Lying and Liberalism

Lies are not all equal. There are lies and and then, there are lies. When President Clinton affirms on television before the whole nation: “I did not have sex with that woman…,” everyone, whoever had a childhood understands, condemns as immoral but understands: Mr Clinton was simply trying to cover his ass after doing what he should not have done. “I did not put my finger in the ice cream, Mom; I just don’t know what happened.”

That’s a rational kind of lie even when it borders on the absurd. Once when he was a kid, my son was confronted, through factual elimination of other possible culprits, with good evidence that it was he who had taken something out of the fridge without permission. At the end, I said sarcastically, “If it’s not you, son, was it the dog who opened the fridge, it must have been the dog who opened the door, right?” He assented and blamed the dog. Even that was a rational lie because its purpose was straightforward self-protection, even if it failed miserably.

Rational, instrumental lies are rarely interesting because they are so familiar to almost all of us, as I said, at least from childhood. They are like a superficial band-aid on a wound that has not yet been inflicted.

There is another kind of lie that is endlessly interesting. It’s the self-aggrandizing lie. It’s interesting because it’s usually multi-layered

Brian Williams, the, NBC anchorman, a celebrity in his own right, admitted recently that, contrary to a story he had told several times, he had not been in a helicopter in Iraq that received enemy fire. He was forced out by others who were circling around him like hyenas.

In his apology, Mr Williams, lied again.

“I would not have chosen to make this mistake,” Williams said. “I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.” (From Politico)
No, Mr Williams, it was not a “mistake” and everyone knows it. I often forget things that happened to me a long time ago. That’s a mistake. If it’s something unimportant, I often mis-remember what happened to me, that is, my recollection may diverge from what actually happened. Memory cleans house every so often. Memory makes the incoherent coherent because it’s easier then to put it away in some shelf of the mind. That’s normal; it’s ordinary mental hygiene. This process of sorting out and cleaning out what happened allows for honest mistakes.

Remembering what did not happen is not normal. Except for childhood memories which may have their source in stories told by parents, the mind does not invent what did not happen and then, pass if off as a real memory. When it does, it’s called an a hallucination. An hallucination is no a mistake; it’s a pathological event. The word hallucination is most often used in connection with current events but there can easily be hallucinations regarding past pseudo-events. Of course, I and millions of others think that people in responsible positions who experience hallucinations should be removed from those positions. This goes for television and other media people such as Brian Williams and Dan Rather; it goes as well for politicians such as Hillary Clinton who was a US Senator and wants to be president. We expect ordinary mental health from people in such positions. It’s not too much to ask, I would think.

Naturally, I am aware of the possibility that false memories about events that never happened may not be memories at all, that they may simply be fabrications, lies. This raises another mental health issue, or rather, three issues. The first issue is this: why would any adult do this? What is lacking in their sense of self that pushes them to act in such a dishonest fashion. I wonder if it’s simple immaturity or a mild form of sociopathy. Why would individuals such as Brian Williams, Dan Rather, Senator Clinton, with high accomplishments to their credit, in conventional terms, try to obtain more credit than they have earned? Perhaps, this is not really a question because many children are little sociopaths and until they are straightened out.

The sociopathic explanation, in turn, raises a second question, a separate sociological question: Why aren’t they found out early by those who know them and censored or expelled. What is the basis of the conspiracy of silence that protects them?

The third issue is why the fabricators do not experience the fear of getting caught? Why would individuals with big achievements and a promising future risk all for a little invention? Whatever NBC decides to do with Brian Williams he is burnt, he is a dead duck in terms of credibility. (Personally, I think he will announce that he is retiring voluntarily to spend more time with his family and to write a book. It will be a confessional kind of book. It will suggest some manner of PTST.) It seems to me that this kind of irrational gamble, this gratuitous separation from simple reality is also a form of mental illness. That’s another psychological comment. There is worse.

After each such incident of self aggrandizing lie by a famous person, it turns out that several people, sometimes many, in their entourage and beyond were aware of the lie and chose to keep their mouth shut. So, the self-aggrandizing lies of famous people, instead of being extinguished and discouraged by the possible censure of those who know are allowed to flourish with impunity. This is not a psychological illness but a social disease, like syphilis.

