Officials with the Obama campaign have been a little less reluctant in recent weeks to accuse Mitt Romney and his campaign of "lying." In each instance, folks like David Plouffe, David Axelrod, and even Stephanie Cutter just last night talking to Rachel, were referring to obvious falsehoods that the Republican campaign surely knew to be untrue.
Today, however, Daniel Henninger has a provocative piece in the Wall Street Journal today, raising concerns about the "sleazy political pedigree" of "the L-word."
The Obama campaign's resurrection of "liar" as a political tool is odious because it has such a repellent pedigree. It dates to the sleazy world of fascist and totalitarian propaganda in the 1930s. It was part of the milieu of stooges, show trials and dupes. These were people willing to say anything to defeat their opposition. Denouncing people as liars was at the center of it. The idea was never to elevate political debate but to debauch it.
The purpose of calling someone a liar then was not merely to refute their ideas or arguments. It was to nullify them, to eliminate them from participation in politics.... This Obama campaign is saying, We don't want to compete with Mitt Romney. We want to obliterate him.
Henninger goes on to blame Paul Krugman's influence on the discourse, at least in part, for the unsettling turn of events.
It's worth noting that Henninger's piece is a little over the top. OK, more than a little. I'll gladly concede that "the L-word" is harsh, and isn't too common at the presidential level, but those who haven't heard it used in national politics since "fascist and totalitarian propaganda in the 1930s" need to get out more.
For that matter, Team Obama has begun using the word more, not to "obliterate" Romney or "eliminate" him from political participation, but for more mundane reasons -- they see Romney lying, repeatedly, and have decided to call him on it.
Media professionals watching the campaign have a choice: they can either (a) be outraged by a candidate basing much of his campaign on ugly, demonstrable falsehoods; or (b) be offended by a rival campaign calling lies "lies." Henninger prefers the latter; I think that's backwards.
Indeed, what I'd encourage observers to consider is the larger system of incentives. Imagine you're a candidate desperate to win, and you're prepared to do just about anything to advance your ambitions. You've decided the truth, integrity, and honesty are little more than collateral damage -- the ends justify the means.
You've also noticed that lying is easy to get away with, since the political establishment deems "the L-word" too harsh for polite discourse. You can repeat obvious falsehoods, but the media will be expected to stick to "he said, she said" reporting, and your opponents will be asked to stick to contemporary norms, steering clear of accusations that seem shrill.
Under this scenario, what incentives are there? If a candidate doesn't respect the electorate enough to be honest, and he or she cares more about votes than character, what's to stop that candidate from lying constantly?
The problem here isn't the Obama campaign's use of a word Daniel Henninger finds "unsettling"; the problem here is Mitt's Mendacity.
Leave a Comment:
And that's part of why Obama's supporters were so disappointed in the first debate. Despite having a mountain of evidence against Mr. Romney, the President decided to 'soft-pedal' things, allowing Mr. Romney to, well, keep lying, and lying BIG too.
And Mr. Romney knew those lies would get 'washed over' by the Right wing press, and they did.
It is a reality game. When you say the liar was effective, you participate in the lie.
That's why Matthews and Maddow are as much a participant in the perception of Romney's effectiveness as Fox news commentators were.
Romney's arguments and facts were nonsense. Yet they focused on the style not substance of the President's words. The national media is prone to present the contest of ideas as a sports match because they know that spectacles with theatrical drama holds the attention of viewers. In that way, their criticisms of Obama were correct. He was losing his audience due to his sloppy presentation.
Which means that their analysis favors the salesman.
Every time.
The only person I see using the LIE word is Jon Stewart.
Really? He is the backbone of the liberal media ? Shame on them all
You nailed it John. If you only watched the debate and not the post coverage you'd say Obama won on the facts. Romney would get points for exuberance but lose big for lying about his own positions and the President's. Matthews and Schultz on MSNBC and others on CNN who can't be bothered with policy details and only care about appearances created the media narrative that this was a disastrous performance by Obama which is now ingrained.
