Honesty - A Simple but also Necessary Term

I had a discussion a few nights ago. again on Facebook, that did leave me with a range of thoughts. Almost too many. It had started with a discussion of Madonna. This was after her appearance at the Washington DC protest on Saturday, January 21st.

The poster was critical of her, claiming that regardless of her stated intentions, she is primarily focused on selling her brand, her music and anything else she can sell. Ultimately it was said, she is in this game for herself, she is truly not interested in anyone else. I do not know if this is true. I do not really care. Madonna probably does not know. 

In response to that, however, myself and one other asserted that this is true of most politicians. It is true of the President himself I claimed. And this, the original poster challenged. He came back, stating,"No Way, He was always upfront about his purpose. Never hid behind a cause and monetized peoples feelings and ideology! He was in it for the Money!"

To which I stated that he was honest. Specifically, I said,"OK so what you are saying is that he does not take positions contrary to what he actually believes. He is an honest man." I do not actually believe this, but it was an amusing position. And if not honesty, there is at the least a consistency there. 

Interestingly, the original poster would not concede that the President was honest, just that he was not manipulative, as was Madonna. And we went back and forth on this. He was unwilling to say that the President was honest, based on the points made above. He went on to say that to be or even say that the President is honest was complicated. To which I responded, how so? Perhaps it is at hard to be honest, but it is not complicated. 

So the other poster, who could not bring himself to say that the President was honest, and who claimed only that honesty is complicated, had to leave, and I went to bed. The conversation ended there. I got up, however, the next morning, and on the train into New York, I sat there thinking of the value of honesty, of the necessity of honesty.  

When I say honesty, I am bringing with that term several others, no doubt. Truth, of course, needs to be included along with honesty. Trust goes hand in hand with these. Lastly, perhaps, as I pointed out above consistency. Philosophers have a range of theories on truth and with that honesty, but at the end of the day the value of it and these virtues in general are undisputed.

I sat there at the end of my train ride frantically sending a series of one-line emails to myself. Soon enough I would be in the tunnel and did not want to lose my gems. Each represented a case where honesty and truth were essential in some fashion.

Below is the list I thought of and emailed to myself that early morning on my train:

1. Honesty and trust are necessary for a civil society
2. Honesty and the principle of charity
3. honesty and sophistry
4. Capitalism itself is based on trust though it is a tenuous relationship!
5. Economic nationalism - can it stand considering the need for honesty and truth.
6. And lastly the tension between the President and Madonna clings to honesty. (The fact that they are not seen as the same is perhaps why they protested. The very core of the issue.

So I will try to go through these and make some sense of the ramblings.:

1. Honesty and trust are necessary to have a civil society 

This is almost a bromide. It is simply the case that if all were dishonest and untruthful, than there would it would be impossible to trust. What would you trust? Perhaps you would come to expect to be lied to. Political institutions would be untenable. If two people could not agree on what belongs to who, or what is shared, than how could a group of people arrive at any type of agreement and proceed in any shared task.

2. Honesty and the Principle of Charity 

This topic has and continues to be a pet project of mine for awhile!

I believe Augustine was the original author of the idea, certainly in the Christian tradition. For him charity was to see God in others. In this way, one recognizes the other, someone or something that otherwise would be foreign and unknown. It allows you to embrace someone that is foreign or non-Christian, as opposed to challenge or confront them. With Augustine you see others with love, versus fear or contempt. The other becomes, like yourself, one of God's children.

Jump ahead to the mid to late 20th century where you have philosophers looking not to god but to language to understand our world. In this case, Donald Davidson. Davidson was an American philosopher who falls in what is commonly described as analytic philosophy. Again this group is very focused on the nature of language and the belief that to understand language and how it works is to arrive at some philosophical gold.

Davidson and others were intrigued with what was known as Radical Interpretation. Basically the question of how exactly does an anthropologist make sense of a totally foreign culture. He made sense of this exercise through the Principle of charity. Now unlike Augustine who turned to God to interpret and make sense of unknowns, Davidson looks to Truth. For him, language, meaning and belief are intimate. The language people use, the meanings conveyed in that language, and the beliefs the speakers hold are almost if not identical. the anthropologist then interprets the person from the other culture through his own set of beliefs, which he largely holds to be true.

In short, we arrive at language and belief entailing a large set of true statements. When we engage in any type of communication it is in relation to that set of statements (beliefs, facts, etc.) that we determine whether the speaker makes sense and likewise if he speaks the truth. Again truth and meaning here are almost identical.
Going back to the discussion of honesty, the principle of charity allows for us to engage and assess a speaker and determine his honesty and truthfulness.