Now, going out on a limb, I don’t seem to remember any Republican or conservative of stature getting caught in this kind of lie, the second kind. (Ron Paul, the libertarian, a former bona fide member of the Republican Party was often iffy but it was not in the service of self aggrandizing.) If my memory is faulty, if I am a victim of selective memory, of the dreaded confirmation bias I think someone will swiftly correct me.

If my recollection is correct, it points to a liberal culture where reality is discounted, where truth is habitually violated by a conspiracy of silence, a conscious collective cover-up. I refer here to a cultural phenomenon rather than to individual failings, rather than to personal insanity. Now, I don’t think that all liberals like lies. Many are liberals for solid bread-and-butter reasons (unions members), others are merely on automatic (black voters). Yet, the current intellectual fraction of the Democratic Party is infested with a tolerance of lying that encourages more lying. I see no likelihood of change in the near future. Take the gang rape at Duke reported by Rolling Stone in 2014. It did not happen but it was used by liberals just as if it had.

Brian Williams dodged deadly fire that was not, like Senator and former Secretary of State Clinton before him. Dan Rather almost cut off a presidential candidate at the ankles all by himself, with forged documents. Before that, he had been photographed in Afghanistan wearing a turban and discharging a firearm at the Taliban (who were thirty miles away). And Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, also a former Attorney General, fought valiantly in Vietnam except that he never set foot there because he was studying in England at the time. The current upsurge of grotesque battlefield envy among liberals is not the only infringement on simple truth telling. Al Gore invented the Internet(but that was some time ago). It took the New York Times months to catch Jason Blair who did wonderful, colorful, authentic reporting on American misery entirely from his small office and even from the comfort of his apartment. And Senator Elizabeth Warren will be the first female and Native American President of the United States. Take that, old white conservative man!

And, speaking of presidents, I still don’t think President Obama is much of a liar. When his narrative diverges from reality, as it does more and more frequently these days, it’s because of genuine limitations on his knowledge. Like other intelligent affirmative action wonders I have known, he has memorized all the chapter heads but he has not read the book, or any book, I would think.

About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events, Socio-Political Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Lying and Liberalism

  1. Brandon Christensen says:

    Speaking of lies, aren’t you the guy who stated that there were no US troops in Saudi Arabia on 9/11?

  2. Don’t be silly, Brandon.

    1 Telling a non-fact is not always a lie. There are honest mistakes. By the way, this was not one, if I remember well, nor was it lie. It was an approximation of no consequence (if memory serves).

    2 The essay is about lies for self aggrandizement. Whatever I said in the Good Old Days about Saudi Arabia does not aggrandize me, has no chance to, under any circumstance.

    You want to see self-aggrandizement, wait for the publication of my erotic memories (soon)!

    Focus. Try to stay on topic.

    • Brandon Christensen says:

      So it wasn’t a lie and it wasn’t an honest mistake.

      Can you publicly state, here, that there were US troops in Saudi Arabia on 9/11?

  3. Brandon: The prehistorical statement to which you refer was embedded in a discussion the gist of which was that you asserted that violent jihadism was only reactive, a mere response to American aggression. The claim was silly then; it’s so utterly ridiculous now it’s not worth discussing.

    Whether there were America military in Saudi Arabia before 9/11, I don’t remember clearly. I think I ended up assenting passively to your affirmation that there were a few. I did not even check your assertion because it was unimportant in relation to anything I said.

    Feel free to dig up this whole discussion. I think it is of no relevance but I don’t mind. This posting is about lying and liberalism. I don’t lie and I am not a liberal. It’s not about me.

    If you can’t distinguish between lying and being mistaken, even irresponsible use of facts, it’s interesting from the standpoint of the study of brain structures but it’s not something I will pursue. I hope others do it and I hope you are a subject.

    • Brandon Christensen says:

      You seriously can’t admit that there were US troops in Saudi Arabia on 9/11? I’ve provided you with numerous links on here, at NOL, and on Facebook.

      Still? Even after being proved wrong?

