• Genre
  • About
  • Submissions
  • Donate
  • Search
Menu

Speakola

All Speeches Great and Small
  • Genre
  • About
  • Submissions
  • Donate
  • Search

Robert Mueller: 'You may find yourself standing alone', Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law - 2013

August 14, 2018

12 April 2013, University of Virginia,

Good morning. Thanks to Dean Mahoney for having me here today. It is good to be back in Charlottesville at one of the best law schools—one could argue the best law school—in the country. I say that remembering what I found unique about this school 40 years ago.

Then, as now, UVA was different from other law schools. Rather than simply teaching the basic tenets of the law, it sought to provide the foundation for future leadership.

As you have heard, I came to the law school from the Marine Corps, with a tour in Vietnam. As you all know, the Vietnam War was deeply divisive for our country, and there were a number of law schools that were not receptive to veterans of Vietnam. Not so UVA.

The university was looking for a range of experiences, understanding that a true legal education is an amalgam of the law and of values, with the goal of preparing its students for service—service to the country, service to Virginia, and service to others.

Then, as now, a variety of views were represented. Many of my fellow students—good friends—opposed the war in Vietnam.

I do remember that on the first day of classes, I sat down next to a somewhat scruffy classmate. I still had a Marine Corps hair cut and was dressed rather neatly. He had hair down to his shoulders, a Fu Manchu mustache, and was dressed in a grubby t-shirt and shorts…and he was not wearing shoes. He never wore shoes.

I very quickly came to find out that he was a conscientious objector. He did not pay much attention in class and seemed to be there for the ride.

At least that is what I believed until the first grades were posted. He was at the top of the class, while I was lingering somewhere in the middle.

We actually became fast friends, and our debates fostered mutual respect and a sharing of vision. Ironically, he is now a very well-paid antitrust lawyer, while I have spent most of my career in some form of public service.

The qualities that drew me to UVA all those years ago are the qualities that have made UVA such a unique institution. And for me, these qualities are what make receiving the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law such a special honor.

Today, I would like to speak to what I believe to be three basic tenets for a rewarding professional life. The first is integrity. The second is commitment to the rule of law. And the third, the value of public service.

Before I address that topic, I would like to take a moment to talk about the FBI—the institution with which I have been fortunate to be associated for the last several years.

When I took office as Director on September 4, 2001, I had expected to focus on areas familiar to me as a prosecutor—drug cases, white-collar criminal cases, and violent crime. But days later, the attacks of September 11 changed the course of the Bureau.

National security—that is, preventing terrorist attacks—became our top priority. We shifted 2,000 agents from our criminal programs to national security. We also understood that we had to focus on long-term, strategic change. We had to enhance our intelligence capabilities and upgrade our technology. We had to build upon strong partnerships and forge new friendships, both here at home and abroad.

We are now an organization 36,000 strong—14,000 of whom are agents; 3,000 of whom are analysts; and the balance, other professional staff.

At the same time we built these capabilities, we had to maintain our efforts against traditional criminal threats. And we had to do all of this while respecting the rule of law and the safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution.

Today, the FBI is a threat-focused, intelligence-driven organization. National security does remain our top priority. Terrorists with global reach and global ambitions seek to strike us at home and abroad. Spies steal our state secrets and our trade secrets for military and competitive advantage. Cyber criminals lurk on our networks, stealing information for sale to the highest bidder. Computer intrusions and network attacks are becoming more commonplace, more dangerous, and more sophisticated.

Simultaneously, we face a wide range of criminal threats, from white-collar crime and public corruption to transnational criminal syndicates, migrating gangs, and child predators.

And indeed, the threats we face are varied and ever changing. We as an organization must continually evolve in order to prevent terrorist and criminal attacks, because terrorists and criminals certainly are evolving themselves.

This description of the FBI today provides the backdrop for my comments on the values that contribute to a rewarding career.

* * *

Nearly 100 years ago, the university unveiled the formal east entrance to the grounds, known as the Senff Gateway. It still stands today, by the old medical school building.

You may have passed under it many times without noticing the inscription atop one of the two archways. It reads, “Enter by this gateway and seek the way of honor, the light of truth, and the will to work for men.” The inscription is attributed to President Alderman, who believed that these were the three great principles of life at the university.

Though the words may be a bit different from my own, they embody the tenets I mentioned earlier—integrity, commitment to the rule of law, and the value of public service.

Let us begin with integrity—what the archway calls “the way of honor.”

As improbable as it may seem, particularly to a 1L muddling through civil procedure or contracts, as a lawyer you may one day end up in the highest ranks of judicial power. You may manage multinational law firms, advocate for those in need, or set groundbreaking precedent.

In the end, it is not only what we do, but how we do it. Whatever we do, we must act with honesty and integrity. Whether we are working with a client, opposing counsel, or in court, we are only as good as our word. We can be smart, aggressive, articulate, and indeed, persuasive. But if we are not honest, our reputations will suffer.

And once lost, a good reputation can never ever be regained. As the saying goes, “If you have integrity, nothing else matters. And if you don’t have it, nothing else matters.”

The FBI’s motto is Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity. Uncompromising integrity—both personal and institutional—is the core value. For the men and women of the FBI, integrity should be reflected in all that we say and all that we do.

For attorneys and non-attorneys alike, there will come a time when you will be tested, in ways both small and large.

Good morning. Thanks to Dean Mahoney for having me here today. It is good to be back in Charlottesville at one of the best law schools—one could argue the best law school—in the country. I say that remembering what I found unique about this school 40 years ago.

Then, as now, UVA was different from other law schools. Rather than simply teaching the basic tenets of the law, it sought to provide the foundation for future leadership.

