What do you think?
Rate this book
On Lying and Politics: A Library of America Special Publication
More urgent than ever, two landmark essays by the legendary political theorist on the greatest threat to democracy, gathered with a new introduction by David Bromwich
“No one,” Hannah Arendt observed, “has ever counted truthfulness as a political virtue.” But why do politicians lie? What is the relationship between political lies and self-delusion? And how much organized deceit can a democracy endure before it ceases to function?
Fifty years ago, the century’s greatest political theorist turned her focus to these essential questions in two seminal essays, brought together here for the first time. Her conclusions, delivered in searching prose that crackles with insight and intelligence, remain powerfully relevant, perhaps more so today than when they were written.
In “Truth and Politics,” Arendt explores the affinity between lying and politics, and reminds us that the survival of factual truth depends on the testimony of credible witnesses and on an informed citizenry. She shows how our shared sense of reality—the texture of facts in which we wrap our daily lives—can be torn apart by organized lying, replaced with a fantasy world of airbrushed evidence and doctored documents.
In “Lying in Politics,” written in response to the release of the Pentagon Papers, Arendt applies these insights to an analysis of American policy in Southeast Asia, arguing that the real goal of the Vietnam War—and of the official lies used to justify it by successive administrations—was nothing other than the burnishing of America’s image.
In his introduction, David Bromwich (American Breakdown: The Trump Years and How They Befell Us) engages with Arendt’s essays in the context of her other writings and underscores their clarion call to take seriously the ever-present threat to democracy posed by lying.
“No one,” Hannah Arendt observed, “has ever counted truthfulness as a political virtue.” But why do politicians lie? What is the relationship between political lies and self-delusion? And how much organized deceit can a democracy endure before it ceases to function?
Fifty years ago, the century’s greatest political theorist turned her focus to these essential questions in two seminal essays, brought together here for the first time. Her conclusions, delivered in searching prose that crackles with insight and intelligence, remain powerfully relevant, perhaps more so today than when they were written.
In “Truth and Politics,” Arendt explores the affinity between lying and politics, and reminds us that the survival of factual truth depends on the testimony of credible witnesses and on an informed citizenry. She shows how our shared sense of reality—the texture of facts in which we wrap our daily lives—can be torn apart by organized lying, replaced with a fantasy world of airbrushed evidence and doctored documents.
In “Lying in Politics,” written in response to the release of the Pentagon Papers, Arendt applies these insights to an analysis of American policy in Southeast Asia, arguing that the real goal of the Vietnam War—and of the official lies used to justify it by successive administrations—was nothing other than the burnishing of America’s image.
In his introduction, David Bromwich (American Breakdown: The Trump Years and How They Befell Us) engages with Arendt’s essays in the context of her other writings and underscores their clarion call to take seriously the ever-present threat to democracy posed by lying.
120 pages, Paperback
Published September 6, 2022
87 people are currently reading
795 people want to read
About the author
Hannah Arendt
404 books4,850 followersHannah Arendt (1906 – 1975) was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. Born into a German-Jewish family, she was forced to leave Germany in 1933 and lived in Paris for the next eight years, working for a number of Jewish refugee organisations. In 1941 she immigrated to the United States and soon became part of a lively intellectual circle in New York. She held a number of academic positions at various American universities until her death in 1975. She is best known for two works that had a major impact both within and outside the academic community. The first, The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951, was a study of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes that generated a wide-ranging debate on the nature and historical antecedents of the totalitarian phenomenon. The second, The Human Condition, published in 1958, was an original philosophical study that investigated the fundamental categories of the vita activa (labor, work, action). In addition to these two important works, Arendt published a number of influential essays on topics such as the nature of revolution, freedom, authority, tradition and the modern age. At the time of her death in 1975, she had completed the first two volumes of her last major philosophical work, The Life of the Mind, which examined the three fundamental faculties of the vita contemplativa (thinking, willing, judging).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
September 22, 2022
These essays were ok, but I think Bromwich’s introduction gets across all the ideas in a more succinct fashion and in a much more readable way. The first essay, “Truth in Politics”, is written in a particularly dense style, which may perhaps be due to the publication time period. Overall I didn’t feel like the essays covered much ground. They introduced some ideas but didn’t really explore them much, nor did they analyze supporting examples in enough detail.
The general gist I got from the essays is that lying in politics has a boomerang effect, where the politicians start by lying to the public but soon start to buy into their own fabricated worldview, and those lies start getting incorporated into the decision making process. This effect is especially bad in a democracy, as the whole-society political mobilization inherent in the system means that entire constructed worldviews can get massive buy-in with no actual basis in reality. In her second essay, “Lying in Politics”, Arendt shows the effects of this process on the Vietnam War, as revealed in the Pentagon Papers. The justifications for the war, facts on the ground, and even basic geopolitical knowledge were knowingly fabricated or ignored in order to fit a story sold to the public. More recently, the Afghanistan Papers showed more of the same thing.
I think the ideas contained in these essays were interesting, but not flushed out enough. It’s really easy to make basically any kind of political statement whatsoever and have it seem somewhat true, leading to exactly the type of fabricated belief system the author is talking about. I think political statements need to be studied more scientifically, using comparisons across systems and numerical analysis. I think the study of group epistemology is interesting, and the question of whether different political systems lead to different distributions of accurate belief in the population is worth studying, but I also don’t think these essays did any of that. At best the book raises a hypothesis for somebody else to test.
