Is This An Argument?

It’s probably just an artefact of having grown-up during the 1990s (arguably the most cynical decade in North American history), but if there is one thing that I have always considered to be a tautology, it is this:

Politicians lie. Not all of the time, obviously, but if there was any one group of people who could definitively be identified as ‘not to be taken at their word’ it is politicians. And the reason for this, sadly, is that a politician who tells the truth constantly tends not to get elected, or at least, not to get his way when in office.

But recently, however, I have noticed an alarming trend among certain people, once their favourite politicians have been called out on having promulgated a blatant falsehood, of arguing that they couldn’t have really been lying, since any politician having been caught lying would suffer ‘dire consequences.’ In the past few months alone, I have heard this uttered from the (metaphorically) syphilitic lips of Canada’s great journalistic whore John Ibbitson in his attempts to defend Prime Minister Harper from mounting evidence that he committed massive fraud in the last Federal election, and from some random idiot online trying to claim that the Bush administration couldn’t possibly have lied about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in the lead-up to the invasion.

Does anyone seriously believe that? Can anyone seriously be so dull-witted?

Here’s the problem: if liars and criminals thought that they were going to be caught, then surely most of them wouldn’t be liars or criminals in the first place! Moreover, this argument glazes over the fact that in many cases (in fact, frankly, in most cases) politicians do lie and get away with it. During the 1993 federal election, Jean Chretien claimed that he would scrap the GST, kill NAFTA, and institute a national public daycare program. He did none of these things* and went on to serve as majority Prime Minister for more than ten consecutive years. Hell, even by 2004 it was pretty damn obvious that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Bush still managed to coast to an easy victory against John Kerry.

So let us be honest here; the few times when politicians actually have suffered consequences for their lies are those occasions when they have been in power for so long and accumulated such an unimpressive record that the electorate (and the media) are no longer prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt; witness Richard Nixon over Watergate, Gordon Campbell over the HST and (I would argue, perhaps wishfully thinking) Stephen Harper now. These are the outliers, not the rule. But in any case, I should hope that it’s rather obvious that the very fact that these examples even exist is proof that this line of reasoning is bullshit.


*And, in fact, ratified NAFTA


About thevenerablecorvex

I have the heart of a poet, the brain of a theoretical physicist, and the wingspan of an albatross. I am also notable for my humility.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Is This An Argument?

  1. E A M Harris says:

    The lying/not lying etc seems more complicated to me. A lot of people say what they would like to be true and a lot of others believe what they like the sound of. Is that lying? Most of the time it doesn’t matter, but when people in power do either, bad consequences can follow.

  2. zinemin says:

    I agree. Very funny to look at the link that you gave. “As a general rule, politicians never openly lie, because the consequences of being caught in one just aren’t worth it.” —
    Hahahahahaha…. I would say
    “As a general rule, politicians openly lie whenever they are confident enough that (i) they have their share of stupid followers who do not question them (i.e. they belong to an extreme-right/left party) or (ii) that they will not be caught or (iii) they will only be caught after the next election. “

  3. Lindsay says:

    I’ve also tended to take it for granted that politicians lie, and also that they serve rich campaign donors rather than their (nominal) constituents. I am only a little older than you are, and count as my formative experiences of politics the Clinton and Bush II presidencies.

    I’m always telling my baby-boomer mom how much I envy her generation’s faith that they could change things through politics.

    • I’ve noticed less of your second observation in this country since their limits on contributions to political parties (although that’s not to say that the system is not massively weighted in favour of the rich).

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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