Truth has always been a mystery since the olden times. It is something that can “set one free” or forever enslave the truth bearer. Being able to stand for the truth is a mark of courage, while holding on to a deep secret that may “make or break” a person may be an unbearable cause of suffering. Samuel Clemens’, a.k.a. Mark Twain’s anthology of his participation in the war efforts, have revealed much about his insights of the camaraderie shared between men. Although it seemed honest and candid, the truth gets played around a lot in the delivery of this literary piece. The television series “West Wing” interprets the workings in the White House and how the president’s staff has the power to whitewash the truth just to protect the president, in the guise of giving honor to their country. American presidents are in a way given a privilege with “truth weaving.” Naïve citizens would admire them as ideal people representing the true and the good, and this may be manipulated or exploited by presidents such as Abraham Lincoln or Lyndon Johnson.
This essay attempts to explore how people may use the truth to their benefit. Spinning the truth or “phrase juggling” is a tool often used in literature, television, and presidential speeches, as exemplified in Mark Twain’s essay, “The Private History of a Campaign That Failed,” the tv series “West Wing,” and the presidential speeches of Lyndon Johnson on John F. Kennedy’s assassination and Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
On a number of occasions, Clemen’s narrator in his article exaggerates the reality of certain situations. As the young men recruited in the war, their supposed leader, Colonel Ralls, set them up to listen to his moving speech and eventually swore on the bible to drive any stranger away from the state of Missouri. “This mixed us considerably, and we could not just make out what service we were involved in, but Colonel Ralls, the practiced politician and phrase juggler was not similarly in doubt.” It so happened that he was recruiting them to be part of the Southern Confederacy. Such an act is characteristic of politicians who seduce their audience with their heart-rendering speech, using only the most impressive stories, be they true or not, only to reveal at the end their hidden agenda. Another example of truth-spinning is this quote: “We had some horsemanship drill every forenoon, then, afternoons, we rode off here and there in squads a few miles and visited the farmer’s girls and had a youthful good time and got an honest dinner or supper, and then home again to camp, happy and content.” Lyrically written, such a state of fun may be an escape to the vicious realities of war. Due to the tension arising everywhere else, this statement may be meant to distract the narrator or even the readers from staring the truth of war in the eye as a way of dealing with the stress. The narrator of the story tried his best to impress his readers by showing how enthusiastic he is as a soldier of war. “This was no place for town boys. So, at last, it was with something very like the joy that we received word that the enemy was on our track again. With a new birth of the old warrior spirit, we sprang to our places in line of battle and fell back on Camp Ralls.” Truth to tell, anyone who would hear news of enemies coming would send him shaking with fear, but in the quote, the narrator covered up the truth by not even mentioning the word fear and instead used “joy” at the prospect of fighting enemies. The article is filled with cover-ups of real emotions behind the scenes. When the narrator shot at a man dead and later on found out he was not an enemy, guilt overcame him. He even expressed how his comrades felt at having killed an innocent man and how this may affect the family he left behind. However, the truth of the killing was rationalized this way: “In a little while, the man was dead. He was killed in the war, killed in the fair and legitimate war, killed in battles as you may say, and yet he was as sincerely mourned by the opposing force as if he had been their brother.” It was true that he was killed during the time of war. However, he was just innocently passing through when he was suddenly mistaken as an enemy and killed for that mistake. He was not killed in battle. Clemens’ comrades did mourn his death, but more because of their guilt rather than “as their brother.” Indeed, gifted writers have a way of adding several shades of the truth to paint a picture they would want their readers to see.
There are various instances where characters from the West Wing do a masterful job of spinning the truth. To them, they feel duty-bound to protect the president and maintain his clean image to the American public. In a planned assassination of a political leader involving the president, the following conversation took place:
MAN: Mr. President, we wanted to lay out some of the rules.
BARTLET: There are rules for these things?
MAN: [pause] Uh, yes, sir. The first one being the National Security Act, which says basically that only the President can trigger a covert action. This isn’t a situation where you need to know as little as possible. The law requires that you know everything.
BARTLET: Doesn’t the law also require that I not assassinate someone?
MAN 2: Yes. Political assassination is banned by the Executive Order. Two Executive Orders, as a matter of fact.
BARTLET: I know. One of them was mine.
LEO: The E.O. is law, but it was made up by the Executive, and the Executive can ignore it.
It was clearly expressed that the truth of the impending political assassination was known by the president, but his henchmen insist that he appear innocent of it for his own protection. They try to manipulate the other existing truths about the law by saying that the president can just ignore it. The same is true with how they stretch the truth with the public. With an innocent boy, a presidential staff tries to concoct a story that does have shades of the truth. She gave him a keychain souvenir from the White House:
C.J.: It’ll have the Seal of the President on it and President Bartlet’s signature, and you can tell your mom that you can’t buy this in a souvenir shop. In fact, you can’t buy it anywhere ’cause it’s against the law to sell the Seal of the President. You can only get it here.