The general gist I got from the essays is that lying in politics has a boomerang effect, where the politicians start by lying to the public but soon start to buy into their own fabricated worldview, and those lies start getting incorporated into the decision making process. This effect is especially bad in a democracy, as the whole-society political mobilization inherent in the system means that entire constructed worldviews can get massive buy-in with no actual basis in reality. In her second essay, “Lying in Politics”, Arendt shows the effects of this process on the Vietnam War, as revealed in the Pentagon Papers. The justifications for the war, facts on the ground, and even basic geopolitical knowledge were knowingly fabricated or ignored in order to fit a story sold to the public. More recently, the Afghanistan Papers showed more of the same thing.
I think the ideas contained in these essays were interesting, but not flushed out enough. It’s really easy to make basically any kind of political statement whatsoever and have it seem somewhat true, leading to exactly the type of fabricated belief system the author is talking about. I think political statements need to be studied more scientifically, using comparisons across systems and numerical analysis. I think the study of group epistemology is interesting, and the question of whether different political systems lead to different distributions of accurate belief in the population is worth studying, but I also don’t think these essays did any of that. At best the book raises a hypothesis for somebody else to test.
April 6, 2025
This was my first Arendt book, and it was terribly good. I probably underlined half of the book. It helped me clarify some of my thoughts about today’s political moment, and how it relates to events, leaders, deceptions, and reactions of the past.
This book is actually a collection of two of her longer essays. I got more out of the first one, “Truth and Politics,” but both were excellent.
One terribly relevant quote:
“The historian knows how vulnerable is the whole texture of facts in which we spend our daily life; it is always in danger of being perforated by single lies, or torn to shreds by the organized lying of groups, nations, or classes, or denied and distorted, often carefully covered up by reams of falsehoods, or simply allowed to fall into oblivion.”
This book is actually a collection of two of her longer essays. I got more out of the first one, “Truth and Politics,” but both were excellent.
One terribly relevant quote:
“The historian knows how vulnerable is the whole texture of facts in which we spend our daily life; it is always in danger of being perforated by single lies, or torn to shreds by the organized lying of groups, nations, or classes, or denied and distorted, often carefully covered up by reams of falsehoods, or simply allowed to fall into oblivion.”
August 15, 2023
The first essay made me feel dumb lol. Like, I can normally get along just fine with philosophical texts even if I have to read kind of slow, but even with that, I don't think I can adequately summarize it (and thus, didn't really understand it). The second essay was much more digestible, and subsequently, interesting.
January 24, 2023
Don’t let the difficult, sometimes obtuse writing style discourage you. There’s wisdom to be found here, even if you have to dig deep for it.
May 14, 2025
y’all already know the state of global politics must be pretty dire if i’ve started reading political theory… anyways this was phenomenal, the second essay i found much easier to digest than the first but there were so many little nuggets of wisdom to be taken from both especially in the context of contemporary u.s. politics.
3.5/5 stars
3.5/5 stars
June 18, 2023
Disclaimer review ini akan sangat bias karena aku suka #HannahArendt dan mendapatkan buku ini susah harus ke benua Amerika dulu sebab buku ini termasuk terbitan spesial Library of America. Aku sangat beruntung bisa mendapatkan buku ini. Misalnya mencari review yang objektif silakan cari di tempat lain.
Aku sudah lama mengincar buku ini karena buku ini adalah satu dari insipirasi Amy Chua waktu menulis #PoliticalTribes Satu buah thesis yang membuat sudut pandang legalku bergeser. Tujuan mempelajari hukum adalah membatasi kekuasaan, itu mengapa titik pijakku soal penyusunan peraturan undang-undang agak berbeda dari pemikiran geng public policy lain. Tidak selalu bertentangan cuma kok, cuma beda.
Nah, buku ini menjawab betul soal satu unsur yang disebut “internal self deception” atau kita sebut aja kekacauan dalam diri sendiri yang disebabkan oleh kebiasaan kita menjustifikasi kebohongan dan mengabaikan kebenaran. Akhirnya kita memilih teori kasus yang kurang tepat atau salah total, sebab tujuan kita memenangkan narasi. Bisnis proses ini akan mendatangkan resiko tak terduga. Ini nyambung sama mata kuliah “Business and Conlfict” yang aku pelajari di Basel dulu. Namun si Hannah Ardent ini mengungkapkan resiko lain yakni resiko non fisik termasuk trauma antar generasi dan masalah sosial lain.
Kepekaan Hannah meneliti narasi yang dipakai dalam perang Vietnam dan pengaruh perang dingin ke Asia jadi kuncian penting. Bahwa kata-kata adalah produk dari konsultan public relation dan kegagalan negara untuk jujur menghadapi masalah. Bacaan ini penting banget dibaca di era tahun politik ini. Aku juga suka essaynya #DawifBromwich yang jadi pembuka, dia tahu banget Hannah sih dan refleksinya hangat sekali untuk manusia yg mengajar di Yale.
#HannahArendt #OnLyingAndPolitics #WhatSekarReads2023 #WhatSekarReads
Aku sudah lama mengincar buku ini karena buku ini adalah satu dari insipirasi Amy Chua waktu menulis #PoliticalTribes Satu buah thesis yang membuat sudut pandang legalku bergeser. Tujuan mempelajari hukum adalah membatasi kekuasaan, itu mengapa titik pijakku soal penyusunan peraturan undang-undang agak berbeda dari pemikiran geng public policy lain. Tidak selalu bertentangan cuma kok, cuma beda.
