Rooly Trooly
Political lies - - Posted on July, 18 at 5:36 pm by Tim
Kim takes me task for expecting politicians to tell the truth. She makes the oft-cited argument that it’s not a very pragmatic way of going about politics. Obviously, she’s right, at least in the limited example of John Howard’s current career which she takes as axiomatic.
Still, I’m not a politician and don’t have to play by their rules. I’m not trying to get elected or even in the business of getting anyone else elected. I just want to know what’s being done in my name, what is going on, and I’m not quite sure how I work that out if I abandon truth as a criteria.
In fact, the notion that “it’s not pragmatic” should become the standard by which commentators (even of the humble blog variety), or citizens more generally, determine their arguments or responses to policy strikes me as misguided. If you concede truthfulness and rely merely on Kim’s criteria of “what they achieve for the public”, it seems to me that you concede all the ground to your political opponent. What they achieve for the public is not, under such criteria, easily seperable from what they say they achieve for the public. It at least opens the possibility that such “achievement” will be defined entirely by those with the power to do the defining, which is nearly always going to be those in power (in government). Which doesn’t strike me as very practical. Unless you’re the one in power.
The problem with this approach is plainer is this passage:
But I think we need to be clear about the role of truth and ethics in politics. There are many politicians we might not choose to have as a friend (or thinking of Bill Clinton here, a spouse). There are many who may not hew as closely to a “deal” as we would hope those with whom we have a commercial relationship adhere to contracts. But politics is an affair of force and contingency. It lacks the predictability of commercial transactions, and it rests on a different basis from personal relations. Its goal is to achieve public ends. It’s by that, and their responsibility for their actions, that politicians should be judged. And provided they operate within the law, it’s the electorate who judge.
Okay, but how do we judge politicians on “their responsibility for their actions” if we disregard truth? This just invites them to say, well, my actions are X and not as you say, Y, and how is someone meant to argue if they have already conceded that truth is not a criteria for the discussion? Kim’s criteria is “force and contingency”, which is simply might makes right, isn’t it? And having agreed to play by these rules, why should we then expect politicians to operate within the law?
The most confusing part of her argument for me is where she says that you can’t have a contest of ideas if you apply a standard of truth or justice:
Expecting that there will be a standard of truth or justice that will fundamentally decide between Weber’s “warring gods” is really an exercise in replacing the dethroned sovereign with a purely illusory metaphysic that in effect replaces politics altogether with something other. It’s right and proper that there be vigorous disagreement over ends in politics. Otherwise we don’t have democracy. We might feel morally more comfortable if all was pure, but we wouldn’t have the contest of ideas, and the inevitable contest of force that ought to be played within rules, but still needs to take place.
I’m not sure I understand that at all, least of all why the “contest of force” should be “played within the rules” if it is simply a “contest of force”.
Kim concludes by saying that her argument ‘doesn’t mean “whatever it takes”‘. But given her argument is that only outcomes matter (”we should judge politicians not by their personal character but what they achieve for the public”), and that truth is some sort of elitist affectation (”[t]o claim they should be is also to make a claim…of a superior moral position), I’d suggest that “whatever it takes” is exactly what her argument means.
Or perhaps, after all, there is room for a “standard of truth or justice.”
Anyway, her piece is definitely worth a read.
LATER: The discussion here, at the LP link above, and at Dan’s is worth a read, though I have to admit that I still find the basic proposition — lying is okay and not to be worried about except in certain limited instances — fairly odd. I look at some of the concerns about policy I have wth the Howard government that I outlined in this post and wonder why it should be off-limits to mention that a lot of it is enacted behind a screen of dishonesty. The IR changes, for instance, are clearly being enabled by a campaign of deceit and deception, right down to Mr Howard’s assurances that no-one would be worse off under the new laws, but because it isn’t illegal and because some, at least within the government and their supporters, think it is achieving a good outcome, Kim’s position is that that dishonesty is irrelevant and not worth raising. As I said above, this just concedes the argument to your opponent, or at least, a key aspect of the argument, and I can’t see how that is very practical, practicality being the touchstone of Kim’s position.
The government creates a screen of acceptability around the policies they want to introduce and a lot of this is done through deception and outright lying. To deem mention of such dishonesty out of bounds strikes me as counterporductive.
