How we know the lying matters
Howard, Political lies - - Posted on July, 17 at 10:16 am by Tim
Comments threads at Surfdom and newspaper column inches are currently full of the contention that the voters don’t really mind if Mr Howard lies all the time. This even seems to be supported by current opinion polling, which purports to show that even though most people think Mr Costello is telling the truth about the leadership deal he did with Mr Howard in 1994, more people prefer Mr Howard as PM.
It’s an interesting state of affairs, and as I suggested below, it is weird to think we, allegedly, accept a level of dishonesty from the prime minister that we wouldn’t accept from a shop assistant or a real estate agent or anyone else we deal with in a relationship of trust.
The thing is, I doubt that we do.
And the best evidence of this is that the one person in the public discussion who disagrees with the contention that Mr Howard’s constant lying doesn’t matter is……Mr Howard. If he thought it didn’t matter, he would simply shrug and admit that he did misled Mr Costello about the leadership deal. Instead, he resolutely refuses to answer questions about what he actually said and even, we are told, was urging Peter Costello last week to deny they had an agreement.
Why would he work so hard to maintain the appearance of a truth-teller if he didn’t think the lying mattered?
Obviously, the lying matters. So what we get is a concerted effort by him to not admit his lies, to maintain a degree of deniability. Mr Howard knows that, if he were to come clean, he would be severely punished by the electorate. He knows the lying matters.
Why the hell the media helps him maintain the fiction that it doesn’t matter is for someone wiser than me to figure out.
BTW: With some sort of announcement expected that he will stay on through the next election, journalists worth their integrity will frame the story something like this: Howard says he will stay indefinitely: how do we know he is telling the truth? The same when he denies there is a deal to hand over the leadership to Costello sometime in the next term: No deal, says Howard: but prime minister has a record of lying on this issue.
What are the chances?
Posted in Howard, Political lies |
July 17th, 2006 at 11:05 am
I’ve had this argument a couple of times.
Is there ever a justifiable reason for lying? Why is truth important?
For me, personally, the answer comes back to what basis you choose for decision-making (assuming you do).
Do you judge yourself on whether you upset anyone, on whether you have been busy, on whether you have been honest, been ‘real’ or if you have defended the honour of your family and/or ancestors.
Different people choose different basis’s for decision-making.
I think that whilever Howard can viably claim to be acting in (what he perceives to be) the best interests of the nation - his actions will find support over those who act in self interest.
It is the basis for decision-making that politicians should have.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Howard keeps up the facade of not lying because he knows there will be a day of reckoning with the electorate. I think Michelle Grattan gets it right when she suggested this morning that the effect of Howards dishonesty is cumulative. Aussie Bob also gets it right by suggesting when Howard needs to be believed that people will look to his record to determine whether he is telling the truth or not. With petrol prices rising along with interest rates, it makes the political enviroment very unforgiving for Howard and his previous record on honesty will not stand him in good stead at a time when he will need it most. Appealing to the worst traits of human nature seems to be Howard’s political weapon of choice but when the monetary incentives run out where does he go to then.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Where else but the war on terror. Make an already scared populace even more scared.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:57 am
There’s also this business in Lebanon to contend with.
25,000 Australian citizens trapped there - let’s say it’s just 10% of those who want to get out, that’s still 2,500 - and our government is thinking of hiring three buses? … while at the same time they’re egging Israel on?
While I can understand the Israelis’ irritation at, even hatred of, Hezbollah, and their irritation at, even hatred of the Lebanese government, for the life of me I cannot see why they bomb fuel tanks at the Beirut airport, or convoys of civilians trying to fleee the area. From 10,000 feet there’s no way that anyone could see who was inside those vehicles as the bombs were dropped (and Israel apologists please don’t tell me “Intelligence reports”, because in this case they were demonstrably wrong).
And then there are the children. There may be a lot of bad people down on the ground there in Lebanon, wishing Israel harm, but one thing I do know for sure is that the children whose bodies have been ripped apart by the dozens are not guilty of that crime. The fact that Hezbollah launches missiles against Israeli children is immaterial to the equation: they’re both mad, but that doesn’t mean the children must die for it.