Nah, buku ini menjawab betul soal satu unsur yang disebut “internal self deception” atau kita sebut aja kekacauan dalam diri sendiri yang disebabkan oleh kebiasaan kita menjustifikasi kebohongan dan mengabaikan kebenaran. Akhirnya kita memilih teori kasus yang kurang tepat atau salah total, sebab tujuan kita memenangkan narasi. Bisnis proses ini akan mendatangkan resiko tak terduga. Ini nyambung sama mata kuliah “Business and Conlfict” yang aku pelajari di Basel dulu. Namun si Hannah Ardent ini mengungkapkan resiko lain yakni resiko non fisik termasuk trauma antar generasi dan masalah sosial lain.
Kepekaan Hannah meneliti narasi yang dipakai dalam perang Vietnam dan pengaruh perang dingin ke Asia jadi kuncian penting. Bahwa kata-kata adalah produk dari konsultan public relation dan kegagalan negara untuk jujur menghadapi masalah. Bacaan ini penting banget dibaca di era tahun politik ini. Aku juga suka essaynya #DawifBromwich yang jadi pembuka, dia tahu banget Hannah sih dan refleksinya hangat sekali untuk manusia yg mengajar di Yale.
#HannahArendt #OnLyingAndPolitics #WhatSekarReads2023 #WhatSekarReads
March 11, 2025
I (technically) read about 90% of this book, that is, if “reading” can be loosely defined as pointing one’s useless eyeballs at a series of pages and not comprehending anything whatsoever. I don’t blame the author for this. Rather, I blame my dummy little brain. So silly.
Basically, the gist of this book is: lying is super-dupes not good!
Basically, the gist of this book is: lying is super-dupes not good!
February 20, 2025
“On Lying and Politics” begins with a through analysis for which lying, factual truth, opinions, and ignorance exist within politics and society. Arendt evaluates how lying has mutated throughout history and now firmly stands in the realm of purposeful deception rather than ignorance. The first half of this book reads far more like a philosophical debate than a reference to a specific occurrence. However, once this framework is set she switches to a scathing review of the U.S. and Vietnam drawing parallels on the outline she just established.
I thought this was a great read that has a lot of relevance even 50 years later.
I thought this was a great read that has a lot of relevance even 50 years later.
November 19, 2025
Loved the first essay, “Truth and Politics,” which I think predates the Post-truth movement in philosophy by a margin of interest. The second, “Lying in Politics,” was less interesting solely because it was a reaction to something I don’t have an excellent frame of reference for (the Pentagon papers), but the commentary on US history was timeless.
July 6, 2025
3.25/5
A very dense sociopolitical look at the history of truth versus misinformation. I feel like I personally would have benefitted from discussing the book in an academic setting in smaller chunks. it is a lot of Felicity and history crammed into under 120 pages.
A very dense sociopolitical look at the history of truth versus misinformation. I feel like I personally would have benefitted from discussing the book in an academic setting in smaller chunks. it is a lot of Felicity and history crammed into under 120 pages.
April 4, 2024
2024
August 8, 2024
Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve sensed a renewed interest in Arendt’s writings of late, not coincidentally as nationalistic movements and political figures with varying degrees of authoritarian intent have emerged both here and around the world. For years I’ve been eyeing up her mammoth book The Origins of Totalitarianism and the much-debated Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. I haven’t been brave enough to tackle them quite yet. So I’m taking baby steps.
On Lying and Politics is a slim volume comprised of two parts. First, an extremely dense philosophical essay called “Truth and Politics.” Second is a dense (but slightly more accessible) journalistic piece, “Lying in Politics.” Together, the combined essays—originally published in 1967 and 1971, respectively—deal with “the manufacture of lies both under a totalitarian regime and in the apparently free public life of a corrupted democracy,” as David Bromwich writes in a helpful introductory chapter.
Read the rest at timhoiland.com
On Lying and Politics is a slim volume comprised of two parts. First, an extremely dense philosophical essay called “Truth and Politics.” Second is a dense (but slightly more accessible) journalistic piece, “Lying in Politics.” Together, the combined essays—originally published in 1967 and 1971, respectively—deal with “the manufacture of lies both under a totalitarian regime and in the apparently free public life of a corrupted democracy,” as David Bromwich writes in a helpful introductory chapter.
Read the rest at timhoiland.com
February 24, 2025
I have wanted to read Arendt for a while now, and I picked this one cause it seemed particularly relevant given the current political climate of rampant misinformation. The book is comprised of two essays written by Arendt more than 50 years ago. The first essay is entirely theoretical in nature, exploring the different kinds of truths (factual, rational), how lying has evolved over time, and the current form of lying in politics and its effects. The second essay explores this theory through the case of US war policy in Vietnam where government went to great lengths to maintain the illusion of US omnipotence and preservation of reputation as that was deemed more important than the actual outcome of war.
The idea that stuck with me the most was that the long-term outcome of this constant brainwashing is not just the substitution of lies for factual truth, and the truth being defamed as lies, but that it results in a peculiar kind of cynicism — an absolute refusal to believe in the truth of any kind, no matter how well its truth may be established. This has become even more true in the age of social media and internet bias bubbles.
While it raised some interesting points, and made me think of societal structures in the framework of political theory, these essays are extremely dense and difficult to get through. I'm not sure if that is because it is academic writing from 50 years ago, or if this is how Arendt wrote, or if I am just not smart enough to digest all this philosophy.