I wonder too about the role of the media in all this. If we accept that governments (politicians) are allowed to lie under most circumstances then we have no grounds for complaint when the media, wilfully or ignorantly, repeats those lies as truths or simply leaves them unchallenged. That media manipulation is one of the chief vehicles of government dishonesty is obvious, but on Kim’s logic we are not meant to worry that government’s do this. Again, this seems to me counterproductive and impractical in the extreme, the antithesis of the hard-nosed politics Kim wants to champion.
Posted in Political lies |
July 18th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Thanks, Tim.
I think you’re simplifying my argument a bit. I’m not suggesting any means are acceptable, and I specifically say that Howard is in no way an example of the sort of politician I’d like to see.
I also think that you need to differentiate some. It seems to me that your argument equates lies which actually lead to a breach of law (ie Iraq - doesn’t matter whether it’s international or domestic law) and “lies” which are part of political deal making. I specifically do state that politicians are legally as well as electorally accountable.
But Peter Costello’s “truth telling” is not some moral claim, as I point out, but itself a political tactic. As I’ve tried to demonstrate, it’s a weak one.
There are many politicians I admire who I have no doubt were to greater or lesser degree unscrupulous - that’s why I chose Bill Clinton as an example.
Anyway, I’ll leave my (long) post to speak for itself and await with interest reactions here.
July 18th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Oh, sorry, I might just clarify the bit you say you found hard to understand. It’s clear that there are many contests of force that are rule-bound - sport, war, for instance. Often the rules are honoured mainly in the breaking, but isn’t that the case with too many rules? But it’s important to have a legal framework. Obviously the enforcement of international law is much more difficult than say, domestic criminal law.
You seem to me to be arguing that politics should be bound by some sort of code of impeccable honour. That’s not realistic, and I’d argue, undesirable as well.
Did Keating never tell a lie? Whitlam?
July 18th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Well said, Tim. Your argument is more lucid than mine on LP, but this is part of what I was trying to say.
July 18th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
I’m not suggesting any means are acceptable
I know, and I quoted you to that effect. I just think the argument heads in that direction. Or to put it the other way around, you argue on the one hand that it’s all about outcomes and not about truth and justice, but you also allow there are limits to that line of reasoning. In which case, it is, at least a bit about truth and justice and not just outcomes.
I specifically do state that politicians are legally as well as electorally accountable.
Right, and again, I note that. I just think that this outcome is unlikely given the criteria you specify. To what do you hold them accountable if you concede that it is really all down to force and contingency?
But Peter Costello’s “truth telling” is not some moral claim, as I point out, but itself a political tactic. As I’ve tried to demonstrate, it’s a weak one.
OF course he was lying too, which I’ve been pointing out from the beginning. This is your example and not mine - I’m not holding him up as some exemplar.
Often the rules are honoured mainly in the breaking, but isn’t that the case with too many rules?
Well, yeah, but that’s no excuse not to care. It isn’t mitigation. It doesn’t mean we simply shrug and turn away and not mention it.
You seem to me to be arguing that politics should be bound by some sort of code of impeccable honour. That’s not realistic, and I’d argue, undesirable as well.
ACtually, I don’t even come close to arguing that. All I’m saying is that I use the truth of their arguments, their language, the facts they present, to inform my opinion of them as a government (I don’t care about their character at all, as I;ve pointed out on the earlier comments thread). When I find that they’ve lied, I criticise them for that.
Did Keating never tell a lie? Whitlam?
I’m not sure of the relevance of that. OF course, they did. In fact, Keating’s dishonesty (amongst other things) cost him my vote in 1996.
Basically, I think you can recognise the pragmatic realities of politics without having to simply accept such realities as the only criteria for assessing what is being done. Maybe you can’t if you are a politician, but that’s a different argument and not one you make. Besides, as I say, I’m not a politician and so not bound by that restriction.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
“Often the rules are honoured mainly in the breaking, but isn’t that the case with too many rules?
Well, yeah, but that’s no excuse not to care. It isn’t mitigation. It doesn’t mean we simply shrug and turn away and not mention it.”
I would add that usually breaking the rules is actively punished.
