Politicians lie. It is so commonplace that the suggestion we should be at all put out by their duplicity elicits knowing chuckles. One could even argue that that politicians cannot succeed without lying.
I don’t have the time or inclination to verify the accuracy of this last assertion. However, it seems clear that politicians lie as a matter of course. The routine lies one sees are often made to advance a cause, to get elected, to obtain personal power or riches, or to gloss over ethical or legal transgressions. In Barack Obama’s case, one could argue he overstates his experience and specificity of plans in certain areas in order to convince the electorate he is their man. The extent to which he knows he does this or actually believes he has the relevant experience is open to debate. Bill Clinton struck me as profoundly untrustworthy–although I still liked him as a President–and this proved to be the case with respect to Monica Lewinsky.
Bush has lied about almost everything of consequence. He was a divider, not a uniter, despite his clear statements to the contrary prior to getting elected. He has involved our nation in foreign misadventures on a massive scale, even though he promised a “humble” foreign policy, and stated that he did not want the armed forces involved in “nation-building.” He lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, sullying the reputation of Colin Powell and ending the career of Tony Blair in the process. He ran on a small government platform, but greatly expanded the government’s power–particularly the executive branch’s–and enlarged its spending. He went so far as to justify the warrantless wiretapping of US citizens by their own government and in 2007, suspended the right to a writ of habeas corpus, permitting the imprisonment of individuals by the US government with no recourse to the courts. Phew, that’s enough . . .
. . . Except that it’s not. Bush also said he wanted to restore honor and integrity to the White House, an admirable goal. Instead, he packed the Department of Justice, the EPA, and FEMA with political cronies who hadn’t the skills or experience to carry out their positions or to question the legality of policies. His lies have also involved an element of extreme hubris that seems missing from those of others–that is, Bush doesn’t try to hide the fact that his lies are only semi-believable. Much like Vladimir Putin, Bush expects his listener to just accept highly improbable, illogical statements without a shred of proof. Such statements usually stem from the arrogance of power or extreme stupidity, and neither option is good.
That Clinton was nearly impeached for lying about his relations with Monica Lewinsky, whilst Bush remains untouched for telling repeated, blatant lies that directly resulted in the torture of many, deaths in the hundreds of thousands, and severely eroded the constitutional principals that are the bedrock of our democracy speaks volumes about the moral turpitude of those–particularly on the religious right–that continue to support him, and the lack of courage among all of those who failed to impeach him. Proclaiming one’s morality is easy, even if it is also profoundly prideful and thus a self-contradicting act. But actually permitting and enabling a sitting president to commit murder and torture in your name–we’ll if you’re a god-fearing type, it may be time for you to prepare for a long, hot trip down.
John McCain, a savvy, experienced denizen of Washington if there ever was one, knows people on the right and on the left are deeply unhappy and unsettled. This is in part because of the outright failure of nearly every major Bush policy. However, it is also because of a growing sense that our democracy and our rights are fast crumbling, and that the truth as best as we can discern it has repeatedly taken a back seat to lies and dissembling. When events on the ground lose their tie to most of what we can ascertain to be true and good, the very basis by which owe go about our daily lives is under threat. McCain also knows that he is in the unenviable position of carrying the banner of the party that is identified with a deeply unpopular administration best known for telling a large number of shameful whoppers without shame.
Faced with all of this, McCain has hit on the unsurprising idea of running as the politician who does not lie. He is the man you can trust. He is the one, out of all the others, who “tells it like it is” (how deliciously ironic that McCain’s supporters apply “the one” appellation mockingly to Obama, when it so clearly underpins the candidacy of McCain himself). You can hear the Rovian gears turning: Find out what people are most afraid of and promise with a straight face that you will protect them from it. In the 2000 election, coming on the heels of the Starr investigation and the bitter partisan rhetoric that accompanied it, we got the “I’m a uniter, not a divider” theme from a president who went on to become the most actively divisive president in ages. In 2004, we were hit with the twisted idea that a commander in chief with no military service of note was a better choice to fight off the terrorist threat than John Kerry, a man who had actually been honoured for his military service, and the profoundly stupid notion that the best type of president was one who would never change his mind (“flip-flop”) no matter what the circumstances. Now, with people sick to death of all of Bush’s prevaricating, we have McCain’s “Straight Talk Express.”
So, how do McCain’s claims stack up? Let’s see: Despite decrying many of the failed policies of the Bush administration, he voted with Bush 90% of time. He said said economy was fundamentally sound in mid-September 2008, just after Lehman Brothers went down. He has permitted his campaign to spread the idea that Sarah Palin stopped the “bridge to nowhere,” when in fact she was for it and appeared only to give up when she couldn’t secure federal funding. From The Telegraph:
However it emerged that in a 2006 interview with the Anchorage Daily News during her gubernatorial campaign, Mrs Palin had a different view of the bridge.
Asked “would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?” she replied: “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now – while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”
When Congressional funding was withdrawn because of an uproar in Washington about the expense of the project, she cancelled it, but in a regretful tone.
“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island.” (Click here for the original Telegraph article.)
McCain’s claims to be different from the usual Washington muck are also highly suspect. He has seven former lobbyists working in top positions on his campaign. According to the Washington Post, McCain chief of staff Mark Buse was hired as a Freddie Mac lobbyist specifically to make sure McCain didn’t cause trouble for the mortgage giant in Congress. Buse made nearly half a million dollars from his position in 2003 and 2004. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was highly paid to head an advocacy group whose goal was to ensure that Congress didn’t regulate Fannie and Freddie too strictly. He was still being paid for this work in August 08. (Click here for the Post article; registration required.)
McCain also said he had to go to Washington to rescue the nation from the financial crisis (the one two members of his staff helped create). Nevermind that this directly contradicts his statement that the economy was fundamentally sound, it was pure political posturing at best and counterproductive at worst. That’s not particularly awful by Washington standards, but it is Washington politics as per usual, and clearly not “straight talk” from the man who keeps promising that he’s different. McCain’s operatives have also quashed the co-operation of state employees in Alaska with an investigation into Palin’s conduct in the firing of public safety commissioner Walt Monegan, hardly the kind of thing one would expect from someone who claims to value the truth. Either there’s nothing to hide and the investigation will exonerate her, or she’s done something wrong and will pay the price. Either way, McCain’s attempt to sweep it under the rug smacks of Washington power politics as usual.
Claiming the moral high ground, then taking the low road, repeatedly. Sound familiar?