The idea that stuck with me the most was that the long-term outcome of this constant brainwashing is not just the substitution of lies for factual truth, and the truth being defamed as lies, but that it results in a peculiar kind of cynicism — an absolute refusal to believe in the truth of any kind, no matter how well its truth may be established. This has become even more true in the age of social media and internet bias bubbles.
While it raised some interesting points, and made me think of societal structures in the framework of political theory, these essays are extremely dense and difficult to get through. I'm not sure if that is because it is academic writing from 50 years ago, or if this is how Arendt wrote, or if I am just not smart enough to digest all this philosophy.
January 28, 2025
"...so long as the press is free and not corrupt, it has an enormously important function to fulfill and can rightly be called the fourth branch of government."
December 26, 2024
She’s so good. This one is two essays smashed together: the first is more theory, Arend at her best, and the second applies those lessons to the Vietnam War. The first is better than the second. I wish she did more in the latter and incorporated other examples but still an interesting read.
March 5, 2023
"Truthfulness has never been counted among the political virtues, and lies have always been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings" -- Hannah Arendt.
“No one,” Hannah Arendt observed, “has ever counted truthfulness as a political virtue.” But why do politicians lie? What is the relationship between political lies and self-delusion? And how much organized deceit can a democracy endure before it ceases to function? Fifty years ago, the century’s greatest political theorist turned her focus to these essential questions in two seminal essays, brought together here for the first time. Her conclusions, delivered in searching prose that crackles with insight and intelligence, are as urgently needed today as when they were written, perhaps more so.
Arendt came to the attention of a wide public with the appearance in 1951 of The Origins of Totalitarianism. Totalitarian communism and Nazism alike were engendered by ideologists and cemented by the masses who went along with them. The governments and their compliant citizens acted from chosen facts or fictions about the world.
Eichmann in Jersusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, published in 1963, marked a second statement and, to some extent, a revision of Arendt’s view of totalitarianism. In Eichmann in Jersusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Arendt drops the thesis of radical evil. Eichmann, in court, surprises Arendt by his utterly commonplace nature, his addiction to cliché and apparent lack of zeal, indeed by a depthless ordinariness—which accounted for Arendt's use of the provocative word banality.
In “Truth and Politics,” Arendt explores the affinity between lying and politics, and reminds us that the survival of factual truth depends on the testimony of credible witnesses and on an informed citizenry. She shows how our shared sense of reality—the texture of facts in which we wrap our daily lives—can be torn apart by organized lying, replaced with a fantasy world of airbrushed evidence and doctored documents. Facts are degraded into opinions, and, in an ironic twist, liars may come to believe their own fabrications.
In “Lying in Politics,” written in response to the release of the Pentagon Papers, Arendt applies these insights to an analysis of American policy in Southeast Asia. She argues that the Vietnam War—and the official lies used to justify it by successive administrations—was at root an exercise in image-making, more concerned with displaying American power than with achieving strategic objectives.
“No one,” Hannah Arendt observed, “has ever counted truthfulness as a political virtue.” But why do politicians lie? What is the relationship between political lies and self-delusion? And how much organized deceit can a democracy endure before it ceases to function? Fifty years ago, the century’s greatest political theorist turned her focus to these essential questions in two seminal essays, brought together here for the first time. Her conclusions, delivered in searching prose that crackles with insight and intelligence, are as urgently needed today as when they were written, perhaps more so.
Arendt came to the attention of a wide public with the appearance in 1951 of The Origins of Totalitarianism. Totalitarian communism and Nazism alike were engendered by ideologists and cemented by the masses who went along with them. The governments and their compliant citizens acted from chosen facts or fictions about the world.
Eichmann in Jersusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, published in 1963, marked a second statement and, to some extent, a revision of Arendt’s view of totalitarianism. In Eichmann in Jersusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Arendt drops the thesis of radical evil. Eichmann, in court, surprises Arendt by his utterly commonplace nature, his addiction to cliché and apparent lack of zeal, indeed by a depthless ordinariness—which accounted for Arendt's use of the provocative word banality.
In “Truth and Politics,” Arendt explores the affinity between lying and politics, and reminds us that the survival of factual truth depends on the testimony of credible witnesses and on an informed citizenry. She shows how our shared sense of reality—the texture of facts in which we wrap our daily lives—can be torn apart by organized lying, replaced with a fantasy world of airbrushed evidence and doctored documents. Facts are degraded into opinions, and, in an ironic twist, liars may come to believe their own fabrications.
In “Lying in Politics,” written in response to the release of the Pentagon Papers, Arendt applies these insights to an analysis of American policy in Southeast Asia. She argues that the Vietnam War—and the official lies used to justify it by successive administrations—was at root an exercise in image-making, more concerned with displaying American power than with achieving strategic objectives.
August 12, 2023
On Lying and Politics
by
Hannah Arendt
What you find between the covers of this book are two essays by Hannah Arendt: First “Truth and Politics” (1967), followed by “Lying in Politics” (1971).
Both essays begin with a similarly dreary, but probably true statement that truth is simply not a political virtue, at least in many an instance. Which begs the question: what is truth that it always seems to be at odds with politics?
Arendt differentiates between two types of truth. There are factual and rational truths. The former of which is more prone to suffer grave injury from political powers, in part because factual truth is no more self-evident than opinion, whereas the rational truth may never be completely eradicated, as it can simply be produced again and again from
within the confines of the rational mind.