Which reminds me Of JWH’s bluster about accountability and responsibility and his Parliamentary Code of Conduct.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
The point about Keating and Whitlam, Tim, is that implicitly you are suggesting Howard is sui generis, because you argue in this post that truth is such an important criterion. I think. My point is that Howard may be worse, but find me a politician who can be held to the ethical standards you want to hold them too. That’s why I picked Clinton as an example - a very flawed person - on the record as lying - but a great politician who did many good things.
My point about accountability and responsibility is the best way to sanction politicians who stray from acceptable means of conduct is to defeat them. That requires persuading fifty plus one percent of our fellow Australian voters to throw them out. My argument is that no moral tribunal, or conventions, or whatever will do the trick if they go too far. You need to make a political case. And it’s very clear that this moralising does not do the trick. Beazley may be more honourable than Howard, but what does he stand for? People aren’t going to vote just on the fact that he’s a better person. It’s a losing political hand, it consumes too much political energy that could be better put to use finding ammunition that hits the target. The judgement on that is not some moral code, but what damages Howard politically.
And as I’ve also argued in my post, it seems to me that this sort of “Howard lies” refrain opens itself much too easily to being turned back on the anti-Howard forces.
If you suggest first that Howard is mendacious and ought to be sanctioned, but secondly he keeps winning elections and his popularity is relatively robust, then implicitly you are claiming a higher standard of morality than the majority of Australian citizens.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
As to your point about not being a politician, well, fair enough. But what’s your objective? To judge Howard morally. Fine. But if your objective is to make a difference to opinion about Howard, then you can’t use that escape clause, because you’re playing the political game.
And if you want to do that, and my objective is to see the rat tossed out, then you need to think about doing it effectively. Preaching to the converted serves a purpose, but it doesn’t serve the purpose of persuasion of others which is necessary to see Howard go.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
I don’t think that’s the case, and I don’t think it would matter if it was. What you seem to be saying is that an election-winning politician can’t possibly be morally culpable for anything, and that anyone who wants to condemn their behaviour is holding the electorate in contempt somehow.
It might be the case that a “Howard Lies” campaign is not the best way to get rid of him, but that doesn’t mean that the point’s not worth making. Tim’s quite entitled to say “The sort of politician that I want in power would not lie like this”, without necessarily expecting that the rest of the electorate will agree with him.
Personally, I doubt that the electorate will ever dump Howard on the basis of his lies, but not necessarily because they think lying is okay. My guess is that the lies don’t cut through for the same reason that not much of anything else cuts through - except for those of us who make politics a particular hobby, most people would greet the news of another lie with a big yawn unless they were personally affected somehow. I would argue that we’re all affected when politicians get in the habit of treating their electors cynically, but my sense is that most people would respond that they had better things to worry about than what the wankers in Canberra are up to this week. So it’s not so much “We don’t care that John Howard lies”, and more “We don’t care much what any politician does as long as my interests a b and c are taken care of”. I don’t claim a higher standard of morality than other Australians, but I’m probably fussier about politicians than most, simply because I (like every other participant in discussions like this) am more interested than most.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
I don’t really want to be debating my post on two blogs at once, so if people would like a further response from me, please make a comment on my thread, but in response to Dan, I’ll just reproduce this comment I made in reply to adrian at LP:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/07/18/quod-est-veritas/#comment-114206
July 18th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
[...] There’s some dispute going on at the moment between Kim and Tim about truth in politics in the aftermath of walletgate. [...]
July 19th, 2006 at 12:26 am
I keep saying I’ll go away, but another argument occurred to me after reading Dan’s post.
http://www.tubagooba.com/?p=355
I don’t see Howard having “lied” over the Costello “deal” (I’m not at all sure it’s clearcut by the way) as problematic. Clinton promised individuals as well as the public he wouldn’t run for Pres when he was seeking re-election as Governor in 1990. It was pretty clear at the time that if his chances looked good, he’d take them. And I’d argue he should have. There were good reasons why he won the 96 election so convincingly. He was a good President who did good things (and bad things too, but where’s the politician all of whose acts we endorse?), and I’d much rather see him become Pres than miss the chance because he was afraid that he’d be accused of lying.
