Politics on The Couch: July 4, 2008 -- It's The Truth that Sets Us Free

What follows is the seventh post for the interactive book, Politics on the Couch. Readers' comments are welcome and an integral part of this experiment.

July 4th 2008 -- It's the truth that set us free

As we celebrate Independence Day, we acknowledge that the only way to become truly independent is to speak truth to power, as the Founding Fathers did in 1776. History has provided us with an interesting pair of bookends in this regard: the first George W couldn't tell a lie and the current George W cannot tell the truth.

Untangling lies is no easy task. It involves looking at the statements themselves, at the people who make them, and at what they hope to prove, disprove, or gain. Untangling involves examining the techniques liars use to avoid discovery -- such as blocking access to White House documents. When challenged, liars may use indifference, contempt, denial, evasion, and mockery (of themselves or of the questioner) in an effort to avoid discovery. Bush uses them all.

The first time a young child knows for sure that he is alone in the world, his first experience of independence, is when he lies to a parent and gets away with it. But it is also a perverse experience -- the child knows he is alone because he can do things without his mother knowing, but he is not independent because he has not directly confronted his parent -- something that generally comes with adolescence.

Lying makes the child aware that privacy really can be private, and he can lie to protect himself. As the liar grows up, however, he learns that lying can be used for power, for acceptance into a group, or a job, or as a tool of seduction. What is a normal developmental step becomes something else entirely.

Institutions also lie, such as television media in general and Fox News in particular. They distort sound bites and make them newsworthy. They allow partisan commentators (working from approved "talking points") to endlessly repeat the same lines. Hitler's "big lie" theory -- that if you repeat something often enough people will believe it -- is alive and well, most famously the Bush administration's successful effort to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11.

By using surrogates, sophisticated liars can deny any personal wrongdoing. Bush and McCain, both of whom comfortably use surrogates, protest that they are helpless to stop mud-slinging. In 2004 Bush prolonged the Swift Boat attack on Kerry by remaining silent; in 2008 McCain consistently says he is powerless to stop slurs against Obama because they don't come directly from his staff. Failing to denounce slander is taking action without taking responsibility. Obama did not remain silent when General Clark questioned whether McCain's military experience in and of itself qualified him for the presidency. He spoke to the subject swiftly and directly, and made it clear that Clark was not acting as Obama's surrogate.

Lying is ubiquitous in politics, as every voter knows -- and it takes many more forms than the ones briefly described above. I think about ways to close off an argument, dismissing one's opponent with "I never argue with a man who is wrong." Instilling fear is another tactic liars use: when they can't win an argument based on facts they predict dire consequences if their plan isn't followed. McCain is doing just this in supporting Bush's Iraq policy. But now he can't use the same lies Bush used to get us into the war -- most voters know Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, that there are no WMDs, that it's not been a quick and easy victory, and that Democracy in Iraq is an unlikely prospect. Now Alan Greenspan has come out of the closet to declare the truth -- Iraq was always about oil.

The truth not told is that Republican leadership lies in order to gain power, to get what it wants -- which is more wealth for its friends and supporters. Voters, however, run just as great a risk when they dismiss everything a politician says as they do when they believe everything they hear. Voters who only hear what they want to hear are lying to themselves; they aren't really listening in the first place.

But lying also goes both ways in families. Why do so many citizens choose to not vote? I think it has to do with early childhood experiences of having been lied to by their parents. A child whose parents withhold the truth becomes discouraged, becomes indifferent and turns his back on those parents, those confounding fathers and mothers.

What do you think about lying leaders and confounding fathers?

Comments

[CharlesWarner]

I think you weaken the impact of your insights about lying by giving examples that are too partisan. If you could find some examples of lies or of stretching the truth on the Democratic or liberal side, your examples of Fox News lies or Bush's lies would be more effective. You might consider using the two-sided argument -- give examples of lies told by Democrats first, then use examples of lying from the right. By being so partisan, you run the risk of being perceived as someone who is using selective perception in picking out lies and not being "objective." We know there is no such thing as objectivity, but the perception of balance is important. All of that said, your insights are terrific and valuable.

[TomR]

The most sinister aspect to all of this lying and later being found out to being a habitual liar is that these people continue to be regarded as credible after the fact.

There's way way way too much enabling and minimizing going on here, especially by the Democratic leadership. They've really let us down when we needed them to work on our behalf the most.

Absolutely disgusting behavior.

- Tom

[TomR]

----
Why do so many citizens choose to not vote?
----

There's probably a multitude of reasons depending on each's circumstances. To me, it's understandable that, if a citizen doesn't have the tools they need in order to sort out what to believe regarding candidates, they would sit out the election.

A democracy depends on a well-informed citizenry. If the mainstream media engages in disinformation and misinformation, not only are they not doing their jobs, but they are actively working to undermine our democratic form of government.

- Tom

[TomR]

----
Institutions also lie, such as television media in general and Fox News in particular.
----

They are abusing the privilege they've been granted to broadcast over our public-owned airwaves. That's why we recently had a confer

[TomR]

----
Institutions also lie, such as television media in general and Fox News in particular.
----

They are abusing the privilege they've been granted to broadcast over our public-owned airwaves. That's why we recently had a conference called the National Conference for Media Reform. I recommend watching these speeches, in particular the one by FCC Commissioner Michael Copps:

http://www.freepress.net/conference/video

- Tom

ps. The Bill Moyers and Dan Rather speeches are also excellent.

[tyrdofwaitin]

Hello, again, Doc Frank. Certainly we've seen our share of lies during the primary season when lying became a competition of one-up-man ship: whose lie would survive at least one news cycle without being discovered?, e.g., Barack Obama is a Muslim. Or whose lie would be so effectively lobbed, they hoped no one would notice?, e.g., "As far as I know...".

However, I believe there is something deeper and more sinister at work here: The Bush Gang are not lying in the simple sense of the term: Their lies have risen to a whole new level of what I call systematic mendacity. Systematic mendacity plays out --- much as Iago does in "Othello" --- as evil masquerading as virtue: It's a full- tilt 24/7 propaganda machine; this is the singular power that Bush has been able to marshal and this has been our singular failure, as citizens, to confront. Why? One of systematic mendacity's outcomes is "brainwashing", an old term to be sure, but old doesn't mean it isn't employed today. Or to put it another way, the high crimes and outrages of the past 8 years are too gruesome to acknowledge or to contemplate; as we peer out at the awful reality, we reach for the comfort of state sanctioned propaganda.

What I feel very hopeful about is that, while I'm not always going to agree with President Obama, his White House will not reek of the stench of....mendacity.

[TomR]

Regarding the brainwashing aspect, I've been reading The Political Mind by Dr. George Lakoff. The disturbing thing about the brainwashing is it occurs on an unconscious level, so the victim is completely unaware of what's happening to them. That explains how 30% of the population voted for Bush twice, many probably not really understanding why.

Republicans have been especially good at activating narratives in Americans' brains. But rather than using factual narratives to bring Americans' perceptions of reality closer to the truth, they use lies and narratives in a deceptive way to distort their perceptions away from reality. Lakoff writes:

"Narratives are fixed in the neural circuits of our brains and can be activated and function unconsciously, automatically, as a matter of reflex...When you accept a particular narrative, you ignore or hide realities that contradict it."

- Tom

[lwaxanatroi]

The Iraq war was never about oil. It was about oil profits. If it had been about getting oil to the US consumer, it wouldn't cost almost $5 a gallon to fill my gas tank here in lovely San Diego. So even the lie is really cloaking a different, more venal lie.

[oncethere]

"When they can't win an argument based on facts, they predict dire consequences if their plan isn't followed." Boy, does that sum up the Bush Administration's way of dealing with conflict. For almost every national security measure they championed, Bush would get out there and predict deadly consequences if it was not passed, making clear that it would be the Democrats who were to blame for the destruction. This---brinksmanship---strikes me as a typical tactic used by controlling and manipulative people.

