September 22, 2008

Barack's Been Lying

Here's the tough part: I can't decide if I care.
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

7 comments:

  1. BartSeptember 22, 2008 10:35 PM

    I do not care. The Democrats have been forcefully dragged out of an absolutist world of truth and falsehood and into a muddled, relativist world designed by the diabolical Karl Rove (a world populated by Republicans who, oddly enough, attempt to insist that their worldview is shaped by good and evil, a nice sidestep of the honesty issue). Arguing the Hegel-esque "any lie is wrong" point will lead to a White House led by a mummy and a woman who only through (very) dumb luck avoided becoming the center-stage star at a backwoods Alaskan strip club.

    To see Barack compromise in this way--telling the small lie to lessen the likelihood of larger, future lies-- is for me an affirmation that he not only understands the significance of this election, but also has the ability to weight the importance of various considerations and adapt his strategy accordingly. The scope of a lie must be considered when judging its moral value, and in the grand scheme (I love diction!) that is American politics the misleading of a handful of tottering senior citizens is acceptable to me as an effort to protect the right of future generations to lie.

    While I agree with much of my above rambling, the argument still lacks a truly definitive answer to the typical Achilles' heel question of relativist arguments: By whom/How/When/Where is the line between an acceptable lie and an unacceptable lie to be drawn?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Katie MSeptember 23, 2008 10:08 AM

    good post, and great response, Bart. I feel pretty much the same.
    I feel like we (and by we I mean pretty much all non-Republicans) need to get away from putting Obama on a pedestal - treating him like a perfect golden boy only gives Bill O'Reilly et al a bigger opening to attack him for the very indiscretions that every politician - and McCain in particular - practices.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ChrisSeptember 23, 2008 10:26 AM

    OK, I'll write a more substantive response later because I think this sort of discussion is exactly why we started this project. But let me just throw this out there as a thought exercise of sorts - if it doesn't bother you that Barack is lying, why did you choose Barack over Hillary in the primaries (if you did)?

    ReplyDelete
  4. ChrisSeptember 23, 2008 10:27 AM

    Sorry, let me clarify just a little bit: Barack's early supporters (including myself) voted for the pedestal at least as much as the guy standing on it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BartSeptember 23, 2008 11:07 AM

    I really like the rephrasing of that question, Chris. At this point I don't really have a response, so I will have to get back to you on that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ChrisSeptember 23, 2008 12:28 PM

    The problem is that pragmatism is politics' most dangerous game.

    Pragmatism passed the PATRIOT Act.
    Pragmatism started the Iraq War.
    Pragmatism led the Fed to drop interest rates over and over again.

    The list can go on, but in no area is it more important the government to avoid the route of "ends justifying the means." Every single time, you can bet that this sort of pragmatism will reduce your liberty. It's what gives rise to tyrants and unjust wars. When I think of this I always think of the OJ Simpson case, believe it or not, because everyone knew that he did it, but we have an important rule structure set up to protect the innocent, and within the structure there wasn't enough to convict. Merely saying that he was guilty because "we know he did it" would not have eroded the power of justice in his case, but would have in future cases.

    But there may be an important distinction - they aren't governing us yet, at least as president. Certainly lies while president are worse than lies while campaigning.

    But, what if one party never lied? They'd be hurt in the short term, sure, but perhaps their reputation would be worth it. This of course is merely a hypothetical, as even normal people always put their short-term priorities ahead of their long-term priorities, so certainly a politician won't put his own career in jeopardy for a long-term return for some future politician. But the question is still relevant.

    And maybe the truth isn't outdated. President Bush is flirting with the worst popularity ever - a bit of a reassuring referendum on the American people. Barack Obama defeated the Clinton machine on a message of truth. And telling the truth while attacking your opponent isn't a contradiction. The people prefer Obama's positions on many issues, and on others he could frame his positions favorably, yet he doesn't talk about them.

    So I don't know - I've devolved into rant mode so I'm gonna reconcile my thoughts before I write anything else. And let me be honest: when talking to my friends I've been begging Obama to attack, which I don't mind. I've also, though, been wishing he would lie, and so now I'm basically trying to find out if I meant it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ChrisSeptember 23, 2008 12:31 PM

    I meant to say, there may still be something to Bart's idea - that a small lie to prevent a bigger one is worth it, but I'm not necessarily buying it wholeheartedly. That's a really tough one. (Sorry to go all Kant on you, but lying to your sister when she really does look fat in that dress is one thing, lying to becoming leader of the free world is another)

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)