The conduct of Bush etc. in lying over Iraq is of a wholly different character, because it was designed to justify an illegal act.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:49 am
There’s a difference between lying and not being candid. While there’s a lot to be said for “sunshine” laws, wherein the full record of governmental proceedings is open to the public, of which Freedom of Information Acts are an example (if not a very good one, though more usually in how applications are [mis]handled than anything else), these don’t prevent the kinds of lies we get told about backroom dealings or even trumped-up intelligence to induce use-of-force authorisations. There’s enough of a difference in our expectations of politicians, nevertheless, that lies should not be tolerated even if a lack of candor can be. In the case of Howard’s and Costello’s he-said/he-said deal/no-deal, we’re only contending with ‘truthiness’, i.e., a lack of candor. Howard can deny he made a deal because he never said: ‘it’s a deal’, he never signed a paper, or otherwise did more than reach an understanding between himself and Costello. Costello says he understood it a little differently, but that doesn’t make either of them an out-and-out liar on this issue, although Howard less candid than Costello. Bush lied, however, about Iraq, and Howard lied about children overboard and so forth, and they should be held to the same standard we’d hold anyone else over any other outright lie. That we don’t do so doesn’t excuse either of them; it only condemns us as accessories after the fact.
There are other actions than lying for which politicians should similarly be held accountable - Bush’s blocking investigations or issuing ’signing statements’ to contravene or except himself from laws, for example - and when we or our representatives excuse such behaviour, again, we, too, are liable.
Similarly, however, there are actions where a lack of candor is to be excused. Politicians who spend all their time explaining themselves or polling opinions aren’t doing their jobs as our representatives. Politicians may make deals or break them, but so long as they do so on an accountable basis, they aren’t lying or acting dishonourably. If they’re depending on what the definition of ‘is’ is, then they probably are, and should be held to account.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns! We’re always squabbling with each other over Howard’s crumbs, long after he’s moved on to the next outrage.
The Deal he made with Costello, his party boss at the time, was this: “I’ll have a run as PM while you come up to speed. I’ll set things up for you and then hand you the reins.”
Howard broke his word and the Battlers forgive him for it, because he’s brought home the bacon for them, in the past. Their vote was a reward not a blank cheque for the future.
As for Costello, they don’t - never did much - like him, and now he’s even more marginalised.
But what we’ve been left with is the Cult Of Howard: Howard as the omniscient father figure who’ll use rat cunning, threats and vengeance to support his “family” (us).
It’s now official… the Battlers don’t care much for Truth over Results… not until it’s them who are the victims. Which is why it’s important to establish Howard as a professional liar: one day, when the free beer runs out, the Battlers will remember they never liked that little nerd anyway, and will turn against him all the more for it. Labor and the anti-Howard forces are doing the right thing making and maintaining the “Howard: Liar” dossier. It’s something they can dust off at a moment’s notice.
If you don’t believe there’s a Howard Cult out there, just look at Downer’s comment yesterday that the poll results comparing Howard’s to Costello’s stories were the work of “Labor voters” who, naturally are automatically “Howard Haters”. It seems that but for the people who don’t believe Howard, and the ones who don’t vote for him because they think he’s a liar, everyone would believe him. A stunning intellectual tour de force from our esteemed Foreign Minister.
The main point Fishnets is making is: people who don’t believe Howard are irrational haters. The proof of their irrationality is: they don’t believe him. It’s classic cult.
But Howard’s lack of truthfulness has had very important, and real ramifications this week.
Costello is out in the wilderness as a replacement PM. He’s been cut down to size both in the public’s and his own party’s eyes. I think we might be seeing a humbler Peter Costello when Parliament resumes. Not as much smirking to the backbanches, for example. They might not smirk back.
A consequence of Costello’s diminuition in the eyes of his peers is the laying bare of the shallowness of the Liberal Party “leadership circle”. People may dislike Costello, but they variously loathe and detest the lot under him: Abbott, Downer, Turnbull, Nelson (did I leave anyone out?). That these are being touted by the rusted-on Liberal party devotees as alternatives to Costello, should Howard flee the scene, is proof of how low things can go.
And with the hurly-burly done of the past week where it was “all Howard, all the time” we’re left with a very encouraging poll result for Labor (two, if you include Morgan). Still comfortably ahead, solidly trending up on both primary and two-party preferred, and Beazley going up in the personal estimation of the voters.
Beazley: the other beneficiary of Howard’s lying largesse.
According to Dennis Shanahan in The Australian today,
“Coming after a week of claims that Mr Howard had lied and acted dishonourably towards his deputy, Peter Costello, by not handing over the leadership, the Prime Minister’s trustworthiness fell three points to 50per cent.