And Howard is automatically supporting Israel while condemning Lebanon, whose government he was extolling the virtues of not long ago.
Australia has been caught off guard in this Lebanese mess. We have many citizens there who want to get out. What is Howard going to say when his heroes, the Israelis, bomb a bus full of Aussies? Some platitude about “unfortunate collateral damage”? Or, “They died so that Israel might live”?
Howard and Downer will be absolutely praying right now that nothing happens to one hair of one Aussie head in the next few days, or else they’ll have a lot of explaining to do as to why their “friends” killed so many of our innocents.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Adrian, I’m sure that maybe on his mind but I don’t think it carries the same weight as it did a few years ago. I also think that is one area where his previous dishonesty makes it hard for him to revisit it with any certainty.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
A letter writer in The Age basically said we all know that all politicians lie and so the issue is which politician looks after the electorate the best, which is often achieved through being somewhat Machiavellian. The flaw with this logic is, of course, that that leader will also lie about things which do not look after the electorate, but look after the party ( we need to lie to the elctorate to retain our power because we are the best party to lead). But the saddest thing is that we then live in a world where we are no longer constructing humanity out of desirable qualities but rather out of undesirable ones. This can only lead to bad places.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
It also leads to the problem of deciding who to trust to look after the ‘national interest’ if they are lying. How do you determine when they are lying and which lies are going to result in the best outcome? You can’t!
July 17th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Exactly right. Nothing complex, like government, can operate on the basis of lies, even when the lying is factored into how people decide things. Eventually the wheels fall off. It’s pretty obvious when you consider it in any other area, though for some reason less obvious when we talk about government.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
ok, straight out lies are bad - i agree. and any society that inherently welcomes them is not on the right path.
one should not tell an untruth unless there are powerful and certain reasons not to.
but - and this is my point about the basis of decision making - is a lie automatically bad?
Everyone has a ‘bottom line’ to judge people on - and while I don’t ‘like’ lies (and rarely do it) - to use lying as an infallible litmus-test of character is not viable.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Everyone has a ‘bottom line’ to judge people on - and while I don’t ‘like’ lies (and rarely do it) - to use lying as an infallible litmus-test of character is not viable.
Do you mean that or are you lying? Was I lying in the post above?
To be honest (or am I lying?) I agree with Hannah Arendt’s notion that truth is the transcendent principle, more so than freedom or justice. I also like her argument that truth cannot be outflanked by security, because “security is impossible without truth”.
I’m also, after her, sympathetic to why politicians lie, in fact, why they deal in lies. But I’m not a politician.
Also, I’m not using lying as a judge of character, ultimate or otherwise. It’s way more pratical than that: a serious lying politician puts the business of government at risk. My interest in the topic is self-interest. I want my government to work, and in the long run it won’t if I accept lying as unremarkable.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
There are hard decisions to be made in government and alot of those decisions will not be popular. Lying can give a politician an easy way out rather than confronting the issues head on. Workchoices is a prime example of where the early attempt to sell it was built around individual workers being better off. Howard and the government knew this was a lie but it was just politically easier to try and get this falsehood up and running than to do the hard yards and be truthful with the Australian people. Iraq is another example. Could you imagine Howard going to the people and suggesting we need to go to war in Iraq because the lunatics who just inherited the Whitehouse want to bring democracy to the Middle East. Just not sellable and thats the problem when policies in democracies are driven from the top dowm. They decide what is good for us and they really do not want to discuss it so they lie.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
And this is where we disagree…
I don’t.
I think human happiness is the transcendent principle.
It can be striven for. It can be measured.
Truth is more abstract and thus much harder to hold people to account on.
If you can’t hold up a balance sheet to a politican’s performance and say ‘you’ve failed’ in a meaningful and indisputable way then your criticisms will never gain traction.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
To be honest (or am I lying?) I agree with Hannah
Untruth cripples democracy. If we are to be sympathetic to politicians lies, then our political system is one which either neccesitates or encourages such behaviour. I think this means we need a better system. I suppose one could argue that this is an impossibility (and what we have is the least worst of all options) but i definitely don’t think so.
