Wordplay: How the Government Uses “Truth” and “Science” Against Us

As a criminal defense lawyer, I’ve seen government wordplay designed to violate our rights and take our freedoms.  For example, before a jury may convict a defendant of a crime, the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Yet, instead of simply instructing juries on this burden of proof, the prosecutors-turned-judges who comprise Wisconsin’s jury-instruction committee drafted a statewide instruction that concludes by telling jurors: “you are not to search for doubt. You are to search for the truth.”  Prosecutors then parrot this language during closing arguments to the jury.  

Sounds good on its surface, doesn’t it?  Who doesn’t want “the truth”?  It’s like when the government names something “the Patriot Act” or calls itself “the Department of Justice.”  The citizenry shouldn’t question what’s going on beneath the surface; the label tells us everything we’re supposed to know.

But it’s rarely that simple.  

Returning to the example of the criminal jury trial, prosecutors aren’t always interested in the truth, but they are interested in winning.  As I’ve written before, “by equating their quest for a conviction with a noble search for the truth, prosecutors not only align themselves with truth and justice, but simultaneously brand defense lawyers as obfuscators who are attempting to hide the truth by creating doubt.”  And by usurping that single word, truth, prosecutors are able to lower the burden of proof and increase their odds of winning a conviction.

Having been exposed to this dirty ploy, I know it when I see it.  And it’s obvious to me the government is at it again—same old trick, but this time in a different setting and with the help of the media.  This time it’s the Wuhan Virus outbreak, and many Blue State officials have usurped the word “science” in order to align themselves with scientific values and justify their lockdown orders—orders that often infringe on our most fundamental liberties, including our ability to work. 

Why “the science” should lead to statewide lockdowns is rarely explained; in fact, when studied closely, the science often doesn’t support the government’s restrictions on our rights—or, at the very least, it’s far from clear-cut, as lockdowns may be more ideological than scientific.  But many governors don’t want to discuss the details.  Instead, much like the prosecutors who lay exclusive claim to truth, these governors have already usurped the word science, so there’s no point getting confused by the facts.  And, worse yet, anyone who questions whether a lockdown passes constitutional scrutiny is quickly branded an ignorant, anti-science malcontent. 

The Media often walks in lockstep with these government agents, and is also quick to deploy this wordplay tactic—sometimes elevating it to previously unknown heights of absurdity.  To use a related example that I've written about before, Donald Trump touted a potential treatment for the virus: a drug that was FDA approved, was already being used off-label by many doctors to treat the virus, and even had a published study demonstrating its effectiveness.  Nonetheless, many on the Left didn’t like it.  A New Yorker article echoed the gubernatorial and media outcry across the country: “Trump’s quackery was at once eccentric and terrifying—a reminder, if one was needed, of his scorn for rigorous science . . .”

Science.  It’s that simple.  Question the lockdowns, invoke the Bill of Rights, or even suggest there’s a possible treatment for the virus (which, in turn, could ease the lockdowns), and you’re anti-science.  There’s no room for nuance, no need for debate.  Just obey.   

The citizenry needs to be alert to this cheap ploy.  Just because a government agent or an elitist publication usurps the word science—or justice or truth or any other word that oozes virtue—it doesn’t mean they’re right.  And when someone steals those words and claims exclusive rights to them while simplistically condemning all opposing views as being in conflict with those unassailable virtues, we need to doubt, ask questions, and debate the details.  Our freedoms depend on it.