…
But last weekend’s survey, coming after months of Mr Beazley declaring he will “rip up” the new industrial relations laws and do away with private work contracts, has pushed up his standing in every category.
On being in touch with voters… last weekend it was 64per cent support for Mr Beazley and 58per cent for Mr Howard.
In the key area of whether a leader is decisive and strong, Mr Beazley’s support rose eight points to 57per cent, almost back to where he was in July last year.
…
Mr Beazley’s campaign on industrial relations appears to have lifted his standing on having a vision for Australia from a record low of 61 per cent to a 12-month high of 69per cent compared with Mr Howard’s unchanged 77per cent.
Mr Beazley’s attacks on bosses for exploiting workers with new contracts also appears to have lifted his rating as caring for people, from 76 to 82 per cent, giving him a 20-point lead over Mr Howard.”
… yada, yada, much more like that. The point is Beazley is looking much better compared to Howard as a result of the past two weeks of Howard’s lies being exposed. And it’s translating into a clear electoral upward trend for Beazley and Labor among those polled.
Ok, so Dennis Shanahan is as mad as a cut snake. Yesterday he was trumping the same poll results as proving that Howard dominated both Labor and the Liberal parties. But overnight he seems to have had some time for reflection and has seen the devil in the details: the Libs are trending down, both in leadership, vision and policy, and Labor is trending up, despite the Howard “triumph”.
Why?
I think it’s because the “Howard: Liar” dossier in the Battlers’ minds is starting to take effect.
Take his policy announcements over the past couple of days. They remind me of That’s Entertainment, Part II, the episode that had all the second string MGM musical moments that hadn’t been in the first film.
First we had Howard telling us - against all polling, tradition, taste and circumstance - that we had to, if not eat, at least drink shit. By this I mean “recycled sewerage”. The metaphorical connection between this announcement and “scraping the bottom of the barrel” for a policy is almost irresistable, so I won’t resist (being weak and irrational already because I’m a Labor voter).
Howard’s hubris has caused him to cast about for a policy - any policy - to dong the Battlers over their heads with. And he comes up with “recycled sewerage as drinking water”. Irrespective of whether it’s a good idea or not, he must know that it has a supreme Yuck Factor associated with it in the minds of the voters. Yet he spruiked it as a policy.
Nuclear Energy: again a source of great distrust in the community. Yet he’s trying to lead opinion on it, and change the habits of decades, even as Chernobyl’s reactor, still red hot in its poisonous pit, melts its way through to China and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukranians remain ruined. Ditto for Three Mile Island. It cost them $40 million just to put a camera into the No. 2 reactor building a couple of years ago, it’s that dangerous a place. Yet Howard expects us to take him on trust.
Lastly we have the “Australia: Superpower” snake-oil. No longer satisfied with us being a “middle power”, Howard is trying to get us to believe that, at least in one area, we have become a superpower. See? Under John Howard’s guidance, we have become a superpower. Rot, of course, but it shows:
(a) how bereft he is of policy;
(b) how full of megalomania he is in thinking Australians would swallow this horse-shit;
(c) how desperate he is to show that - despite what Peter Costello says - he still has some policy cojones left in him yet.
In the last two weeks - a fortnight where the honesty of the Prime Minister has been the No. 1 issue in politics - we have reached “Peak Coalition” time. It’s all downhill, mostly, from here.
Howard’s run out of policy, run out of rivals, and consequently run out of alternative leadership depth. In trying to shore up his own position, he’s ruined the party. If it’s not to be Costello, it’s Fishnets Downer, Tony “The Mad Monk” Abbott, Brendan The Bumbling Bikie or Malcolm Turnbull, who among other achievements, managed to lose the unloseable Republic Referendum while taking a stand directly at odds with the man who is supposed to be considering anointing him for future leadership.
As Peter Elliot would put it: “Pig’s arse.”
As the “Howard: Liar” dossier is built up, it will eventually spill out onto the table for serious consideration by the Battlers, especially as economic conditions tighten. We’ve seen Howard’s last hurrah in the past fortnight. There are no more comebacks in the man after this. The fatal damage, not readily apparent, but real, has been done. Once things calm down a bit, a lot more people will see it, too.
