Time, Money, and Truth
"They spent something like $30 million, and we didn't. That's just a terrible imbalance when somebody's lying about you." - John Kerry, on The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.
Today's New York Times has an story about Kerry finally fighting back against the Swift Boat Veterans, the propaganda machine that may have cost him the election by spreading the idea that he lied about his military heroism. He's gathering a mountain of evidence and new testimony from witnesses that should remove any doubt that the Swift Boat Veterans fabricated all their claims.
But during the election Kerry refused to release his military record, refused to air counter-attack ads, and failed to adequately rebut the charges. The article claims that a serious defense was not mounted out of fear that "directly challenging the charges would legitimize them", and also because they were "caught off guard". But now, two years too late, Kerry wants to set the record straight.
Which brings me to my point: In America today, the truth usually does come out in the end, but money can delay it, often crucially. If deceit has the force of money behind it, then truth might only flow like a glacier, inevitably but imperceptably. Eventually the fuel powering the lies dries up, and the truth is revealed.
This pattern is played out in so many of the major news stories of our age: the Enron collapse; the science of global climate change; the Valerie Plame affair; and the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In each episode, money or political power allows a lie to be sustained for a time, usually just long enough for it to serve its crucial purpose which cannot be undone: launching America into war; silencing a critic; protecting investments and making money.
In our open society, with a free press, the blogosphere, and a strong rule of law protecting whistleblowers from reprisal, "The power of truth" does indeed seem to prevail in the long run, but that's not good enough. Sometimes a few weeks of deceit is all that is needed to facilitate great injustice. We need to accelerate the cultural vetting process that rejects propaganda, but often too late.
( Another question is, why hasn't Kerry started a libel lawsuit? From my (thin) understanding of the law, libel requires two things: that the claim be false, and that it be knowingly malicious. This seems like a textbook example - a series of carefully orchestrated lies that not only were deliberately malicious but in fact quite effectively damaging. So has Kerry's strategy team decided that they would be worse off (in the game of public opinion) for pressing a suit. Or are they simply taking their time until the political environment is right and they have gathered enough evidence? )