded out of office presupposes
honesty.
Truth and honesty in public life can only be sustained if the public
has the courage and maturity to accept, value and nurture truth
and honesty in our elected leaders.
With no incentive to speak the truth or to act honestly, and with
every incentive to dissemble and spin, is it any wonder that our
national affairs are characterised by a lamentable lack of truth
and honesty?
It is also important to reflect on the media’s role in truth,
honesty and the conduct of all our affairs, national, state and
local. With a number of notable exceptions, the role is not an entirely
glorious one.
Rather than an ongoing, intelligent and unbiased discourse, too
often political journalism is about getting a ‘story’
rather than getting to the bottom of an issue. Getting the story
on the front page or as the lead item in the news bulletin will,
fairly often, involve a little manipulation of the facts, some selective
reporting, a judicious choice of words and the application of sanctimony
on a grand scale. When this happens we find the truth lying in the
gutter, bleeding to death. I must stress that this is not the modus
operandi of all journalists and editors. Interesting too, that when
teachers (usually reviled as lefties, whatever that might mean these
days) attempt to equip their students with the skills and knowledge
to recognise manipulation by the media, there are howls of conservative
outrage.
The dialogue which underpins the conduct of our national affairs
is, more often than not, conducted according to the “near
enough is good enough” definition of truth. When combined
with the argument that truth is not absolute, what we have is an
almost perfect set of conditions for adversarial politics.
Trade in half-truths, obfuscation - and the ill will that is the
inevitable result of this trade - characterises much of our political
dialogue. These things might sell papers and advertising but they
will not improve the health of indigenous Australians, they will
not solve our aged-care crisis and they will not restore the Murray-Darling
Basin.
As Chief-of Staff in the office of a senior federal politician,
I attended a private briefing convened by a major Australian company
to which the three major players (as they were then) on the political
field sent senior representatives. I was struck by the vigorous
but courteous debate and I was also struck by the extent to which
the three ‘antagonists’ agreed. I remember thinking
how much better it would be for us all if our national affairs could
be conducted like this. Back in Parliament House a few days later,
two of the three were back in the ring, slugging it out with all
the desperation of Jimmy Sharman’s boxers. My question was
then – and is now – why could they not bring their honesty
and maturity back to Parliament House?
I published an article recently which comprised the sort of speech
I wanted to hear from whoever was going to lead the ALP. I called
the article, “I have a dream”. With regard to the issue
of truth and honesty in public life, I wrote this:
“I undertake to tell the Australian people the truth, however
unpalatable. If you don’t like it, vote me out at the next
election if you want. As far as my fitness for office is concerned,
this is a decision for you, the Australian people, not my opponents
or the nation’s journalists. Like all political figures on
both sides of the divide, I freely admit my past is not blemish-free.
However, if you want a saint with a pristine past to be your leader,
look elsewhere. This is not about the past. It’s about the
future.”
In considering these matters, I am reminded of the exchange between
Lt Kaffee (Tom Cruise) and Col. Jessep (Jack Nicholson) in the film
‘A Few Good Men’.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth.
Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth.
This is my point: perhaps it’s only after we’ve demonstrated
we can handle the truth that we can reasonably expect to have it
told to us.
I’ve not spent any time thus far relating the matters of
truth and honesty to this period on the liturgical calendar. Greg
is much better qualified to do that. In conclusion, however, I will
say this;
During Lent we reflect on the life of one who chose to tread the
Earth as a humble carpenter and who surrounded himself with a bunch
of average blokes, fishermen and the life. I can’t quite recall
but I’m pretty sure that among the apostles there were no
stockbrokers, Government Ministers, merchant bankers and real estate
developers.
His life was an exercise in truth, honesty and the courage that
goes with them.
In the course of his life he told his mother to get off his back,
as he had more important things to do. I invite any young man here
tonight to consider the sort of courage that takes.
He told people he was the Son of God when he knew that, in saying
so, people would either think him insane or accuse him of blasphemy.
When faced with an unbelievably painful and drawn-out death he
told Pontius Pilate and the Pharisees the truth when it would have
been easier to lie.
He knew what lay at the end of his truthful, honest road. His own
community nailed him to a cross and left him to die of asphyxiation
on a hillside, in the sun, surrounded by criminals. If he had not
been honest and truthful, he could have avoided all that.
What was gained?
2000 years later, whether we’re believers or not, we’re
all trying to live according to the sort of philosophy he set down.
Entire civilisations, including literatures and arts, are constructed
on the principles he espoused.
Not a bad outcome for a scruffy carpenter who, as opposed to what
Jack Nicholson suggested of Tom Cruise, could actually handle the
truth.
John Schumann is a media director, former political
adviser and former lead singer of 'Redgum'
print this page
© 2005 Uniya, PO Box 522,
Kings Cross NSW 1340
Tel: +61 2 9356 3888 Fax: +61 2 9356 3021
| | |
