A Department of Truth? You’re kidding, right?
If we agree that systematic deception poses an existential threat to democracy, then we must make honesty an obligation of citizenship. To be granted privileges of expression, one must obey the rules, just as drivers must obey the rules of the road.
In today’s America, the penalties for lying are expensive to impose and slow in coming. Our Founders counted on the ballot box to sort out contradictory claims, but there were fewer of us then (less than one percent) and information moved incalculably slower. Footspeed lies were easier to pursue and punish.
Trump’s discovery – genius in its way – was that he could lie and cheat faster than any sheriff could arrest him. If he got hauled before a judge – and who had the means or stamina to risk that! – he could hogtie his accuser in the endless coils of law. With no penalty for perjury – and a scrumptious upside – why not? Claim a lost election was stolen and by the time the system rebuffed your assertion, you might be omnipotent, beyond any constable’s reach!
Folks who lament you can’t patrol the truth aren’t using their imaginations. Technology got us into this mess, with instant free dissemination of prevarication, and technology can help pull us out. If unchecked systematic lying leads to democracy’s demise, we’ve got to try to control it. Imagine our highways with no traffic laws!
Here’s Carll’s truth-system in outline. Invent your own. Many imaginations are better than one. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
1. Every adult citizen has a truth-rating. If you’re trustworthy you enjoy unimpeded access to the national conversation. An occasional inadvertent goof (for truth is never pure) might be dismissed as a peccadillo (or “first offense”). The more habitually you lied, the more painful your penalties, till eventually you’d be shushed, shut down, as an enemy of the people.
2. Claims of lying would be filed as instantly and cheaply as customer complaints. Fill in an online form, in person or anonymously, include corroborating evidence, and computers would assess the validity of your assertion. This is how Wiki works with historical truth; and while there are plenty of errors in Wiki, it’s a more thorough and reliable encyclopedia than any humans have yet devised – and free to all. Wizardly AI can consult countless online information sources lickety-split to assess probability. If the computers flag a claim as dubious, its carrier must either suppress or defend it. Sorry, X, Facebook, and Fox, you blazon lies at your own immediate risk.
3. Complicated and consequential disputes about truth would be bucked up to a human tribunal, a court like the Supreme Court, constructed to withstand the winds of politics. This court, like any element of a democracy, must eventually reflect the popular will, but it should exist beyond the reach of momentary meddling. If we the people insist the moon’s made of blue cheese – or that vaccinations are injurious to your health – so be it, that’s our prerogative – but that assertion will have withstood lots of scrutiny.
Carll’s truth-system will make citizens trustworthy, not because they’re considerate, but because they’re practical. I obey speed limits (sort of) to keep my license, not because I’m nice. I tell the truth not because I’m noble but because I believe – deep down – “honesty,” as Ben Franklin put it, “is the best policy.” Politicians with low truth-ratings will be penalized by voters or, in extreme cases, yanked from the ballot.
Either we promote truth to a national obligation or kiss democracy goodbye, simple as that. So let’s get started.