Good post Tim.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
I think human happiness is the transcendent principle.
But how do achieve it without truth?
Regardless, Arendt’s essay, Truth and Politics, (which I’ve probably done damage by hyper-reducing) is worth a read. It at least provides a sound basis for this sort of discussion, even if you disagree with the conclusions.
Anyway, I probably gave this a bum steer in that, transcendent or not, I think the point stands that society fails if it disregards lying.
(BTW: what a friggin brilliant bunch of commenters this blog gets! The discussion over the last few months has been outstanding.)
July 17th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Whats more abstract, Truth or Happiness? I think it’s a closer contest than you paint it Invig.
I doubt you’ll have many argue with you that happiness or less subjective equivalent (healthiness/wellbeing) is the supreme good. I think (and Tim can correct me) that he is talking about the principle/s that human ‘happiness’ is built on. Assuming we are devoted to happiness of some kind, what principles do we build our basic institutions of government (in it’s broadest sense) upon?
Freedom? Definitely
Egalite, Justice? Almost certainly
Community, Fraternity? To me this is essential, but others will disagree.
Security, Prosperity? Yes and at a base level.
Truth? Very possibly above all else.
But having said that there doesseem to be a plane on which happiness and truth can fight it out. The meaning of liff. You can’t take your happiness with you. Meanwhile, if you act in good faith, always searching for the truth and always seeking justice based on that truth, you leave a powerful legacy. What’s more important?
I know it’s a complete other topic, but this idea of the national interest pisses me off. I think it needs to be raked through the coals. Get a blog. I know!
July 17th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Well, you don’t - and yes the two go hand in hand - but one is a more useful basis for judging our politicians than the other.
Thats all I am saying.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
mG,
ya these are all questions for the ages…
the real trick with the concept of happiness is that people personalise it.
if you are hungry, unemployed or without shelter, you are probably unhappy.
politicians know this.
if an indisputable link can be made between their policies and increased suffering - you can hurt them at the ballot box.
draw a link between their policies and an untruth, and how does that interest anyone but us egg-heads? everyone in voter land has lied on occasion.
futhermore, lies can be justified to oneself. increasing the suffering of others cannot (unless you are a psycho).
lastly, no one likes to lie. it is stressful. so a society where people are, by and large, happy will be one where lies are far less commonplace.
Moldova is the most miserable country I have visited and there you can’t trust anything people tell you. Australia is the exact opposite.
*salutes the diggers*
July 17th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Tim asks: “Why would he work so hard to maintain the appearance of a truth-teller if he didn’t think the lying mattered?”
Why, plausible deniability of course!!!
The Battlers KNOW J-Ho is a dishonest dwarf. They (mostly) see right through his lies. But they just looove the moral high-ground. They’re hypocrites. “Wowsers” as AB calls them. They NEED the fig-leaf that the prime miniatures denial’s gives them so they can maintain their self-righteous indignation at the amoral lefties. It’s a bloody game!
The howard-huggers desperately want to feel good about themselves and dear leader. Howard gives them the “cover” so they can delude themselves about their moral purity.
Take welfare… dole BAD!! Unmarried mums BAD!! Negative gearing, First home grants, babies-for-straaaya payments, daycare subsidy, private health insurance rebates, private education subsidy, family trusts, GOOD!! Why? Because the govt says deserve it… apparently. It’s not treasure-draining welfare because Johnny SAYS it isn’t. Consciences cleared, everyone happy.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Well Invig, follow me and youll see that you kind of answered your own question.
Lies lead to mistrust. Mistrust leads the public to think that the liar is an arsehole. The public doesn’t vote for arseholes… Unless they think they don’t have a choice. As you point out Australians are a trusting nation - or should that be were a trusting nation?
