Holte's corner

Truth To Power

It is said that the role of "prophets" is telling truth to power. I think that is why Nichiren of all the Buddhist teachers is the one who attracted me. Of all those people he was the nearest to a prophet. His remonstrations were both "prophesy" and warning to the society of his day, and to our day as well. They stand equal with any prophesy of any other teacher/prophet in history.

In our own times, we have a world of people who make their points, argue their ideas, fight their little wars. But telling truth to power? That is rarer than Gold coin, and more expensive than platinum bars. Even McCain, the closest the Senate has to a truth teller, is not willing to tell the unvarnished truth. In his endorcements of Bush he talked up the good, and mostly left out the bad. He hinted at the mistakes, and tried to smile and ingratiate his way into the hearts of Democrats and Republicans alike.

And he called Kerry a friend, while siding with a man who has been his enemy, and has been McCain's enemy as well. He said that he felt that Bush had learned from his mistakes and demonstrated leadership. While he basically disparaged Kerry as not doing so. So much for friendship.

But here is the rub. If John Kerry wants to win in November he needs to be more than a man kissing babies and proposing an alternative to Bush. If he really wants to win he has to be a "truth teller." As Richard Cohen says in his collumn, this would be refreshing. American's don't always want to hear the truth. They reacted to Jimmy Carter's "truth" about a "malaise" with electing Reagan. They preferred Reagan's fable visions to negative truths. But truth isn't always about what is, but about what can be.

The great prophets predicted two things simultaneously. Wrack and Ruin, and transcendence and redemption. People responded to Reagan because he spoke his inner truths. Telling truth to power is saying. "Look this is an iron prison, but it could be a palace; let us build a pallace!" Kerry can do this I would think. If he did, a spark would ignite that would change things for him. With a transcendent vision, even if he lost the election he would win. With no vision, people are going to stick with the known devil over the devil they don't know.

So Kerry! One of your leutenants? Read Richard Cohen's essay in today Post. Please? The spark comes from within. All the advisors and handlers can only steer you wrong if they keep you from listening to your inner voice. You do have one?

Mike gave me this link: http://www.inequality.org

Dick Cheney and others in this administration have been going at Kerry. The trouble is that his attacks are distorted ones. He doesn't attack the "real" positions of his opponant but makes things up on the sly:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56564-2004Sep2.html
"He talks about leading a more sensitive war on terror, as though al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side," Cheney jeered, to laughter and boos in the convention hall. "

Of course the one with the "kinder gentler" was his former Boss. But this mischaracterizes both Kerry's stance and the reasoning behind it. Cheney would seem to want to make war on the Germans, French and 1.5 billion Moslems as an alternative to seeking world cooperation. He and his followers don't seem to have any humility and seem to think that God is on the side of the person who shouts his name loudest.

Along with them are the pundits, making comments like how the Democrats are seeking therapy. Richard Cohen is telling us that Kerry needs to be more agressive in spelling out his differences.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54698-2004Sep1.html

But I'm philosophical. The essential thing is to do ones best to articulate the truth. And the other thing is to differentiate between fantasy statements and truth, between authentic visions and hubris and triumphalism.

Posted by cholte at September 1, 2004 01:01 AM