I watched the entire Meet the Press interview with Rudy Giuliani, the one where he made his infamous “truth is not truth” quote, and I must concede he has been treated rather unfairly by his critics on the Left. What Rudy said is certainly not false, in fact, its not that far from what I have always believed and argued myself–that truth depends on interpretation, context, preconception, even the filters of bias and ideology. Very often it is a public consensus, not the demonstrable mathematical theorem or Law of Physics we expect it to be. This is especially so in the legal arena, where depositions and testimony are controlled and edited, open to cherry picking and rearrangement, the truth can appear differently to different people, even if those people are scrupulously honest and fair. And it is physically impossible to ever hear ALL of it, especially if the witnesses are mistaken, confused, forgetful or lying.

Facts in isolation can be very misleading, even if they are rigorously correct. Its not that there is no absolute truth, its just that situations are complex and reality is subtle. So let’s not be too harsh on Rudy for those unfortunate remarks. What he really meant about the President’s proposed testimony is that it could be distorted and misinterpreted and used against him, even if he were truly innocent of the charges brought against him. The answers can often be molded by how, and which, questions are asked.

Our legal system tries to make allowances for this by rules of evidence and cross-examination, but I think that we can all agree that it isn’t always successful in providing true justice, either for the defense or the prosecution. Very often, what results in a legal proceeding is more a function of the skill of the attorneys than of the true facts of the case. There is a real universe out there, but it is filtered through our imperfect senses, garbled in transcription and distorted by bias and interpretation.

Having said that, and conceding that Rudy’s remarks were unfairly pounced upon by his political enemies, I find it amusing that he allowed himself to be so artfully ambushed by
a reporter who wasn’t even trying to do so! The man was hoisted by his own Libtard. He tripped over his own dick.

Conservatives have always been contemptuous of Liberal efforts to try to see both sides of a question, to be fair and dispassionate, to strive for moderation. They have always smugly condemned their Progressive opponents’ attempts at impartiality as fuzzy-thinking, weakness, indecisiveness, cowardice. You would think that as a lawyer, Giuliani would have been trained and practiced in avoiding these rhetorical traps and minefields. But what could have easily been avoided by simply a little more astuteness and skill with the language has now been allowed to fester into a complex of contradictions and half-truths which is indistinguishable from outright lies.

Mr Giuliani, to put it bluntly, was simply not too bright. I have often wondered whether dim people are more likely to be attracted to Conservative ideology, or if they just get that way after prolonged exposure to it and its adherents. Or perhaps it is just an unavoidable consequence of their innate and deliberately cultivated anti-intellectualism. Either way, it is rather just. They have always felt careful analysis, skepticism, introspection and even self-doubt was a sign of Liberal ineptness and moral shortcoming.

But what Conservatives may have gained from their harsh and unyielding certainty, their black and white absolutism, they have lost by becoming blind to everything which is not completely obvious. And too often, even that which is obvious is simply rationalized away. This is a difficult position to justify for anyone who claims to be the champion of obvious, unadulterated, unqualified and absolute truth.

They are fanatics, and that has proven to be their downfall.