I noticed in a recent edition of The Echo what I regard as the most enduringly relevant of the 1960s slogans ‘tell it like it is’, has been embellished into ‘telling it like we think it is’.
Considering that in most of the assertions we make it is implicit that that is what we take to be the case, that we believe it to be true, it seems a little pedantic to add that rider to said assertion.
On the other hand in the movie Dean Spanley (featured repeatedly on SBS) the star makes the point that ‘only a fool is certain’; indeed perhaps that line is the whole purpose of the movie, harking back as it does to the Ancient Greek sceptics and their doubt about truth – or at least about our ability to grasp it.
So now we come to the point of this letter: what label do we give Donald Chump’s proclivity for saying something one day and then totally contradicting it the next? Without admission, embarrassment, or shame? Clearly we have a situation where ‘truth’ consists of whatever Donald is able to convince his supporters is the case at the time of his first utterance, and again at the time of his contradictory utterance the next day.
This label would need to contain some implicit reference to the psychology of his supporters, and to their intellectual limitations in particular, but also to their needs. I say this because it seems to me that those supporters are able to block out the bits of Chump they don’t like or understand, while feasting on the ones that address their angry inadequacies (as cultivated by right-wing demagogues like Chump and a growing list of imitators around the world).
I’m convinced that Donald is destined for the dustbin of history which is why I see him as a ‘chump’ who is deluding himself about some inherent destiny he has invented.
Indeed the only ‘achievement’ to date is outclassing one Richard M Nixon in his devilishness. But at lease Mr Nixon knew his limitations and knew when to quit. Ah, the good old days….
So is the rise of Mr Chump proof that democracy doesn’t work, or does it merely reflect the failure of the Western educational systems? I refer of course to the determination of those on the right to only acknowledge those who agree with their existing prejudices, prejudices imbibed often from ancient fundamentalist texts that promise them an afterlife, or give them someone to blame for their inadequacies.
We’ve long had available the Latin phrase ‘audi alteram partem’ which basically means ‘listen to both sides of the story before making up your minds’, which can also be read as ‘follow the evidence where it leads’. Over the last few years I’ve often been appalled and saddened by those who are able to arrive at ‘incontestable’ conclusions after accepting as evidence only that which tends to confirm their existing views. Views which usually reflect some deep emotional need which has overpowered the cerebral brainpower which allegedly elevates us above our fellow creatures.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