They are both excellent at policy analysis. They were also being authentic in their anger. What I fault them for is allowing themselves to be gamed. Hosts who are very good at the craft of professional delivery of complex information to voters are proud of their craft. They are very good at criticizing their own work and the work of others. It is their strength and their weakness.
Their biggest strength is their biggest weakness. And it is a weakness that can be exploited, has been exploited, and will continue to be exploited until they wise up.
Once the narrative on who won is confirmed by all speakers both left and right in the media, then the public has a pass to stop thinking about what was actually said. It is all over. The nation settles on the dominant narrative of the President being a loser and anyone else disputing the harmonized chirping of memes is dismissed as being in denial.
The tough part is being authentic, holding fast to one's integrity as a truth teller but not getting gamed by those whose job is to hide the truth. Don't think their job is easy. If we had longer attention spans, and greater mental discipline for following complex subjects you would see some mind blowing television news. They are not delivering information as they do because they are talking to the audience that exists, not an imaginary audience they would prefer.
OOps. As usual I demonstrate why I would never make a good writer. I have no patience for proofing. Last sentence, a "not" was wandering around and settled in where he no longer belonged.
"They are delivering information as they do because they are talking to the audience that exists, not an imaginary audience they would prefer"
Lying - (1) making an untrue statement with the intent to deceive. - Websters 9th Collegiate Dictionary.
Let US tell a few truths, in our quest to be "politically correct" we have allowed LYING to become a new "normal"! I get that calling someone a "liar" may be a scandalous act, however, Mittens (& the GOTP) have taken lying to another level and they need to be called on it each and every time that they proceed to do so! I also get that PBO may be too much of a gentleman and feels that it is offensive to call out the liars for who they are!
I on the other hand have no qualms about calling out liars and feel that since these supposedly religuluous people, who are so willing to throw their religuluoun into the public sphere need to be called out for it! Each and every time they lie someone should ask them about "how does G-d feel about liars and lying" or how about "if you're inconsistent statements are a reflection of your faith"?
Frankly I don't really care if you are of faith or not - but at least let US all agree that right now we don't have time for being "PC", and the least WE need is the truth - even if WE don't like it! What is the worst that can happen - public shaming and humiliation, maybe or how about a consciousness that develops - either way it might give politicians pause before they open their mouths!
That would be a startling line of rhetoric from the VP. I suppose it could work too. Cast the patholgical lying as a evidence of their lack of moral fiber.
Who knows what will happen tonight. The interesting thing is that an elder white man can say things that is difficult for younger black man to say about a wealthy elite.
The article in the WSJ is total BS. This is a 'I'm rubber, you're glue' argument. They KNOW the Republican has trouble with the truth and they are making LYING an issue to mute the Obama campaign. Totalitarianism indeed. WHO has the black boots?
Actually, they're "jack boots." Now t hat we're all learning to describe fascists correctly, we have to use the right words. :-)
The Murdoch Street Journal. Nothing else needs to be said.
Thank you Ms . Joanne for the correct nomenclature. It should be referred to by nothing else as they take the same editorial stance as their owner.
It's OK to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if the theater is indeed on fire.
Where was this piece when Joe Wilson yelled "You Lie!!" at the President during the State of the Union?
But he is a "Southern gentleman" and a "patriot" (two things Southerners know nothing about).
Henninger knows that after Debate 1, Obama's supporters are clamoring for him to say it straight up. Don't dance around the word, don't just hint at it. And he knows that if/when Obama does call the spade a spade, calls Romney the liar he is, there will be a huge sigh of relief, a rising cheer of "FINALLY!", and the polls and election will swing back in Obama's favor.
Henninger is simply trying to prevent this by trying to keep Obama from going there.
TCinLA, I am a southerner and I know what a patriot is and what a gentleman is. Please keep the disparaging comments pointed at the correct people...like the current GOP (and is anyone else sick to death of people calling them the "Grand Old Party"??). ;-)
I say, call a liar a liar. Trying to link the word "liar" with "fascist and totalitarian propaganda in the 1930s" is beyond ridiculous. I prefer facts over b.s. any day.