But I take your point. It’s interesting though to considerthat it’s the same imperatives (economic prosperity, national security) on whose altar we tend to forgive the sacrifice of both happiness and truth (and egalite, justice, community and of late freedom for that matter.)
It probably is easier to prosecute an anti-happiness case than an anti-truth case, but I reckon the latter has a bigger pay-off.
What were you doin’ in Moldova by the way? I think the most miserable city I’ve ever been to was Lodz in Poland. Post-communism ain’t exactly a barrel of laughs eh?
July 17th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
“There are hard decisions to be made in government and alot of those decisions will not be popular. Lying can give a politician an easy way out rather than confronting the issues head on.”
So they lie to us because we can’t be trusted to understand the issues or reach the correct (by govt standards) conclusions?
Sounds awfully elitist to me…
July 17th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
IF JOHN HOWARD TELLS THE BATTLERS TO EAT SHIT, WILL THEY?
July 17th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
That’s not likely to happen, is it?
On the other hand, if Howard tells the Battlers that their neighbours should be forced to eat shit for the good of straaaya…
July 17th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
I repeat:
IF JOHN HOWARD TELLS THE BATTLERS TO EAT SHIT, WILL THEY?
Following on from my last post (which was inadvertently “Say It’d!” when my opposing thumb got confused with my prehensile finger), I note that today Howard has taken the Battlers head-on regarding their distaste for recycled water.
Every poll and every vox-pop I’ve ever seen on the subject of recycling sewerage into the drinking water reticulation system has had Aussies in the street turning up their noses at the prospect of having to drink the stuff (Me? I’ve got no problem, provided it’s certified “Clean” … as it would be, you’d expect).
Today Howard’s told us all the De-Salination is “OUT” and Recycling is “IN”.
Now, as I said, I’ve never seen a Battler go for this idea. In fact, just the opposite. I think Howard’s hubris has told him to go out and REALLY test his “leadership” credentials with the Mob, by asking them to (almost literally) EAT SHIT.
It’s quite beautiful, in a way. He takes on what has hitherto been a completely insurmountable obstacle for environmentalists, governments, water boffins and other sundry do-gooders, to wit, “Recycling is the only way to go” and thinks his suggesting it, alone, will sway the punters.
I’m not kidding… when I see this, I see total desperation, and I see megalomania.
If Johnny Howard has to take on the Battlers’ greatest phobia - drinking recycled sewerage, some of it from Wogs and Dagoes - and thinks he’s going to crash through on the subject - something really big (and bad for the Coalition) is afoot. I predict, rather than crash through, he’ll crash.
Mark A.B’s words on this: today sees the beginning of the end of the Howard government. He’s so filled up with his own importance that he thinks asking the Battlers to eat shit will convince them to do it.
It’s like Hitler (forgive me playing that card) asking for more sacrifice after Stalingrad, or trying to get the herrenvolk to drink ersatz coffee and like it… all for the war effort.
No matter that I agree with him… this is a BIG loser for Howard, and that he didn’t know better than to suggest it shows how far out on a limb he believes he needs to, and can go.
Well, maybe not the beginning of the end, but certainly - for Labor - the end of the beginning.
I’m cheered-up, immensely.
July 17th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Cheers, AB. The fact that he is now suggesting that city siders should be entitled to have as much water at their disposal as they ever seem to think they want or need, providing they are prepared to have it as recycled water is almost hilarious. His pontificating about people who live on the eastern sea-board never having to live with water restictions is surely the politics of desperation.Poor people who live in the city, having to put up with dastardly water restrictions, their lives turned into misery.
Not once did he mention the fact that water conservation is important. Makes those of us that live in the bush hope that with this new found plan he will obviously give us huge subsidies on tanks(given that we already make do with whatever rain falls on our roofs).
Did someone mention hubris?
July 17th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Howard doesn’t even have the appearance of a truth-teller - not since the day he introduced the world to phrase “non-core promise”.
He maintains a veil of deniability for the benefit of those that need to rationalise voting for a man they can’t trust. His tricky words can be taken as evidence that John Howard is a man of his word, provided you already believe that, and provided you wish to continue believing that.
