At BYU I had a microeconomics course where the professor would introduce a new rule or theory and preface it by saying that it was a close approximation to truth. He did this because he realized that the more you learn about the subject, the more you hone your tools of analysis, the more you see the glaring exceptions that seem to shatter the rule you previously thought to be established.
I see orthodoxy in a similar vein. A mullah is like the politician who chastizes a political opponent for ignoring basic principles of economics. The basic principles are the easiest to communicate, but they're not always the most appropriate measuring stick to analyze particular areas of public policy. It doesn't necessarily mean that the politician is lying or being disingenuous, but he is just using the simplest set of tools to communicate his position. The politician isn't speaking to himself when he accuses his opponent, but he is speaking the language of those he is trying to persuade.
So on one hand I agree with you. The mullah may attempt to control through use of language and all of it's associated undertones. But I disagree with you that the mullah is necessarily an intentional liar. I see them as a communicator, somebody who is crafting their message so it will resonate with the intended audience. Especially when the audience doesn't have the ability to fully understand the truth. In essence, the mullah is giving what they believe to be a close approximation to the truth.
|