Okay, have at it, folks. I've been pushing the notion that Republicans have been guilty lately of lazy mendacity -- not just lies, misleading statements, and taking things out of context put particularly easily disproved versions of all of those. And I've said that there's no equivalence here; all politicians skirt the truth at times, but it's unusual for them to do so in ways that are so easily disproved.
But maybe I'm wrong! Let's hear it: are there good examples of liberal lazy mendacity? It's especially good if it (1) comes from Barack Obama or other leading Democrats and (2) hasn't been shouted down by other liberals, but I'll take what you have.
Four years ago Obama said he would "renegotiate NAFTA". I have not heard of any renegotiating taking place. He now bashes Romney for off shoring jobs while he has done little to stop the practice.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good liberal criticism of the President. He has continued the trade stance of the last several adminisrations -- taking positions that conservatives in office also embrace.
DeleteBut, I'm always astounded when conservatives feel betrayed when the President embraces long standing right of center and conservative policies.
So many things that were conservative-approved 4 years ago are now labeled "socialist" betrayals. Frankly, I've entirely lost track of what the word "conservative" means.
In this case it seems to mean embracing the long-standing perspective of the nation's labor unions.
It is the same criticism Pat Buchanan makes. Pat's former boss Reagan devalued the dollar with the Plaza Accord and had Japan limit their car exports to help US workers. Are Buchanan and Reagan liberals?
DeleteThat's not lazy mendacity. It has to be something that can quickly and easily be disproved. It takes a lot more effort to call Obama out on not fulfilling a campaign promise than to call out Romney on taking quotes out of context.
ReplyDeleteI thought the whole "shovel-ready" thing was pretty bad. Especially after Obama later "learned" that no job is actually shovel-ready. Obvious BS at both points, to anyone without a dog in the fight.
ReplyDeleteDems who voted for the NDAA will lie when questioned about it. Here's my Congressman: http://youtu.be/zSzZnDhCOVM
ReplyDeleteIt's an especially egregious lie since most Democratic party actors don't even believe it. I don't recall the President's remarks on the NDAA clearly enough to say if they qualified for LM status.
I've mentioned some other examples before, but it's not the primary lens through which I analyze politics, particularly since I assume that every side will lie. If you don’t routinely find facile lies emanating from within your own ranks, there’s something very wrong with your BS meter.
Its probably not quite mendacity, but it sure is lazy: the continued reliance of Obama et al on outdated, allegedly-(but-never-actually)-unifying, classist rhetoric on topics like the fiscal cliff. Quick anecdote:
ReplyDeleteA while ago I was working for The Man when one of our plants underwent a draconian restructuring to avoid outsourcing, or worse, a visit from Mitt and the boys. In chatting with the folks on the floor I heard a lot of what you'd expect, worries about frozen wages and reduced benefits, and one I never anticipated, growing up around limousine liberals with their view of a unified proletariat:
Our guys were pissed about the condescension and schadenfreude from their peers at other MNC plants in town, plants under less pressure and thus better places to work. If there was any sort of Marxist-style bonhomie from worker to worker at our guys' plight, they surely felt none of it at the bars and churches and softball fields.
Which is not to argue that there's no place for collective action in society; Hayek thought so, which makes it good enough for me. It would be helpful, however, for Obama and Co to stop referring to the middle/working class as if they were a great amorphous mass victimized by the Koch Brothers, rather than the perhaps-less-educated, but no-less-self-interested folks then the Ivy/Obama types that so (lazily) characterize them.
CSH, reminds me of the new Obama ad:
Deletehttp://youtu.be/JfQxHHQPtI0
“I believe that the way you grow the economy is from the middle out. I believe in fighting for the middle class because if they’re prospering, all of us will prosper. That’s the idea of America and that’s why America’s the greatest nation on earth.”
The “middle-out” terminology is really awkward (Obama is going to give our class structure the biggest beer gut it's ever seen!).
The US left avoids confronting the conflict between their support for an open borders immigration policy and their support for racial preferences (up to and often including quotas). When affirmative action was started in the Nixon Administration in 1970, blacks were about 10% of the population and HIspanics were only about 2%, so giving them preference in college and professional school admissions, financial aid, employment, promotions, and government contracts only mildly reduced prospects for white and Asian competitors. As the Hispanic population increases rapidly through legal and illegal immigration, either racial preferences have to be scaled back somewhat or the perceived (and in my view, actual) injustice to whites and Asians will grow enormously, likely eroding white and Asian support for the Democratic Party. Independent of that latter problem for the left, it is a very odd policy to give the children of those who illegally crossed our borders a substantial advantage in the competition for jobs, promotions, and admission to selective colleges and professional schools over native born citizens who happen to be white or Asian.