3. Honesty and Sophistry

this is Philosophy 101 - Socrates versus those nasty sophists! Recall the sophists were typically orators and teachers of oratory. They believed in the powers of rhetoric. Sadly, truth has little or no relation to oratory then or now. And by oratory I do mean political oratory. The sophists would claim that they could make the untrue more appealing than what is true. There is nothing to really dispute here. It has and is done routinely. Certainly in today's world it is done. Sadly to point to Socrates and his pleas for the truth and the good are often seen as absurd and amusing in today's world.

To go back to Davidson, it could be argued that there is so much uncertainty over what is true in today's world that meaning and belief are in jeopardy. Skepticism, and uncertainly, which in proper doses can be good, can now overwhelm. Gong back to sophistry and Socrates challenge to it, the willful mixing of truth and falsehood by a speaker, ultimately serves no one.

4. Honesty and Capitalism

This is kind of a return to our first point. Accept instead of looking to build a civil society, you are now a self-interested individual. This position is a commonly appealed to in economics, and assumes a certain amount of rationality and shared assumptions between these rational individuals or actors. Both want to negotiate the best deal for themselves. If, however, you find the other party is not rational, or untrustworthy, you will not in ideal circumstances negotiate with him. Often, however, we are not in ideal circumstances and we have to work with such individuals. the point here is that not only in politics but in economics and finance honesty is again required or certainly desired.  I type this and find it mildly amusing. It is simply obvious.

5. Economic Nationalism

My 5th and 6th point are much more speculative, and not purely based upon the importance of honesty.
That said, they were arrived at in the fever of that moment on the train as I approached the tunnel and Grand Central, so I include them here.

Economic Nationalism is something that has been discussed recently n relation to the President's Advisor, Steve Bannon. He made reference to an "economic nationalist" agenda. In short his view of it has been expressed in one paragraph in one interview, that I am aware of.

He absolutely — mockingly — rejects the idea that this is a racial line. "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," he tells me. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver" — by "we" he means the Trump White House — "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed. They were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about."
In a nascent administration that seems, at best, random in its beliefs, Bannon can seem to be not just a focused voice, but almost a messianic one:
"Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." (Ringside With Steve Bannon at Trump Tower as the President-Elect's Strategist Plots "An Entirely New Political Movement" (Exclusive), The Hollywood Reporter, 10:00 AM PST 11/18/2016 by Michael Wolff)

A better term or perhaps a comparable term is neo-mercantilism. Both are informative, though the first alludes to fascism and points one to Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Neo-mercantilism points one to Nineteenth century United Kingdom, and the United States.  Both point to the "imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labor, goods and capital"*Wikipedia.

For me this is a challenge to our values and perhaps that is where we can tie this back to honesty. (I know I am stretching here!). That said, we have come to a crossroads where we need to decide if we are citizens of a nation state, or are we individuals that pursue our dreams regardless of where those dreams lead us. Are we citizens or individuals? Likewise is our loyalty to the nation state or the international or multi-national corporation?

These are in honesty the questions we are pondering today.

In short, do national borders matter? Up until now they largely did not. A large part of the world held that borders should be open and that trade should be free, and yes I speak generously here. There will always be constraints in these domains, the question is regarding degree and the type of constraints.

Once we answer those questions, or as we answer those questions, we will be required to redefine the roles played by all of the above players. And this process will entail a questioning of our beliefs, what we hold to be true, and what are the facts. In short, we are applying what Davidson and others such as Willard Quine called Radical Interpretation. What some of us might simply paraphrase as us asking,"What the f is going on?"

Many I am sure will dispute and challenge the above. I am sure those in philosophy will point out the numerous misreading and simply poor readings of the philosophers I have referenced here. All I can say is that I welcome your feedback and suggestions.

6. The tension between the President and Madonna clings to honesty. (The fact that they are not seen as the same is perhaps why they protested. The very core of the issue.

This points to perceptions and thoughts on gender. I am going to save this for another day and another essay. Sorry.

Of Two. . .Perhaps Three maybe Four Minds

The recent Trump victory has left me spinning. I am not not the only one no doubt. I had my concerns about the election but I had rationalized that Hillary, despite all her shortcomings, would pull it out. That was the general consensus. We were simply wrong. Though she won the popular vote, she just did not have enough support across the varied geographies and constituencies that make up this country.