As you have heard, I came to the law school from the Marine Corps, with a tour in Vietnam. As you all know, the Vietnam War was deeply divisive for our country, and there were a number of law schools that were not receptive to veterans of Vietnam. Not so UVA.

The university was looking for a range of experiences, understanding that a true legal education is an amalgam of the law and of values, with the goal of preparing its students for service—service to the country, service to Virginia, and service to others.

Then, as now, a variety of views were represented. Many of my fellow students—good friends—opposed the war in Vietnam.

I do remember that on the first day of classes, I sat down next to a somewhat scruffy classmate. I still had a Marine Corps hair cut and was dressed rather neatly. He had hair down to his shoulders, a Fu Manchu mustache, and was dressed in a grubby t-shirt and shorts…and he was not wearing shoes. He never wore shoes.

I very quickly came to find out that he was a conscientious objector. He did not pay much attention in class and seemed to be there for the ride.

At least that is what I believed until the first grades were posted. He was at the top of the class, while I was lingering somewhere in the middle.

We actually became fast friends, and our debates fostered mutual respect and a sharing of vision. Ironically, he is now a very well-paid antitrust lawyer, while I have spent most of my career in some form of public service.

The qualities that drew me to UVA all those years ago are the qualities that have made UVA such a unique institution. And for me, these qualities are what make receiving the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law such a special honor.

Today, I would like to speak to what I believe to be three basic tenets for a rewarding professional life. The first is integrity. The second is commitment to the rule of law. And the third, the value of public service.

Before I address that topic, I would like to take a moment to talk about the FBI—the institution with which I have been fortunate to be associated for the last several years.

When I took office as Director on September 4, 2001, I had expected to focus on areas familiar to me as a prosecutor—drug cases, white-collar criminal cases, and violent crime. But days later, the attacks of September 11 changed the course of the Bureau.

National security—that is, preventing terrorist attacks—became our top priority. We shifted 2,000 agents from our criminal programs to national security. We also understood that we had to focus on long-term, strategic change. We had to enhance our intelligence capabilities and upgrade our technology. We had to build upon strong partnerships and forge new friendships, both here at home and abroad.

We are now an organization 36,000 strong—14,000 of whom are agents; 3,000 of whom are analysts; and the balance, other professional staff.

At the same time we built these capabilities, we had to maintain our efforts against traditional criminal threats. And we had to do all of this while respecting the rule of law and the safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution.

Today, the FBI is a threat-focused, intelligence-driven organization. National security does remain our top priority. Terrorists with global reach and global ambitions seek to strike us at home and abroad. Spies steal our state secrets and our trade secrets for military and competitive advantage. Cyber criminals lurk on our networks, stealing information for sale to the highest bidder. Computer intrusions and network attacks are becoming more commonplace, more dangerous, and more sophisticated.

Simultaneously, we face a wide range of criminal threats, from white-collar crime and public corruption to transnational criminal syndicates, migrating gangs, and child predators.

And indeed, the threats we face are varied and ever changing. We as an organization must continually evolve in order to prevent terrorist and criminal attacks, because terrorists and criminals certainly are evolving themselves.

This description of the FBI today provides the backdrop for my comments on the values that contribute to a rewarding career.

* * *

Nearly 100 years ago, the university unveiled the formal east entrance to the grounds, known as the Senff Gateway. It still stands today, by the old medical school building.

You may have passed under it many times without noticing the inscription atop one of the two archways. It reads, “Enter by this gateway and seek the way of honor, the light of truth, and the will to work for men.” The inscription is attributed to President Alderman, who believed that these were the three great principles of life at the university.

Though the words may be a bit different from my own, they embody the tenets I mentioned earlier—integrity, commitment to the rule of law, and the value of public service.

Let us begin with integrity—what the archway calls “the way of honor.”

As improbable as it may seem, particularly to a 1L muddling through civil procedure or contracts, as a lawyer you may one day end up in the highest ranks of judicial power. You may manage multinational law firms, advocate for those in need, or set groundbreaking precedent.

In the end, it is not only what we do, but how we do it. Whatever we do, we must act with honesty and integrity. Whether we are working with a client, opposing counsel, or in court, we are only as good as our word. We can be smart, aggressive, articulate, and indeed, persuasive. But if we are not honest, our reputations will suffer.

And once lost, a good reputation can never ever be regained. As the saying goes, “If you have integrity, nothing else matters. And if you don’t have it, nothing else matters.”

The FBI’s motto is Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity. Uncompromising integrity—both personal and institutional—is the core value. For the men and women of the FBI, integrity should be reflected in all that we say and all that we do.

For attorneys and non-attorneys alike, there will come a time when you will be tested, in ways both small and large. You may find yourself standing alone, against those you thought were trusted colleagues. You may stand to lose what you have worked for. And the decision will not be such an easy call.

Certainly Virginia has prepared its students for such a test, for integrity is a way of life here at UVA. Nothing sets Virginia apart from other universities more than the concept of honor. The Honor System, in place since 1842, and the community of trust it enables, rests on one precept—and that is integrity. Our careers in the law, our professional and our personal success—and indeed, our reputations—rest on that same precept.

Moving to the second tenet, the rule of law. This is, to my mind, what the archway’s inscription describes as “the light of truth.”

Every FBI employee takes an oath promising to uphold the rule of law and the United States Constitution. Each of you will take a similar oath upon admission to the bar. For us, these are not mere words. They set the expectations for our behavior…the standard for the work that we do.

For the American people to respect the Bureau, we must be objective and we must be fair…and that also means we must be apolitical. That has been one of the great things about my job—that it has allowed for the benefits of public service, but without the politics.