ReplyDeleteA similar tension exists between two leftist positions of favoring a generous welfare state and favoring an open borders immigration policy. The kind of social solidarity that makes for a cohesive, collectivist society like Finland or Sweden seems incompatible with the extreme diversity that open borders brings. Finland, for example, shares a long border with much poorer Russia, and has a national identity card that all Finnish residents must carry that prevents massive illegal immigration from Russia. The Finnish welfare state would not be affordable if poor Russians could flood into Finland and sign up for their generous benefits. We have just increased the cost of further influxes of unskilled immigrants to US taxpayers by passing national health insurance, with subsidies for everyone with incomes below 400% of the poverty level. In a redistributive welfare state financed by a progressive income tax, every person who makes an income well above the median is a financial asset to the country, and every person who makes a below median income is a financial liability. Canada has recognized this fact by developing a point system for immigrants based on wealth, education, and skills that are in demand by Canadian employers. Will the Democratic Party in the US go along with a similar immigration policy, or in any way recognize the tension between a generous redistributive welfare state and an immigration policy that allows in huge numbers of undkilled workers? I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
OK, I have read all the comments, and no one came up with good examples of Lazy Mendacity, so I think Jonathan's point holds.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that’s because conservatives here are more interested in substantive issues than playing Jonathan’s ‘find the perfect gotcha game.’
DeleteIf you’re really having trouble finding examples of Democratic mendacity, you're obviously not looking. Here’s an example I saw today:
"Busted: Mr. Pfeiffer and the White House blog"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-busted-mr-pfeiffer-and-the-white-house-blog/2012/07/29/gJQA8M46IX_story.html?hpid=z8
Help me understand--"lazy mendacity" can apply to a non-story about the bust of Churchill? Shouldn't there be a minimally level of importance to the issue? This can't represent an example of conservatives "more interested in substantive issues." Or I don't understand some of those words, like "more" or "substantive." Funny, I thought I knew what they meant.
DeleteAny conservative want to defend this as an actual example of "lazy mendacity?"
This is an interesting conversation, since I believe that Couves is correct in asserting that there is plenty of bs on both sides of the aisle; however, I also believe that Couves makes a mistake in trying to pin liberals to lazy mendacity; liberals are usually not lazily mendacious, they tend to be more often clever prevaricators.
DeleteFor example, President Obama has stated on several occasions, with a tone of breezy arrogance, that "if you like your current health care, you can keep it" under the ACA. That statement is NOT lazy mendacity, as Obama's assessment will no doubt apply to many of his constituents. However, as statements of breezy political self-confidence go, its on a par with "if you would like to live a long, healthy life, you can", since in either case the statement is followed by a mumbled parenthetical "assuming you get a little lucky, that is".
I have in mind that many liberals, supporters of universal health care in general and the ACA in particular, will rely on Obama's swagger and worry not a whit that their large group insurance might be in some structural jeopardy with the ACA. To reiterate: this isn't lazy mendacity on Obama's part.
But Couves is right: he's no less full of s*** for lack of lazy mendacity.
@CSH, you have many strong points to your argument. Existence of BS (or willful blindness) - check. A real issue, not a fake one - check. Clever prevaricators - that's definitely on both sides.
DeleteWith all the real issues the parties could be vehemently fighting over, it's a shame that they waste time on inflating minor gaffes. They could be pointing out the BS of the other side and dismantling the BS on their own side.
So, how do you choose when they're both so full of bullshit?
MP,
DeleteThat is a very good question. It is all very tiring and dispiriting, is it not. From where I sit, we have one party with their hearts in the right place and heads full of lard, vs another party whose heart is not even in the right place. That is me, of course, but I do not sense that a lot of people are finding the choices any more satisfying. I am thinking of writing in Satan, just because I am so tired and sick of always going with the lesser of evils.
MP - I gave an example of the White House lying in a way that could be easily verified -- It's a LM, as defined by Jonathan. You're right, it's a silly thing to lie about, but that's just part of what makes both sides "so full of bullshit."
DeleteAs I think you know, I'd rather talk about something significant, like monetary policy, the wars or the NDAA, rather than comparing LM's with Jonathan. I was only trying to point out that pretending the lies exist only on one side is itself a lie... and after reading your second comment, it sounds like we more-or-less agree on this point.
I can think of a few ways the lies matter--they suck up effort in fighting them and they can dominate news cycles.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think that's a major problem because if either of the candidates wanted to stick to substantial arguments, they could very easily. They could call it a trivial lie, and then really talk about a substantial issue. However, we don't see that happening, do we?