On a philosophical level, Arendt argues, truth, or that which has been established as true, always contains an element of coercion. This is what tyrants and despots dislike and why they are often at odds with the truth. This coercive element of truth competes with their own coercive nature, threatening to deprive them of their monopoly on forced persuasion.
And because, as mentioned before, opinion is no less self-evident than factual truth, populists and tyrants alike will try to establish their truth, i.e. opinions not facts, as the only and absolute truth in the mind of the populace.
Why does and should it matter whether or not truth is the basis for political institutions and on which our society is built, as long as everythings works out? Because, to paraphrase Arendt, when we pursue deliberate falsehood, we not only lose all sense of what is right and wrong, but the very bearings by which we navigate the world we live in. We essentially end up losing a true sense of who we are, where we are and where we are headed, both as individuals and as a society.
by
Hannah Arendt
What you find between the covers of this book are two essays by Hannah Arendt: First “Truth and Politics” (1967), followed by “Lying in Politics” (1971).
Both essays begin with a similarly dreary, but probably true statement that truth is simply not a political virtue, at least in many an instance. Which begs the question: what is truth that it always seems to be at odds with politics?
Arendt differentiates between two types of truth. There are factual and rational truths. The former of which is more prone to suffer grave injury from political powers, in part because factual truth is no more self-evident than opinion, whereas the rational truth may never be completely eradicated, as it can simply be produced again and again from
within the confines of the rational mind.
On a philosophical level, Arendt argues, truth, or that which has been established as true, always contains an element of coercion. This is what tyrants and despots dislike and why they are often at odds with the truth. This coercive element of truth competes with their own coercive nature, threatening to deprive them of their monopoly on forced persuasion.
And because, as mentioned before, opinion is no less self-evident than factual truth, populists and tyrants alike will try to establish their truth, i.e. opinions not facts, as the only and absolute truth in the mind of the populace.
Why does and should it matter whether or not truth is the basis for political institutions and on which our society is built, as long as everythings works out? Because, to paraphrase Arendt, when we pursue deliberate falsehood, we not only lose all sense of what is right and wrong, but the very bearings by which we navigate the world we live in. We essentially end up losing a true sense of who we are, where we are and where we are headed, both as individuals and as a society.
March 23, 2023
RIP hannah arendt, you would have loved operation iraqi freedom.
February 5, 2024
Very well written essays on the philosophy of truth and lies, their effect on human perception of reality and by consequence on politics. The most interesting part for me in both essays is the mind change that occurs to the liar in order to make sense of a “made up reality”. The analysis around the lying as an “act” while truth telling is not was insightful.
Finally, the political analysis around how being goal oriented in politics leads to decision-makers and problem-solvers to use defactualization as a means to reach those goals makes this book in my opinion very relevant to everyone into politics, journalism and/or historians.
Finally, the political analysis around how being goal oriented in politics leads to decision-makers and problem-solvers to use defactualization as a means to reach those goals makes this book in my opinion very relevant to everyone into politics, journalism and/or historians.
February 7, 2025
Some of this stuff could have been written about the current state of US politics and the Fox media machine. A few statements that stood out for me:
“when the liar, lacking the power to make his falsehood stick, does not insist on the gospel truth of his statement but pretends that this is his ‘opinion’, to which he claims his constitutional right.”
“The surest long term result of brainwashing is a peculiar kind of cynicism - and absolute refusal to believe in the truth of anything, no matter how well this truth may be established.”
“Eisenhower was still old fashioned enough to believe in the constitution.”
“when the liar, lacking the power to make his falsehood stick, does not insist on the gospel truth of his statement but pretends that this is his ‘opinion’, to which he claims his constitutional right.”
“The surest long term result of brainwashing is a peculiar kind of cynicism - and absolute refusal to believe in the truth of anything, no matter how well this truth may be established.”
“Eisenhower was still old fashioned enough to believe in the constitution.”
June 1, 2025
It is interesting that the Library of America recently decided not only to issue a new edition of Ms. Arendt’s masterful work On the Origins of Totalitarianism but also to offer this paperback containing a couple of her essays, the first of which gives the book its title and the second, briefer one on her reaction to the publication of The Pentagon Papers in The New York Times in 1971, the latter a work of analysis that was never intended for public consumption.
In our own time of massive public, intentional, and shameless lying, her words are a sober reminder that the consequences of such repeated lies and misinformation are destructive of human thought and, indeed, of our very humanity.
While I think her first essay could have been condensed considerably, say to perhaps its length, since she seems to reconsider and reemphasize several important points more than once, both essays in this short book are worth pondering.