We at the FBI take great care to consider the privacy and civil liberties implications of our programs and our investigations. When writing policy or investigative guidelines, or when taking on new projects, we consult with not only our in-house counsel and the Department of Justice, but also with groups such as the ACLU.

And in a practice started by my predecessor, Louis Freeh, all new agents visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington to better understand what happens when law enforcement becomes a tool of oppression—or worse.

For if we safeguard our civil liberties but leave our country vulnerable to attack, we will have lost. If we protect our citizens from crime and terrorism but sacrifice our civil rights, we will have also lost. It is not a question of conflict; it is a question of balance. The rule of law, civil liberties, and civil rights—these are not our burdens. These are what make all of us safer and stronger.

Turning to the importance of public service—or as the gateway reads, “the will to work for men.”

To be sure, it is difficult to consider entering public service upon graduation from law school, often with the burden of student loans.

As I mentioned earlier, I did have the opportunity to serve as a Marine in Vietnam. Those years—those experiences I shared with my fellow Marines—shaped my world view. I do consider myself fortunate to have survived my tour in Vietnam. There were many who did not. And perhaps because of that, I have always felt compelled to try to give back in some way.

I have been lucky to spend the better part of my career in public service and to benefit from the intangible rewards that come from such service. One such unexpected reward is that public service often can be a humbling experience. And there are few of us who would not benefit from a lesson in humility—myself included.

In this regard, I tell the story of my old friend and college classmate Lee Rawls, who was naturally humble. He had spent many years working on Capitol Hill, and we had served together in a previous administration. When I became Director of the FBI, I asked him to join me as a close adviser, and, remarkably, he agreed.

Lee was a mentor. He knew how to cut through nonsense and get to the heart of the matter better than anyone else. He also knew how to put me in my place. During one particularly heated meeting, everyone was frustrated—mostly with me—and I myself may have been a wee bit impatient and ill-tempered.

Lee sat silently, and then—out of the blue—posed the following question: “What is the difference between the Director of the FBI and a 4-year-old child?”

The room grew hushed. Finally, he said, “Height!”

On those days when we were under attack by the media and being clobbered by Congress…when the Attorney General was not at all happy with me…I would walk down to Lee’s office, hoping for a sympathetic ear. I would ask, “How are we doing?”

Lee would shake his head and say, “You’re toast. You’re dead meat. You’re history.” He would continue, “Don’t take yourself too seriously, because no one else around here does.”

It was that innate sense of humility—the idea that the world does not revolve around you—that was central to Lee’s character. That same sense of humility…that constant reminder of one’s place in the grand scheme of things…that sense of being in the world and of the world…is central to public service.

UVA’s public service program is testament to Thomas Jefferson’s concept of educating citizen-lawyers—a belief that schools should instruct students to be more than just good lawyers, but also good citizens. A belief that they should use their legal training to work for the common good, and that their careers should amount to time well spent.

As I look back, I know that I have been truly fortunate to have been able to spend such time in the public sector. It has given me the opportunity to participate in investigations such as the Pan Am 103 bombing…to work with homicide detectives in Washington, D.C., bringing criminals to justice…and, for the last 12 years, to work with one of the finest institutions in the world. These were experiences that would be difficult to replicate in the private sector.

I should add that I say this understanding that there are a number of you who are contemplating what you will do with your degree. I, of course, am not above urging you to consider the FBI as a career.

In any event, each of us must determine for ourselves in what way we can best serve others. Those of you who are students will leave UVA with a firm grasp not only of the law as it stands, but the law as it should be, and the law as it could be.

Find something you love, some way in which you can contribute—something that will leave you believing that your time has been well spent.

* * *

It seems only fitting, as we celebrate Founder’s Day, to again look to Thomas Jefferson. Citizen-lawyer. Founding father. Delegate to the Second Continental Congress. Governor of Virginia. Envoy to France. Our nation’s first secretary of state. Vice president. And, of course, our third president.

Before he died, Jefferson wrote his own epitaph, which records none of these astounding accomplishments. Instead, it lists just three things—author of the Declaration of American Independence, author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and father of the University of Virginia. These were, to his mind, his greatest contributions to society. Time well spent, indeed.

Thank you for having me here today. I would be happy now to take a few questions.

against those you thought were trusted colleagues. You may stand to lose what you have worked for. And the decision will not be such an easy call.

Certainly Virginia has prepared its students for such a test, for integrity is a way of life here at UVA. Nothing sets Virginia apart from other universities more than the concept of honor. The Honor System, in place since 1842, and the community of trust it enables, rests on one precept—and that is integrity. Our careers in the law, our professional and our personal success—and indeed, our reputations—rest on that same precept.

Moving to the second tenet, the rule of law. This is, to my mind, what the archway’s inscription describes as “the light of truth.”

Every FBI employee takes an oath promising to uphold the rule of law and the United States Constitution. Each of you will take a similar oath upon admission to the bar. For us, these are not mere words. They set the expectations for our behavior…the standard for the work that we do.

For the American people to respect the Bureau, we must be objective and we must be fair…and that also means we must be apolitical. That has been one of the great things about my job—that it has allowed for the benefits of public service, but without the politics.

We at the FBI take great care to consider the privacy and civil liberties implications of our programs and our investigations. When writing policy or investigative guidelines, or when taking on new projects, we consult with not only our in-house counsel and the Department of Justice, but also with groups such as the ACLU.

And in a practice started by my predecessor, Louis Freeh, all new agents visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington to better understand what happens when law enforcement becomes a tool of oppression—or worse.