Slappy Magoo hits it out of the park.
Mitt's lying is what it is--lying.
Fits. Like. A. Glove...
lie
1 /laɪ/ Show Spelled [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
When George Romney resigned from the Nixon administration he said' he was unhappy with presidential candidates who declined to address "the real issues' facing the nation for fear they would lose votes.' Mitt must have missed that episode in the life of his father who was his alleged role model. If a man lies, he is a liar and everything he says must be judged based on the dishonest character of the one who chooses to lie.
Maybe Henninger is responding to the Onion article about Mitt's lying?
Frankly the problem is the lack of journalists and journalistic integrity in our national media.
If we had journalists who were interested in serving their role to ensure that there was an informed and educated electorate well prepared to engage in their civic political responsibilities, then every time a candidate lied, they journalists would be reporting on the candidate's clear lack of clarity and probity.
That we do not have a 4th estate willing to do that is the problem. Mitt is a poor candidate and frankly, a person of low character. But those who do not follow politics closely don't know that because we lack journalists willing to inform us of that fact.
Those who follow things closely will know this about Mitt, but the average voter will not. It is not Mitt's fault he's a poor candidate, that just is the case. But someone is at fault for the public not being informed about that point, and that blame lies directly at the feet of the media who think being "fair and balanced" is more important than being informative and accurate.
It's all about preserving access to the folks they would have to call out for their lies. Journalists want paychecks too. No interview, no byline, no eat.
Journalists don't need interviews for a byline. Good journalists have been winning Pulitzers without being chummy with their subjects for a long time. Ultimately the politicians need the journalists far more than the journalists need the politicians. But the journalists (using that term VERY loosely) are bought and paid for by corporations who don't want there to be real journalism in the American media.
Daw55 is correct when he states that politicians need the media and not the other way around. If the media would call Romney a liar, then he can choose to stick to the lies and give interviews to Fox while avoiding the rest of the media. But that does not stop the media from calling him a liar because Romney still has to campaign in various places, put out policy statements and campaign ads. Without access to the mainstream media, his statements do not get published except to the extent that the media reports the lies. When major news media outlets are saying Romney is a liar, it keeps him from reaching a large number of voters who do not watch Fox, read Murdoch's rags or listen to conservative radio. And that is fatal to a campaign when the only way you can get your message out is a presidential debate which leaves you open to being called a liar in front of the largest audience.
The big problem today is that people can pick the flavor of their news. Conservatives have their prejudices reinforced by watching Fox News. This allows them to call all other media outlets who don't agree with their world view "liberal", and therefore, "liars".
Calling them "liars" is the least of truths about their crimes against the United States. Typical Republican bully. "Mom-mmmmmeeeeeee! He said bad words!"
Further proof that "the only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies," something Democrats knew well 80 years ago.
The modern Republican Party IS a fascist/Confederate gang of subversives, dedicated to the destruction of our country as we know it.
And here comes the final closeing ads for twitt's campaign,,, calling Obama a shameful liar. twitt knows that all this danceing around the L-word means nobody will use the E-word. Thanks to this forum though, we can say it. Romney is Evil.
A liar,is a liar,is a liar.Let's call a spade a spade.It's not a lie if you believe what you say.But Romney know's he's lying.He has no path toward the Presidency without lies,half truth's and deciet.He is a plastic man without core values and a ruthless CEO that care's nothing for the 47%.
Wasn't there a supreme court ruling a few years back that flat-out said lying was protected political speech? Maybe the epidemic lying by Republican'ts can be traced back to this ruling. After all, they've got to fool a lot of people to get from their natural base of 1% to a duped, angry and fearful 50.1%.
For God's sake, the attitude that Henninger is expressing is precisely what Romney has been taking advantage of throughout the campaign! The L-word is taboo, so we'll just L our asses off and no one will be able to call us on it!
There are different ways to say it, though. For example, on the subject of Romney's $5 trillion tax cut in the first debate, after Obama had mentioned it several times, and Romney had denied it several times, what if Obama had said, "Hold on now. Look, one of us is lying here. Let's have this out. You and I can't have a meaningful debate if one us is isn't telling the truth."