All very new age.
Amen.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Trackback.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:39 am
Sorry Tim, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. The polls are right and they tell us nothing new. A majority of the public has long believed JH tells lies, but they still have a high regard for him as a leader and still vote him in as a result.
It’s not just the latest polls - the 2004 election was the ultimate proof that vast sections of the Aust population were prepared to forgive or forget about various well-documented lies, games and deceit, so long as the govt ‘delivered’ in other areas - eg the economy, national security. (Now I’m of the view that the govt’s success in these areas is largely one of managing perceptions - but that’s an argument for another day).
But I agree with you Tim (and ALan Green etc) that admitting to lies would not be a good look - a veneer of respectability and ‘plausible deniability’ must be maintained to keep people onside and give them rationalisations to hang onto, despite some misgivings. It also adds to the image of Howard as a tough and formidable man who won’t bend - which people respect despite its downsides.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:22 am
HOW THE WORM TURNS: THE AUSTRALIAN TURNS POLL DEFEAT INTO GLORIOUS VICTORY FOR HOWARD
Sigh… I should give up my day job and go into Political Punditry.
A small bounce in the latest Newspoll for the government, up from 47 to 48 two-party preferred today (as I predicted might happen…[if you can "predict" something "might" happen]… it’s the Howard Sympathy Vote) and we get this from Dennis Shanahan:
“JOHN Howard is staying on. The Prime Minister’s own arithmetic and political logic allow for no other decision.
Today’s Newspoll survey only highlights Howard’s political dominance, not only of the Labor Party but also of the Liberal Party.”
Dennis should pack an extra pair of undies for when he wets his pants like this.
On the basis of one poll, where the government is still 4 points behind the opposition 2-pp, and not even ahead on primaries for a change, Shanahan concocts the “political dominance” of Howard over… well… The Entire Universe.
The old-old meme used to be that 2-pp was all that counted. When Labor started winning the odd poll on that, then it was the primary vote that was the real indicator. Now that Labor is matching the government on primary vote and regularly beating them on 2-pp (as they do today, by 4 points), it’s “Preferred Prime Minister” that’s the clincher (we’re a Presidency, remember?).
In a fortnight that’s been all Howard, all the time, that had a disastrous performance by Costello, where a lot of people would have changed their minds about the Treasurer for the worse (and did, he fell back behind Beazley again), but also where the State Labor Premiers were all but sucking Howard’s cock under the table at the COAG meeting, the government has made no real impact on a solid primary and 2-pp lead by the Opposition, clawing back only 1% on the notional preference distribution.
My take on this poll is that the public prefer Howard as Prime Minister, loathe Costello, are luke warm about Beazley, have all this settled in their minds, but are still able to cut to the chase when it comes to voting intentions and clearly prefer Labor as the government, both on primary and preferential vote. There have been too many positive polls for Labor - over the last 6 months - to be able to draw any other conclusion.
This seems to be the state of play at the moment, and things can change of course, but at the moment, Labor has nothing to worry about, and plenty to cheer about, no matter whether the Australian turns a solid defeat into glorious victory, or not.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:46 am
I should also point out my regular statistics on the latest Newspoll.
Labor’s sliding average (last three polls) is now at it’s highest since May 2005, at 51.5 to 48.5.
It has now won 17 out of the past 29 polls.
Its primary vote is the highest since the election.
Beazley’s Preferred Prime Minister is the highest since the Latham Diaries came out.
The average 2-pp result for Labor (over the past 18 months) is 50.5 to 49.5.
They have won 8 out of the 12 polls conducted this year and 4 out of the 5 conducted since the Budget.
And Howard has “stamped his dominance” over them?