For if we safeguard our civil liberties but leave our country vulnerable to attack, we will have lost. If we protect our citizens from crime and terrorism but sacrifice our civil rights, we will have also lost. It is not a question of conflict; it is a question of balance. The rule of law, civil liberties, and civil rights—these are not our burdens. These are what make all of us safer and stronger.

Turning to the importance of public service—or as the gateway reads, “the will to work for men.”

To be sure, it is difficult to consider entering public service upon graduation from law school, often with the burden of student loans.

As I mentioned earlier, I did have the opportunity to serve as a Marine in Vietnam. Those years—those experiences I shared with my fellow Marines—shaped my world view. I do consider myself fortunate to have survived my tour in Vietnam. There were many who did not. And perhaps because of that, I have always felt compelled to try to give back in some way.

I have been lucky to spend the better part of my career in public service and to benefit from the intangible rewards that come from such service. One such unexpected reward is that public service often can be a humbling experience. And there are few of us who would not benefit from a lesson in humility—myself included.

In this regard, I tell the story of my old friend and college classmate Lee Rawls, who was naturally humble. He had spent many years working on Capitol Hill, and we had served together in a previous administration. When I became Director of the FBI, I asked him to join me as a close adviser, and, remarkably, he agreed.

Lee was a mentor. He knew how to cut through nonsense and get to the heart of the matter better than anyone else. He also knew how to put me in my place. During one particularly heated meeting, everyone was frustrated—mostly with me—and I myself may have been a wee bit impatient and ill-tempered.

Lee sat silently, and then—out of the blue—posed the following question: “What is the difference between the Director of the FBI and a 4-year-old child?”

The room grew hushed. Finally, he said, “Height!”

On those days when we were under attack by the media and being clobbered by Congress…when the Attorney General was not at all happy with me…I would walk down to Lee’s office, hoping for a sympathetic ear. I would ask, “How are we doing?”

Lee would shake his head and say, “You’re toast. You’re dead meat. You’re history.” He would continue, “Don’t take yourself too seriously, because no one else around here does.”

It was that innate sense of humility—the idea that the world does not revolve around you—that was central to Lee’s character. That same sense of humility…that constant reminder of one’s place in the grand scheme of things…that sense of being in the world and of the world…is central to public service.

UVA’s public service program is testament to Thomas Jefferson’s concept of educating citizen-lawyers—a belief that schools should instruct students to be more than just good lawyers, but also good citizens. A belief that they should use their legal training to work for the common good, and that their careers should amount to time well spent.

As I look back, I know that I have been truly fortunate to have been able to spend such time in the public sector. It has given me the opportunity to participate in investigations such as the Pan Am 103 bombing…to work with homicide detectives in Washington, D.C., bringing criminals to justice…and, for the last 12 years, to work with one of the finest institutions in the world. These were experiences that would be difficult to replicate in the private sector.

I should add that I say this understanding that there are a number of you who are contemplating what you will do with your degree. I, of course, am not above urging you to consider the FBI as a career.

In any event, each of us must determine for ourselves in what way we can best serve others. Those of you who are students will leave UVA with a firm grasp not only of the law as it stands, but the law as it should be, and the law as it could be.

Find something you love, some way in which you can contribute—something that will leave you believing that your time has been well spent.

* * *

It seems only fitting, as we celebrate Founder’s Day, to again look to Thomas Jefferson. Citizen-lawyer. Founding father. Delegate to the Second Continental Congress. Governor of Virginia. Envoy to France. Our nation’s first secretary of state. Vice president. And, of course, our third president.

Before he died, Jefferson wrote his own epitaph, which records none of these astounding accomplishments. Instead, it lists just three things—author of the Declaration of American Independence, author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and father of the University of Virginia. These were, to his mind, his greatest contributions to society. Time well spent, indeed.

Thank you for having me here today. I would be happy now to take a few questions.

Source: https://docplayer.net/63422525-The-univers...

Enjoyed this speech? Speakola is a labour of love and I’d be very grateful if you would share, tweet or like it. Thank you.

Facebook Twitter Facebook
In LAWS AND JUSTICE Tags THOMAS MUELLER, UNVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, TRANSCRIPT, THOMAS JEFFERSON MEDAL, UVA, LAWYER, PROSECUTOR, TRUMP, COLLUSION, RUSSIA PROBE, INTEGRITY, THE LIGHT OF TRUTH
Comment

Bret Stephens: 'My topic this evening is intellectual integrity in the age of Donald Trump', Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture - 2017

April 6, 2017

16 February 2017, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA

I’m profoundly honored to have this opportunity to celebrate the legacy of Danny Pearl, my colleague at The Wall Street Journal.

My topic this evening is intellectual integrity in the age of Donald Trump. I suspect this is a theme that would have resonated with Danny.

When you work at The Wall Street Journal, the coins of the realm are truth and trust — the latter flowing exclusively from the former. When you read a story in the Journal, you do so with the assurance that immense reportorial and editorial effort has been expended to ensure that what you read is factual.

Not probably factual. Not partially factual. Not alternatively factual. I mean fundamentally, comprehensively and exclusively factual. And therefore trustworthy.

This is how we operate. This is how Danny operated. This is how he died, losing his life in an effort to nail down a story.

In the 15 years since Danny’s death, the list of murdered journalists has grown long.

Paul Klebnikov and Anna Politkovskaya in Russia.

Zahra Kazemi and Sattar Behesti in Iran.

Jim Foley and Steve Sotloff in Syria.

Five journalists in Turkey. Twenty-six in Mexico. More than 100 in Iraq.

When we honor Danny, we honor them, too.

We do more than that.

We honor the central idea of journalism — the conviction, as my old boss Peter Kann once said, “that facts are facts; that they are ascertainable through honest, open-minded and diligent reporting; that truth is attainable by laying fact upon fact, much like the construction of a cathedral; and that truth is not merely in the eye of the beholder.”

