By Patrick F. Cannon
I thought about calling this “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire,” but decided to take a more dignified approach to the subject of lying politicians. This was occasioned by an article in the New York Times (if you can believe it) calling out Kamala Harris for various statements.
Written by James Kirchik, it in no way absolves Donald Trump; indeed, he rightly notes that “Mr. Trump has lied more frequently and egregiously than perhaps any other major figure in American History.” On the other hand, he points out that “Kamala Harris did not strictly adhere to the truth at the presidential debate earlier this month.” (Nor, I should point out, was she “fact checked” by the moderators as Trump was.)
Two examples should suffice. She claimed that Trump had said there would be a “blood bath” if he weren’t elected. Any fair reading of the context shows he was referring to the jobs of auto workers. She then said, “there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in any war zone around the world – the first time in this century.” Please tell this to the service members deployed to the Middle East since the October 7 attacks on Israel last year; or to the families of the service members killed in Jordon in January’s drone attack.
Kirchik’s article, How Lying Became Misinformation, appeared in the September 23 Times. The very next day, the Axios news web site published an article showing the sharp gaps between what we think “publicly,” and what we really think about political issues.
In public surveys, only 22 percent of us say we trust the government to tell the truth. If asked privately, the percentage drops to four! Trust the media? In private, only seven percent say they do. Defund the police? Only two percent say we should.
We’ve invented numerous ways to minimize the lies our side tells. We talk about disinformation, misinformation, selective “facts,” “shading” the truth, and on and on. We “mis-speak;” the other side, of course, just blatantly lies.
Do our politicians know they’re lying? You bet they do. And they’re aided and abetted by their professional staff members, who’s jobs depend on trying to determine what messages will get the most votes. You wonder how candidate A can change his or her position on an issue like immigration or abortion almost overnight? Easy to explain. They never really had any principled position to begin with – just one that they thought would get them elected.
(Vice President Harris has learned, after her disastrous run for the nomination in 2020, that what gets you elected in California doesn’t necessarily get you elected anywhere else. While she has been criticized for changing her positions on many issues, she’s smart enough to shade or even reverse them to get elected. You may have noticed that Donald Trump is doing the same.)
There are a few exceptions. I can’t think of a politician I disagree with more than Bernie Sanders on most issues, but I grudgingly admire his steadfast adherence to his socialist principles. He wouldn’t change them even if it meant bettering his chances of running for president. I saw him a couple of days ago grilling a drug company president about soaring prices. He would have done the same thing 10 or 20 years ago, because he continues to believe they’re screwing the consumer.
So, our politicians lie to us. We vote for them anyway, as if it made no difference. When you vote in November, as I hope you will, at least take off your rose-colored glasses.
Copyright 2024, Patrick F. Cannon
cannonnadedotcom 
It’s the height of amusement when the NYT, arguably the most blatantly politically biased paper since Pravda, positions itself as an arbiter of veracity.
Imagine the amount of difficult swallowing it must have taken for the NYT to admit the sainted Kamala did not adhere strictly to facts. Geese preparing for foie gras had an easier time. Only a preliminary affirmation of Trump’s abject dishonesty got it down. Their Upper West Side subscribers must have been clutching their pearls.
Politicians should be forgiven for changing their positions, if done honestly. People are not infallible. Good politicians, after all, reflect the views of the voters (and donors).
It’s a different matter entirely, however, when the change is feigned to conceal true intentions. When a lifelong Berkeley radical poses as a moderate Democrat, you know the con is on.
Trump, for his part, has backed away from his earlier pro-life commitments. We can assume that, if elected, he’ll continue to compromise on the abortion issue. Pretty much he does what he says.
Harris, on the other hand, will stay true to her roots, despite whatever she might say, or refuse to say. The simple reason is, the people who control her (Pelosi, Obama, Schumer inter alia) are far-leftists. She will do as they tell her.
Let’s be sure to drop any pretense that, if elected, she will be able to exercise authority or initiative. She will fill her role as an inoffensive, reassuring figurehead, just like her predecessor.
The problem is, politicians get away with lying. Few voters, aside from select big-money donors, have a chance to question them directly. We depend on the press to do that job, get to the truth of policy positions and inform us accordingly.
Instead, the media is actively colluding with the Harris campaign. They preach endlessly about Trump’s threat to democracy. They willfully obscure Harris’s legislative record and background. They conceal facts that might damage her image, but subject her opponent to specious fact-checks and accusations of mis-informing the voting public.
In short, they lie.
Is it any wonder that few people trust what journalists and politicians say?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clearly they don’t; and for good reason.
LikeLike