Why does Palin keep repeating her false claim to be a pork fighter? Or Castellanos? Why is no debunking ever effective at stopping this Republican recalcitrance?
Here is an attempt at an explanation:
| Democratic Lie | Democratic Truth |
---|
Republican BS | R Neutral, D-1 | R+1, D Neutral |
---|
Republican Truth | R+1, D-1 | R-1, D+1 |
---|
What this means below the fold.
The Republican approach may be based primarily on their expectation of how Democrats react, rather than any intrinsic reason. By failing to police the statements of Republicans, the traditional media allow for asymmetric strategic choices.
Given Harry Frankfurt's contribution to the difference between lying and bull****ting, specifically that the bull****ter does not care about the truth, the Republican behavior tends to fall in the latter category.
Essentially, no matter what the Democrats do (whether they lie or tell the truth as shown above), the net Republican payoff is greater by choosing the BS option. They will have a platform with the compliant traditional media to repeat debunked statements, and gain by feeding their "side" into the conversation as a balance to whatever the Democrats put forth. Of course, Democrats are expected to tell the truth, so they would be the only to suffer by lying.
Despite the asymmetry of the media standards, the table above also shows why the Democrats keep telling the truth (regardless of intrinsic reasons), since their only net positive payoff is in that direction.
Without a change in the media playing field, the equilibrium payoff is R+1, D Neutral, with Republican BS and Democratic truth-telling. Democrats may want to consider conditional lying in the discussion of the Bridge to Nowhere, for example: "if Palin was against that bridge, then she surely was a member of the secessionist Alaska Independence Party." Force Republicans into their own debunking, and they may not be able to shift back to BS quickly enough when the Democrats revert to form: R-1, D+1.
UPDATE:
Thank you for all your comments. I just want to expand on three points since some of you requested clarification:
- How the payoff works: The choices at the top row are those available to Democrats, and the choices in the left column are those available to Republicans. Look at the payoff matrix inside each box, with the consequences to Republicans stated first. Then compare the payoffs depending on the choice of the other side. So if the Republicans have to choose between BS and truth when Democrats lie, it's clear the net gain is +1 for truth. But if Republicans know the Democrats are always going to tell the truth, then the net gain for BS is +2. Therefore a slight tendency for Republicans to BS.
- There is no quantification attempted in the payoffs. It's just a guess based on direction of approval or disapproval reflecting back on the actor. Of course, quantification may change the dynamics of the game, although I suspect the equilibrium will stay the same (Democrats will continue to tell the truth, and Republicans will continue to BS).
- Bull**** is not the same as lying. A liar knows and appreciates the significance of the truth. Not the case with Republicans noted above and those that repeat debunked claims. So calling them liars may be a compliment. Only after Republicans are made to show concern for truth does the charge gain currency.