And we honor the responsibility to separate truth from falsehood, which is never more important than when powerful people insist that falsehoods are truths, or that there is no such thing as truth to begin with.

So that’s the business we’re in: the business of journalism. Or, as the 45th president of the United States likes to call us, the “disgusting and corrupt media.”

Some of you may have noticed that we’re living through a period in which the executive branch of government is engaged in a systematic effort to create a climate of opinion against the news business.

The President routinely describes reporting he dislikes as FAKE NEWS. The Administration calls the press “the opposition party,” ridicules news organizations it doesn’t like as business failures, and calls for journalists to be fired. Mr. Trump has called for rewriting libel laws in order to more easily sue the press.

This isn’t unprecedented in U.S. history, though you might have to go back to the Administration of John Adams to see something quite like it. And so far the rhetorical salvos haven’t been matched by legal or regulatory action. Maybe they never will be.

But the question of what Mr. Trump might yet do by political methods against the media matters a great deal less than what he is attempting to do by ideological and philosophical methods.

Ideologically, the president is trying to depose so-called mainstream media in favor of the media he likes — Breitbart News and the rest. Another way of making this point is to say that he’s trying to substitute propaganda for news, boosterism for information.

His objection to, say, the New York Times, isn’t that there’s a liberal bias in the paper that gets in the way of its objectivity, which I think would be a fair criticism. His objection is to objectivity itself. He’s perfectly happy for the media to be disgusting and corrupt — so long as it’s on his side.

But again, that’s not all the president is doing.

Consider this recent exchange he had with Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly asks:

Is there any validity to the criticism of you that you say things that you can’t back up factually, and as the President you say there are three million illegal aliens who voted and you don’t have the data to back that up, some people are going to say that it’s irresponsible for the President to say that.

To which the president replies:

Many people have come out and said I’m right.

Now many people also say Jim Morrison faked his own death. Many people say Barack Obama was born in Kenya. “Many people say” is what’s known as an argumentum ad populum. If we were a nation of logicians, we would dismiss the argument as dumb.

We are not a nation of logicians.

I think it’s important not to dismiss the president’s reply simply as dumb. We ought to assume that it’s darkly brilliant — if not in intention then certainly in effect. The president is responding to a claim of fact not by denying the fact, but by denying the claim that facts are supposed to have on an argument.

He isn’t telling O’Reilly that he’s got his facts wrong. He’s saying that, as far as he is concerned, facts, as most people understand the term, don’t matter: That they are indistinguishable from, and interchangeable with, opinion; and that statements of fact needn’t have any purchase against a man who is either sufficiently powerful to ignore them or sufficiently shameless to deny them — or, in his case, both.

If some of you in this room are students of political philosophy, you know where this argument originates. This is a version of Thrasymachus’s argument in Plato’s Republic that justice is the advantage of the stronger and that injustice “if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice.”

Substitute the words “truth” and “falsehood” for “justice” and “injustice,” and there you have the Trumpian view of the world. If I had to sum it up in a single sentence, it would be this: Truth is what you can get away with.

If you can sell condos by claiming your building is 90% occupied when it’s only 20% occupied, well, then—it’s 90% occupied. If you can convince a sufficient number of people that you really did win the popular vote, or that your inauguration crowds were the biggest—well then, what do the statistical data and aerial photographs matter?

Now, we could have some interesting conversations about why this is happening—and why it seems to be happening all of a sudden.

Today we have “dis-intermediating” technologies such as Twitter, which have cut out the media as the middleman between politicians and the public. Today, just 17% of adults aged 18-24 read a newspaper daily, down from 42% at the turn of the century. Today there are fewer than 33,000 full-time newsroom employees, a drop from 55,000 just 20 years ago.

When Trump attacks the news media, he’s kicking a wounded animal.

But the most interesting conversation is not about why Donald Trump lies. Many public figures lie, and he’s only a severe example of a common type.

The interesting conversation concerns how we come to accept those lies.

Nearly 25 years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the great scholar and Democratic Senator from New York, coined the phrase, “defining deviancy down.” His topic at the time was crime, and how American society had come to accept ever-increasing rates of violent crime as normal.

“We have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the ‘normal’ level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard,” Moynihan wrote.

You can point to all sorts of ways in which this redefinition of deviancy has also been the story of our politics over the past 30 years, a story with a fully bipartisan set of villains.

I personally think we crossed a rubicon in the Clinton years, when three things happened: we decided that some types of presidential lies didn’t matter; we concluded that “character” was an over-rated consideration when it came to judging a president; and we allowed the lines between political culture and celebrity culture to become hopelessly blurred.

But whatever else one might say about President Clinton, what we have now is the crack-cocaine version of that.

If a public figure tells a whopping lie once in his life, it’ll haunt him into his grave. If he lies morning, noon and night, it will become almost impossible to remember any one particular lie. Outrage will fall victim to its own ubiquity. It’s the same truth contained in Stalin’s famous remark that the death of one man is a tragedy but the death of a million is a statistic.

One of the most interesting phenomena during the presidential campaign was waiting for Trump to say that one thing that would surely break the back of his candidacy.

 

Would it be his slander against Mexican immigrants? Or his slur about John McCain’s record as a POW? Or his lie about New Jersey Muslims celebrating 9/11? Or his attacks on Megyn Kelly, on a disabled New York Times reporter, on a Mexican-American judge? Would it be him tweeting quotations from Benito Mussolini, or his sly overtures to David Duke and the alt-right? Would it be his unwavering praise of Vladimir Putin? Would it be his refusal to release his tax returns, or the sham that seems to been perpetrated on the saps who signed up for his Trump U courses? Would it be the tape of him with Billy Bush?

