Sunday, April 08, 2007

Sweet Little Lies


By PAUL KRUGMAN
The New York Times
April 9, 2007

Four years into a war fought to eliminate a nonexistent threat, we all have renewed appreciation for the power of the Big Lie: people tend to believe false official claims about big issues, because they can’t picture their leaders being dishonest about such things.

But there’s another political lesson I don’t think has sunk in: the power of the Little Lie — the small accusation invented out of thin air, followed by another, and another, and another. Little Lies aren’t meant to have staying power. Instead, they create a sort of background hum, a sense that the person facing all these accusations must have done something wrong.

For a long time, basically from 9/11 until the last remnants of President Bush’s credibility drowned in New Orleans, the Bush administration was able to go big on its deceptions. Most people found it inconceivable that an American president would, for example, assert without evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies. Mr. Bush won the 2004 election because a quorum of voters still couldn’t believe he would grossly mislead them on matters of national security.

Before 9/11, however, the right-wing noise machine mainly relied on little lies. And now it has returned to its roots.

The Clinton years were a parade of fake scandals: Whitewater, Troopergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Christmas-card-gate. At the end, there were false claims that Clinton staff members trashed the White House on their way out.

Each pseudoscandal got headlines, air time and finger-wagging from the talking heads. The eventual discovery in each case that there was no there there, if reported at all, received far less attention. The effect was to make an administration that was, in fact, pretty honest and well run — especially compared with its successor — seem mired in scandal.

Even in the post-9/11 environment, little lies never went away. In particular, promoting little lies seems to have been one of the main things U.S. attorneys, as loyal Bushies, were expected to do. For example, David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, appears to have been fired because he wouldn’t bring unwarranted charges of voter fraud.

There’s a lot of talk now about a case in Wisconsin, where the Bush-appointed U.S. attorney prosecuted the state’s purchasing supervisor over charges that a court recently dismissed after just 26 minutes of oral testimony, with one judge calling the evidence “beyond thin.” But by then the accusations had done their job: the unjustly accused official had served almost four months in prison, and the case figured prominently in attack ads alleging corruption in the Democratic governor’s administration.

This is the context in which you need to see the wild swings Republicans have been taking at Nancy Pelosi.

First, there were claims that the speaker of the House had demanded a lavish plane for her trips back to California. One Republican leader denounced her “arrogance of extravagance” — then, when it became clear that the whole story was bogus, admitted that he had never had any evidence.

Now there’s Ms. Pelosi’s fact-finding trip to Syria, which Dick Cheney denounced as “bad behavior” — unlike the visit to Syria by three Republican congressmen a few days earlier, or Newt Gingrich’s trip to China when he was speaker.

Ms. Pelosi has responded coolly, dismissing the administration’s reaction as a “tantrum.” But it’s more than that: the hysterical reaction to her trip is part of a political strategy, aided and abetted by news organizations that give little lies their time in the sun.

Fox News, which is a partisan operation in all but name, plays a crucial role in the Little Lie strategy — which is why there is growing pressure on Democratic politicians not to do anything, like participating in Fox-hosted debates, that helps Fox impersonate a legitimate news organization.

But Fox has had plenty of help. Even Time’s Joe Klein, a media insider if anyone is, wrote of the Pelosi trip that “the media coverage of this on CNN and elsewhere has been abysmal.” For example, CNN ran a segment about Ms. Pelosi’s trip titled “Talking to Terrorists.”

The G.O.P.’s reversion to the Little Lie technique is a symptom of political weakness, of a party reduced to trivial smears because it has nothing else to offer. But the technique will remain effective — and the U.S. political scene will remain ugly — as long as many people in the news media keep playing along.

6 Comments:

Blogger Wildframe said...

Great article Paul,

The establishment media are also very circumspect about righting any wrongs they make as well.

I have been especially dismayed to have not read one single journalistic report anywhere that has owned up to the fact that the Baker Hamilton Report recommended a "...surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad..."

I can understand Bush's media minders staying quiet on this but the media?

Actually, there are a raft of Baker Report recommendations that Bush has implemented but I guess no one stopped to actually read the report--that's disturbing no?

Perhaps as someone once told me the media are not in the "news" business, but in the publishing and distribution business.

12:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To wildframe:

Re: Baker-Hamilton Report

>>>>I have been especially dismayed to have not read one single journalistic report anywhere that has owned up to the fact that the Baker Hamilton Report recommended a "...surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad..."

Then how did you find out about it?

>>>>there are a raft of Baker Report recommendations that Bush has implemented

Like what?

5:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wildframe

What the hell did Krugman’s column have to do with Bush following through with any of James Baker’s (Daddy Bush’s proxy) firm “suggestions”?

Sounds like more wild swings by a partisan of the Party of the Neanderthals.

5:42 AM  
Blogger Al from WV said...

Klugman's got one thing right, the little lies that create a feeling that may not be connected to the subject of the little lies.

His article is a case in point. Here, the little lie is that all these things point to the idea that ONLY Democrats can be trusted, that ONLY Democrats are good American leaders, that ONLY Democrats should ever again be elected.

What's behind the little lie, the feeling it is meant to create, is that ONLY Democrats are good people.

The fault in the lie, however, will not be seen by most of an American populace trained by generations of running from leadership.

Either the retort to my contention will contain the idea that it is good to evaluate people by their political party, rather than by their character, or it will reject that idea.

If it rejects the idea, then the fault SHOULD be obvious, and it is this: in order to make this argument that Democrats are the legitimate Americans, one must also assume that Republicans are the opposite (the illegitimate "Americans"). In order to do so, one must evaluate the people in one party and that's OK, but believe that it's evil to evaluate the people in the other party by being in the party.

If the retort contains the idea that it's evil to evaluate people by party, then the basic argument of the article falls on it's face.

Either way, Klugman blew it, and it started with the assumption that people are party first, people second.

11:16 AM  
Blogger greenpagan said...

al.from.wv said...

Don’t you think you’re ‘exaggerating’ --or perhaps even projecting--when you accuse Krugman of saying: “ ONLY Democrats can be trusted, that ONLY Democrats are good American leaders, that ONLY Democrats should ever again be elected.” ?

Is that a big lie or a little lie?

====

11:49 AM  
Blogger Al from WV said...

It's neither a little lie nor a big lie if anyone can convince me that Klugman has any position other than that the Democrat is always better than the Republican in any race. "All Democrats all the time" is the underlying thrust of this piece, without any question in my mind. If someone can provide me evidence otherwise, I’ll be glad to consider it, without question.

1:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Link

Web Site Hit Counters
High Speed Internet Services