This election may go down in history as the moment when truth and lies lost their honor and stigma, respectively.
That is the opening line of
Liberty to Lie, this morning's
New York Times column by Charles Blow. As is usually the case, it is something you should read and pass on.
Blow goes on to point out what those paying attention should already know, which is Mitt Romney's " willingness to say anything and everything to win this election." Then after noting his performance in the national polls, running about equal with the President, asks
What does this say about our country? What does it say about the value of virtue?
He goes through the claims Romney has made about Chrysler and GM in great detail, providing you all the material you will ever need to disprove those claims and then writes
Romney wouldn’t acknowledge the truth if it kissed him on the cheek. In fact, Romney seems to have decided that the only things standing between him and the White House are stubborn facts. He continues to roll right over them.
The question is: will this scurrilous tactic have negative consequences?
But there is more.
The problem is, as Blow notes, that neither facts nor fact-checkers carry the weight we once expected of them.
In part this is due to what Blow describes as "the right’s disinformation machine." He describes the claim that what is happening - including in the attacks on science - is a war on faith as "false and ridiculous" but notes that it is working: he notes polls in which the President has a 9 percent lead (in Ohio) on who is honest and trustworthy, but only a 5-point lead in the actual horse-race number, then asks
How is it that so many people are willing to support a man who they don’t believe is honest or trustworthy?
He found a similar disconnect on people's attitudes on who cares about their problems and for whom they would vote and wonders why people would vote for someone "who doesn’t care about you over a man who does?" He acknowledges the impact of Obama hatred - the flames of which we know have been flamedby opponent for political and economic advantage - but argues that to vote for someone you don't trust "is taking things to extremes."
Yes, it is. But what Blow does not address is the non-rational aspects of voting. Intellectually one might recognize that the President is more concerned about one, one might even recognize that one's true economic interests would be better served by voting for the reelection of the President and for Democrats in Congress, but will be more motivated by emotional rather than cognitive factors, which is why painting the President as "other" helps feed into this willingness. After all, one might recognize intellectually that the President is more concerned about your problems, but if you can be persuaded that he might be a Muslim born in Kenya it becomes easier to stoke fears about how he will change the things to which you cling.
Blow concludes like this:
All the voters who are aware of Romney’s fact-mangling but vote for him anyway must ask themselves this question: are they granting him the liberty to lie?
I would say, "Yes, but...."
Because it is more than simply blaming the voters.
The media has failed. Despite "fact-checkers" the "lies" and distortions have NOT been major parts of news coverage. That our media has become fragmented in its reach so that some people only listen to media that reinforces their fears and predilections makes the problem more severe.
That too many politicians are unwilling to call out lies as lies - perhaps for fear of how the populace or the press might react - exacerbates the problem.
This falls on all of us. It falls on how we educate - not many who teach history or government feel that they have the liberty to challenge dishonesty in either lest they lose their jobs. Some also unfortunately view their jobs as indoctrination, rather than teaching their students to think critically, to be willing to challenge conventional wisdom and authority.
THe result is that some politicians feel that they have the Liberty to Lie because it works, because they will not be held to account.
Many voters may have granted Romney the Liberty to Lie. Until recently, so has much of the media, and so have other politicians.
When the desire to win elections overwhelms your basic decency, if you are of the same party or philosophy of someone who is lying and you parse words to try to claim it is not a lie, you devalue truth, you debase the political process.
For all of what I found wrong about John McCain, at least he took the microphone away from the woman at the town hall who claimed Obama was Muslim and corrected her. It is said to see how far he has fallen since then.
As a nation we really need to reexamine our relationshio - or lack thereof - with truth and honesty. Otherwise we grant everyone the Liberty to Lie