None of this made the slightest difference. On the contrary, it helped him. Some people became desensitized by the never-ending assaults on what was once quaintly known as “human decency.” Others seemed to positively admire the comments as refreshing examples of personal authenticity and political incorrectness.

Shameless rhetoric will always find a receptive audience with shameless people. Donald Trump’s was the greatest political strip-tease act in U.S. political history: the dirtier he got, the more skin he showed, the more his core supporters liked it.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, called on Americans to summon “the better angels of our nature.” Donald Trump’s candidacy, and so far his presidency, has been Lincoln’s exhortation in reverse.

Here’s a simple truth about a politics of dishonesty, insult and scandal: It’s entertaining. Politics as we’ve had it for most of my life has, with just a few exceptions, been distant and dull.

Now it’s all we can talk about. If you like Trump, his presence in the White House is a daily extravaganza of sticking it to pompous elites and querulous reporters. If you hate Trump, you wake up every day with some fresh outrage to turn over in your head and text your friends about.

Whichever way, it’s exhilarating. Haven’t all of us noticed that everything feels speeded up, more vivid, more intense and consequential? One of the benefits of an alternative-facts administration is that fiction can take you anywhere.

Earlier today, at his press conference, the president claimed his administration is running like a “fine-tuned machine.” In actual fact, he just lost his Labor Secretary nominee, his National Security Adviser was forced out in disgrace, and the Intelligence Community is refusing to fully brief the president for fear he might compromise sources and methods.

But who cares? Since when in Washington has there been a presidential press conference like that? Since when has the denial of reality been taken to such a bald-faced extreme?

At some point, it becomes increasingly easy for people to mistake the reality of the performance for reality itself. If Trump can get through a press conference like that without showing a hint of embarrassment, remorse or misgiving—well, then, that becomes a new basis on which the president can now be judged.

To tell a lie is wrong. But to tell a lie with brass takes skill. Ultimately, Trump’s press conference will be judged not on some kind of Olympic point system, but on whether he “won”—which is to say, whether he brazened his way through it. And the answer to that is almost certainly yes.

So far, I’ve offered you three ideas about how it is that we have come to accept the president’s behavior.

The first is that we normalize it, simply by becoming inured to constant repetition of the same bad behavior.

The second is that at some level it excites and entertains us. By putting aside our usual moral filters—the ones that tell us that truth matters, that upright conduct matters, that things ought to be done in a certain way—we have been given tickets to a spectacle, in which all you want to do is watch.

And the third is that we adopt new metrics of judgment, in which politics becomes more about perceptions than performance—of how a given action is perceived as being perceived. If a reporter for the New York Times says that Trump’s press conference probably plays well in Peoria, then that increases the chances that it will play well in Peoria.

Let me add a fourth point here: our tendency to rationalize.

One of the more fascinating aspects of last year’s presidential campaign was the rise of a class of pundits I call the “TrumpXplainers.” For instance, Trump would give a speech or offer an answer in a debate that amounted to little more than a word jumble.

But rather than quote Trump, or point out that what he had said was grammatically and logically nonsensical, the TrumpXplainers would tell us what he had allegedly meant to say. They became our political semioticians, ascribing pattern and meaning to the rune-stones of Trump’s mind.

If Trump said he’d get Mexico to pay for his wall, you could count on someone to provide a complex tariff scheme to make good on the promise. If Trump said that we should not have gone into Iraq but that, once there, we should have “taken the oil,” we’d have a similarly high-flown explanation as to how we could engineer this theft.

A year ago, when he was trying to explain his idea of a foreign policy to the New York Times’s David Sanger, the reporter asked him whether it didn’t amount to a kind of “America First policy”—a reference to the isolationist and anti-Semitic America First Committee that tried to prevent U.S. entry into World War II. Trump clearly had never heard of the group, but he liked the phrase and made it his own. And that’s how we got the return of America First.

More recently, I came across this headline in the conservative Washington Times: “How Trump’s ‘disarray’ may be merely a strategy,” by Wesley Pruden, the paper’s former editor-in-chief. In his view, the president’s first disastrous month in office is, in fact, evidence of a refreshing openness to dissent, reminiscent of Washington and Lincoln’s cabinet of rivals. Sure.

Overall, the process is one in which explanation becomes rationalization, which in turn becomes justification. Trump says X. What he really means is Y. And while you might not like it, he’s giving voice to the angers and anxieties of Z. Who, by the way, you’re not allowed to question or criticize, because anxiety and anger are their own justifications these days.

Watching this process unfold has been particularly painful for me as a conservative columnist. I find myself in the awkward position of having recently become popular among some of my liberal peers—precisely because I haven’t changed my opinions about anything.

By contrast, I’ve become suddenly unpopular among some of my former fans on the right—again, because I’ve stuck to my views. It is almost amusing to be accused of suffering from something called “Trump Derangement Syndrome” simply because I feel an obligation to raise my voice against, say, the president suggesting a moral equivalency between the U.S. and Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

The most painful aspect of this has been to watch people I previously considered thoughtful and principled conservatives give themselves over to a species of illiberal politics from which I once thought they were immune.

In his 1953 masterpiece, “The Captive Mind,” the Polish poet and dissident Czeslaw Milosz analyzed the psychological and intellectual pathways through which some of his former colleagues in Poland’s post-war Communist regime allowed themselves to be converted into ardent Stalinists. In none of the cases that Milosz analyzed was coercion the main reason for the conversion.