He’s on his best behaviour not to tell any more lies, because the only ones left that haven’t had their wallets lifted are the very people who vote for him.
When their turn comes, they’ll round on Howard with a viciousness that will be difficult - but not impossible - for me to watch.
And it’ll all be down to “trust”. Who said that’s an outdated concept?
July 19th, 2006 at 11:11 am
lying tends to reveal character (or lack thereof).
character is important. of course.
why?
because someone’s character dictates how they are likely to respond in future.
but does a lie always mean a character we cannot rely upon?
sometimes no.
diplomacy? national secrets? professional trust? face saving? relationship preservation?
of course, if no greater purpose is evident behind the lie (or the truth - costello anyone?), a revealed lack of character may become damning.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:15 am
I don’t see why politicians should be held to a lower standard than people filling out Centrelink forms.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:21 am
I would argue that this discussion is not about Howrds lies but the acceptance of the lies of politicians generally.
If we do not demand better then we will not get it.
I agree with Kim that a Howard lies election campaign will not necessarily cut through BUT I don’t beliene the lting issue is limited to the next election or even to the Liberals only.
If the ALP win the next election, don’t we care about whether he lies to us. Will it be acceptable for him to tell lies to the same extent as Howard does because that is now the acceptable level of behaviour.
It is about accountability and responsibility generally and not just the next election campaign.
Also the impotant lie is not “the deal” but the fact Howard lied about doing a deal and then continually used the Kirribillie agreement to slap Labor for doing deals over leadership. It is his lies about his preparedness to do a deal, not the deal itself I have a problem with.
One is a ‘political’ lie - not so much a lie as a change in intentions and I would argue legitimate given changed circumstances.
The other is an outright distortion of the FACTS. Howard made a deal, Howard said he would never make a deal That is a lie as it is apparent he did do a deal.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:35 am
If the ALP win the next election, don’t we care about whether he lies to us. Will it be acceptable for him to tell lies to the same extent as Howard does because that is now the acceptable level of behaviour.
On Kim’s logic, we not only don’t care, but we should expect them to lie. But only for good causes, of course. In fact, the logic dictates that Labor should be lying now, to get into office in the first place. This is pretty much the route Tony Blair took when he took over the leadership of Labour. It worked, and he hasn’t abandoned the methodology. So we got Iraq, amongst other things (see Peter Obourne’s book on the topic).
The other is an outright distortion of the FACTS.
This actually comes close to Hannah Arendt’s argument which is that “organised lying destroys our sense of reality, which destroys our capacity for politics and therefore the realm itself.”
This is at the basis of concern of everyone who cares about lying: that, ultimately, it is impractical, big time.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Short version of my argument: Howard’s lies do matter, he has lost a lot from them, Labor has gained… all in two weeks.
The poll results tell all, but only for those who will see.
July 19th, 2006 at 11:57 am
i would pose a hypothetical question.
What if (and it is an if) John Howard is a different person today to what he was 2 or 3 or 10 years ago.
What if he had changed for the better? Yet his past misdeeds continued to haunt him?
What if the only way he could avoid being drawn back into the muck from those decisions was to lie and otherwise stonewall?
Would a lie in this situation be forgivable? In the context of the nation having perhaps the best leader available at the present time?
————
Can no one change? Must we all continue to be judged on who we used to be?
July 19th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Geez, Invig, any argument that assumes he’s the best we’ve got won’t get too far here, especially in this thread.
The answer is: Howard hasn’t changed. He’s got worse since Jack Davy radio show days, in 1956, his first public outing (in both senses of the word), fifty years ago.
He lied and cheated then, he’s just developed the skill. The audience applauded his cheek then, they do to this day.
But no amount of Velvet Soap can wash off the stain.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Seems an odd question, but clearly people can change and should be given credit for it. The question that arises is, how do you trust the change, especially when the person in question is a noted liar? (That’s precisely the point that people are making: lying destroys trust and the liar can hardly complain about that.)
I guess one prerequisite for accepting their assurances of change would be if they owned up to their previous lying.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Yes, but how sincere is Beattie when he does his repeated backflips and says “I’ve listened to the people and changed my mind”. It’s a political tactic. It works for him. And Qld is far better off having him as Premier than the shambles of the Nat/Libs opposition…
I think my argument is being misunderstood. Perhaps I didn’t express it as well as I could have, but that’s the beauty of blogs - I can refine it in response to comments.
