COLUMN: The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

By Tobin Barnes
“The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

We’ve heard those words countless times. When a person is sworn in to testify in a court room, he or she is asked to pledge to do exactly that.

Actually, we’ve heard that mantra so often, we tend to over-simplify it into, “Don’t lie!” But in the process of over-simplification, lies are sometimes allowed to run rampant.

Take political advertising, for instance.

But I’ll get back to that later.

First, let’s analyze, “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Almost sounds redundant, doesn’t it. Why drag it out? For poetic effect?

Hardly.

There’s a good reason witnesses aren’t asked simply to tell “the truth.” Throughout mankind’s experience, that standard has been found to be nowhere near enough to get to the heart of the matter.

“The whole truth” is also necessary. As we’ve learned in life, leaving out most or even parts of the truth can greatly distort the meaning of telling the truth. When things are left out, even small amounts, the truth is not being served.

But that’s still not enough. We must also have “Nothing but the truth.”

A witness may relate the truth and the whole truth, but yet fall short by also including extraneous material that, again, may distort the meaning of the truth. He or she may “muddy the waters,” so to speak with distortions and prevarications, leaving the jurors with a less than clear impression of “The truth.”

Therefore, “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

And though sought in the courtroom, the standard seems to have no footing in the political world. Sadly, to an innocent babe in woods as I am, neither major political party sends their campaign ads through such a tough muster.

Instead, distortion seems to rule the airwaves and the print media. The whole truth is seldom represented unless you judge by small snippets. Sometimes only phrases, maybe.

Even those are often taken out of context. In doing so, we lose “the whole truth.”

And nothing but the truth? Everything except the kitchen sink is oftentimes thrown in with the truth to confuse and obfuscate.

In political advertising, truth all-too-often is not the goal. Truth is the intended victim. And again, sadly, it all too often works.

Now all this is allowed to happen because of free speech, and thank goodness for it. We cherish free speech, however perverse or contorted it can sometimes be, because theoretically its ultimate validity is rigorously tested in the marketplace of ideas where the populace determines whether that free speech shines light or simple conjures a bunch of fallacious hooey.

So eventually, after everyone has had their say, we come to an understanding of the truth, and in the meantime people have had the honored freedom to speak their piece.

But the problem comes with the “eventually” part. Eventually takes time, and in the heated and compact swirl of the political arena, the “eventually” may come well after the election when sneaking suspicions arise far too long after the deed has already been done.

And that’s where the truth can take a beating.

Given the choice, I’d naively wager most citizens would like the political parties to be wholly truthful and nothing but truthful in their campaigns, advertising and rhetoric--in other words, responsible guardians of the public welfare. After all, their candidates will potentially be in charge of that welfare.

But how can that compact with the people be valid when those same candidates used half-truths, deceit, and distortion to get into positions of power? Is it to be expected that they’ll thereafter suddenly see the light and side solely with the better angels of their nature once in office?

Again, hardly.

How unfortunate that the candidates who ask us to trust them have so often already intentionally breached that trust in their campaigns.

So what’s the electorate’s only recourse?

Never trust them again.