At some point one has to ask, what is with those of the political left and their aversion to truth? There is simply making an erroneous statement, everyone will be guilty of that from time to time, and then there is also bending a truth or factoid in order to express a view, and then there is deliberate dishonesty or truth aversion. Which raises the question, why are those on the left end of the political spectrum so willing to be deliberately dishonest when it is so easy to verify the truth?
It should also be asked why those on the political left continue to persist in the telling of untruths after the truth makes it to the public domain?
After the decision by General Motors Corporation to close its Australian subsidiary General Motors Holden manufacturing arm those on the political left launched a scathing attack on the conservative government of Australia. Understandable and expected given the emotive nature of the issue, setting aside the hypocrisy involved by some quarters who continued to support the previous socialist government even after the closure of Mitsubishi Australia and Ford Australia’s manufacturing arms. However, it became quite obvious that the decision to close GMH’s manufacturing arm was made in isolation of decisions made by the Australian Government by the parent corporation in keeping with its revised business strategy that favoured creating manufacturing out-put and jobs at its US manufacturing facilities. This information freely available in the media and public domain still did not deter those on the political left from continuing their attacks on the government of the day.
Even when General Motors Corporation headquartered in Detroit stated quite unequivocally that no level of government financial assistance would have changed their mind in regards to closing their Australian manufacturing arm those on the political left and their sympathisers in both the media and blogosphere continued the attack. At this point the dishonesty can only be seen as pathological, the truth had already been made public repeatedly yet those on the political left continued to spread a known lie. And we must ask, why?
Continuing on, even after it came to light that General Motors Corporation had telegraphed their decision prior to the election of the conservative government and had not made their planned changes to their business practices a secret, the lie spread by those on the political left continued and has not ceased months later. In-fact the lie that the government had caused the demise of General Motors Holden Australia’s manufacturing arm is still being repeated within the blogosphere and the social-media echo-chamber that supports it without any signs of those responsible accepting the well reported truth. So, why lie when only those who agree with you are ever going to believe it, or not go searching for verification?
Robust debate should always be welcomed, the back and forth and contesting of view-points is vital to finding the truth of things, but why once the truth is well established continue to deny it? Or to take it further, why would you say something that you could never prove is true, and would in all likelihood be shown as being untrue? And why would you think it would be appropriate to do so as a media and news out-let?
Most recently it has transpired that a once loved and much respected media and news outlet not only showed scant regard for not only journalistic standards and the truth but their audience also. If one says something that they know they are never likely to be able to be true it is often because they want it to be true, and in this instance those responsible wanted the accusation to be true because they needed a weapon to attack their ideological opponents. But an accusation unfounded in truth is nothing more than rumormongering, and what would tempt the national broadcaster to resort to rumormongering and giving validation to an unfounded accusation that in all likelihoods never attempted to verify before making it public? And why then would those within that organisation and their supporters make public denials and repeated public denials that those accusations were made in keeping with a political agenda when it is obvious to all and sundry that is was blatantly partisan?
Why not simply tell the truth, admit the mistake and ask forgiveness, why they charade? Of-course this is not what transpired, what did transpire was the government of the day who fell victim of this blatant partisanship questioned the agenda being pushed by the national broadcaster and those of the political left merely continued to ignore the truth.
Those on the political left claim that they and they alone are progressive, yet this can not be so, to progress one must admit the truth, the truth of the past, the truth of the present and the future truth. This being the case, why are those who call themselves progressives so adamant their truth denials?
The most stunning acts of truth denial often stem from discussion in regard to the economic policies that caused or significantly contributed to the Global Financial Crisis. Other substantial acts of truth avoidance come from discussion relating to the economic management of Australia and its overly complex taxation system. Interestingly both of these issues have been so widely written about that working around the truth should be an impossibility, yet those on the political left still persist.
The often vulgarity riddled tirades launched by those on the political left at the bankers at the head of the system is a prime example of truth denial in action, the vulgarity is often a sign of the desperate need for their accusations to be true, lest the truth destroy the intellectual underpinnings of their ideology. And that is what we must question, what in their ideology makes the acceptance of the truth so harmful to the ideology and those that follow it? When pointing out to someone that a tax concession that is widely available to broad sections of the community isn’t a subsidy and the response is the repetition of the original mistake of fact, is that a simple inability to grasp a concept, or is that a truth denial for the purposes of protecting the ideology that makes them lie? Is the level of dishonesty used in the defence of the ideology proportionate to the underlying dishonesty within that ideology?
Or is it, those on the political left think the rest of us incapable of telling the difference between fact and fiction, do they really think we’re all that gullible and follow them blindly back to the gulags?