Which reminds me of another controlling tactic used by the Bush Administration. Invariably, when one of their policies---the war, FISA, etc.---turned out to be not exactly a spectacular success, Bush and his minions would go out and say, "well, we consulted with the Democrats and they agreed with the policy." We all know that Bush has very little interest in engaging in any dialogue with Democrats or listening to their opinions, so the idea that he is informed and/or consulted with Democrats is not believable.

[verhaftik]

Excellent article. Lying to self and others, and believing it is true/for the best is an insidious form of psychopathy (along the spectrum of the delusional disorders). Bush is a superb case study, imo.

On your point on FISA, let us suppose Congress proceeds with litigation against the Telcos. Could you imagine the international fallout if, say, recordings reveal an unsavory person in the US speaking with Kim Jung Il, or Putin, or hell, even Obama or Pelosi?

Think big picture here. This wiretapping business goes way above people buying some Xanax over the internet. If Kim Jung Il realizes he was recorded under FISA, and the contents somehow get leaked (and they would get leaked in this day and age), our ailing national security will have a whole new problem on their hands. 9-11 will seem like child's play. See?

[verhaftik]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder
(Wiki is not altogether a great source, but it is a place to start, imo.)

[TomR]

Yeah, they're catastrophizing. I wrote a comment about it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-frank/politics-on-the-couch-int_b_103789.html

- Tom

[Andy96]

Neocons are a major factor in the lies of the Bush Administration. As John Walsh put it in his Looking Glass News article from 2005, http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewcommentary.php?storyid=108:

"All governments lie as I. F. Stone famously observed, but some governments lie more than others. And the neocon Bush regime serves up whoppers as standard fare every day. Why this propensity to lie? There are many reasons, but it is not widely appreciated that the neocons believe in lying on principle. It is the 'noble' thing for the elite to do, for the 'vulgar' masses, the 'herd' will become ungovernable without such lies. "

The The Center for Public Integrity, http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/ , has documented 935 explicit lies made by the Bush Administration's neocons between October 2001 and September 2003 on at least 532 occasions.

Neocons have a philsophy that includes "Noble Lies." Dr. Shadia Drury discusses neocons and a key figure, Leo Strauss, in the development of their philosophy in "Saving America - Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives", http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/112.html .

Additional details: http://the-wawg-blog.org/index.php?s=shadia+drury&submit=Go.

[Titonwan]

You, perhaps, can explain the reason that Obama has all of a sudden "tacked" on his support of the FISA bill, then. It's becoming common knowledge that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Nelson Rockefeller (all members of the "gang of eight") are as guilty as Bush on the illegal wiretapping (pre 9/11) and the torture memos. How is it that a majority of the Democrats (Obama included) now see this new FISA bill as a good thing? It provides cover for the Telcos and throws out the civil lawsuits against them. If everything was legal, then what's the uproar about? Has this become bigger than just a Republican crime? Indeed it has. What I would like to see is Nancy (any of them, take your pick) turn states evidence against herself and all of those complicit in crimes against the nation- with immunity of course. But I doubt if that would happen. Ever. How are we to hold Bush accountable without pressuring the Telcos? Please enlighten me. Splendid article, by the way.

[anfractuous]

Is there perhaps a general term for the pathology which must overtake someone to believe they are uniquely qualified to lead a nation? Anyone, particularly in these times, who is willing to submit themselves to an endless ordeal of campaigning and speechifying, to the point where their soul has become a dessicated corporate mummy is surely demonstrating qualities unknown in previous times.
This current process of choosing our leaders is grotesque, and we should not be surprised when it gives birth to a monster.

[ramara]

Interesting ideas. I would take it further with Bush. Bush had 2 motivations for war in Iraq - greed for his friends in industry, including the privatizaiton of war but also the desire to be a 2-term president and outdo his father. That would explain his failure to ask his father for advice and his obsession with Saddam Hussein.

Your last point is particularly interesting given GWB's childhood; the death of his sister and the failure of his parents to talk to him about it might account for, not indifference to authority, but a kind of indifference to reality that I have been unable to explain otherwise. Much of his personality goes with the dry-drunk theory I have read, but I like your ideas about the origins of lying since this seems so central to his behavior.

[MissInformation]

I think you would really like Dr. Frank's first book, Bush on the Couch, if you haven't read it.