"First They Came for the Socialists..."

By FASPE Chair David Goldman

I write having spent the day at the home and church of Martin Niemöller.

I recently listened to an Anderson Cooper podcast (All There Is) in which he discussed grief with Irene Weiss, a survivor of Auschwitz. On the question of how to explain her experience, she reflected: “The instinct to kill is so strong in man, all he needs is permission from society. And as soon as he's given permission, he's the most dangerous animal.” I took that as an invitation to explore not just killing but “bad” behavior generally. So, what does permission mean?

We see a photo of an Israeli soldier taking an axe to a crucifix. Who gave him that permission?

We hear the president of the United States threatening to destroy a civilization. Who gave him that permission—both to destroy but also even to speak like that?

We read of constant denials of science from those in power. Who gave them that permission?

We hear the American secretary of defense invoking God’s support for America’s troops in Iran. Did he speak with God?

We read of levels of economic corruption that seem unprecedented in their breadth. Who gave this permission?

We hear constant mendacity, we observe unconstrained perfidy, from those in power. Who gave them permission?

Isn’t the answer that no one is granting permission? Instead, we humans are prone to bad behavior, or, if not prone, we are open to, or cleverly rationalize, bad behavior based on our own concepts of self-interest (or the interest of our “group”). Are these tendencies not sometimes accommodated or encouraged by the surrounding culture?

Whether my reaction is cynical, tinged with an element of nihilism, what is the answer? How do we deal with what certainly seems a confluence of behavior that threatens civil society? Or, put differently, how do we withdraw the permission that seems to have been assumed by the human condition?

Society has granted leadership, has invested authority, not just to elected leaders (or unelected tyrants). We have granted some people leadership, embodied by symbols of authority like clerical collars and the white coats of our doctors through the constitutional and architectural power of courts and the economic authority of c-suites, through the mere designation of civil service to those responsible for ensuring the operation of a civil society. It is they, those whom we designate as the professionals, who have the power and responsibility to withdraw the permission that the human condition grants to bad actors.

How does that play out?

• For us mere mortals, those who are not invested with professional authority, we are served by professionals. We hire professionals; we buy products from professionals; we buy newspapers or select websites; we select our places of worship and education. We have the right and the ability to act with our choices and to speak with our feet. We are not powerless. We must demand ethical leadership or withdraw support.
• For us professionals—say or do something in your professional capacity. Search for methods to withdraw permission for bad behavior however you can. For example, by explaining the true science to your patients, by refusing to advocate for clients who want your assistance in their bad (or futile) acts, by speaking ethics from the pulpit, or by not delegating ethical behavior to compliance.
• For powerful professional organizations and institutions—try something novel: work collectively even with your competitors. A ban on one media giant is an attack on all. An executive order against one law firm is an attack on all. White Christian Nationalism is an affront to all religious institutions. Sowing distrust on one set of treatments or one category of doctors promotes distrust in all of medicine. Dividing, even in the interest of short-term economic profit or other perceived benefit, is just that: short term!

It is not hyperbole or false analogizing to recall Niemöller’s regretful poetic admission (“First they came for the Socialists…"). His is not a mere apology for his initial complicity with the Nazis. His is not a mere reflection on the ultimate path from Nazi political rhetoric to genocide. His is not a commentary on fascism or genocide or history. It must not be read as feel-good poetry of the past that means nothing to us today. It is an admonition to all of us now and for the future. We all must be bulwarks against the human condition. We must all find a path to withdraw the permission that the human condition and our current culture have made available to today’s bad actors. It is a demand of our professionals and of the rest of us.

If I may even turn capitalistic—it is a direction to us all. We must take ownership of our future.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.

Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.

We must respond. We must respond effectively. We must respond effectively now.

Irrespective of my attachment to the word, calling out today’s rampant mendacity is not sufficient. “Mendacity” does not do justice to the attacks on truth, on science, and on fundamental American ideals–the Rule of Law, freedom of speech and of the press, separation of church and state, the independent authority of three branches of government, as well as the welcoming melting pot. “Mendacity” does not do justice to the complete disregard of international order and international law. “Mendacity” does not do justice to the threats to democracy. “Mendacity” does not do justice to this undermining of the entire fabric of a civil society.

Like it or not, admit it or not, but we have become inured to mendacity. We assume mendacity and, therefore, we are prone to accept it.

And, now, Minneapolis.

Perfidy.

Perfidy takes mendacity and adds deceit and bad faith, disloyalty and faithlessness, corruption of speech and behavior, and treachery. It is insidious; it is a self-perpetuating cycle that grows of its own accord in the absence of aggressive and intentional intervention. It is mean-spirited and indecent.

