A definition of faith is the complete trust or confidence in someone or something, most notably when there is an absence of evidence or proof. The word is often used in association with religion, which is not the case here. My interest in the word relates to how people faithfully believe the promises and claims of a person who is soon to be leader of the free world, regardless of what they are.
The newly-elected President had a good deal of success in his campaign relying on people having an abundance of faith in him and his pronouncements. He made many promises on the campaign trail and at his rallies, which were often marked by a high degree of emotion, and were responded to in kind by those in his audiences.
At one count, over the course of the campaign the President-elect managed to offer up 282 promises. An example: refusing to ever eat another Oreo cookie until Nabisco returned its production back to the U.S. from Mexico. Another: releasing his tax returns as soon as the IRS finishes its audit. He even managed to contradict himself regarding the minimum wage, as referenced in the linked article:
“12. Leave the federal minimum wage at $7.25 per hour, which is ‘already too high’.
13. Raise the federal minimum wage to $10 per hour, as ‘$7.25 is too low’ and ‘the minimum wage has to go up’.”
The President-elect in essence was telling people to take his word for most of his promises. After all, how would they ever be able to confirm that he never again ate an Oreo? He says that doesn’t care about his businesses any longer- he just cares about his country. Just take his word for it- there will never be any conflicts of interest. Or:
“38. ‘We will double our growth and have the strongest economy anywhere in the world.’” Just take his word for it.
He has at times allowed himself to speculate that he will be President for eight years:
“232. ‘And at the end of four years, I guarantee you that I will get over 95 percent of the African American vote. I promise you. Because I will produce.’” Again- take his word for it. Really, there is no other choice, is there?
The election was about seven weeks ago, and the President-elect is amazingly taking credit for the improved economy, higher stock market, and how much money was spent during this Christmas holiday. His tweet on the 26th: “The world was gloomy before I won – there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10% and Christmas spending is over a trillion dollars!” Actually, the more accurate figure for November and December spending is estimated to be a little more that half of that. And ironically, the reality according to CNBC on Dec. 2 is this: “Obama's biggest parting gift to Trump may be the economy”. My guess is that his faithful would more readily believe his tweet.
Much has been made recently of the term “post-truth”, named word of the year by the English Oxford Dictionary. Their statement:
“After much discussion, debate, and research, the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016 is post-truth – an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’.”
I wrote back in January of last year: “An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be objectively proven to have occurred. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact.”
Faith has always had a place in our world, to our benefit or detriment depending on a person’s point of view. The philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his 1954 book Human Society in Ethics and Politics, espoused the latter. An excerpt:
“… What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm. We may define ‘faith’ as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of ‘faith.’
We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups substitute different emotions…”
The President-elect possesses an uncanny aptitude for appealing to emotion, so as to often avoid providing evidence. His promises sound good, and a good many people seem content to take his word for them. In reality, he hasn’t even been inaugurated yet and many of his promises have been broken. Breitbart News has taken him to task for his decision not to push for criminal investigations of his opponent over her emails.
In the end, though, I believe that what matters most is not what the President-elect believes or says. I have observed him to be a person without some of the traits that define a rigid ideologue. He wants to be liked and respected as someone who is practical and can solve problems. He switches positions readily, and appears to be easily swayed. He can’t seem to decide how he feels about the current President. During the campaign he frequently called him “the worst president in history”. After meeting with him post-election, he changed that to saying that he has “great respect” for him and “I look very much forward to dealing with the president in the future, including counsel.”
What concerns me more are the people he is surrounding himself with in his cabinet and administration, and who will have his ear. As has been pointed out, these will be the people making and changing policy. They are firm and consistent in their beliefs. How readily will their boss go along with their actions? And, of course, there will be at least one Supreme Court pick for him to make, which will influence the direction of the country far beyond the next four or eight more years.
D. Norman
Yikes and well said.
ReplyDelete