In today’s world of equivalence, where there exist the concepts of “your truth” and “my truth,” the idea of legislating for truth in advertising, let alone political advertising, seems a quagmire into which one should not wallow for fear of being enveloped in its tentacles.
Of late in Australia, the concept of legislating for truth in political advertising has yet again raised its head.
Truth is a proposition that can be objectively verified. The highest temperature today in a city can be determined from accurate instruments. Once registered, it is accepted as the truth.
But in today’s world, where a biological male can identify as the opposite sex, and children at school can identify as “furries” and demand litter trays for their toilet requirements, the idea of objective truth is fast losing its hold in society.
In this confused environment, well-meaning people are suggesting we have laws for truth-telling in political discourse.
What if there were accusations against a political party of wanting to introduce a carbon tax even when the party has specifically denied it?
It could be labelled an untruth and therefore disallowed by the arbiter of political truth. But the party then turns around and does exactly what it said it would not do and introduces a carbon tax!
What would happen to the credibility of the arbiter in this situation? Its reputation would be in unsalvageable tatters and the party denied the right to make the assertion would rightly call for a resignation.
The above example is a real live example from Australian politics.
In 2010, then-leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, made the bold claim which was utterly refuted by Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Upon her re-election, Ms. Gillard did exactly that which she promised not to do.
On the eve of his election as prime minister, Mr. Abbott promised no cuts to certain institutions but then imposed an “efficiency dividend” across the board to all institutions and departments. Is this a cut or an efficiency dividend? Good luck to the arbiter of truth in political advertising when sorting that one out.
On another occasion, a government promised not to introduce new taxes but instead introduced a levy. It begged the question, “What constitutes a tax?” Is a levy just as much of an impost as a tax?
In politics, a lot is based on opinion and trust.
“Past behaviour is a good indicator of future behaviour,” and so the political discourse continues in various shades of political grey, the truth of which cannot be objectively determined.
Is a failure to maintain expenditure in line with inflation a cut in expenditure? The truth umpire’s ultimate nightmare.
Or does the truth umpire crab walk away from a determination by asserting it’s a fair claim to make? As soon as that happens, one side will cry foul and the other will seize upon it claiming it has the backing of the truth umpire.
Enlisting the truth umpire will be fraught in itself.
Would presidential candidate Hilary Clinton’s description of her opponent’s supporters as “deplorables” be allowed? Where does excessive hyperbole venture from opinion and advocacy into telling untruths?
The clash of ideas is a vital component of a healthy democracy. Allowing the political discourse and process to be sifted by the electors themselves is the most effective sieve.
However, protection from false advertising like using government logos to help promote political messages needs guarding against. Largely, laws to this effect are already in place.
Truth is the description of fact or reality. Some things simply cannot be so classified.
A painting’s appeal depends on one’s taste. A political statement may appeal to one cohort as absolutely true and an outright falsehood to another.
Only the passage of time can be the accurate arbiter of the correctness of certain statements and then most of them will be nuanced in a manner where the determination will, like the appeal of a painting, be in the eye of the beholder.
