Straight Lies
Posted on September 10th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
James Fallows asks:
1) At any point will the right-wing press join the effort to hold Palin accountable for her false claim, as all of the press held Clinton responsible?
Unless I count as part of the right-wing press, which is something of a stretch, no.
2) If Palin keeps making the claim, will press critics redouble their debunking, as they did with Clinton, or taper off for fear of seeming biased or boring?
They will probably give up on it out of fear that they are creating the impression that the media are engaged in a purely anti-Palin campaign, which might very well be contributing to the tremendous outpouring of sympathy and enthusiasm for her.
3) At any point will Palin herself — or, far more significant, McCain — acknowledge that there are such things as fact and fantasy, and stop making a demonstrably false claim?
Why do that when lying works so well for them?
Filed under: politics
I’m not sure it’s lying to them; there is simply a significant portion of the United States population that has adopted the confluence of America, Jesus, and some weird new hybrid of Manifest Destiny that seems to involve Israel. It’s a religious movement, or, if I can descend into elitism for a moment, a meta-religious movement. Once you look at national governance as some kind of religious protocol, the definition of “truth” changes. So you have a group of people that basically has no interest in empirical observations–that’s not what they use to evaluate articles of faith, and empiricism often leads to blasphemy, anyhow.
Really, I don’t think these people think they are lying. They’re preaching. They’re preaching The Truth.
Incidentally, you also have another group of people that has figured out how to make a few bucks off of this. Ladies and gentleman, your new Republican Party.
It’s this sort of despicable practice that gives resonance to phrases like “vast right-wing conspiracy.” When I first heard that I scoffed, even as Democrat. Not any more.
Huntington they plash along,
seasalt stars the flag, the Sangreal
leaks to tide
shoreline after perfect shore.
this country and its taxipachyderm waltz, some glamheart
using ‘cunt’ like small change.
in the race of ganky foam, nothing’s lost,
it goes.
(there’s Getty’s sinking cloak!
trawled and trawled over.)
square in Camp Rubric
reality may be Foleyed, the sunset cambric,
reason’s prospect
damning like a chestpain –
perhaps this salad comes with garnicht
the cost of any grail.
or to conclude with a verseclap
so cavernous as to swell the bishopric through
perhaps it’s the culture’s talent for scale, so the tough
as a bullet, starstripy cross –
America’s harness – weighs much.
if that is the future, linkheart,
would I could part with it.
Username wrote:
“I don’t think these people think they are lying. They’re preaching. They’re preaching The Truth.”
That’s the most insightful thing I’ve read about this election–or at least, the past 3 weeks of it. I think you win Eunomia.
“So you have a group of people that basically has no interest in empirical observations–that’s not what they use to evaluate articles of faith, and empiricism often leads to blasphemy, anyhow.”
Yup. You might call them “neorepublicans,” since this mindset is the political equivalent of the neocons’ foreign policy approach, as famously documented by Ron Suskind. Democrats, in this light, are members of that “reality-based community” that believes “solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality,” while the neo-GOP sees itself as creating its own reality.
Well, If Username’s theory is true and accurate, God help us, we’ve been going about this whole business the wrong way. How do we protect ourselves from a messianic, narcissistic, militaristic meta-religious movement immune to self-examination and empirical readjustment? Doesn’t this require some kind of significant redirection of our energies, to combat this kind of opposition, which we supposed was just a huge conspiracy of cynicism? I don’t know what an effective approach would be. Any ideas?
JBraunstein,
The rest of us can start having a lot more kids:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/fk09aa02.html
Other than that, I would say we’re completely screwed.
- Adam
I would generally agree with Adam01’s assertions. Don’t get me wrong; I think America was, on balance, the greatest country in the history of humanity. But, demographic shifts are like a force of nature (or, I guess, *are* a force of nature). Just as well to try and stop earthquakes.
And, Dave A, while I do agree that people that value empiricism tend to skew toward the Democratic party, I would avoid assigning “Democrats” any monopoly on “reality.” I am a somewhat-liberal living in a super-liberal enclave, and as far as I can tell, a lot of them are just angling for pseudo-intellectual self satisfaction. Or sex.
This is why we needed the Old Republicans in the first place.
Oh, I didn’t mean to paint Dems as the “reality party” in actuality — they can be as immune to facts as the GOP at times — but simply that they occupy the same “space” in the narrative.