I completely agree. I have thought for some time that this country is very very sick. We're a people in a bubble and certain things don't penetrate that bubble. Just like our president. Bubbles are closed systems. That's what we live in, a closed and decaying system.
For health to return, the bubble has to burst. And that ain't a pretty process. I think it's beginning to break. I just hope it doesn't mean the downfall of the US. I hope we all wake up in time. Al Gore has a book coming out in May called The Assault On Reason. I'm working in my community to draft him to run for president. I hope he does. He doesn't have that disease - lying.
Words are very important. If yopu can get EVERYONE to mumble "politicians are crooked....", then who will ever recognize an honest one? Or who will even believe, then hope, that one will show up?
Making a perpetual negative the common understanding hurts the good and enables the bad.
How about a solution/rebuttal to the refrain : "Democrats voted to invade Iraq". The vote was to give bush vast powers in the war on terrorists. Just like society gives drivers licenses to 16 yo boys. Bush misused his license, just as some boys are reckless ( not wreckless). Society takes away the boys license, and does not accept that blame comes from broad things like all 16 yo are qualified to test. We rescind those licenses. Just as Democrats don't have to be associated with bush misuse.
The most important argument the Democrats had in this election cycle was that they didn't have a recent history of lying to the people.
Being straight with the people can give them a lot of margin for error. In a congress that is as evenly divided as this one is, not every peice of progressive legislation is going to be passed in the next two years, and the ones that do are subject to Bush's veto pen.
Being honest about our failures as wellas our successes will resonate. If we throw away the people's trust in the next two years with lies, John "straight bullsh*t" McCain will be nominating Supreme Court judges in 2009 and/or later.
Interesting.
When almost everything is hyperbolized, how is one to tell the difference between hyperbol and what is truely awefull.
Oh, and I know "use your eyes", basis of my point still stands, particurally in the American media and American politics.
Posted by chris65203 at December 1, 2006 08:20 PMPrhps w cld strt wth th lft pnly dmttng tht ts rncrs mttrngs r jst brd nd bttr mrxst rnt nd rv.
[Editor: ignore=off]Even more than political lying it's pundit lying: George Will's mis-quoting the confrontation between Bush and Sen. elect from VA is a recent one, casting Webb as the boor when Bush was clearly ahe a**hole; and Olberman's worst person in the world tonight award went of O'Liely for claiming he said what he in fact never said. Then there's reporters lying. The press (especally three reporters from the Post, NYTimes and AP) arguably cost Gore the 2000 election. Somebody -- I have no idea who -- has to impose standards on the public discourse -- and let's not get started on fraudulent political ads, especially those of "independent" groups (Congresscritter X will let the Islamofascits kill your babies vs. Congresscandidate Y will let the Papofascists sautee your babies before feeding them to their supporters).
And the award for the biggest liar of them all, goes to George Walker Bush.
Posted by Judith at December 2, 2006 02:18 AMI agree with most of what has been said thus far - paradox, as usual, says it best. Corruption breeds cynicism and anger. We are all to blame for reinforcing those who lie by listening to them and by incorporating their base 'arguments' into our common dialog. It's time to turn off some of our own - the James Carville's, the Jane Hamsher's (Fire Dog Lake), and all others who preach the politics of lie, innuendo, anger, and intolerance.
I take it back, RFK said it better:
"What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
tfitznc
Not all lies are equal. Consider:
1.) Clinton "lied" about oral sex in the Oval Office
2.) Bush lied the country into a war
Surely, even the most braindead winger can wrap their pea-sized brains around the difference?
Posted by Christopher at December 2, 2006 05:09 AMBrian makes the point I was going to ...it's not just the acceptance of the meme into our society that politicans lie, it is now expanded to those whose job it is to call politician's out on the lies and bs that is now a major part of the problem. It's so called "news" organizations (Faux) formed with obvious political agendas and paid pundits/reporters (hello Armstrong Williams and fake reporters like Jimmy Jeff, Swift Boaters, Rush Hannity, ) that are now a major part of the culture of lying in our society that perpetuate and act as a megaphones for the politicians' lies.