Pig’s Arse.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:38 am
I agree Aussie Bob. The movements are so small in this poll that they are nearly meaninglesss and well inside the margin of error. Howard of course got in on Sunday declaring they would take a “hit” in the polls just to give the media cheer squad some direction on their interpretations of the upcoming opinion polls. Interesting listening to Michelle Grattan talking to an excited Fran Kelly this morning. Michelle Grattan was hosing down Kelly’s proclamation that this was a good poll for the government and quite rightly too. In her article on Sunday, Michelle Grattan mentioned that Liberal party internal polling had been quite poor. She has obviously been privy to some information that led her this morning to not be as generous as some about the reading of these latest opinion polls. A couple of months ago, just after the budget, Labor was considered to be uncompetative and “blown out of the water” by the tax cuts. Now they are in a position where there has been nearly a ten point turnaround for them in primary vote since the 2004 poll. I think if they were offered this position two months ago they would have taken it with both hands.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:15 am
“A couple of months ago, just after the budget, Labor was considered to be uncompetative and “blown out of the water” by the tax cuts.”
This was one of the greatest furphies of them all.
For example, ABC Radio (Catherine McGrath) the morning after Beazley’s Budget Reply speech claimed that Labor,
“desperately demoralised by falling polls in recent months… [was] still miles away from being a competitive Opposition.”
How wrong she was!
Since the Budget the results for Labor 2-pp have been 50, 52, 49, 53, 52 (wins in 4 out of 5), with increases each time for Beazley personally, and in primary vote, to the point where, today, they are level-pegging on primary and comfortably ahead on 2-pp.
In the six months before the Budget Reply, the polls - on which McGrath based her opinion piece - were the same, showing an 80% poll-winning record for Labor over the previous 8 months. Yet she claimed they were demoralised, and many others did, too.
Perhaps she just did a poll down at the Journos’ Club?
Today’s Newspoll is the result of the Greatest Politician In The Universe being given the public stage for the entire two-weeks, winning a convincing victory over his deputy, and being feted by the (Labor) Premiers in embarassing terms.
The result? What the last fortnight has achieved has been to eliminate Costello as a serious threat to Howard, exposed the lack of depth in Liberal leadership ranks, boosted Beazley over Costello (future Question Times will be fun as Costello smirks to the back benches and finds no-one smirking back), increased Labor’s base vote and generally confirmed that the Mob really can distinguish between voting for the Party and admiring The Man.
What’s there to be slashing your wrists over, if you’re a Labor politician?
July 18th, 2006 at 10:43 am
mG -
Nah it’s terrible what it does to a society. Strips out the life and energy from people. takes away hope.
But the underlying problem is not just the idea - its the people who continued to support communism even once the outcomes became apparent.
This is the core problem of moving society forward - people cling to their ideology despite evidence it causes suffering to others
- all because changing their opinions might be embarrassing or involve some kind of mental anguish.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Invig, do you think the problem was “communism” (as an economic theory) or the fact that most communist regimes have tended to be dictatorial and tyrannical (and not really in line with the economic idyll)?
July 18th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
I think the problem is that the design of the communist ’system’ made incorrect assumptions about basic human nature.
These then produced the outcomes you mention.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
How much could this problem of economy with the truth is related to the adversarial nature of the Westminister system? The opposition needs to differentiate itself from the governing party for the the system to work.
For another example interviewing politicians must be one of the most frustrating jobs available and it has become a game with set pieces,traps and methods to deceive the questioned.
How much is this exaggerated in Australia also ? readers have been in the US and elsewhere - are standards here exceptional in any direction?
July 19th, 2006 at 3:05 am
Absolutely HK.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:02 am
this comes back to similar comments from Singapore’s Lee Hsien Loong.
i agree. the adversarial politics doesn’t foster long-tern planning. But the only alternative is not some kind of mono-party system.
There is another
July 19th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Oft times i wonder why, when we discuss un-truths the lovely Janette”I have to live in Sydney for the sake of my childrens education” never gets a mention.
She who decided(to the detriment of taxpayers) that the PM sould live at Kirribilli, rather than at the Lodge.
Kids have long left school, so did we have a non-core promise, or like the costello arrangement a matter of convenience?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:55 am
One of the silly thoughts passing through my mind on the train the other morning was wondering whether John is hoping to die in office in the hope Janette inherits Kirribilli house