What follows are excerpts from the book in Ms. Arendt’s own words:
“…the limitless character of public lies…create a substitute world in which the truth is just one more opinion, and even this may not be their most surprising effect. For the officials who refine and repeat the lies eventually come to believe the, just as, in a social panic about ‘violence in the neighborhood,’ the person who first transmits the rumor and knows it to be exaggerated may come to share the panic with his hapless neighbors. Wishful thinking, too, is an inward form of lying. When it adds energy to a cause it knows to be questionable, there is still the pleasure of linking arms: a sensation agreeable enough to tamp down suspicion and nullify judgement.” Pp. xix-xx
“In other words, the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world – and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end – is being destroyed.” P. 47
“Factual truths are never compellingly true. The historian knows how vulnerable is the whole texture of facts in which we spend our daily life; it is always in danger of being perforated by single lies or torn to shreds by the organized lying of groups, nations, or classes, or denied and distorted, often carefully covered up by reams of falsehoods or simply allowed to fall into oblivion. Facts need testimony to be remembered and trustworthy witnesses to be established in order to find a secure dwelling place in the domain of human affairs. From this, it follows that no factual statement can ever be beyond doubt – as secure and shielded against attack as, for instance, the statement that two and two make four.” Pp. 64-65
“Lies are often more plausible, more appealing to reason, than reality, since the liar has the great advantage of knowing beforehand what the audience wishes or expects to hear. He has prepared his story for public consumption with a careful eye to making it credible, whereas reality has the disconcerting habit of confronting us with the unexpected, for which we were not prepared.” P. 65
“Truth, though powerless and always defeated in a head-on clash with the powers that be, possesses a strength of its own; whatever those in power may contrive, they are unable to discover or invent a viable substitute for it. Persuasion and violence can destroy truth, but they cannot replace it…. To look upon politics from the perspective of truth, as I have done here, means to take one’s stand outside the political realm. This standpoint is the standpoint of the truthteller, who forfeits his positions – and, with it, the validity of what he has to say – if he tries to interfere directly in human affairs and to speak the language of persuasion or violence.” Pp. 50-51
“…the interconnectedness of deception and self-deception [:] In the contest between public statements, always over-optimistic, and the truthful reports of the intelligence community, persistently bleak and ominous, the public statements [of the Johnson administration] were liable to win simply because they were public. The great advantage of publicly established and accepted propositions over whatever an individual might secretly know or believe to be the truth … [is] that the more successful a liar is, the more people he has convinced, the more likely it is that he will end by believing his own lies.” P. 93
“…so long as the press is free and not corrupt, it has an enormously important function to fulfill and can rightly becalled the fourth branch of government. Whether the First Amendment will suffice to protect this most essential political freedom, the right to unmanipulated factual information without which all freedom of opinion becomes a cruel hoax, is another question.” P. 109
In our own time of massive public, intentional, and shameless lying, her words are a sober reminder that the consequences of such repeated lies and misinformation are destructive of human thought and, indeed, of our very humanity.
While I think her first essay could have been condensed considerably, say to perhaps its length, since she seems to reconsider and reemphasize several important points more than once, both essays in this short book are worth pondering.
What follows are excerpts from the book in Ms. Arendt’s own words:
“…the limitless character of public lies…create a substitute world in which the truth is just one more opinion, and even this may not be their most surprising effect. For the officials who refine and repeat the lies eventually come to believe the, just as, in a social panic about ‘violence in the neighborhood,’ the person who first transmits the rumor and knows it to be exaggerated may come to share the panic with his hapless neighbors. Wishful thinking, too, is an inward form of lying. When it adds energy to a cause it knows to be questionable, there is still the pleasure of linking arms: a sensation agreeable enough to tamp down suspicion and nullify judgement.” Pp. xix-xx
“In other words, the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world – and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end – is being destroyed.” P. 47
“Factual truths are never compellingly true. The historian knows how vulnerable is the whole texture of facts in which we spend our daily life; it is always in danger of being perforated by single lies or torn to shreds by the organized lying of groups, nations, or classes, or denied and distorted, often carefully covered up by reams of falsehoods or simply allowed to fall into oblivion. Facts need testimony to be remembered and trustworthy witnesses to be established in order to find a secure dwelling place in the domain of human affairs. From this, it follows that no factual statement can ever be beyond doubt – as secure and shielded against attack as, for instance, the statement that two and two make four.” Pp. 64-65
“Lies are often more plausible, more appealing to reason, than reality, since the liar has the great advantage of knowing beforehand what the audience wishes or expects to hear. He has prepared his story for public consumption with a careful eye to making it credible, whereas reality has the disconcerting habit of confronting us with the unexpected, for which we were not prepared.” P. 65
“Truth, though powerless and always defeated in a head-on clash with the powers that be, possesses a strength of its own; whatever those in power may contrive, they are unable to discover or invent a viable substitute for it. Persuasion and violence can destroy truth, but they cannot replace it…. To look upon politics from the perspective of truth, as I have done here, means to take one’s stand outside the political realm. This standpoint is the standpoint of the truthteller, who forfeits his positions – and, with it, the validity of what he has to say – if he tries to interfere directly in human affairs and to speak the language of persuasion or violence.” Pp. 50-51
“…the interconnectedness of deception and self-deception [:] In the contest between public statements, always over-optimistic, and the truthful reports of the intelligence community, persistently bleak and ominous, the public statements [of the Johnson administration] were liable to win simply because they were public. The great advantage of publicly established and accepted propositions over whatever an individual might secretly know or believe to be the truth … [is] that the more successful a liar is, the more people he has convinced, the more likely it is that he will end by believing his own lies.” P. 93
“…so long as the press is free and not corrupt, it has an enormously important function to fulfill and can rightly becalled the fourth branch of government. Whether the First Amendment will suffice to protect this most essential political freedom, the right to unmanipulated factual information without which all freedom of opinion becomes a cruel hoax, is another question.” P. 109
August 9, 2025
Now here is a book/message that has aged very well indeed and is more pertinent for today’s world than ever.