Also another part of the problem is something I think Ron Suskind's NYT article in 2004 hit upon when he talked to a Bushco politico who said, "The aide said that guys like me(Suskind) were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
We all know that politico reality creation involves serious lying...but they do it because they can get away with it.
Posted by emal at December 2, 2006 05:27 AMthere is an old chinese saying "the truth has a thousand faces" it's true..and so many of us don't want the truth anyway..you don't want to hear you're gonna get old..that you're gonna die..no want wants to hear that all there may be is a hole in the ground and worms are gonna snack on you...it's why religion exists...everlasting life..that's a pretty neat product to sell..certainly is a story with some legs..real good salesmen tell people what they want to hear..and they buy it
Posted by dennis at December 2, 2006 06:03 AMParadox - mi familia - one word for you:
Watergate.
While I'll certainly concede that the lying since '94 and Newt has certainly turned into a complete psychosis amongst some people, how can you contend that the time up to then was simply unhealthy mendacity? If Watergate wasn't perpetrated by some of the most psychotic, lying bastards ever seen in politics, then I'm Eleanor Roosevelt.
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 2, 2006 06:36 AMvery much the most important story I have seen, thanks
think about it, who of all that serve the people, should be allowed to lie, ever? why would we have accepted any lies?
because science isn't important enough to the same people. religion is. since religion is all based on lies, the same people told that religion is more important than science,
then believe science is a lie
ignorance is curable. stupidity is not
Posted by oldtree at December 2, 2006 06:52 AMOne of the reasons for the popularity of the recent book "On Bullshit" by Harry Frankfurt is that this phenomena has permeated all aspects of our lives.
What is most advertising and PR if not a version of lying? What about all the firms like Exxon which claim that burning fossil fuels does not influence climate change? How about all the dietary "supplements" that make claims with no scientific basis?
Many young people feel that cheating in school and/or plagiarism are not serious ethical breaches either. Why should they when they see how adults behave?
Posted by robertdfeinman at December 2, 2006 07:06 AMLies permeate our politics because lies permeate our culture. It takes an awful lot of bullshit to keep consumer capitalism running.
There is also what seems to be a need, in some people, to be lied to. I am not a psychologist or sociologist, but I'm sure there are many in both disciplines who have studied and written about this.
We all struggle with the big questions of life and how to live it. Lies provide the comfort and reassurance required to get through the day.
Posted by James E. Powell at December 2, 2006 07:08 AMDidn't a great Jack Nicholson military character declare that the public "couldn't handle the truth"?
This is the rationalization likely going through some politicians/generals minds when lying. Others are merely attempting to evade blame and personal responsibility for some fuck-up, while others put up a smokescreen of lies enabling them to favor the special interests who financially back them.
There is no institution in America providing a "check" on political lying, and with the demise of even the pathetically weak "fairness doctrine" the media is now an eager participant in misleading the people, as many noted above.
Most Americans think Saddam was behind 9/11 and was Osama's personal ally, and still do. Tells you all you need to know about the press and its "mission".
Nothing is put in context, nothing is explained, the evidence is never weighed, at best it's "He said, She said", at worst it's Fox "News" and its overt "conservative" agenda, of which its viewers wholeheartedly approve. Everyone is entitled to their own facts, remember.
Progress should be impossible in this climate--which makes the recent election very puzzling. I realize that not one step forward has been taken or one mess cleaned up, but the Democratic voctory is still quite remarkable, given the current media environment.
Perhaps it's just that snake-eyes will come up every once in a while. Who knows what the next dice roll will give? Hell of a way to run a country.
Posted by euzoius at December 2, 2006 07:56 AMAnd don't forget that the press continues to allow air time/column space to those "pundits" and movement operatives who have willfully lied in the past, as well as allowing elected officials to keep REPEATING statements that were shown to be lies, without challenging them.
Thus there is no incentive NOT to lie repeatedly, and it's the repitition of the lie that gets the ordinary citizen to believe it, as Josef Goebbels well knew.
I think there are at least three ways to measure journalism.
1. The first is fact evaluation. Is the information posted/journaled/reported accurate, based on reality?
2. A second measure that arises for me is truth. Is the presentation of fact and context true or is it a framing, a juxtaposition of limited context and disconnected fact that effectively becomes untrue?
