Flickering Lights: Altered Photos, Impeachment Trials, and Sanity in Politics

I have not yet seen Ingrid Bergman’s 1944 film [1], Gaslight, but the story of a husband who convinces his wife that she’s crazy remains a well-known concept. The husband perpetuates the loss of Bergman’s sanity partly by dimming and brightening the gaslights—apparently without cause. This story created the definitional use of “gaslight” as a tactic to make victims question their reality. It is also the term I thought of after reading that the National Archives altered and displayed a photograph from the 2017 Women’s March in Washington. The original photo crassly critiqued President Trump, so there is a bit of irony that the Archive’s altering of history presented the fake-news president more favorably.

Of course, the National Archives is an independent institution, and David Ferriero, the 10th Archivist of the United States, is a President Obama appointee. So this alteration is not an instance of President Trump’s underlings trying to spin the news. Instead, it seems like an instance of casual deceit that is far too common in politics. When everything becomes a game of spinning and shading the truth, then it increasingly looks like gaslighting on a widespread basis. This prospect is one that should concern us all.

1984 remains one of my favorite books, and it illustrates the ills of government deceit. In it, Winston Smith remembers that his nation of Oceania was at war with Eastasia five years ago. Yet today, Oceania is at war with Eurasia, and all current rhetoric and historic documents proclaim, “Oceania is at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.” In Smith’s world, truth is what the government declares. This might seem insane, but like Ingrid Bergman in Gaslight, craziness begins to take a toll until there’s no distinguishing what was from what is.

This twisting of truth seems particularly relevant amid President Trump’s impeachment trial. For weeks, the House sought witnesses from President Trump’s administration. President Trump spent those weeks embargoing his staff from testifying, which resulted in an impeachment vote without witness testimony. After Congress voted to impeach and presented the Senate with the articles of impeachment to conduct its trial, President Trump’s defense counsel is now emphasizing that “not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else.” [2] Irrespective of whether you think Congress had it out for President Trump, impeachment is merely the bringing of charges to initiate a trial. So the flipped script of blocking witness testimony in the House only to use the absence of testimony as a defense is not only dizzying but a bizarre absence in a trial of significance.

I have long believed so many people utter, “I hate politics!” because it is so complex. I studied political science, I became a lawyer, I worked in politics for a decade, and I find the subject immensely interesting. Still, the breadth and scope of issues at the federal, state, and local level is more than any one person can reasonably digest. Thus, it is no surprise that the single subject of impeachment—which actually pulls in federal aid, foreign relations, executive privilege, and more—is confusing. Yet this should not thrust us into the gaslit world of Ingrid Bergman or the warring world of Winston Smith. In a time of erased photos and doublespeak, it may be hard to hold onto truth. But to abandon the pursuit of truth is a concession far worse than madness.

We can see why truth remains a worthwhile pursuit in what may be my favorite story from the American Revolution. Mrs. Elizabeth Willing Powel, who used her Philadelphia home as a political salon, asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” Franklin famously responded, “A republic…if you can keep it.” The Founders launched a republic despite 2,000 years having passed since anyone had seen a successful model of self-governance. They understood that a republic is not easy, and we should carry that same understanding today.

I cannot help but watch the world of politics like I watch an engaging movie or digest a gripping book. Despite my peculiar sense of seeing politics as entertainment, I do not expect the whole of America to share my passion for politics. But I maintain there should be a pursuit of truth and an effort to know the core ideas of what our leaders are saying and doing. People are not infallible. As much as we tend to deify the Founders, they made significant mistakes and had ill-fated ideas. Today’s leaders do the same. It is only by calling bad ideas, “bad ideas” and calling hypocrisy, “hypocrisy” that we can keep our republic. It is only by vigilance that we can keep governing leaders from unchecked power and corruption. This is not exclusive to party or person, and it remains a responsibility for all.

In my last writing, I discussed President Washington’s retirement from public service. Before returning to Mount Vernon, he gave his farewell address and warned against the dangers of blindly following political parties: “The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.” [3] Washington warned that there is danger in letting a political party drive a person’s beliefs and loyalty. He kept his focus on the principles that shaped his life with truth being a foremost pursuit.

As I watch politics unfold, it occasionally feels like the gaslights are flickering and political leaders are loudly proclaiming, “those lights have not flickered once.” It is often easiest to simply close your eyes to and ignore it all. Unfortunately, if enough people ignore the light, then we’re all left in the dark.

Endnotes
[1] Since writing this article, I have watched Gaslight, and it’s worth a viewing.

[2] Philip Bump, Assessing the Trump Team’s 6-point Impeachment Defense. Jan. 25, 2020. Available at: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/25/assessing-trump-teams-6-point-impeachment-defense/ (quoting Deputy White House Counsel, Michael Purpura).

[3] George Washington. “George Washington's Farewell Address.” (1796). Available at: www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/george-washington-s-farewell-address/.