Paul Krugman: Sweet Little Lies
from New York Times
Four years into a war fought to eliminate a nonexistent threat, we all have renewed appreciation for the power of the Big Lie: people tend to believe false official claims about big issues, because they can’t picture their leaders being dishonest about such things.
But there’s another political lesson I don’t think has sunk in: the power of the Little Lie — the small accusation invented out of thin air, followed by another, and another, and another. Little Lies aren’t meant to have staying power. Instead, they create a sort of background hum, a sense that the person facing all these accusations must have done something wrong.
For a long time, basically from 9/11 until the last remnants of President Bush’s credibility drowned in New Orleans, the Bush administration was able to go big on its deceptions. Most people found it inconceivable that an American president would, for example, assert without evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies. Mr. Bush won the 2004 election because a quorum of voters still couldn’t believe he would grossly mislead them on matters of national security.
Before 9/11, however, the right-wing noise machine mainly relied on little lies. And now it has returned to its roots.
The Clinton years were a parade of fake scandals: Whitewater, Troopergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Christmas-card-gate. At the end, there were false claims that Clinton staff members trashed the White House on their way out.
(Continued here.)
Four years into a war fought to eliminate a nonexistent threat, we all have renewed appreciation for the power of the Big Lie: people tend to believe false official claims about big issues, because they can’t picture their leaders being dishonest about such things.
But there’s another political lesson I don’t think has sunk in: the power of the Little Lie — the small accusation invented out of thin air, followed by another, and another, and another. Little Lies aren’t meant to have staying power. Instead, they create a sort of background hum, a sense that the person facing all these accusations must have done something wrong.
For a long time, basically from 9/11 until the last remnants of President Bush’s credibility drowned in New Orleans, the Bush administration was able to go big on its deceptions. Most people found it inconceivable that an American president would, for example, assert without evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies. Mr. Bush won the 2004 election because a quorum of voters still couldn’t believe he would grossly mislead them on matters of national security.
Before 9/11, however, the right-wing noise machine mainly relied on little lies. And now it has returned to its roots.
The Clinton years were a parade of fake scandals: Whitewater, Troopergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Christmas-card-gate. At the end, there were false claims that Clinton staff members trashed the White House on their way out.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
tPoor Paul Krugman. I am sure that his column Sweet Little Lies had a word count restriction that prevented him from addressing so many lies that Bush/Cheney have made. Here is a Robert Perry column that contains a more expansive list.
Krugman column highlights the Gonzales-8 and Pelosi/Syria trip.
Is there a distinction between lies and misconstruing or mistaking the facts ?
I think we all make mistakes, but they need to be judged based on the intent of the message that is trying to be conveyed (i.e. Romney’s “life-long” hunter image).
Vox Verax earlier noted Orrin Hatch’s assertions about Gonzales-8 member, Carol Lam, on Meet the Press where he stated “She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton, and they're trying to say that this administration appoints people politically?”. Hatch has now issued a letter to Meet the Press stating “My comments about Carol Lam's record as a U.S. Attorney were accurate, but I misspoke when making the point of discussing politically connected U.S. Attorneys. I accidentally used her name ..”
Here’s the point, whether Hatch honestly misspoke or intentionally attempted to deceive, the lie was stated and people heard and accepted Hatch's comments as fact, however the follow-up letter did not receive the same media attention.
Regarding the Pelosi trip, Cheney denounced her “bad behavior” and once again the media reported his outrage.
In my blog entry of of January 23,2007, I encouraged Norm Coleman to follow the path of Senators Arlen Specter, Bill Nelson, Christopher Dodd and John Kerry and visit Syria first hand. They visited Syria this past December and Specter after meeting with Bashar Assad, stated "Assad stated an interest in negotiating with Israel to try to bring a peaceful settlement to the Syrian-Israeli dispute under the U.N. doctrine of land-for-peace."
Even the editorial page of The Washington Post blasted Pelosi, but what doesn’t get the same attention is a letter in response from Congressman Tom Lantos who was on the trip with her. Describing the meetings of April 3rd, he wrote : “As a part of that delegation and a participant in its every meeting, I would like to set the record straight. [Snip] the Speaker told Assad that Syria must end its support for terrorists, including Hamas and Hezbollah, if it wants peace talks with Israel. [Snip] She delivered tough messages to Assad regarding Iraq, Lebanon, and the Hariri assassination tribunal. As the Speaker said during her visit, she supports the Administration's policy goals in Syria [Snip] … constructive dialogue is a critical means of addressing our concerns with Damascus. The Administration's approach has yielded nothing but more Syrian intransigence. Five Republican congressmen have visited Assad this week. Based on the traffic to Syria, a growing number of Republicans and Democrats share the Speaker's misgivings about the White House's ineffectiveness in the region.”
Why wasn’t Norm Coleman there ? Well, maybe travel considerations didn’t allow him to attend a $100 per person fund raiser offered by Ventura County California on his behalf on April 5th and go to Syria.
It’s too bad that we have a Senator that is too addicted to soliciting monies for a re-election campaign, then pursuing a dialogue with the other countries. Funny how in his “Bringing People Together to get things done” campaign for US Senate in 2002, he stressed the need to “put aside partisan politics and listen to the average person.” Cheney’s statements and the media’s proliferation only help to discourage Coleman from doing his job as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
A last comment on Pelosi’s trip, it should have been recognized as America demonstrating its diversity and commitment to Israel-Syria peace and discouraging Syria from support terrorist organizations. Think about it – a Holocaust survivor (Lantos), a Muslim (Keith Ellison) and three other Democrats Congressmen and one Republican are lead by a woman to address the most critical issue of modern times. Congress has a responsibility in foreign affairs … after all, the House is budgeting $35.3 billion for the International Affairs. I commend Pelosi and all the other members of Congress who are doing their jobs by actively engaging in foreign affairs.
Post a Comment
<< Home