The book is actually two essays by Hannah Arendt, the first “Truth and Politics” - which grounds itself more on theory and philosophy (your brain will be trying to remember all those Greek philosophers you read a while back) and “Lying in Politics” - which applies the theories of the first chapter onto the revelation of the Pentagon Papers, which Arendt followed with great interest.
Both essays (or chapters) are best described as a puzzle of great quotes that helps us - modern readers in 2025 - to observe current events with interesting lens of someone that somehow saw it all coming: manipulation of public opinion by the media and Government and the production of lies by huge bureaucracies that seem to forget why they lied in the first place. By reading, one can get a glimpse of what Arendt would have thought of social media’s incredible control of thinking and facts nowadays and the development of artificial intelligence being used for policy decisions.
Some of those great quotes that have stuck to me include:
“[…] the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed.”
“[…] power, by its very nature, can never produce a substitute for the secure stability of factual reality. […] In their stubbornness, facts are superior to power; they are less transitory than power formations, which arise when men get together for a purpose but disappear as soon as the purpose is either achieved or lost.”
The book is actually two essays by Hannah Arendt, the first “Truth and Politics” - which grounds itself more on theory and philosophy (your brain will be trying to remember all those Greek philosophers you read a while back) and “Lying in Politics” - which applies the theories of the first chapter onto the revelation of the Pentagon Papers, which Arendt followed with great interest.
Both essays (or chapters) are best described as a puzzle of great quotes that helps us - modern readers in 2025 - to observe current events with interesting lens of someone that somehow saw it all coming: manipulation of public opinion by the media and Government and the production of lies by huge bureaucracies that seem to forget why they lied in the first place. By reading, one can get a glimpse of what Arendt would have thought of social media’s incredible control of thinking and facts nowadays and the development of artificial intelligence being used for policy decisions.
Some of those great quotes that have stuck to me include:
“[…] the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed.”
“[…] power, by its very nature, can never produce a substitute for the secure stability of factual reality. […] In their stubbornness, facts are superior to power; they are less transitory than power formations, which arise when men get together for a purpose but disappear as soon as the purpose is either achieved or lost.”
March 7, 2025
On Lying and Politics: A Library of America Special Publication is a very intense read. It is a bit dated and may not resonate with a younger audience due to the writing being older than fifty years. However, it is well worth the time. Hannah Arendt's book is two essays, the first the philosophical Truth and Politics and the second the more political aspect of Lying in Politics.
For me, the second essay is the more enjoyable read due to the fact it is a response to the release of The Pentagon Papers. Hannah Arendt focuses on the theory that the Vietnam War was more about projecting American power as compared to winning the war. It is highly critical, but at the same time a dispassionate critique of the machinations of lying to set a stage. She uses her ideas from the first essay to show how the government shaded, twisted and maked up facts to present a view to fight a war regardless of the actual truth of either winning or even being able to properly support the fighting troops.
The first essay explores politicians love of the lie presented as truth. Part of the essay is the idea of pushing an agenda and truth is seen as opinion on any given view. That politicians hate facts and try to bend them or spin them to their will and the antidote is an informed public that is educated and engaged. Which is anathema to politicians.
For me, the second essay is the more enjoyable read due to the fact it is a response to the release of The Pentagon Papers. Hannah Arendt focuses on the theory that the Vietnam War was more about projecting American power as compared to winning the war. It is highly critical, but at the same time a dispassionate critique of the machinations of lying to set a stage. She uses her ideas from the first essay to show how the government shaded, twisted and maked up facts to present a view to fight a war regardless of the actual truth of either winning or even being able to properly support the fighting troops.
The first essay explores politicians love of the lie presented as truth. Part of the essay is the idea of pushing an agenda and truth is seen as opinion on any given view. That politicians hate facts and try to bend them or spin them to their will and the antidote is an informed public that is educated and engaged. Which is anathema to politicians.
May 24, 2025
More timely than ever. Arendt’s insightful and cutting observations, matched with her amazing use of primary sources, create a picture in both essays of a government obsessed with image above all else — sound familiar? These insights into the way our government has prioritized the mind and psychological power over reality and real power illuminate a strand of thought that now dominates US politics. Everything is done entirely for optics, rather than for a material outcome. Especially under the current administration, it is important for us to understand why lying has become so prevalent and why it is difficult for truth to have any power at all over the minds of the American people and politicians. Politics is a dangerous, nasty game in my opinion, but it’s also a necessary one, as Arendt reiterates throughout these works. As an informed public, it’s our responsibility to read works such as this and apply them to our own times to read between the lines of government lies and “public relations,” as Arendt calls it, to see the ‘truth’ of the matters at hand, as much as are able to. Arendt was a true intellectual and master of theory, but her writing is accessible and intelligible. I definitely want to read more of her work, but also the ideas that influenced it, some of which she mentions, with her meticulous sourcing, and some of which I (at my early stages of learning still) was able to catch on my own.
June 29, 2024
I bought the book because it was short and I had heard a lot about Hannah Arendt. The first essay was dense and it took me a long time to go through, but as I completed "Truth in Politics" I found myself underlining passages. The second "Lying in Politics" discusses how the Pentagon Papers were composed by a group of people in the internal intelligence establishment were given the freedom to proper research the Vietnam War in the relatively early stages and predicted how it would play out and also pointed out that the people that assigned them the task stopped listening to them, and it analyzes the role of self deception. It discusses the difference between pre-meditated lying and what happens when you lie to yourself, which is what happened in the Pentagon Papers. I did read Neil Sheehan's "A Bright and Shining Lie" and that did help me with establishing context. The Pentagon Papers were early in my high school years and while I paid attention to the headlines, I admit that I did not pay attention to the papers themselves. I went to school with engineers, which means that my college level reading on things like politics was light compared to (what I imagine to be) the usual run of political discussion, and I am thinking I may enroll somewhere to help remedy that and hopefully witness some live discussion as I think "the Papers" are getting relevant again.