ANTHONY: Yeah, but if the cops stopped me, aren’t they gonna think I stole it?
C.J.: If the cops stopped you, they’re gonna think you’re an important person.
Such a statement from a presidential staff no less is easily believed by any naïve citizen who instantly values a worthless souvenir. This “truth” is expected to impress, and hopefully, word gets spread out to a wider group of equally gullible people. The president himself desperately wants to maintain a squeaky clean image to project to his constituents. Knowing that he is involved in a political assassination plot, he voices out his concern:
BARTLET: They’re gonna find out it’s us. We could make it look like the plane went down, but they’re gonna find out it’s us, and I’m gonna be running for reelection while I’m fighting a war against Qumar.
The president wants to cover up the truth of the killing, not wanting the Qumar’s Defense Minister’s blood on his hands and be caught red-handed by the voting public whose approval he wants to gain before his reelection. However, he has his ways of delivering hard truth to people he does not especially favor and does it in an indirect manner. His wit is usually reciprocated, as shown in the following scene wherein insults are exchanged with an opposing governor:
BARTLET: I wasn’t, Rob. But you’ve turned to be un-engaged into a Zen-like thing, and you shouldn’t enjoy it so much is all, and if it appears at times as if I don’t like you, that’s the reason why.
RITCHIE: You’re what my friends call a superior sumbitch. You’re an academic elitist and a snob. You’re, uh, Hollywood, you’re weak, you’re liberal, and you can’t be trusted. And if it appears from time to time as if I don’t like you, well, those are just a few of the many reasons why.
Bartlet, the president, actually wanted to say that he thought Ritchie was dumb but phrased it in such a way that sounded well and civil. In a way, he was honest with his feelings; however, he tried to elevate himself by using terminologies that were politically correct and socially acceptable for a person of his stature. Politics seem to produce people who always know how to use words to spin truths.
If examined closely, Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” was conveniently worded to portray the Confederacy as a vicious beast. Lincoln spoke on behalf of all the heroes who died in the war and dedicated to the part of the Gettysburg battlefield. In saying, “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”, nuances of his grievances against the war come out. He wanted to know how much the civil war will affect or destroy the nation he so loved. However, such painful concerns did not really shine through in his words. During the dedication of the Gettysburg land, he said, “We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that the nation might live.” He spoke of the truth, however, his words had a sharpness in them when he regrettably honored the heroes who died “so that the nation might live.” It was as if he was sarcastically blaming the war for their deaths. His hurt goes on to be expressed in the following: “The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.” Behind those words was a threat that the world will never forget the atrocities of war. His ending statement seemed like a promise or a resolution of sorts: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Abraham Lincoln vowed that the freedom gained from the vicious war should not be lost anymore.
One can also clearly see that Lyndon Johnson was one of the greatest truth spinners of all time. His presidential speech following the assassination of his predecessor, John F. Kennedy, was moving, although there were several half-truths thrown in that can only be noticed by his critics. His first sentence alone belied his satisfaction at being hailed president: “All I have I would have given gladly not to be standing here today.” He was referring to the loss of a dearly beloved president before him. Those first words can instantly be questioned by ambitious individuals because it is well known that the presidency is the most sought-after position in the land, so how can he imply that he preferred not to be standing in that position delivering his presidential speech? He repeats the same dramatic flair in the statement: “An assassin’s bullet has thrust upon me the awesome burden of the Presidency.” It was true that by default, he would be president, but to say that it was thrust on him implied that he was unwilling. True, the presidency entails great responsibility, but because he could not openly express his joy in receiving it, he used the term “awesome burden” to keep with the sad theme of JFK’s death. Johnson’s engaging speech to the American people effectively touched them and gained their sympathy and respect for him. However, his line: “This is our challenge — not to hesitate, not to pause, not to turn about and linger over this evil moment, but to continue on our course so that we may fulfill the destiny that history has set for us. “ is more directed to self than to the public. He enjoined his audience to act so they may fulfill the destiny that history has set for them, but in truth, he was egging himself on as the “destined” one history has chosen to lead America after JFK’s death. His bringing of the spotlight to himself was obvious in this statement: “I urge you again, as I did in 19 and 57 and again in 19 and 60, to enact a civil rights law so that we can move forward to eliminate from this Nation every trace of discrimination and oppression that is based upon race or color.” His speech appeared to honor JFK, but he managed to uplift himself by inserting glory for himself now and then. Johnson’s speech was indicative of a brilliant mind, a charismatic politician, and a crafty manipulator of truth. He may be sincere in expressing the truth to his audience, and then again, he may not.
The truth stays unchanged even if people try to stretch it, cover it up, bend it or manipulate it any way they want to suit their purpose. It remains the same when one honestly faces it. It is just a matter of dealing with it, and truth spinners usually come out as survivors of the hard truth.