When Candidates Lie

Once upon a time, my parents assure me, people assumed that politicians told the truth. Of course, they thought, those politicians might tell those truths that put their policies and records in the most favorable light, rather than pointing out the most troubling aspects of them; but they would not actually lie. When they did, for instance when it became clear that Eisenhower had lied about the U2 incident, people were horrified.

Since then, of course, we have had to get used to the fact that politicians lie. Starting with Lyndon Johnson running as the peace candidate in 1964, and proceeding through Watergate, Iran-Contra, Clinton lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and so on, we have become inured to politicians lying. Worse than that, we reward them for it. I first realized this in 1988. During the runup to the Republican primary in New Hampshire, the dominant issue was taxes. There was a poll taken just before the primary, and it showed that a majority of New Hampshire Republican voters believed that whoever won the Presidency would have to raise taxes. But a majority of those same New Hampshire Republicans voted for George H. W. Bush over Bob Dole because Bush was willing to promise not to raise taxes (the famous "read my lips" line), while Bob Dole was not; and it was hard to avoid the conclusion that some of them voted for Bush because he was willing to say something that both he and they knew was untrue.

While some people seem to think that it's inevitable that politicians lie, it is not. There is nothing about deciding to run for elective office that automatically strips politicians of their principles and renders them incapable of telling the truth. Moreover, there is nothing about being a citizen that forces us to accept this state of affairs. We could, if we wanted to, take the fact that a politician tells a flat-out falsehood as a serious strike against him or her, a consideration that might be outweighed by something even more important, but that was as important as, say, that politician's stand on taxes or the environment. And I think we should. Lying is, of course, usually wrong, whoever does it. But lying by politicians is not just wrong for all the usual reasons; it is wrong because it endangers our democracy.

We, as citizens, are supposed to vote for the candidate whose policies, character, and vision we think is best. In order to make this choice, we need to know what candidates' policies, character, and vision are. If we could take it for granted that they always told us the truth, then this would be fairly straightforward. We could listen to their speeches, decide who we preferred, and vote accordingly. If, on the other hand, we had to assume that they might be lying, then our job as citizens becomes much, much more difficult, especially now, when the media has largely abdicated its responsibility to help us sort these things out.

It is, of course, possible to tell who is lying. I, for instance, often know. But that's because I am the sort of person who actually likes to watch CSPAN panels on natural gas pricing, and read GAO reports on the security of shipping containers. For some reason, most people don't share this taste; even my friends find it somewhat eccentric. Moreover, lots of people don't know the sorts of basic things about policy that they'd need to know in order to sort out truth from falsehood. (I once decided to use the time before my class started to test this, and asked my students a few questions like: why is the federal government more likely to run a deficit when there's a recession, apart from any policies it might put in place to deal with that recession? Most of them couldn't give any answer; the number who got both the part about declining revenues and the part about increased spending on entitlements was vanishingly small. And these were smart, educated kids at a time when balanced budget amendments were being debated.)

If we want to have a functioning democracy, then at least one of two things has to happen. (Probably both.) First, as citizens we need to insist that politicians not say things that are false. When they do this, they undermine our ability to make the kinds of informed choices on which a democracy rests. Moreover, they do this on purpose. If we care about our democracy, we cannot allow this to happen. Second, citizens need to become much more informed than we have been, both because this mitigates the damage done by lies and because it is the only way that we can know who is lying to us and hold them accountable. Anyone who is reading this blog has probably already accepted this responsibility; but, in my view, we need to convince other people to do so as well, and also offer to serve as a resource for those of our friends who do not particularly want to spend their afternoons curled up with the latest report from the Congressional Budget Office.

Democracies do not run themselves, and having a functioning democracy is not just a matter of periodically holding elections. It requires a lot, both from politicians and from citizens. From politicians it requires a willingness to state their views clearly and honestly, and to let us accept or reject them. From us, however, it requires the willingness to inform ourselves enough to make an informed choice, and to help one another to do this; and it also requires that we not reward candidates who, by lying to us, either about their own views or about their opponents, show their contempt not just for us, but for democracy itself. That politicians lie is not something we should ever decide we just have to learn to live with, or accept as inevitable, if we want to live up to our responsibilities as citizens.

