The only truth coming out of what happened in Ferguson on
that August day and every day since is that not one of us will ever know the
truth. Perhaps Americans would just as soon live with that as have their views
altered by the truth.
Out of this tragedy, the only possible good comes if
Americans, at long last, look into the mirror and admit that we like a
perception-based world more than we want a truth-based existence.
As ferociously as many of us argued our opinions about the
matter, that is all we had. Not one of us knows what happened that day when
Officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown’s paths crossed. Maybe, as some say,
Brown attacked Wilson tried to take away his gun. Maybe Brown intended to harm
or even kill the officer.
Perhaps, the officer initiated the conflict. He admits
asking himself, curiously, whether it would be “legal” to kill the kid. Maybe
he asked himself that question before it became necessary or relevant. Please
don’t believe the truth can be found anywhere near the prosecutor’s office.
The prosecutor designed a process giving some a basis to
claim they knew the facts. The Grand Jury proceeding was anything but a search
for truth. It was tainted by a biased prosecutor who got what he wanted. His
office even advised jurors to apply a law allowing officers to shoot fleeing
suspects. That statute was declared
unconstitutional years earlier.
Defense lawyers who studied the Grand Jury transcripts
concluded prosecutors asked Wilson the same questions a good defense lawyer would
have asked in an effort to get him off.
Likewise, Brown’s family and attorneys worked to impose their
“truth.” We were left to reconcile the boy they described with the one we saw
on video, strong-arm-robbing a store clerk. That “boy” was not likeable, even
violent, though muscling a store clerk differs in kind from the allegations
that he did the same to an armed policeman minutes later.
Everyone with access to the truth had a stake in it not
being revealed. We’ve been there too often, from the assassinations of the 60s,
to Viet Nam and Watergate, Iran-gate, and Iraq. Those who know the truth are
always the gatekeepers. We learn only what they want us to know.
At this moment, gatekeepers in at least two of the three
branches of government sit on a report about whether the United States engaged
in systematic torture following 9/11. It’s not difficult to understand why many
of them would want the truth to remain in a locked file drawer. So much for the
old civics class notion of “check and balances.”
But, what about us? Why have run-of-the-mill citizens not
demanded to know?
As with Ferguson and all the other opportunities we’ve had
to demand the truth, I suspect we don’t really want to know. The truth would
heartily interfere with our perception-based worlds. We sound like Jack
Nicholson, Col. Jessep, in “A Few Good Men.”
Jessep: You want
answers?
Kaffee: I want
the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth!
How can people who can’t handle the truth sustain a
democracy? Can a free nation survive voters who cling to ideological forces
that support their notions rather than seeking the truth? That is not to say
it’s easy to get the truth. It’s hidden and often confused in a 24/7 news cycle
filled with noise.
Think about the “water-cooler conversation you have. Where
would we be if it were not for CNN, FOX, and MSNBC telling us what to think? What
would happen if we listened to the president speak and there was no
talking-head following up to tell us what to think? Where would we come up with
the words to express our opinions?
One of the most dramatic scenes in the Bible is the
confrontation between Jesus and Pilate when Jesus is asked by the Roman, “What is
truth?”
Don’t you wish Jesus had answered the question? Maybe Jesus IS the answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment