The title of Ron Suskind's latest book,
"The One Percent Doctrine", arises from this statement by Dick Cheney (via
wikipedia):
If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response.
What if this doctrine were applied to other, much more likely, scenarios?
I'll talk about why I have finally decided to de-lurk in my tip jar. In a nutshell: it pains me as a scientist that facts and data are not considered "actionable intelligence" by the Bush Administration.
Poor intelligence was sufficiently "actionable" to justify an invasion of Iraq. In contrast:
- overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are causing global warming, with potentially disasterous consequences
- the coming energy crisis, which will force us to switch to an alternative to petroleum
are of insufficient concern. Global climate change is practically ignored. The solution to our petroleum woes is to drill more and invade countries that have it.
If "dead certainties" such as the above two points can't provoke a response, then what are the odds that an issue such as Bird Flu can gain traction? Granted, at least Bird Flu research isn't opposed by a powerful business interest, but we're talking about a low-probability potential (that Bird Flu can become a new human pandemic) for a huge human tragedy.
The conclusion is that the One Percent Doctrine only applies when it defends an action the Administration is already inclined towards. Convenient Myths are actionable; Inconvenient Truths lose.
I'm sure that rants like this have appeared on dKos before, but I want to dwell on the message here: to the Administration, facts don't matter. You want your leaders to be acting in your best interests, using the best intelligence and research at their disposal. Instead, they act on what they feel is right, or how their financial backers say they should. The interests of politicians (the next election) and big business (the next quarter's earnings) tend to be short-term, so Inconvenient Truths whose consequences won't be felt for years or decades can be conveniently ignored.
And now the point: the readers and contributors of dKos, and the progressive blogosphere in general, believe that "the truth will set you free". Exposing lies, uncovering hypocrisy, deflating Republican talking points...the hope is that, if we keep spreading the truth, eventually the truthtellers will win. I hope so as well. What the record shows, however, is that telling a good story, even if you have to make shit up, can overpower the truth. Progressives need to keep speaking up for the truth, but perhaps even more they need to repackage and reframe, and make The Truth palatable or even appealing to the general public.
Al Gore's film is hopefully one step in this direction.