Since this is a purely non-partisan point, I will not say what prompted this little sermon ;)

Comments

[Kevin Drum]

Oh, come on, tell us....

[Bernard Yomtov]

I think you ignore the media's responsibility here. It has often been pointed out elsewhere that much newspaper reporting has descended to reporting statements made, with little or no effort to evaluate their truth. The point bears repeating. Politicians would lie less if they were called on it more often. Isn't that that job of the press?

There seem to be a number of factors causing this. One is simple laziness, or ignorance. Another is the attitude that everything is simply a matter of opinion - "Opinions on Shape of Earth Differ." This leads to "evenhandedness" being seen as a universal ideal, rather than an attitude appropriate to situations where opposing points of view each actually have some legitimacy. Too often, it seems, the reporter simply consults his rolodex for "regular source of opposing opinion on this topic," without bothering to go any further.

Unfortunately, the rise of cable news has in some ways made the problem worse also. "Crossfire" type shows put a premium on loud and insistent repetition of sound bites. Their guests are selected not for expertise, but for strong vocal chords, and their hosts are selected for partisanship. What could be more useless than having a couple of journalists trade blows with a couple of political operatives over Social Security, say? This extends even to the milder political shows. It is interesting that there is no topic that these talking heads shy away from. Are TV "pundits" really experts on foreign policy, macroeconomics, taxes, trade, military strategy, etc.?

I suspect, though I don't really know, that the "pundit system" encourages partisan idiocy, rather than real debate. I assume that it helps a lot in getting on these shows to have good political contacts. This is no doubt easier if you are a reliable conduit for talking points rather than an objective analyst.

So yes, hilzoy, citizens should try harder to inform themselves. But it would be helpful if the most readily available sources of information were a little more careful about the facts.

[hilzoy]

Bernard: I completely agree with you about the media. I didn't stress it more because my main point was (supposed to be): we cannot tolerate it when they lie, and we should never allow ourselves to accept it as inevitable.

Kevin: if I tell all, I will lose my aura of mystery, and then where would I be?

[Anarch]

Kevin: if I tell all, I will lose my aura of mystery, and then where would I be?

Untenured?

[hilzoy]

Nah, I have tenure. Heh heh. -- Though perhaps your point is that tenure provides my aura of mystery (as in, why on earth did they tenure her? ;) )

[Anarch]

Nah, I have tenure.

Then the following exchange from Futurama seems apropos:

Poopenmeyer: Dr Wernstrom, can you save my city?

Wernstrom: Of course. But it'll cost you. First I'll need tenure.

Poopenmeyer: Done.

Wernstrom: And a big research grant.

Poopenmeyer: You got it.

Wernstrom: Also, access to a lab and five graduate students, at least three of them Chinese.

Poopenmeyer: Um, alright done. What's your plan?

Wernstrom: What plan? I'm set for life! Au revoir suckers!

[He walks out.]

[Anarch]

Sorry, cut the end off the transcript there:

Leela: That rat! Do something!

Poopenmeyer: I wish I could but, he's got tenure!

[felixrayman]

While some people seem to think that it's inevitable that politicians lie, it is not

Of course it is. The truth can be painful, people prefer to avoid it. This is the basis for religion as well as for prolonged deficit spending.

"Optimism", they call it.

[postit]

The candidate that tells the best story and has the nicest smile wins.

[john kelsey]

It's not so easy to use your vote to punnish liars, when both viable candidates for some office lie whenever it's convenient.

--John

[kenB]

Well, I agree with the post entirely, but the solution sounds a little like an episode of How to Do It -- all we have to do is to get everyone to be a smart voter and spend lots of time thinking about stuff they're not interested in and choose the spinach isntead of the cake. Somehow I don't see the political lie losing its effectiveness anytime soon.

And Anarch, thanks for the laugh (although as soon as I saw that you were quoting a Futurama script, I should've stopped reading until the boss left the general area -- I had a hard time convincing him that my belly laugh was motivated by the pure joy of working so hard at something I love so much).

[carsick]

I remember discussions about the electorate becoming more informed since Watergate. What I have seen change though is the dumbing down of the press since the ubiquitousness of cable.
The old "top three" had a sense of pride and responsibilty added to their competetiveness with each other. No longer. Newspapers are losing annual readership and to stem the flow push closer to USA Today more than the old NYT or even the WSJ or the CS Monitor.
What has happened to the shame associated with being caught in a lie?
If "lies" are just considered "political spin" by the press then the only folks being "caught" are the press.
It would be nice if journalism became a fact finding industry again but then again...I have to go now, Entertainment Tonight is on and I don't want to miss it.

[Jadegold]

There are lies and there are lies.

I'm a bit unsettled by some of Hilzoy's examples; fr'instance, Eisenhower lying about the U-2 overflights should be considered justifiable given the historical context. Of course, it was Ike's bad luck the Soviets had not just wreckage but a live pilot. BTW, one could go back to FDR's 'lend-lease program' for a similar instance where a lie had a noble purpose.

Bill Clinton lying about Monica Lewinsky was hardly admirable but the overreaction that followed was truly the real story.

Better examples certainly include LBJ as the Peace candidate or the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Or Nixon's 'secret plan' or the Watergate coverup. Certainly, Bush's lies to rationalize attacking Iraq rank right up there.

But let's get to what I think was the true thrust of Hilzoy's post; that is, certain lies have serious ramifications for the nation. Such lies render this country weaker and more divided. And that the media generally does a poor job of educating the public about the issues--allowing politicians to exploit the issues and lie quite brazenly without fear of penalty.

[blogbudsman]

Are we talking out and out lies easily recognized as obvious whoppers, slanderous and despicable claims and accusations that no one can dispute? Or pusillanimous pussyfooting on the critical issues from nattering nabobs of negativism. Lies may be the smallest percentage of the discretions. We live in an ocean of political distortion. We talk about the gullibility of the electorate. These folks that work hard all day, try to raise their kids to adulthood and grasp a simple pleasure or two from daily life. They come home at night read the local newspaper and catch an hour of the evening news. And what they're exposed to is the most shameless ration of BS imaginable. These are truly the disenfranchised. Politicians stretch the truth, the media stretches the truth, elite representative of the down and out du jour stretch the truth, poll questioning stretches the truth. And we wonder why people from far off foreign lands think Americans are a bunch of hypocrites. If we're not stretching the truth, we're accusing others of lying. And to prove that we as individuals are the only ones not stretching the truth we baffle them with a five point circle argument in ten parts making much adieu about nothing. Sometimes I think we just crack ourselves up.

[praktike]

You express an admirable sentiment; however, I place the burden on the voter here. If voters really valued truth, they would behave differently.

There are many issues on which voters basically demand to be lied to; taxes and our various entitlement programs being prominent examples. It is nearly impossible for politicians to win re-election by explaining tradeoffs and costs associated with the things that voters claim to want. It is rare for a politician to win esteem by shooting straight--John McCain is just about the closest thing we have to an honest one, and George Bush beat him handily in the 2000 Republican primary.

Now, I may be biased against voters due to the fact them I consider the vast majority of them to be ignoramuses. I suppose that makes me an elitist bastard.

So be it.

[Edward]

I suppose that makes me an elitist bastard.

I say "Elitist Bastards Unite!"

Really, I'm finally growing angry about this country's love affair with stupdity. If you have a good argument against something, let's hear it, but to dismiss something because it's too "intellectual" or too "cultural," as if those things were not gifts from God, is beyond ignorant...it's heretical.

[kenB]

Now, I may be biased against voters due to the fact them I consider the vast majority of them to be ignoramuses.

The quintessential problem with democracy. Anyone who thinks it's a good idea to put "the people" in charge hasn't met a wide range.

[praktike]

Oh, sorry to be all "off-topic," but really I'm astounded that nobody here has noticed that flying cars are the future.

[Edward]

Oh, sorry to be all "off-topic," but really I'm astounded that nobody here has noticed that flying cars are the future.

I wrote about this ages ago...

[praktike]

Yeah, I know -- that's why I thought you might have blogged this Times piece. Alas.

[Jesurgislac]

Are we talking out and out lies easily recognized as obvious whoppers, slanderous and despicable claims and accusations that no one can dispute?

Unfortunately, Blogbuds, we've discovered over the course of the Bush attack campaign that even when Bush or Cheney tell obvious whoppers or indulge in slanderous and despicable claims, there are always going to be Republicans who claim that they're really true or it's really not slanderous - for example, the recent thread on the slanderous and despicable claims by Republican leadership that because Kerry is criticising Bush's conduct of the Iraq war, Kerry is a traitor. I do recall at least one Republican defending that, don't you?

[blogbudsman]

First of all, Kerry's not a traitor. Second, we can always count on the bell curve to support our arguments. Third, and probably not final, and we beat this up faily well in previous threads, if you can criticize, you can criticize the criticism. And downward and downward. If you follow my posts, I don't hold politics on a very high level on the whole. Right down there along side network television. When elections are lost, it usually reflects a poor campaign or a poor campaigner.

[Jesurgislac]

First of all, Kerry's not a traitor.

Of course not. But Bush and Cheney and other samples of GOP leadership are campaigning saying that he is.

if you can criticize, you can criticize the criticism.

Certainly. And you can (and you should) call slanderous and despicable claims - such as Kerry "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" - by their right name. Not criticism, but vile calumny.

When elections are lost, it usually reflects a poor campaign or a poor campaigner.

Bush lost the 2000 election... ;-) I'm just sayin'.

[lightning]

Uhh ... take a closer look. Real "lies" from politicians are quite rare. (Cheney's continuing insistance on a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is an example of a real lie.) What you have is "spin" -- take the facts and wrap a story around them that makes your side look as good as possible.

If somebody wanted to pass a bill that would provide an underfunded mandate for expensive school tests, whose results would be gimmicked to cut as much Federal funding as possible from as many schools as possible, they'd never call it the "Unfunded Test Act" or the "School Fund Denial Act". They'd call it the "No Child Left Behind Act". No lie here, but enough spin that mostfolls (including political reporters) can't see beyond the packaging.

We need reporters who can and will look inside the package and report on what's there.

[hilzoy]

"Are we talking out and out lies easily recognized as obvious whoppers, slanderous and despicable claims and accusations that no one can dispute?"

I, at least, was talking about anything you can recognize as a lie, though of course some are worse than others. And my point was basically what praktike said: "If voters really valued truth, they would behave differently." But with two additional bits: first, since we are voters, let's do it. And second, these lies are not just divisive; they are threats to democracy.

I mean: whenever I lie in order to get someone to do something she wouldn't do if she knew the truth, I am basically arrogating to myself the right to decide not just what I will do, but what she will do. (I am saying, like Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, "I'll do the thinking for both of us.") This is wrong in general. But it is especially wrong when a candidate for office in a democracy does this to voters. For it is completely and totally undemocratic to try to mislead voters into voting for you when you think you can't make the case on the merits.

There are only three ways in which we, the voters, can make informed choices. First, by doing all the research required to understand what each candidate might do. Second, by being able to trust the candidates to tell us what they are actually planning to do. Third, by having really good media who actually inform us about the issues at hand. I agree with kenb that the first is a bit unrealistic; but I think it's important to ask: what, exactly, is the alternative, if we don't want our democracy to degenerate? We have to be able to trust either the candidates or the media. Now: some politicians might tell the truth out of conviction and decency. But if we want to avoid relying on this, then we have to make it in their interest not to lie. And this means punishing them at the ballot box.

Some lies are worse than others, and when both candidates lie, I think it matters to ask whose lies are worse, if only because the existence of some lines that candidates cannot cross without serious consequences is really important.

[blogbudsman]

hilzoy - " I think it matters to ask whose lies are worse,..."

Me to, and I've decide yours does. Besides, most supporters of emotional issues proclaim the end justifies the means. So now what, it's back to the grim reaper - the election.

...and Jesurgislac, thank goodness for the wisdom of our founding fathers and the Electoral College. The big city proletariat almost stole that election away from mainstream America. I still think the liberal fringe is intellectually numbed by Gore's stunningly poor campaign, truthfully revealing an extremely poor candidate.

[praktike]

News flash: our democracy is degenerate.

Exhibit A is the fact that only around 30 House seats are actually up for grabs in a given election year, due to the nefarious legacy of Elbridge Gerry.

I never realized just how pernicious this system was until I was reading the foreign press recently, from which vantagepoint the system looks like something one would see in one of those places we like to invade.

[hilzoy]

blogbudsman: "hilzoy - " I think it matters to ask whose lies are worse,..."

Me to, and I've decide yours does."

Which lie would that be, exactly? Absent a good answer, this seems to me to violate posting rules, though I'll let someone else make that call since you're saying it about me.

[marguerite]

"The big city proletariat almost stole that election away from mainstream America."

Excuse me?

First of all, I'm not sure you know what "proletariat" means:

Main Entry: pro·le·tar·i·at
Pronunciation: "prO-l&-'ter-E-&t, -'tar-, -E-"at
Function: noun
Etymology: French prolétariat, from Latin proletarius
1 : the lowest social or economic class of a community
2 : the laboring class; especially : the class of industrial workers who lack their own means of production and hence sell their labor to live

Second of all, get it through your head that Manhattan is as much of a part of America as Nebraska, Georgia, or anywhere else. And a plurality of American voters cannot, by definition, be out of the mainstream.

Third, since when does "outvoting" translate to "stealing"? And don't tell me you meant the various recounts etc.*; you said that if not for the electoral college the "big city proletariat" would have stolen the election from "mainstream America".

*those charges of Gore trying to steal the election are also crap, but it's not quite as egregious as arguing that it's theft for people who live in cities to outvote people who don't.

[Edward]

Further to Marguerite's point, Matthew Yglesias notes

nothing pisses me off more than the implication that some parts of the country are more "really" America than others...we're none of us masquerading pseudoamericans here. Indeed, it's bizarre that the Northeastern part of the country -- the part that was settled first, the part that led the Revolution, the part that led the nation to victory in the Civil War -- has somehow acquired a reputation as less authentically American than a lot of Johnny-come-lately squarish ersatz states and a big swathe of the southeast that decided one time to launch a violent, treasonous effort to maintain the institution of chattel slavery and turn North America into a British sphere of influence.

I totally agree with that...even the tone.

[Moe Lane]

"Absent a good answer, this seems to me to violate posting rules, though I'll let someone else make that call since you're saying it about me."

Yup, that's a violation; looks like "Too Broad a Brush" type. This is your one warning: the Posting Rules are here. Please read them before commenting here again.

Moe

[blogbudsman]

hilzoy, then I made my point poorly. If it matters who's lies are worse, then a determination has to be made. Your arguments, though painstakenly presented, haven't swayed me from my arguments however weak you consider them. So, then, therefore, I think your candidate's are worse (not you hilzoy, would never intentionally imply that - although by not agreeing with your arguement I can only assume you're misinformed or have somehow misconstrued certain elements of the facts or have emotionally overlooked some fine points somewhere along the line - whatever) And I must be able to accept you think the same about me, or that I am just lying, and due to posting protocal have chosen not to say so.

[Jesurgislac]

blogbudsman: The big city proletariat almost stole that election away from mainstream America.

Marguerite already pointed out how foolish that kind of comment is: I don't think there's really much left to say.

Except: I still think the liberal fringe is intellectually numbed by Gore's stunningly poor campaign, truthfully revealing an extremely poor candidate.

And yet, that "extremely poor candidate" (your judgement) won the popular vote. More Americans who voted wanted Gore to be President than wanted Bush. So if Gore was running a stunningly poor campaign, and was an extremely poor candidate, it can only mean that Bush's campaign was worse, and so was Bush. ;-)

Honestly and truthfully, I think the 2000 election was one in which most voters voted by party, not because they were especially drawn to either candidate: we can agree to disagree on why that was. What it really proved was that Democrats have a slight majority in the US...

[blogbudsman]

...and reading on, I can see that I'm in further hot water. When you are in essentially a verbal argument by means of written postings, danger abounds. All I've heard is how Gore got the popular vote and the election was stolen. So when you try to defend the Electorial College without having to reconstruct history line by line, and flip the stealing argument that's been ringing in my ears, you get righteous indignation. Well, I'm sensitive too. And all I hear is our country is being lead by an administration of liars. I read the arguments and mull the accusations and I don't buy them. And a lot of other people don't buy them either. Although I support the conservative candidate, most of my thought process is moderate. And I know when I type a rant, I can be flip and sarcastic, but I really enjoy the exchanges. I yam, what I yam. Ask me to leave, and I'll go quietly. I need to get more work done anyhow.

[Moe Lane]

blogbudsman, the major problem is that we're facing here what is probably an impossible task; to wit, trying to keep a large number of people with wildly divergent political views from ripping into each other a la Usenet. This is, as you might have seen, an issue.

I don't like banning people - well, except for spambots, but that's different - but we need to keep the criticisms of what goes on out there apart from what goe on in here, or it all goes downhill fast. I've been part of blog comment boards where this rule wasn't in effect, and it ain't pretty. That means, among other things, that I have to be kind of finger-shaking when it comes to imprecise language.

That being said, I'll be initiating tonight a round-robin with the cobloggers to address this and work out a consensus (if they want to jump the gun, that's cool). You folks deserve a consistent policy.

[Edward]

I say Ban the Bastards...the lot of 'em...NO...wait...Burn the bastards...no wait, flay the bastards and feed their entrails to the subway rats...

We are talking about the Baltimore Ravens, no?

:P

[hilzoy]

Perhaps a spin on the St, Catherine's Wheel? (You know how you spend your time in one part of the web and suddenly, quite by accident, you find whole other realms you never really thought about? I googled medieval torture devices just now, and all I have to say is, there sure are a lot of deeply peculiar erotic sites out there.)

[Jesurgislac]

blogbudsman, I suspect part of the problem is a flip comment I made in response to your claim that Gore ran a poor campaign and was a poor candidate. Even if that were so, Bush still lost the popular vote. It would be easier if you would just acknowledge that this is a fact*, rather that trying to dive off into defending the Electoral College system or claiming that the 2000 election was stolen (okay, "almost stolen").

*I mean, we can disagree all you like on the interpretation of that fact. But it's so.

[kenB]

there sure are a lot of deeply peculiar erotic sites out there

How dare you make such a statement and not provide links, so that we can, um, research your claim. ;-)

[Jesurgislac]

KenB, on the Internet, a statement such as "there sure are a lot of deeply peculiar erotic sites out there" requires intensive personal research. You can't just take someone's word for it, not even Goddess Hilzoy's.

Just go to Google, type in medieval torture devices, and, um...

Yes. Peculiar.

[praktike]

Jes, I don't think it's true that Dems have a majority.

I think the Elephants have a larger base, and Democrats tend to soak up more unaffiliated voters based on the issues.

[carsick]

Traditionally more people self-identify themselves as democrats than the republicans.
Neither is a majority though. High 30's/low 40's if I remember correctly.

[blogbudsman]

Jesurgislac - "But it's so."

'Tis

[Bernard Yomtov]

Hilzoy,

Are you sure that's from Casablanca? It may be, but I don't think so.

[hilzoy]

Bernard: It is from Casablanca, but it's not exact.
"Rick Blaine: Last night we said a great many things. You said I was to do the thinking for both of us. Well, I've done a lot of it since then, and it all adds up to one thing: you're getting on that plane with Victor where you belong."
(Google is wonderful.)

[Jesurgislac]

Praktike - Possibly.
Blogbuds - Thank you.
Hilzoy - It is!

[Bernard Yomtov]

Hilzoy,

Sorry.

I was misinformed.

[fern1]

does anybody have any better solutions to the lies during elections than to just say the public should be so agreeable about it.it could be helpfuk to me cause im doing a paper on it and a qoute from someone would invaluable