Trumping truth

By Herman M. Lagon

This letter did not begin with me. A lawyer friend posted a “Dear Uncle” letter on Facebook late one night. It was light on the surface, but there was fatigue underneath—another claim, another near-ending war. I read it and felt that quiet nudge. This was not just distant politics anymore. So I adapted and rewrote it here, carrying both its humor and its unease.

Let me restate the letter “Uncle” in my own words:

“Dear Uncle:

You said this war would be quick. Then you said you would win. Then you said you had already won. Then you said they were worn down. Then you said they had no more capacity. Then you said the government there would be replaced. Then you said you would appoint the new leader. Then you said you would hunt that leader down. Then you said you would wear them out again. Then you said, once more, that they had no real power left. Uncle, at this point, it feels like listening to a speech that keeps trying to trump its previous version, as if louder words can make reality catch up—or at least distract us long enough not to notice.”

“So people are asking, not out of defiance but out of fatigue: why are rockets and drones still flying? Why is Hormuz still effectively closed? Why are people still rallying in the streets? Why are some still insisting there is no negotiation? And why, for heaven’s sake, is diesel now nearing one hundred thirty pesos a liter?”

That last one is where poorly weighed decisions half the globe away land hardest at home. Here, fuel prices are not abstract. They show up in jeepney fares, in the price of vegetables, in the quiet choices families make between transport and food.

A teacher friend once told me that global instability arrives in the classroom faster than most policymakers expect. When fuel goes up, attendance shifts. Some students walk farther. Some do not come at all. Some teachers stretch their already thin budgets just to keep small routines alive. So when leaders repeatedly say “it is almost over,” people here do not hear reassurance. They hear distance—between what is said and what is lived.

That distance has a way of turning serious things into something that almost feels cartoonish, but not in a light way. Each statement tries to trump the one before it. Every update sounds more certain, yet nothing settles. It is like a student declaring “finished” while still erasing and rewriting the same answer.

Words do not stay where they are said. They travel, and they linger. Rubin (2020) reminds us that rhetoric in conflict does not just describe reality—it can reshape how others respond to it. When messages swing too often, clarity does not follow; doubt does.

Then comes the familiar fallback: sarcasm. When a statement fails, it becomes humor. When it creates tension, it becomes a misunderstanding. It may soften the moment, but it slowly erodes trust. As Eisenberg (1984) observed, repeated ambiguity does not protect credibility—it drains it.

And trust, though quiet, is what keeps everything from unraveling. Nye (2004) described it as part of soft power—the kind that persuades without force. It builds slowly, through consistency. But once weakened, even long-time partners begin to respond differently. Not with confrontation, but with distance. Careful wording replaces commitment. Observation replaces participation.

This shift is already visible. Some countries are reviewing their positions. Others are choosing restraint. Others are simply stepping back. It is not loud disagreement. It is something more subtle—a pause. And when pauses repeat, they stop being pauses. They become decisions.

We understand this pattern in smaller ways. The leader who promises too much, too often, eventually finds that people stop reacting. Not out of rebellion, but out of quiet adjustment. Expectations lower. Engagement softens. The relationship remains, but the confidence does not.

To be fair, leadership in crisis is never simple. Decisions are made with incomplete information, under pressure from all sides. That deserves recognition. But clarity is also a choice. Some leaders do not rush to trump their own words. They pause, they listen, and they speak with care, knowing that what they say does not end when the speech does.

That is where this letter lands, drawn from a friend’s reflection and our own questions. Uncle, what is the story now? Not the strongest claim, but the steady one. Because when every line tries to outdo the last, the message does not grow stronger—it dissolves. And when the message dissolves, trust does not argue—it simply leaves.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.