They wanted to believe. They were willing to adapt. They thought they could do more good from the inside. They convinced themselves that their former principles didn’t fit with the march of history, or that to hold fast to one’s beliefs was a sign of priggishness and pig-headedness. They felt that to reject the new order of things was to relegate themselves to irrelevance and oblivion. They mocked their former friends who refused to join the new order as morally vain reactionaries. They convinced themselves that, brutal and capricious as Stalinism might be, it couldn’t possibly be worse than the exploitative capitalism of the West.

I fear we are witnessing a similar process unfold among many conservative intellectuals on the right. It has been stunning to watch a movement that once believed in the benefits of free trade and free enterprise merrily give itself over to a champion of protectionism whose economic instincts recall the corporatism of 1930s Italy or 1950s Argentina. It is no less stunning to watch people who once mocked Obama for being too soft on Russia suddenly discover the virtues of Trump’s “pragmatism” on the subject.

And it is nothing short of amazing to watch the party of onetime moral majoritarians, who spent a decade fulminating about Bill Clinton’s sexual habits, suddenly find complete comfort with the idea that character and temperament are irrelevant qualifications for high office.

The mental pathways by which the new Trumpian conservatives have made their peace with their new political master aren’t so different from Milosz’s former colleagues.

There’s the same desperate desire for political influence; the same belief that Trump represents a historical force to which they ought to belong; the same willingness to bend or discard principles they once considered sacred; the same fear of seeming out-of-touch with the mood of the public; the same tendency to look the other way at comments or actions that they cannot possibly justify; the same belief that you do more good by joining than by opposing; the same Manichean belief that, if Hillary Clinton had been elected, the United States would have all-but ended as a country.

This is supposed to be the road of pragmatism, of turning lemons into lemonade. I would counter that it’s the road of ignominy, of hitching a ride with a drunk driver.

So, then, to the subject that brings me here today: Maintaining intellectual integrity in the age of Trump.

When Judea wrote me last summer to ask if I’d be this year’s speaker, I got my copy of Danny’s collected writings, “At Home in the World,” and began to read him all over again. It brought back to me the fact that, the reason we honor Danny’s memory isn’t that he’s a martyred journalist. It’s that he was a great journalist.

Let me show you what I mean. Here’s something Danny wrote in February 2001, almost exactly a year before his death, from the site of an earthquake disaster in the Indian town of Anjar.

What is India’s earthquake zone really like? It smells. It reeks. You can’t imagine the odor of several hundred bodies decaying for five days as search teams pick away at slabs of crumbled buildings in this town. Even if you’ve never smelled it before, the brain knows what it is, and orders you to get away. After a day, the nose gets stuffed up in self-defense. But the brain has registered the scent, and picks it up in innocent places: lip balm, sweet candy, stale breath, an airplane seat.

What stands out for me in this passage is that it shows that Danny was a writer who observed with all his senses. He saw. He listened. He smelled. He bore down. He reflected. He understood that what the reader had to know about Anjar wasn’t a collection of statistics; it was the visceral reality of a massive human tragedy. And he was able to express all this in language that was compact, unadorned, compelling and deeply true.

George Orwell wrote, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Danny saw what was in front of his nose.

We each have our obligations to see what’s in front of one’s nose, whether we’re reporters, columnists, or anything else. This is the essence of intellectual integrity.

Not to look around, or beyond, or away from the facts, but to look straight at them, to recognize and call them for what they are, nothing more or less. To see things as they are before we re-interpret them into what we’d like them to be. To believe in an epistemology that can distinguish between truth and falsity, facts and opinions, evidence and wishes. To defend habits of mind and institutions of society, above all a free press, which preserve that epistemology. To hold fast to a set of intellectual standards and moral convictions that won’t waver amid changes of political fashion or tides of unfavorable opinion. To speak the truth irrespective of what it means for our popularity or influence.

The legacy of Danny Pearl is that he died for this. We are being asked to do much less. We have no excuse not to do it.

Thank you.

Source: http://time.com/4675860/donald-trump-fake-...

Enjoyed this speech? Speakola is a labour of love and I’d be very grateful if you would share, tweet or like it. Thank you.

Facebook Twitter Facebook
In MEDIA Tags DANIEL PEARL FOUNDATION, JOURNALISM, FAKE NEWS, DONALD TRUMP, WALL STREET JOURNAL, TRANSCRIPT, INTEGRITY, INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY, PRESS
Comment

See my film!

Limited Australian Season

March 2025

Details and ticket bookings at

angeandtheboss.com

Support Speakola

Hi speech lovers,
With costs of hosting website and podcast, this labour of love has become a difficult financial proposition in recent times. If you can afford a donation, it will help Speakola survive and prosper.

Best wishes,
Tony Wilson.

Become a Patron!

Learn more about supporting Speakola.

Featured political

Featured
Jon Stewart: "They responded in five seconds", 9-11 first responders, Address to Congress - 2019
Jon Stewart: "They responded in five seconds", 9-11 first responders, Address to Congress - 2019
Jacinda Ardern: 'They were New Zealanders. They are us', Address to Parliament following Christchurch massacre - 2019
Jacinda Ardern: 'They were New Zealanders. They are us', Address to Parliament following Christchurch massacre - 2019
Dolores Ibárruri: "¡No Pasarán!, They shall not pass!', Defense of 2nd Spanish Republic - 1936
Dolores Ibárruri: "¡No Pasarán!, They shall not pass!', Defense of 2nd Spanish Republic - 1936
Jimmy Reid: 'A rat race is for rats. We're not rats', Rectorial address, Glasgow University - 1972
Jimmy Reid: 'A rat race is for rats. We're not rats', Rectorial address, Glasgow University - 1972

