“I don’t know”: Humility or Hubris?

“I don’t know” has become a popular retort to many questions asked to Republicans as of late.  Now, admittedly, in some contexts there that type admission might be refreshing. In a world where everyone seems so certain, sometimes even arrogant about their own certainty, the occasional acknowledgement of ignorance is nice.

But after two such statements by Scott Walker in one week, with respect to evolution an Obama’s faith I am skeptical about this feigned humility.

It is said that above the temple of Apollo, where the Oracle of Delphi resided, was the inscription “Know thyself.” A contemporary interpretation of this might be: “Figure out who you are. Get to know your own convictions, your own beliefs, etc.” But more than likely the Greeks would have interpreted this to mean: “Watch your step. Know your own limits.” The former interpretation exudes self-importance, pride, the idea that we are all unique and the center of our own worlds. The latter: limitation, humility.

As has been well covered, this “I don’t know” of late is a cynical cop out. It is the weaselly middle ground between saying “The theory of evolution is inaccurate,” and “I am no longer interested in capturing my voter base,”; between “Obama is a Muslim” and “I am no longer interested in capturing my base.”

This cynical “I don’t know” is not really humility, alas, but instead a hubristic attempt to “outsmart” the “liberal media” and to disarm their “gotcha” questions.  It would really be refreshing if Republicans were at last to join the real the world, in which things change, in which people are fallible, in which it is possible that we could actually not know something because we understand that facts change, as opposed to having blind belief in our own arrogant certainty. But if you were to ask me if this is the case I would simply answer “I don’t know.” 

The Real Problem with Citizens United

Advocates for the Citizens United always want to point out that it does not unfairly favor large Republican donors and corporations. They say, “Well if the right has Corporate America, then the left has Unions.” There is one flaw in this logic: as major corporations earn more profits, and therefore lobby even more, unions are a dying breed. GOP lawmakers in Wisconsin are just this week going to hold a special session to craft a Right-to-Work bill; apparently such a thing is urgent to Wisconsin State Rep. Scott Fitzgerald. In fact, it seems as though the selfsame Republicans who argue that “Citizens is fair,” out of one side of their mouths, are crafting Right-to-Work legislation out of the other side.

So until we see some really unbelievable news such as “Corporations outlawed in 24 states,” or “Corporation membership dwindles to 7% of businesses” I just refuse to believe that Citizens United affects both parties equally.

Wisconsin Has a Problem with Truth

The Truth Problem in Wisconsin

Wisconsin has a problem with truth. No, really. In his initial budget proposal Governor Scott Walker sought to erase “the search for truth” from the language of the University of Wisconsin Mission (henceforth, “Missiongate”). The fact that he has since backed away from this position does not, to my mind, show a renewed interest in truth. Quite the contrary. What has ensued since the initial striking of the language violates the search for truth even more than striking the language, and the more recent evasion elides three different types of truth.

1. Truth as Sincerity

To be sincere means to be honest, first and foremost, to oneself. Governor Walker claims that his office did not first suggest these changes to the language, when there is clear evidence to the contrary (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/feb/06/scott-walker/despite-deliberate-actions-scott-walker-calls-chan/ ). This suggests that not only is Governor Walker misleading others, but he is also being insincere, in the sense that he cannot even fully believe what he saying. Therefore, either the governor has a very short memory, or he cannot possibly be sincere when he is making these new claims, namely that he had no involvement in Missiongate, and the latter is much more likely. Even if times call for one to make hard decisions, or deliver bad news, I, for one, would prefer it be done sincerely.

2. Truth as Integrity

Truth as integrity involves standing behind one’s beliefs, even in spite of one’s position being unpopular. The famous philosopher Socrates was even willing to die to stand up for his beliefs about the search for truth.  I don’t think any of us expect one to continue to hold the same position in light of new opposing information, or in spite of all evidence to the contrary; such is irrationality or obstinacy. But, in what has happened in Missiongate is not that the Governor changed his position in light of new information; rather, he claims he never held the position that he did, in fact, hold. What does it say when one is willing to denounce what one has said or done merely for political expediency?

3. Truth as Opposed to B.S.

In his famous essay “On Bullshit” Harry Frankfurt argued that the real essence of bullshit is a total disregard for truth or falsehood. The B.S.er mixes lies and truth for a “higher” purpose: namely, getting what she wants. Even liars respect the truth enough to lead us away from it. The B.S.er, on the other hand, is morally worse than the liar, because their aim is completely separate from the question of truth and falsehood altogether; they couldn’t care less if what they are saying is true or false. What concerns me is that if some of the Governor’s rhetoric over Missiongate is in fact B.S., that he is not alone in this trend on the stage of politics one bit. His rhetoric in the field of political speech is like Lance Armstrong’s drug use in the Tours de France of the 2000s.

Which leads me to my final point. To the extent that the Governor is bending the truth, or would rather operate outside of the bounds of truth, this is not solely his fault. In the discipline of philosophy, truth is something that needs to be proven, that we need to convince others of by way of rational argument. Philosophy would not have developed into the rich discipline that it has if everyone who encountered an opposing argument simply said, “Well, okay.” To that end, students, journalists, and most importantly citizens writ large, must question the claims that our politicians make, and the truth and the motivation behind them.  If we do not do this, then regardless of what the language of the UW System reads, the “search for truth” is, in effect, already lost from our mission. As it stands, we all have a problem with truth—and holding people to it. And as the old adage goes, the first step to solving a problem is admitting we have one.