Have not noticed that these folks are all using the same scripts? Accuse those subject to racism of being racists, if you have fascist inclinations accuse your opponent of being a Nazi and lie whenever it is easier than living with the truth. Coded racism, hate, and totalitarianism is what the lies are covering for. All bets and being nice off! Call folks out for lying and focus on what you are for!
what nonsense by Henninger, and unsuprising nonsense at that. Gee, the deputy editor of the WSJ, and Faux Noise contributor doesn't want people to call Romney a liar. NO, Mr. Henninger, the use of liar is not odious at all. It is someone stating a truth. I am not suprised that you find the truth odious and that you try to call anyone who points our your emperor has no clothes a fascist and a communist. How pathetic.
NO one wants to be called a liar and no kidding it is harsh. However, if you lie, expect to be called that loudly. Do not whine about how "mean" it sounds or how "unpolite" or "disrespectful". The liar is the one who is being mean and disrespectful, assuming that they have some right to remove everyone's ability to make an informed decision. A liar should always be called out on their chosen actions. The only lies that are acceptable are those types that are committed when keeping a young Jewish girl safe from Nazis.
I would just point out the subtle difference between calling something a lie and calling someone a liar. They're basically the same, but one is more of a personal attack. I've always heard Obama's people use lie or lying. I don't recall them using the term 'liar'. That would be to easy to call a personal attack. With statements, it's easier to call them a fact or a lie.
If you don't stand with principles then you don't stand with anything nor anyone. Who the hell would imagine not calling out lies is siding with the liar or making the lies legitimate? Okay then, up is down, North is South, right is wrong, sound familiar?!
Yeah oops, I meant who would call calling out the liar logically legitimizing the liar and the lies? That is some truly @!$%#ed up logic right there! Am I making any sense and where are we, on the moon?
Doesn't the Obama campaign know how rude it is to point out the emperor has no clothes?
The GOP is trying to make the word "lying" off limits. We saw that coming when Paul Ryan announced that Democrats would adopt the tactic of saying that he and Romney were lying.
I don't know where to go with this. Perhaps, it's enough to say, "That's right. They are lying." But, it seems dangerous. Joe Public doesn't know who or what to believe. The problem is that not countering the lies directly is dangerous, too.
What makes you think it's the media calling Obama the loser in the debate? Just because even today MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of MSM are saying that Willard "won" the debate? How about we ask them exactly what he won? How he won? Can we see the scorecard? Think those teapub tools in the media can answer without lying?
How on earth can Obama win any debate when Willard repeats the same lies even after Obama spelled out the lies and explained the facts? He can't because the media won't let him unless he goes for the throat. Obama may have been sloppy, and I agree he was very sloppy, but if truth were counted at all, Obama won.
Anyone else ever notice that the trolls largely stay away from the blogs that talk about Mitt's lying? And on the few occasions they do say something, it's a weak effort at "Obama does it too."
As usual, the right-wing spin doesn't even make sense on its own terms.
Note that in the quote above, Henningers attacks fascists and totalitarians by saying "These people were willing to say anything to defeat their opposition." In other words - they were LIARS. So now calling someone a liar is the most awful thing you can do, and to make his case he calls people ... liars.
Oh no! The Wall Street Journal is degrading the discourse! Heavens to betsy! How could Daniel Henninger sink so low?
Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan like to use the word, 'misspoke' for lie.
I suggest Mr. Biden offer Mr. Ryan his allotted time to explain his plan by the numbers.
But what exactly makes Mr. Ryan such a math wiz...numbers guy? He is not an economist nor does he have a degree ( above undergraduate) in that field, so why can we not challenge his numbers or request a breakdown of how his plan offers a balance....a 'revenue neutral ' plan as he so often likes to say?
It may be that he is not a liar but rather just very poor at math. He did forget to include some inheritance In tax returns that he had to amend to later, which to me sounds really unusual for a wonk.....it is all in the details!!
How about just saying they are deliberately deceptive in their blah blah blah?