Perfidy is not just an absence of ethics and of virtue; it is the opposite of ethics and of virtue.

Do the purveyors of perfidy know that they are perfidious? Are they intentionally perfidious? Does it matter? No. Is psychopathy or ideological fervor a defense? No.

Mendacity is annoying; it is frustrating. Maybe recognizing mendacity is enough to counter its consequences. Perfidy is not so benign; it is malignant, it is metastatic.

I started to list specific examples, to provide a rendition. But, enough! We know it. At the risk of repeating, and to paraphrase Big Daddy: we all can smell it. The perfidy smells like death. Minneapolis, Venezuela, Greenland. The Kennedy Center, the East Wing, cryptocurrency deals. USAID, DOGE, vaccines. Putin. A Gaza resort. Pardons, Jerome Powell, Jeffrey Epstein.

The budget for ICE, a paramilitary force, now is so enormous that it places the organization among the largest, best-funded militaries in the world.

We know history. We know what happens when a society allows the perfidy to fester; we know what happens when a society allows itself to be torn asunder, one strain at a time. History teaches us through rhymes and narratives, not direct analogies and comparisons.

Perfidy can be found in a fire at the Reichstag, a fire at the Cinema Rex, or maybe with the fiction of mobs of riotous anarchists, Communists, and Marxists. It’s one thing to double or quadruple count crowd sizes (or to cheat at golf or lie about one’s health); it’s another to create the circumstances on the streets of cities that will without doubt lead to “necessary” military-style responses.

Leadership, ethical leadership, begins with acknowledging the situation and not merely thinking that the problem will pass, not assuming that some institution will ultimately enforce a guardrail, and not to putting blinders on out of fear of one’s Senate seat, of one’s short-term pocketbook, or of a nasty tweet.

Perfidy is contagious. Worse, it is gradual and masquerades as normalcy, one step at a time.

Acknowledgement, though, is not sufficient. Those with power and influence, the professionals, must act. Not just on the streets and with op-eds where your power and influence is muted and indistinct. But in the places where you practice and lead.

Business leaders and the wealthy, do not assume that the S&P 500 is impermeable. Do not conclude that the dismantling of environmental regulations means that there are no environmental threats. Lawyers, do not pretend that the rules of ethics favoring zealous advocacy means that the Rule of Law is not your client. Judges, do not pretend that the world does not exist outside of your courtrooms and vanilla precedents. Technologists, do not hide behind your would-be morally neutral algorithms. Doctors, you actually do harm by not finding the avenues to serve your patients properly. Clergy, speak up; don’t repeat the cowardice of the clergy in 1935 Germany. Civil Servants, perhaps this is the time to stay rather than take buy-outs, to take affirmative steps to move the redlines further away rather than searching for them to appear.

FASPE does not have a track for politicians. If we did, would we need anything more than pocket mirrors, asking each of our senators and congressional representatives, elected by the people and not appointed by the President, to look in the mirror at least three times per day? Can you look yourself in the eye and answer to yourself about what is truly motivating you? Are you telling the truth to the people whom you represent? How will history treat you? How will your grandchildren judge you?

Perhaps what we are seeing is mere mendacity, mere lies that can be reversed. Maybe, however, this is perfidy with real, long-term consequences. We need true leadership from our leaders; we need our future leaders to speak up and push today’s leaders. One at a time and collectively. With action, one small act at a time. If we care, we must each ask what we can do, what we are doing, to counter the perfidy. 10,000 steps and at least one act of professional ethics.

"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.

Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.

By FASPE Chair David Goldman

Words matter. We typically mean that oft-repeated aphorism to suggest that we should take care in our choice of words, to ensure that we mean what we say, even to encourage and facilitate the ability of others to pick up intended nuances in our writing and in our speech.

But these are not normal times. It seems that some of our leaders, yes even our professionals, are prone today to test our intelligence (or is it to take advantage of our natural cynicism?) with their cleverness, their furtiveness, with words. Most concerning, I suggest, is their mendacious use of carefully chosen words that are consciously intended to manipulate, to lie, to mislead, to cover up, to do anything other than to elucidate.

What’s worse, they are as effective and intentional in their mendacity as Webster and Roget are in their intended clarity.

Let’s go to the source, to the historical experts. Let’s examine a few of the most common cynically deployed word usages under National Socialism:

Euthanasia:

• Per the AMA: “…the administration of a lethal agent by another person to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patient’s intolerable and incurable suffering.”

• Nazi usage: Murder of those who were determined by state actors to have “lives not worth living,” i.e., those with “disabilities” and the “mentally ill.”

