I’m going to do something that I’m normally reluctant to do; respond to a source without providing you a link to that source. I’m not just going to respond to it, in fact, I’m going to judge it, declare it utterly worthless. And I’m going to confess right now that I haven’t actually even read the article in question. And I feel absolutely comfortable doing all this.
The subject is Presidential lying, and the article in question, based on its title, makes the case that President Obama is a liar of the first order, that he lies all the time, routinely, pathologically. That he is, in fact, the worst liar ever to occupy the White House. As I say, I have not read the article, and I’m not going to link to it, nor even tell you where it might be found. A conservative friend linked to it on Facebook, and I read some of the commentary about it on his FB page. So, again without reading the article or examining the author’s evidence, I’m prepared, right now, to say that this article is worthless, and that its very existence fundamentally discredits the website on which it appeared.
Presidents and lies. And first of all, let’s define what a lie actually is. If I claim that yesterday, I grew wings out my upper back, and flew around the neighborhood, and using those wings, was able to hover in the air outside one of the upstairs rooms of my house and fix a broken window, that would be a lie. I don’t have wings, and even if I did have wings, wouldn’t be able to fix a window. But if I said to you that the company I hired to fix that window did a terrific job on it, and that I recommend their professionalism and workmanship, and you subsequently hired that company and they did a poor job on your window, my recommendation would not be a lie. You might be angry at how bad a job those window-fixers did for you, and how dishonest and corrupt they seemed, but my recommendation was offered in good faith. I had a good experience with that company, and told you of it fully anticipating that you would have a good experience too. If I say to you ‘I strapped a magnet to my back, and my back pain went away,’ and you strap a magnet to your back and it doesn’t do you any good at all, I still didn’t lie to you. Even if I say to you ‘magnets cure back pain,’ that wouldn’t necessarily be a lie. Maybe I genuinely believe that magnets can cure back pain. Maybe I say ‘scientific evidence proves that magnets draw healing chemicals to the source of the pain in your back’, again, that’s not necessarily a lie. It’s nonsense, but it’s not a lie, unless I know it to be nonsense when I say it.
Presidents are politicians, and part of the politician job description is to be a salesman. Politicians try to sell us on their ideas, on their programs, on their proposals, and of course, also on them. And so, when describing a program, a politician, like any salesman, is likely to emphasize the benefits of that program, and soft-pedal possible downsides. If there are three estimates regarding the cost of the program, a politician will emphasize the lowest of those estimates. That’s just sales. And it’s not fundamentally dishonest. Our political system, like our legal system, is adversarial in nature. One pol says ‘this is a good idea,’ and his/her electoral opponent responds ‘no, it’s a terrible idea,’ and we voters sort it all out on election day. But it wouldn’t be accurate to say that either politician lied to us. They were both making a case for their ideas. They just disagree.
Now sometimes, a politician really does just lie to us. He’ll say something like “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Or he’ll say “I am not a crook.” Usually, we see right through it. We look at President Clinton and we say to ourselves, “you did too have sexual relations with her.” Or we look at President Nixon and say to ourselves, “I don’t believe you. I think you are a crook.” And that kind of lie is a very serious matter, and massively destructive to that politician’s career, when they get caught. And they always get caught. Nixon would have been impeached if he hadn’t resigned. Clinton was impeached, though not removed from office.
Presidents can’t really get away with those sorts of lies for very long. People notice, people pay attention. Any claim that President Obama lies all the time just doesn’t hold up. Watchdog groups, like Politifact, don’t seem to have noticed any massive whoppers like the two I just cited. If President Obama lies all the time, it’s not obvious the way the Clinton and Nixon lies I mentioned were.
But, then, lies regarding policy are not as obviously lies. Take two examples, one from a Republican and one from a Democrat. When President Bush told the American people that Saddam Hussein, in Iraq, had weapons of mass destruction that endangered American interests, that turned out not to be true. But I don’t think it’s accurate to call that statement a lie. There’s no question that the Bush administration genuinely thought the evidence of Saddam’s WMD was credible. A statement that turns out not to be true is not necessarily a deliberate falsehood.
By the same token, when President Obama said ‘under the ACA, if you like your doctor, you’ll be able to keep him,’ that wasn’t a lie. The best information he had suggested that almost all insurance plans would meet the ACA guidelines. He didn’t know that health insurance companies would suddenly sell a bunch of low-premium, low-benefit plans that would have to be canceled when the ACA kicked in. He was trying to sell people on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. Maybe he exaggerated a little, but there’s no evidence of him consciously and intentionally lying. Politifact called the ACA statements lies, because there’s no question that the President said things that turned out not to be true. And he’s paid a heavy political price for it; his approval ratings are very low right now. But deliberate, intentional lies? Did he know that a great many people would actually lose their insurance and their doctors, and say the opposite, on purpose? If so, why tell so obvious a whopper? Is he really that stupid? No. I suggest to you, therefore, that his statement was offered in good faith, and that it was not a lie.
But there are always people who despise the current President, whoever he is, for partisan reasons. I’m a liberal; I thought George W. Bush was a very bad President. My conservative friends think Barack Obama is a very bad President. Everyone, every person in the country, suffers from some form of confirmation bias. But for a hard-core political partisan confirmation bias gets amped up to eleven. So every time a President we dislike says anything, we parse it carefully. We take every slight exaggeration, every tiny misstatement, every failed projection as a deliberate and intentional falsehood. We never cut a President we disagree with any slack at all.
So on the periphery of our national political conversation, we can always hear, buzzing in our ears, a tremendous amount of partisan white noise. I have liberal friends who will go their graves ‘knowing’ that President Bush deliberately lied our nation into war, so he could enrich his wealthy oilmen friends. I have liberal friends who think President Bush ordered explosives placed inside the Twin Towers foundational gridwork; that 9/11 was an intentional Bush plot. I have conservative friends who are equally convinced that President Obama is a foreign agent, a secret Muslim terrorist and also a communist, born in Kenya, trained by Al Qaeda; that his agenda is to destroy America.
So liberal partisans are convinced that everything George W. Bush (or Dick Cheney) ever said was a lie, a deliberate intentional falsehood. And conservative partisans are convinced that President Obama is essentially a pathological liar, congenitally incapable of telling the truth, about anything, ever. There are liberals who suffer from ‘Bush derangement disorder.’ There are conservatives who suffer from ‘Obama derangement disorder.’ Both disorders are catching, and probably best avoided, and the best way to keep from catching them is to shut them out of our heads. So when conservative white noise, about Obama and lying, appears on my FB page, I’m not going to read it, and I’m not going to link to it.
It’s perfectly possible to think that Bush’s Iraq policy was a mistake without considering the man a hideous monster. It’s perfectly possible to have misgivings about Obamacare, without considering Obama a tyrant. Let’s have a reasonable conversation about politics. Let’s focus on policies, and on evidence, and on reason. Let’s leaven rancor with humor, certainty with humility, conviction with compassion. We’re all Americans, after all, and our elected leaders are human beings, susceptible to error, capable of great achievements. And Presidents have the hardest job in the world. Respect the office, if you can’t respect the person holding it, and let’s keep our cool.
Phenomenal blogpost. Two more things:
1. In a strictly legal sense, Clinton did not lie. The phrase “sexual relations” referred in the Clinton case as per Judge Susan Tomassom inArkansas referred only to coitus and not other sexual activity. Dumb distinction but an important one from a legal sense
2. I think there is solis evidence that in terms Of War in Iraq, the Bush admin did not just interpret the evidence they had but actively ignored and all contrary evidence and went so far as to fabricate evidence when necessary. Even some of their “positive” evidence came as a result of torture.
Mark Burns
Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government did have WMD’s but smuggled them out of the country before we could find them!
There are lots of sources on that; here’s one for starters: http://www.wnd.com/2004/01/22631/
Did you seriously just link to World News Daily as evidence?
If WMDs were in Iraq, and were smuggled out 10 years ago into Syria—and the intelligence on this was crystal clear—why didn’t the US invade Syria?
Why has there been no real news of the WMDs since then? Did we lose interest in them once they were out of Iraq?
Then there is the concept that one wants to believe what they are saying so much that they are completely put aside all the evidence that says otherwise. I think this was the case with Bush in Iraq and Obama and the ACA act.
As for Clinton above, he lied.
I especially love your last paragraph, here.
This concept also applies to political promises. Politicians say a lot of things that they’ll do to get us to vote for them. Many of them sincerely want to do those things. Then, they get into office and can’t get that particular bill passed, or sometimes, even considered. Then, we, the voting public, want to throw them out because they didn’t deliver on their promises.
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=7835
I’ve appreciated a lot of your posts, but I find this one especially reasonable. That’s one of the things I like most about your ideas and find so lacking in most political discussions: any kind of cool-headedness or understanding. I see why politics is so frustrating, but hyperbole generally doesn’t take us anywhere useful. Thanks again for a great post!