Featured eulogies

Featured
For Geoffrey Tozer: 'I have to say we all let him down', by Paul Keating - 2009
For Geoffrey Tozer: 'I have to say we all let him down', by Paul Keating - 2009
for James Baldwin: 'Jimmy. You crowned us', by Toni Morrison - 1988
for James Baldwin: 'Jimmy. You crowned us', by Toni Morrison - 1988
for Michael Gordon: '13 days ago my Dad’s big, beautiful, generous heart suddenly stopped beating', by Scott and Sarah Gordon - 2018
for Michael Gordon: '13 days ago my Dad’s big, beautiful, generous heart suddenly stopped beating', by Scott and Sarah Gordon - 2018

Featured commencement

Featured
Tara Westover: 'Your avatar isn't real, it isn't terribly far from a lie', The Un-Instagrammable Self, Northeastern University - 2019
Tara Westover: 'Your avatar isn't real, it isn't terribly far from a lie', The Un-Instagrammable Self, Northeastern University - 2019
Tim Minchin: 'Being an artist requires massive reserves of self-belief', WAAPA - 2019
Tim Minchin: 'Being an artist requires massive reserves of self-belief', WAAPA - 2019
Atul Gawande: 'Curiosity and What Equality Really Means', UCLA Medical School - 2018
Atul Gawande: 'Curiosity and What Equality Really Means', UCLA Medical School - 2018
Abby Wambach: 'We are the wolves', Barnard College - 2018
Abby Wambach: 'We are the wolves', Barnard College - 2018
Eric Idle: 'America is 300 million people all walking in the same direction, singing 'I Did It My Way'', Whitman College - 2013
Eric Idle: 'America is 300 million people all walking in the same direction, singing 'I Did It My Way'', Whitman College - 2013
Shirley Chisholm: ;America has gone to sleep', Greenfield High School - 1983
Shirley Chisholm: ;America has gone to sleep', Greenfield High School - 1983

Featured sport

Featured
Joe Marler: 'Get back on the horse', Harlequins v Bath pre game interview - 2019
Joe Marler: 'Get back on the horse', Harlequins v Bath pre game interview - 2019
Ray Lewis : 'The greatest pain of my life is the reason I'm standing here today', 52 Cards -
Ray Lewis : 'The greatest pain of my life is the reason I'm standing here today', 52 Cards -
Mel Jones: 'If she was Bradman on the field, she was definitely Keith Miller off the field', Betty Wilson's induction into Australian Cricket Hall of Fame - 2017
Mel Jones: 'If she was Bradman on the field, she was definitely Keith Miller off the field', Betty Wilson's induction into Australian Cricket Hall of Fame - 2017
Jeff Thomson: 'It’s all those people that help you as kids', Hall of Fame - 2016
Jeff Thomson: 'It’s all those people that help you as kids', Hall of Fame - 2016

Fresh Tweets


Featured weddings

Featured
Dan Angelucci: 'The Best (Best Man) Speech of all time', for Don and Katherine - 2019
Dan Angelucci: 'The Best (Best Man) Speech of all time', for Don and Katherine - 2019
Hallerman Sisters: 'Oh sister now we have to let you gooooo!' for Caitlin & Johnny - 2015
Hallerman Sisters: 'Oh sister now we have to let you gooooo!' for Caitlin & Johnny - 2015
Korey Soderman (via Kyle): 'All our lives I have used my voice to help Korey express his thoughts, so today, like always, I will be my brother’s voice' for Kyle and Jess - 2014
Korey Soderman (via Kyle): 'All our lives I have used my voice to help Korey express his thoughts, so today, like always, I will be my brother’s voice' for Kyle and Jess - 2014

Featured Arts

Featured
Bruce Springsteen: 'They're keepers of some of the most beautiful sonic architecture in rock and roll', Induction U2 into Rock Hall of Fame - 2005
Bruce Springsteen: 'They're keepers of some of the most beautiful sonic architecture in rock and roll', Induction U2 into Rock Hall of Fame - 2005
Olivia Colman: 'Done that bit. I think I have done that bit', BAFTA acceptance, Leading Actress - 2019
Olivia Colman: 'Done that bit. I think I have done that bit', BAFTA acceptance, Leading Actress - 2019
Axel Scheffler: 'The book wasn't called 'No Room on the Broom!', Illustrator of the Year, British Book Awards - 2018
Axel Scheffler: 'The book wasn't called 'No Room on the Broom!', Illustrator of the Year, British Book Awards - 2018
Tina Fey: 'Only in comedy is an obedient white girl from the suburbs a diversity candidate', Kennedy Center Mark Twain Award -  2010
Tina Fey: 'Only in comedy is an obedient white girl from the suburbs a diversity candidate', Kennedy Center Mark Twain Award - 2010

Featured Debates

Featured
Sacha Baron Cohen: 'Just think what Goebbels might have done with Facebook', Anti Defamation League Leadership Award - 2019
Sacha Baron Cohen: 'Just think what Goebbels might have done with Facebook', Anti Defamation League Leadership Award - 2019
Greta Thunberg: 'How dare you', UN Climate Action Summit - 2019
Greta Thunberg: 'How dare you', UN Climate Action Summit - 2019
Charlie Munger: 'The Psychology of Human Misjudgment', Harvard University - 1995
Charlie Munger: 'The Psychology of Human Misjudgment', Harvard University - 1995
Lawrence O'Donnell: 'The original sin of this country is that we invaders shot and murdered our way across the land killing every Native American that we could', The Last Word, 'Dakota' - 2016
Lawrence O'Donnell: 'The original sin of this country is that we invaders shot and murdered our way across the land killing every Native American that we could', The Last Word, 'Dakota' - 2016