December 16, 2025
Lying does not destroy truth.
Politicians will lie for any reason, regardless the cost, including the deaths of those they are supposed to be protecting.
"It has frequently been noticed that the surest long-term result of brainwashing is a peculiar kind of cynicism - an absolute refusal to believe in the truth of anything, no matter how well this truth may be established. In other words, the result of consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth, is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed."
"What has often been suggested has long been established: so long as the press is free and not corrupt, it has an enormously important function to fulfill and can rightly be called the fourth branch of government. Whether the First Amendment will suffice to protect this most essential political freedom, the right to unmanipulated factual information without which all freedom of opinion becomes a cruel hoax, is another question."
Politicians will lie for any reason, regardless the cost, including the deaths of those they are supposed to be protecting.
"It has frequently been noticed that the surest long-term result of brainwashing is a peculiar kind of cynicism - an absolute refusal to believe in the truth of anything, no matter how well this truth may be established. In other words, the result of consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth, is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed."
"What has often been suggested has long been established: so long as the press is free and not corrupt, it has an enormously important function to fulfill and can rightly be called the fourth branch of government. Whether the First Amendment will suffice to protect this most essential political freedom, the right to unmanipulated factual information without which all freedom of opinion becomes a cruel hoax, is another question."
February 22, 2024
In this engaging essay Hannah Arendt explores the complex relationship between politics and truth, emphasizing their perpetual misalignment. The recurring phrase "Fiat veritas, et pereat mundus" prompts readers to reflect on whether the main character truly believes in prioritizing truth at any cost. The theme of survival takes center stage early on, shaping the narrative's exploration of political maneuvers. Pages 6-7 delve into the risks faced by truth tellers and seekers, exposing their vulnerability to deception. The book contrasts Hobbes and Plato, discussing Hobbesian perspectives on "all three angles" on page 8. Page 11 raises the question of whether one should completely disregard opinion in the pursuit of truth. The discussion further dissects Plato's view of truth, distinguishing between factual truth on pages 18-19. Overall, Hannah Arendt invites readers to critically engage with the philosophical ideas of Hobbes and Plato while navigating the intricate interplay of politics and the elusive nature of truth. Length is too short, but very valuable.
September 15, 2024
Warming up to the 2024 election, I re-read these two interconnecting essays by Arendt. Arendt’s ability to explain in a way that explains the current situation better than her own time. For those who wonder why lying grip has such a hold on the populace and why it is so often used by tyrants (petty and otherwise), Arendt has answers that feel true. Those in power hate factual truth because is truth is an external power that can’t be changes. Factual truth not subject Politics because it’s not opinion. Thus, the goal of the tyrant it so necessary to turn fact into opinion. The essay also reflects on the nature of political lies - they are no longer confined to secrets but that which is open. This requires “If modern lies are so big that they require a complete rearrangement of the whole factual, text you the making of another reality into which they will fit without seam crack” But lying has its limits that while facts can be destroyed by lies, they can’t substitute them. This is about as hopeful as Arendt gets, eventually these faceless regimes have to deal with reality.
February 4, 2024
I hoped to find the answer to what is going on with the loss of commitment to truth in discourse in this book. I instead left feeling that we had sailed even further on into the fog in the 50 years since it was written.
These 2 quotes from the book put well what ground we have left when we abandon the truth as our guidepost.
"The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world-and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed."
"In the words of Montaigne, 'If falsehood, like truth, had but one face, we should know better where we are, for we should then take for certain the opposite of what the liar tells us. But the reverse of truth has a thousand shapes and a boundless field.'"
These 2 quotes from the book put well what ground we have left when we abandon the truth as our guidepost.
"The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world-and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed."
"In the words of Montaigne, 'If falsehood, like truth, had but one face, we should know better where we are, for we should then take for certain the opposite of what the liar tells us. But the reverse of truth has a thousand shapes and a boundless field.'"
Read
January 19, 2025The introduction says this is “a canny journalistic enquiry by a concerned citizen”.
This statement may require the application of Arendt’s distinctions between factual and rational truth, and their relative, opinion.
Because in my case the essay went over my head most of the time, and the political philosophy was tough to follow.
But in the current moment, the arguments seem to resonate and are worth trying to grasp:“… the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world — and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end— is being destroyed.”
If this book is too lightweight for you, never mind. The introduction says another volume by the same author, “Truth and Politics”, is a “major philosophical statement” which consists of an “extraordinary march of paragraphs”.
This statement may require the application of Arendt’s distinctions between factual and rational truth, and their relative, opinion.
Because in my case the essay went over my head most of the time, and the political philosophy was tough to follow.
But in the current moment, the arguments seem to resonate and are worth trying to grasp:“… the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world — and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end— is being destroyed.”
If this book is too lightweight for you, never mind. The introduction says another volume by the same author, “Truth and Politics”, is a “major philosophical statement” which consists of an “extraordinary march of paragraphs”.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews