Bush the Bluffer

Lurking from the digitized shadows, I've noticed--hard to miss it--a recurring theme among many Huffpost commentaries in recent days: lying. In the last few days many prominent bloggers on this site (David Bromwich, Jon Soltz, Robert Scheer, Byron Williams, Sherman Yellen, Benjamin Barber, and Bob Cesca) have called out President Bush on his now-exposed lies about Iran's nuclear potential for triggering WWIII, as evidenced by the release of the recent NIE assessment.

I must say that I completely share my learned colleagues' indignation and outrage. Before that, last week, several bloggers similarly condemned Karl Rove's and Bill Clinton's revisionist lies about Iraq.

This flurry of attention to lying set me to thinking: What exactly are we condemning when we denounce President Bush for his mendacity? It can't just be a nagging character flaw that bugs us. Nor are we political infants or innocents: We don't believe in the adage, Fiat veritas, et pereat mundus (without truth, let the world perish). Surely we recognize that organized lying, even by democratically elected leaders, is often put to strategic purposes of which many of us would certainly approve, were we in a position where the duplicity weren't necessary. Elected officials need to lie sometimes, and do--so what's the surprise, and what, exactly, is the rub?

I turned to Hannah Arendt's 1967 essay, "Truth and Politics." I won't recount here all of the twists and turns of Arendt's complicated views on the vexed relationship between truth-telling and politics, but a few of her thoughts seem to pertain to our current dilemma. On my reading, nothing much about Bush's prevarications would have shocked her:

Lies have always been regarded as necessary and justifiable tools not only of the politician's or the demagogue's but also of the statesman's trade.

But she probes beyond this commonplace. Does the rough-and-tumble of politics inherently and almost invariably require a compromise, even a sacrifice, of the virtues of truth-telling? Should we simply accept that the messiness and contestability of contemporary politics leave little room for Principled Pollyannas who refuse to engage in any kind of feigning, fibbing, and fakery?

While Arendt concedes that truthfulness has never been counted among the political virtues, she distinguishes between the "traditional lie" in politics versus a new condition of lying in the modern world. "The traditional lie" in politics "concerned only particulars and was never meant to deceive literally everybody; it was directed at the enemy and was meant to deceive only him." But we now find ourselves surrounded by those who lie about all of reality, to friend and foe alike, and who even start to believe their own fabrications. Arendt's analysis seems remarkably prescient about Rove's and Bush's mythomania:

We must now turn our attention to the relatively recent phenomenon of mass manipulation of fact and opinion as it has become evident in the rewriting of history, in image-making, and in actual government policy.

Some bloggers have lately speculated about whether Bush "believes" his own statements about Iran's nuclear threat. Some have concluded that Bush is lying outright; others think his "convictions" crowd out any countervailing strands of conscience. Same question with Rove: His lies have become so brazen, and he's sticking with them. Has he actually convinced himself in recent days that Congress was originally responsible for rushing the Executive Branch into the Iraq War? Arendt has the following to say about Bush's and Rove's common ability to perpetuate, with absolutely straight faces, what seem to be cold-blooded falsehoods:

Why has self-deception become an indispensable tool in the trade of image-making, and why should it be worse, for the world as well as for the liar himself, if he is deceived by his own lies than if he merely deceives others? What better moral excuse could a liar offer than that his aversion to lying was so great that he had to convince himself before he could lie to others, that, like Antonio in The Tempest, he had to make "a sinner of his memory, To credit his own lie"? And, finally and perhaps most disturbingly, if the modern political lies are so big that they require a complete rearrangement of the whole factual texture--the making of another reality, as it were, into which they will fit without seam, crack, or fissure, exactly as the facts fitted into their own original context--what prevents these new stories, images, and non-facts from becoming an adequate substitute for reality and factuality?

Arendt ends her essay by resisting the cynical view that the political realm must inevitably degenerate into "a battlefield of partial, conflicting interests, where nothing counted but pleasure and profit, partisanship, and the lust for dominion." The problem with modern political liars, she says, is that "all these lies, whether their authors know it or not, harbor an element of violence; organized lying always tends to destroy whatever it has decided to negate." The key difference between "the traditional lie" in politics and "the modern lie," she adds, "will more often than not amount to the difference between hiding and destroying."

Bottom line: When George Bush saber rattles about Iran's threat as leading us into World War III, we need to bear in mind that his reckless words are not just false or self-deluded pronouncements but are themselves acts of violence and destruction.

Comments

[JimSullivan]

John:

I think the link between political lies and violence is the most interesting of the Arendt ideas that you refer to in this thoughtful essay.

I disagree that this is a modern phenomenon, but I think this distinction is an important tool for understanding how devastating the lies of the Republicans and their front men are for our nation and the world.

I have been thinking about violence in our nation quite a bit lately--in particular our obsession with killing sprees like our recent mall shooting--even as we willfully blind ourselves to violence for which we are responsible elsewhere in the world.

All of this violence is terrible, but violence built on political lies and denial is so often cloaked in ways that allows it to grow exponentially, unbounded by the rigorous public and national scrutiny and accountability that are the only tools we have to stop it.

[outnow]

Leading elites engage in "legitimizing discourses" to sustain, extend, and deepen the US's political dominance. The major lines of division within the elites are about "how" to go about doing this since "defending the free world against communism" does not provide an overarching ideological banner the Cold War once provided.

The terns of the discourse have now shifted so dramatically that the language of empire-building can now be considered respectable, a view worthy of a hearing in the mainstream media in the US and in Europe.

"Containing" the threat of communism and the USSR once justified US foreign policy. Today, the blatant offensive character of US foreign policy can no longer be disguised and is therefore in greater need than ever before of legitimizing discourses.

Global domination requires a new range of legitimizing discourses because merely using the term "expanding freedom" through our current imperial behavior doesn't fit the bill. Our military interventions, aside from the lies about the benefits of the free trade policies which weaken the middle class and result in massive shifts upwards in wealth, can be classified as:

the GWOT,

WMDs getting into the "wrong hands,"

failed states,

the necessity and justice of external and forcible humanitarian intervention,

regime change in the name of democracy, and

the war on drugs.

The domains in which consent is to be elicited through the use of these banners are within the domestic population of the United States itself - the elites, governments, and general public; target areas of US imperial activities themselves, such as using NGOs in a foreign country; and finally the rest of the world, such as allies, neutrals or critics.

The falsity of the banners ideologically or the deceits, dishonesties, or hypocrisies must be viewed in the context of the purpose or aims of the banner. For example, with no WMD having been found in Iraq, the banner of "bringing democracy to the Middle East," still belies the real reasons for the invasion, control of oil pricing and policies, expansion of US power, establishment of US bases, and the defense of Israel.

[skwan91607]

WWIII is not the last card in Bush's war game plot. It does not work good this time because of NIE. This is a painful stuff to be realize that not the other nation but only Americans are believe and bear such pain as Bush wants to take Americans to WWIII. Bush lies starting from his military service record. So, some more are expectable. The unbelievable thing is he is still holding on that lie-telling presidency unshakable as he thinks he is the decider and leader of the free world - free to kill, free to bomb, free to invade, and free to lie with a straight face. Americans believe his link from hate Americans to hate Americans = hate freedom, anti-terrorists = taking over oil resources from other nations, and invasion = spreading freedom such BS. It seems that Bush is enjoying the term of "No impeachment" by the fools from the Democratic party.

[retarius]

Did any person in power ever tell the undistorted truth about anything? I'll admit that probably there is some exception somewhere that proves the rule that politicians lie about everything, all the time, under every circumstan­ce...indee­d why tell the truth if you can get away with a lie?

Lying is cultural...in ancient Greece they admired liars who were able to manipulate situations to their own ends (read The Odyssey)...
In France lying for one's own ends is considered a perfectly legitimate strategy...in the US it is also acceptable but only if you call it 'spin' so as to try to make it more noble than lying.
The great problem is that honest liars actually understand the truth and are aware that they are denying it....I'm sure that when Churchill told lies that he knew he was doing so, since he had a moral compass...the political leaders of today (Bush, Blair, Clinton, 'I'm a dinner jacket', Musharraf, Kim Il Jong, etc etc) have lost the concept of undistorted truth and have convinced themselves that if they tell their lies often enough then they will become the truth. This is why in the near term there can never be a permanent solution to climate change, Palestine, Iraq, Nepal, Tibet, Burma etc....time will solve these problems one way or another, not politicians...

[Swegin]

This has been the difference between Repigs and Dems all along. Dems at least still have a conscious awareness about when they lie .... Repiglickans have lost that ability .... they actually believe the lies they are telling.
Thats when one has crossed the line, lost touch with reality and becomes delusional.

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Seery,

An outstanding essay/post! Agape.

[Vajara]

Does Bush even know what the truth is? He keeps claiming that he has no recollection like every other politician who is confronted, eg. Gonzales. Perhaps he is really asleep and doesn't know what is going on around and within. Perhaps he is just a complete puppet of Cheney and only knows what he is told by his master.

[realnoia]

There is the Pub/Mocrat shared reality; the
war is good, we will be there for 30 yrs,
saber rattle Iran and drive up the price of
oil, stop Iran from dominating the region and
resources, make alt fuels worth while with
oil prices going up. Then there are the lies
for the right wing sheep; WMD, centralized authority, junking the constitution, Islam vs Jesus/Israel. Lies for left wing sheep; Cheney
totally botched the war, Mocrates are against
the war, Mocrates don't want centralized power,
Mocrates want the constitution. I do not think
both are nearly the same. The only hope for
stopping Cheney/Hoyer lies with the Mocrates.
I will vote for any Democrat.

[David Livingstone Smith]

My book 'Why We Lie' (St. Martins Press, 2004) begins with the following quotation from George Orwell:

"To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it has become necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies -- all this is indispensably necessary"

[buddycor]

Liberals don't just hate Bush. They hated his father, Reagan, Nixon, Rudi, Romney and Ford with equal or even greater venom. Who do you think you are kidding?

[jackpinesavage]

They lie because it works, and it works because the majority of Americans do not want to hear the truth. In some ways, the truth is dangerous...at least to the mythological facade that has been erected around America.

Jimmy Carter told the truth in his famous "crises of confidence" speech. Ask Mr. Carter how well the truth works.

Many Americans are living lies, convincing the world around them that they are rich, with two brand new cars in the garage of their $400,000 home...but the neighbors don't see the $10,000 CC balances.

The truth, has become even more dangerous than it always has been, because now we have not much more than our own illusions. It will catch up with us. By that time, however, it will also be very ugly. Preempting the ugly truth would require a near hero, and those are in short supply...

[RogueCowboy]

January 2002 Bush declares Iraq, Iran and North Korea “Axis of Evil” for developing WMD’s Chemical, Biological and Nuclear.
Oil $25/Barrel Gasoline $1.50 per gallon

April 2003 Bush invades Iraq
Oil $35/Barrel Gasoline $1.80 per gallon

August 2005 Bush: Let me talk about Iran. As you know, the IAEA today issued a report that expressed serious concerns about Iranian decisions, France and Great Britain and Germany -- so that the Iranians hear a common voice speaking to them about their nuclear weapons ambitions.

October 2005 Oil $65/Barrel Gasoline $3.13 per gallon

August 2006 Bush: We have passed one Security Council resolution, demanding that Iran cease its enrichment activities. The dates -- dates are fine, but what really matters is will. And one of the things I will continue to remind our friends and allies is the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran.

September 2006 Oil $60/Barrel Gasoline $2.85 per gallon

October 17, 2007 Bush "So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing Iran from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

November 2007 Oil $99/Barrel Gasoline $3.03
per gallon and by April of 2008 predicted to be over $4.00/Gallon.

December 3, 2007 Bush releases 16 Top Untied States Intelligence Agencies NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) that says “IRAN STOPPED IT’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM IN 2003”

OOOPS…………………
Have I been paying gasoline prices inflated by over a $1.00 per gallon for the past 3 years?

Bush has lied to the American Public, our Allies and every Nation in the world with the result; needlessly INFALTED OIL, GASOLINE and DESIEL Prices.

Not only did we pay more at the pump but all goods delivered were inflated due to the addition cost of fuel for trucks, trains and Airplanes.

Where do I apply for a refund??

Any bets on the price of gas in March 2008??

This can’t be good news for Toyota Hybrids. I predict a FIRE SALE.

[patriotscholar]

I keep getting this nagging feeling that all this lying and all their actions and rhetoric are, in reality, part of a major plan and that these guys take orders from others. What if there were such a plan? I know that sounds a little crazy, but try (as scary as it might be) to think as they do and develop a profile based on what has happened and where they seem to want to go.

[jsarets]

Say what you want about Bush, but at least he didn't lie about the really important stuff, like where he put his presidential wee-wee.

But seriously, the neocons lie in order to create the illusion of absolute control, to convince the American public that we face an existential threat from an irrationally evil enemy against which only they can protect us.

The reality-based community insists that our enemies are far less threatening to our national security than we've been led to believe, and that we can reason with our enemies through multilateral diplomatic efforts.

But the neocons tell us that this is a bunch of weak-wristed, defeatist, surrender-monkeying nonsense that demonstrates how their political opponents aren't strong enough to lead the free world against those who "hate freedom".

Real men draw a hard but dubious line between allies and foes: they take their friends for granted and treat their enemies with contempt. American politics has moved beyond manufacturing consent. The neocon politics is based on manufacturing contempt.

If we don't hate our scapegoats and bogeymen enough, then they lie. They lie because they believe in irrational hatred. They believe that we are irrationally hated and that we must irrationally hate in response. They lie to impose their twisted interpretation of the human condition on the rest of us.

[ajax2]

Perhaps GW Bush's lies upset us because they killed hundreds of thousands of people.