Resettlement:

• The United Nations Refugee Agency: “…the transfer of refugees from an asylum country to another State…to promote the health, well-being, and stability of the refugees.”

• Nazi usage: Deportation of Jews, Roma, and others to “the east” to concentration camps and other sites of murder—for the purpose of murder.

Lebensraum:

• Google Translate: “Living Space.”

• Nazi usage: Territorial conquest and forced replacement of the population, i.e., the permanent removal of populations in Central and Eastern Europe, to be replaced by German “colonists.”

Decency:

• The Cambridge Dictionary: “Behavior that is good, moral and acceptable in society.”

• Nazi usage: The same (!), except where “good,” “moral,” and “acceptable” are defined to include, for example, the murder of the Jews.

Of course this is independent of the horrors of their actions,  the actions that derived from these seemingly benign words.

-------------

We have become accustomed to applying the word “euphemism” to describe the above. Cambridge’s definition of euphemism: “a word or phrase used to avoid saying an unpleasant of offensive word.”

Really, is euthanasia merely a more pleasant way of saying “murder?” The intent of this bastardization of language was not to be more pleasant! Yes, it sought to moderate, but, more, it sought to justify and mislead. And, to be clear, it was not because they were embarrassed or thought what they were doing was wrong; they knew it was right and that the masses would not understand.

------------

Which brings us to today. What have we learned from the misappropriation of our language by autocratic genocidal wordsmiths of Nazi Germany?

Re-migration:

• Is that even a word?

• Certain European anti-immigrant nationalists use it to mean deportation of immigrants!

Compact (this is what the Trump Administration “offers” to universities to provide outsized funding so long as they adhere to the administration’s policies with respect to which students they accept, which courses they teach, and which ideologies they promote):

• The Law Dictionary: “An agreement or contract. Usually applied to conventions between nations or sovereign countries.”

• Current usage, thinking The Godfather: an offer you can’t refuse.

Tariffs:

• The Council on Foreign Relations: “…a form of tax applied on imports …used…to protect domestic industries…as well as to retaliate against other states’ unfair trade policies.”

• Current usage: a tool to punish countries that do not pay sufficient homage to the Trump Administration or its policies or do not agree to outsized “investments” in the US, with the result of a hidden tax on American consumers because of the increase in prices.

Self-Deportation:

• Harvard Law Review (there are limited actual definitions; like remigration it is a concocted word to reflect the times): “the…strategy of making life so unbearable for a group that its members will leave a place.”

• Current usage: The strategy of making life so unbearable for individuals who are legally entitled to be in America that as a practical matter of their livelihoods they are left with no choice but to leave America.

Rebellion/Insurrection:

• An AI Composite: “…a violent uprising against a government or authority, typically involving an organized group with the intent to overthrow it, seize power, or resist lawful authority through violence.”

• Current usage: Even peaceful political demonstrations in opposition to government policies, but not a violent attack on the US Capitol with the stated purpose to undermine or interrupt the completion of a lawful election.

These are independent of concepts like “alternative truth” which sound like something but aren’t; or “hoax” to define anything that we don’t like; or “enemy of the people” to define journalists who don’t fall in line with particular policies.

I suppose that we occasional humorists may appreciate the irony or the implicit self-knowing smugness in these words. But, we are not talking here about puns or Dad-jokes. This is not the mere self-righteous humor of the intellectual elite. This is the tool of the autocrat, the playbook of the demagogue. It is the perversion of language with malintent, an effort to hide the facts from the ignorant masses, or worse to treat the masses as malleable pawns. It is saying to the masses that, to quote the noted wordsmith Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, we mere mortals  “…cannot handle the truth.” Or, at least, that the masses will have the truth redefined for them. So much for democracy.

Moreover, the danger lies in the fact that it is our professionals who are creating, marketing, and/or enabling this pornography! Lawyers use the words as part of their legal defenses; journalists have become propagandists or enablers by repeating these manipulative words as if they have their common or intended meanings; economists and business executives promote these words in presentations and papers. Clergy use them as supposed instruments of faith. What is complicity if not repeating these words without acknowledging their mendacity?

Following World War II, there was a movement among a small group of Germans to discontinue their use of German as a language; some even promoted Esperanto, the language banned by the Nazis. For some, they pushed aside German because so many words had become symbols of the pollution of their culture, not least because of the cynical euphemisms, the debasement and distortion of commonly understood words.

Professionals, all of us—do not participate in this perversion of our language. This is not a mere crime against speech or writing. It is a manipulation of our sensibilities and of our ethical frameworks. It is mendacity in the hands of the mendacious, it is manipulation and complicity in the hands of the professionals. It is the opposite of professional ethics. Words matter.

"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.

Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.