      Incidentally, the discussion was about Muslim terrorism vis-a-vis the West, not “violent jihadism” in general. If I were you, I wouldn’t want to continue this discussion either.

  4. Again, Brandon: This is not interesting. You may well be right about the title of the discussion. (I did not even know there was a title.) There may well have been US military in Saudi Arabia right before 9//11. Don’t bother with links since I just confessed. How how many ways do I have to tell you that I don’t care? Just have your own posting on the deep reasons for Islamist terrorism against anyone – if you think such a thing exists. Stop trying to use me as a prop; it’s not dignified.

    • Brandon Christensen says:

      There may well have been US military in Saudi Arabia right before 9//11.

      No, “there may have well been” is a sissy, liberal way of avoiding responsibility for either your mistake or your lie. Here is what you wrote:

      Although the regretted Bin Laden had threatened the US in connection with American military presence in Saudi Arabia, the 9/11 attack took place after the US forces had vacated that country, not as a means to make them move.

      The emphasis is yours, from the original. C’mon Dr J. Man up. You can’t expect people to take you seriously on the matter of lying when you yourself are unable to adhere to the standards you set forth for others.

      I’m using you as a prop because there is no one better to illustrate just how dangerous dogma can be to a man’s dignity. You might not care, but if you didn’t you could easily man up and admit your mistake. I think you care, and that you wish this would go way, because you know that without your mistake/lie your entire ideology gets flushed down the toilet with the rest of the poo-poo.

      UPDATE: A better way of putting this would be to say that Jacques and I agree almost 100% politically except on this one issue. On this one issue, though, I have facts on my side and Jacques has lies or, at least, mistakes that he won’t own up to like a man. If I were a neutral observer, I know which side of the debate I would lean to. Notes On Liberty.

  5. One more time: Brandon: I do not lie. You have an astonishing blind spot. People make mistakes, including me. People are often irresponsible with facts (not often me). People are lazy.This has nothing to do with the topic of this essay: self-aggrandizing lies. If I had stated categorically that there was no US troops in Saudi Arabia, blah, blah, it would not have been a self-aggrandizing lie in any way, shape or form. You are using my comment section to change the subject. I don’t know exactly why and I don’t want to speculate and possibly end up on Freudian ground. (The horror!)

    You seem to quote me. This is not interesting enough for me to check. Maybe you are rigth; I DON’T CARE! How can I be more clear? Our old discussion of 9/11 has become utterly irrelevant, like kids pushing each other in the sandbox during a major football game.

    We do NOT agree almost 100%. Like other mainstream libertarians, you don’t have the intestinal fortitude to face two very difficult, intertwined conceptual problems: 1 How to defend militarily the institutional arrangements – democracy – most likely to give birth to societies with smaller government; 2 Issues of moral responsibility with respect to atrocities committed far away and not affecting in any material way our own societies.

    Why don’t you use your own excellent blog, Notes on Liberty, to begin a responsible discussion of these central topics?

    Stop drinking so much Red Bull.

    • Brandon Christensen says:

      The fact that you aren’t man enough to admit that you made a mistake (if that is what it actually was) – by publicly admitting that the US had troops in Saudi Arabia on 9/11 – shows that you DO care.

      The fact that you aren’t man enough to admit that you made a mistake (if that is what it actually was) – by publicly admitting that the US had troops in Saudi Arabia on 9/11 – shows that you may not have made a mistake. Instead, it shows that you are guilty of telling a Noble Lie.

      We’ve had lots of the discussions that you suggest we have. All of them involved you denigrating people in the threads with ad hominem attacks and appeals to your sensitive emotions – both embarrassing fallacies. When I say “all of them” I mean “all of them.” The harsh fact of the matter is your arguments for imperialism are fallacious and based on lies.

      Have fun insinuating that, since news anchors lie all the time, so do Democrats. You’ve built yourself a nice, cozy bubble here. Perfect for True Believers.

  6. Scott cochran says:

    I’ll help get this back on topic.

    I always thought that Brian Williams’ claim that it was he filming Neil Armstrong as he decended the lunar lander was highly suspect….

  7. I never heard about this. Another instance of faulty memory!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s