3. And a third, much dicier measurement is right and wrong. Is it right, ethically and morally correct to report/journal in a certain manner?
I think the mainstream/corporate media have little interest in any of these principles of journalism. They seem to be generally focused on spin and commerce.
On the upside, the dailies are great for lining the parakeet cage and wrapping fish.
and speaking of dead fish, bendejo is smelling the place up. Has he contributed any thoughtful comment in recent memory? Is there a reason why he should remain here with his brainless taunting? Why give him the bandwidth to spew his stupidity?
Posted by angel at December 2, 2006 08:23 AM"Surely, even the most braindead winger can wrap their pea-sized brains around the difference?"
Christopher, nope, they can't. Benito is a perfect example. Actually, he and others think lies about oral sex in the WH are far worse than lies leading to war. Know why? Because it was a Democrat who had the oral sex.
Posted by Judith at December 2, 2006 09:06 AMI wonder if there is a correlation between the extent of political lying and the increasing need to keep the (lower) middle class quiet.
The increase in the corporate and cable media of "Look over there! Over there! Look, look!" spin situations (white woman kidnapped, etc.) may not be overt political lying but it has a similar effect: distract those who are working 2+ jobs and whose primary concern is paying next month's rent.
However, as the last election showed, although some people remain fooled, you can't fool all the people all the time.
But I also think the rise of the Internet and the accompanying increases in the speed of communication (including graphics) have changed the norms of information dissemination. It is apparently the case that most people get their news from TV. When did you last see a news item on a serious topic where the topic got the time it deserved and the intent clearly was to make sure that viewers understood the facts? The distance between this kind of distortion and overt lying is but a step.
I was reminded recently, as I read an old copy of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" by Al Franken, that in 1994 Newt Gingrich campaigned to change language and the way it is used within the Republican Party. In fact, Franken publishes a list of "good words" and "bad words" or positive and negative ones that Gingrich recommends for or against using. This was just the leading edge of a massive and purposeful attack on political language and its sense by Republicans.
George Lakoff documents another type of purposeful attack with his own discussion of Republican's "Ironic Framing" He uses a classic example of "Blue Sky Initiative" which was an executive order rolling back environmental laws that restrict midwestern polluters. Bush's Blue Sky Initiative would make for fewer blue skies downwind. Spin is a closely allied notion.
These are just a tiny number of the many cases where Republicans purposefully subverted language and its sense to mislead the electorate. We are talking not of casual misstatements or off-the-cuff comments. Rather, we are talking about cynical programs designed to misdirect or mislead in great and grand ways. Meaningful, significant, vitally important ways. Great, monumental, heaping piles of lies.
It would have been proper for the MSM to come down on them like a ton of bricks. But it never happened. The only alternative is for everyone to stop believing the Republicans who advocate for this sort of practice and to stop listening to media outlets that shill for them. ( Democratic pols mislead also, but there is rather less blatant denial of fact. For example, few will simply deny global warming. )
I noticed in Elizabeth de la Vega's recent straw-man indictment of the administration that fraud as defined by US statute was the underlying basis of the indictment. If just one or two cases were tried and won, it might convince pols to rely a little less on the act of deceiving the public.
Posted by steve at December 2, 2006 01:01 PMSurely, even the most braindead winger can wrap their pea-sized brains around the difference?
Of course not. Although Stepford wives are well trained in blowjobs, the average Alabama fundie would not even know what it is. Sex is only for babies and money, dammit!
Posted by tempus at December 2, 2006 06:43 PMthen I'm Eleanor Roosevelt.
Eleanor but an unusually large quantity of D batteries. Not that I'm suggesting anything, mind you.
Posted by tempus at December 2, 2006 06:47 PMWas there a time when the simple unvarnished truth was the norm? I don't know, but I do know that in my life 'spin' has been expected and normal.
But, by 'spin' I mean trying to make a bad thing look less bad by pointing out or emphasizing some advantages. It had to do with emphasis and framing; not outright lies.
At some point that changed. I don't know if the times changed or the players changed or if I just opened my eyes. But today, much of what some politicians and some media outlets say are total fabrications (or 'judgements' and 'opinions' that can only derive from falsehoods).
Posted by i dunno at December 3, 2006 04:40 AM