Do you remember growing up when the parental units asked for something to be done and you did something else, usually that took less time or effort. If not, you might recall, if you have kids, the last time you asked your 11 year old to clean up their room and they picked up a few things and went back to watching TV. OK technically they did what you asked. Afterall, if you didnt specify exactly what you meant, how would they have known. Well, as a kid, I learned pretty fast that what was being asked of me included picking up the WHOLE room for example. I was supposed to have reasoned this through, and I am sure that there are not a few of you out there that learned the same lesson.
The fact is that human language is pretty imprecise and it requires context, shades of grey to understand what one person tells another. A purely legalistic version of our languages is rarely used: maybe for documenting agreements, buying things, etc. Even then we get loads wrong and must pay attorneys to fight over what was meant.
So shades and context, intention and truncation are all a part of the human understanding of communication. We can communicate something not only by how we say something but WHEN we say it, and what the greater story is that is running (what they call a meme today). This is, in fact, part of nearly every grade school literacy test and literature class in America. Understanding in our language is not given to sound bites and legalistic tenor.
That is why I find this "Obama closed this plant," "Obama raided medicare." debate so odd. The fact checkers, and pundits are going back and forth over what was technically said. But Ryan doesnt live in a bubble. He knows what was said and it had an intention that was grounded in the world around him. This rarely if ever enters into the realm of the fact checkers. For instance, loads has already been said about the Obama-GM thing, with most fact checkers finding this untrue. But what they are really saying is in the legalistic sense of the phrase, the "promise" of the recovery Obama spoke of cant be applied to a plant that was already closed. OK true enough. And it is also true that the engaged government that Obama was talking about probably could have saved the plant (unfortunately that engagement has faltered thanks to the GOP). No, I believe the obfuscation goes much deeper than this. The language used by Ryan implies. And what is that implication, using the vernacular of today; that the response policies of Obama were insufficient and that his will be better. IS this true? Well we know what his response would be, he has told us. As has Romney - "Let GM go bankrupt." So, within the deeper shading of what is being communicated, there is a very real lie to the American people. Not just a "what exactly was said" lie, like we tried to get away with as children, but one that truly misrepresents the role of government in the current fiscal crisis. He is absolutely meaning to suggest that the outcomes would have been different under his leadership. He uses phrases that the TPers' will understand as such because they are embedded in such context. And, as a leader would strive to be understood to the full extent of the context, Ryan has tried to hide in this current of subtext and have "outside" people believe that HIS approach would have a different aim.
So why would Ryan do this? Because many people are mad about a closing that he would have hastened. And to say "I believe this is a good thing for GM because their cars produced overseas will be cheaper" will make them madder. So he chose to misrepresent his policies. In other words a deliberate and calculated lie.
Why am I going over old ground here? Because I really dont think the fact checkers and media get this. It is true that both sides have used hyperbole, and both tell some whoppers. But by in large one group does seem to want its position clearly understood, even if we stretch the truth a bit to say we have done better than we have - lies of rhetoric or legalistic lets say. While one group seems determined to say it stands for something other than what it truly stands for - and lets only the hard core know what they are really talking about. - lets say lies of context. No where is this more obvious that medicare. A program championed and continually protected by the democrats. Revisions to the medicare/medicaid laws brought about in ACA are specifically intended to PROVIDE for medical care to more people. How many more? The Dems would have you beleive more than actually are helped. But the Republicans would have you believe that they are going to "save" these programs for everyone. Since when and under what platform (political or otherwise) has this ever been the case? It isnt. It is a lie - of context. And whether a lie is hyperbole and contextual DOES matter. If ACA has a loophole or an unintended consequence, which party do you think would work to fix that problem and which would seek to exploit it to shut the whole thing down?
This seems to be the theme of the whole GOP platform now - except birthing babies. Take anything Americans believe works or nearly works, and claim you are for it in an implied way - like Ryan saving that plant. Imply that Obama has done nothing about it and plans to destroy it. His promises arent fulfilled because he doesnt want them to be fulfilled. Here you can read in your favorite race or class warfare meme, "he is taking money from seniors to give to the undeserving poor." "We will protect the seniors." Then use the fact checker at your leisure to help out "well technically true because Obama did say he wanted to help the poor." Wait a minute? "Technically true?" Yup, without the context of what the "democrat-think" is, this can be said and it goes out into the ether as though it is partially true. Even now, there are pundits and media outlets that are giving in a bit on what Ryan said about the $7XX taken from medicare. Why? the use of imprecise language coupled with a lack of willingness to look at the whole context. Since when have Dems proposed to do away with senior care, and isnt that is direct contradiction to their greatest legislative achievement, providing health care for everyone? Their stated, spoken and intended aim is health care as a right. So how does that become raiding the program?
Another example is the loosening of work requirements. Democrats have long understood that dependency on welfare roles is not a solution to helping people realize the full potential of their lives. Democrats and Republicans disagree on how to handle this understanding. But the Republicans go a bit further by saying that Democrats DONT understand this and in fact, WISH to make things worse. Really, we want people mired in poverty? Doesnt sound like the war on poverty that we fought for does it? It is a lie - of context. Ignoring both what the history of the party is and what they have done.
I would say that Ms. Browns 5th grade english class would have been so disappointed in todays truth checkers. The truth or falsehood (the facts) of the statements is in more than the words.
So in a world that has reduced understanding to such a primal level, how do the liberals win? Michael Moore doesnt think they do. I am a bit more optimistic. (today anyway). But it does suggest that we have more than financial recovery to reach for in this country.
Tomorrows question: since when did colonialism become a good thing? Another grade school lesson bites the dust.