Is the reason why politicians lie because we don't believe 'em anyway?
Speech, Lies and Apathy
By JASON STANLEY, NYT
We are all familiar with the "fact checkers" of the presidential campaign. Proud to be part of the fourth estate, these well-intentioned wonks uncover and unpack the various claims made by candidates, determining their veracity. But what if these efforts are in vain? And what if the campaigns themselves are not to be blamed? Is it possible that we are all culprits perpetuating this culture of "truthiness" on the political stage?
In previous columns for The Stone, I argued that the public's trust in public speech, whether by politicians or in the media, has disintegrated, and to such a degree that it has undermined the possibility of straightforward communication in the public sphere. The expectation is that any statement made either by a politician or by a media outlet is a false ideological distortion. As a result, no one blames politicians for making false statements or statements that obviously contradict that politician's beliefs. I believe that the unfolding presidential campaign provides a compelling demonstration of my previous claims.
Consider Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican National Convention last night. Ryan took President Obama to task for allegedly having "funneled out of Medicare" $716 billion dollars. It is simple for anyone with a computer to discover that the claim is problematic. As PolitiFact explains, the health care law involves anticipated reductions in future increases to private insurers. The distinction between "funneling money out" of a program and reducing expected future increases in payments to private insurance companies is subtle. However, the reason that Ryan's claim is decidedly odd is that his own budget plans included similar anticipated savings from Medicare. Furthermore, every one of the thousands of people cheering that line, as well as the millions watching, knew perfectly well that Ryan has made his career by arguing for funneling large amounts of money out of Medicare. Since Ryan's charge so manifestly contradicts his own beliefs, it is clear that the campaign assumes the thesis for which I have been arguing - that Americans no longer expect or care about candidates making honest assertions in the public sphere. They no longer expect consistency and honesty from politicians, and the savvy political campaigner recognizes that there is no cost to making statements that contradict even their most well-known beliefs.
(More here.)
By JASON STANLEY, NYT
We are all familiar with the "fact checkers" of the presidential campaign. Proud to be part of the fourth estate, these well-intentioned wonks uncover and unpack the various claims made by candidates, determining their veracity. But what if these efforts are in vain? And what if the campaigns themselves are not to be blamed? Is it possible that we are all culprits perpetuating this culture of "truthiness" on the political stage?
In previous columns for The Stone, I argued that the public's trust in public speech, whether by politicians or in the media, has disintegrated, and to such a degree that it has undermined the possibility of straightforward communication in the public sphere. The expectation is that any statement made either by a politician or by a media outlet is a false ideological distortion. As a result, no one blames politicians for making false statements or statements that obviously contradict that politician's beliefs. I believe that the unfolding presidential campaign provides a compelling demonstration of my previous claims.
Consider Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican National Convention last night. Ryan took President Obama to task for allegedly having "funneled out of Medicare" $716 billion dollars. It is simple for anyone with a computer to discover that the claim is problematic. As PolitiFact explains, the health care law involves anticipated reductions in future increases to private insurers. The distinction between "funneling money out" of a program and reducing expected future increases in payments to private insurance companies is subtle. However, the reason that Ryan's claim is decidedly odd is that his own budget plans included similar anticipated savings from Medicare. Furthermore, every one of the thousands of people cheering that line, as well as the millions watching, knew perfectly well that Ryan has made his career by arguing for funneling large amounts of money out of Medicare. Since Ryan's charge so manifestly contradicts his own beliefs, it is clear that the campaign assumes the thesis for which I have been arguing - that Americans no longer expect or care about candidates making honest assertions in the public sphere. They no longer expect consistency and honesty from politicians, and the savvy political campaigner recognizes that there is no cost to making statements that contradict even their most well-known beliefs.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home