So now what? There are several options here, at least for myself. I list several 'playful options here:

1. To refuse to accept the election. Like those who have taken to the street, just refuse to accept Trump as President. This is not really a realistic plan. and I hope I am am largely miss-representing those in the street. I hope that they are more protesting to let it be known that though their candidate lost, they still have a voice. That is a position I can accept and endorse. In fact, this post is perhaps of a similar sentiment.
2. A second option is to wait and see. We today have President Elect Trump. It has been four days since the election. It is just too early to say anything. We can express our disappointment and frustration with the election but really we cannot protest or challenge a President Trump. So we go about our business - there is really nothing here to see. Though I might wish I could embrace that, here I am dwelling on the topic. 
3. Earlier this week, immediately after the election, I had suggested on Facebook that I would not mention the President by name. Something I still find kind of amusing considering his narcissism. To only refer to him as the President but to neglect and negate Trump. And to refuse him that is to acknowledge the resentment and the frustration I have with the man and the campaign he led. In the end, however, though mildly interesting and amusing, probably not. Amusing, yes, but it is kind of silly.
4. Another reading of that idea, however, would be to NOT focus on him and his actions. Focus on my things, on what I can and need to do in my life, and not let national politics intrude. This is not what I described above in the second attempt option, what I call a wait and see attitude - a honeymoon. This is different from that in that here there is a dash of resentment. I am purposely digging into the things I do have control over here-focusing on those items, and ignoring him. Here, I will not and cannot embrace him as President and further I will recommit myself to things I can embrace and do. As you can see I have not really embraced that strategy either. Though it is useful to remind myself that life does go on and that we should not allow these events consume us. 

So where does that lead me. I do for the most part try to get on with things, I will try to give him the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt, however, is quite hard to do considering the campaign he led. He threatened numerous times to lock up his challenger. Numerous times he made the claim that the system is rigged. Interestingly, he ended up winning the election, despite losing the popular vote. He insulted numerous people, threatened, and bullied numerous others. And now after the election we are suppose to simply forget all of that? Simply turn the page? Such behavior has never in the history of American politics been seen or heard before. How does one trust such a man?

Interestingly, he says in a recent post-election interview, that he has no qualms over what he said during the campaign. He won. His winning the election justifies all the things he said. His campaign manager said as much regarding the false accusations thrown at Hillary in the last week. False or not, they stuck was the basic thought. The end justifies the mean. Perhaps it does, but that is why I voted against him and am sitting here typing this today. That is why thousands have been protesting over the past few days.

So the idea of a honeymoon, though appealing in some respects, is hard for me to do. And this is especially the case when you see how he has proceeded since his victory. Yes, his speech late Tuesday was promising. His visit to the White House was again done well. His comments, however, about Obamacare since the election lead to more questions. How does one go from claiming at every rally he had that Obamacare was a disaster and that he will quickly repeal it, to now asserting that there are good things in it, and that he will even save parts of it. What?

Further, his talk of Special Prosecutors for Hillary are all but forgotten. Yet today he asserts that he has other priorities. All very good, but these are the things he stressed and focused on for the last three or even six months at every rally, at the debates in front of millions of Americans. How does one make such assertions daily and then make such an about face. I should not be surprised.

Lastly, at the end of the day we cannot afford a honeymoon. He might not appoint special prosecutors. (In fact that has to be done by the Attorney General, but regardless.) He may very well salvage parts of Obamacare, but there are bigger issues. Appointments such as Myron Ebell, who he has chosen to lead the transition at the E.P.A. This man has no appreciation for that government agency or the laws it is to enforce. He has aggressively denied climate change. He has it seems challenged endangered species laws using the right to property as his argument. I know little of his arguments, but what does his Masters in Economics grant him regarding climate science? If he is an indication of the people and things to come, we must be weary and watchful.

No there cannot be any honeymoon, and I probably will try to limit my use of the word "Trump". I will try to focus on my things and what I can do. As his running mate, however, commented, where there is smoke there typically is fire. It is best in this situation if all of us who have felt the frustration and loss of this election to remain attentive to what is going one, be conscious of what is happening and further, let it be known that we do not approve. We become the forest rangers who will keep a weary eye out for smoke and fire. If you see something, say something. And yes on those rare occasions where there is common ground and agreement, if such occurs, try to trust and work with the man.

Try to trust are the key words above. "Trust and Verify" is another phrase that comes to mind.

This is where I have arrived at regarding this matter.