I don’t think Howard’s “deal” with Costello is accurately characterised as a lie. And I don’t think it’s equivalent to a contract - to argue it is is to fall into Costello’s trap - Howard is right that office is not a good to be traded or inherited (even if his own words are belied by his actions).
I’ll go back to my example of Clinton. In 1990, he promised the people of Arkansas he would not run for Pres if he was re-elected during that (four year) term. He ran for Pres in 1992. He was contemplating that in 1990, if the omens were good. Did he lie? Should he have not run in 92 because of what he said publicly in 90? Would the Demos have still won in 92? On balance, because I think Clinton did good things as Pres, I’m pleased he won.
I’m not arguing in favour of lying. What I’m arguing is that the best way of getting rid of a mendacious and evil politician is defeating them in an election. The “Howard Lies” thrust is prone to two problems, as I’ve argued. It doesn’t sway people, and it can easily be turned back on its articulators to create the stereotype of the morally self-righteous elitist lefty.
Look, I can fully understand the frustration people feel. I’ve got friends who say “How can people keep voting for Howard when he’s so dishonest?”. A lot of emotional and political energy is wasted on thinking like this, and I see it as a symptom of the demoralisation of the left. I think people are much better served getting on the front foot and working to get rid of him on the issues.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
really?
If I had a philandeering partner, I would rather see a definitive change in behaviour than an exhaustive list of their betrayals.
In fact, going over old ground may even be detrimental.
Sometimes it is best to just put the past behind you, face the sun and hope for the best.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
damn - that last sentence should have read.
Sometimes it is best to just put the past behind you and face the sun.
(the hope bit was implied)
July 19th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Depends on what the lying is about and how effective it is at promoting false beliefs in those lied to.
It can be a bit difficult to kick the bastards out for lying if the lying conceals the evidence of their mendacity, smears their opponents, portrays themselves in a electorally dominant light or is used as cover to tilt the electoral playing field in favor of their own party - especially if the jaded press play along because after all, everyone kind of expects politicians to lie a bit. (Exhibit A - US politics for the last 6 or more years.)
As someone said, if we don’t care that pollies routinely lie to us, we deserve what we get.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
I’m not arguing in favour of lying.
It sounded like you were. You say, “But politics is an affair of force and contingency. It lacks the predictability of commercial transactions, and it rests on a different basis from personal relations. Its goal is to achieve public ends. It’s by that, and their responsibility for their actions, that politicians should be judged.” This sounds like lying is okay because it “works”, it “achieves public ends” and the dishonesty is not a valid area of criticism when those ends are achieved. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way.
You’re also arguing that citing the lies of opponents is politically pointless, which is maybe the main thing I’m disagreeing with (and is, I think, your main point).
What I’m arguing is that the best way of getting rid of a mendacious and evil politician is defeating them in an election.
And I’m saying you can’t do that unless you are willing to confront the lies on which they base their programs and the deceptions by which they sell them (not that they always do that, but when they do).
A lot of emotional and political energy is wasted on thinking like this, and I see it as a symptom of the demoralisation of the left.
I think demoralisation is more likely when we concede we can’t win an election without turning a blind eye to a government’s ongoing dishonesty. What’s more demoralising than saying, hey, you win on that whole telling the truth thing: we aren’t going to mention it anymore?
Stop pointing out their deceptions, their dishonesty, their manipulation of facts and media and you hand them the election.
I don’t see how you can respond politically without responding to the dishonesty.
July 19th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
If the mendacity of politicians was rooly trooly of no consequence then more of them would say “I lied. Get over it.”
Why do they need the veneer of honesty?
July 19th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
I thought Kim’s piece had shades of an argument - more forcefully put by Andrew Norton - that politics by it’s nature is dirtier and require more white lies and sins of omission than personal life. And thus honesty must, at times, give way to ‘conviction’ which is best reigned in by enforcing responsibility. Accountability not transparency. Maybe integrity is a good mix.
This is not exactly lying is O.K, but a certain degree of lying is inevitable. I just don’t see where this conviction (heh) comes from. The Weber piece she cites, talks a lot about politics as being built on force and the state as monopolising violence. And that’s why I said on the other thread that I thought his prescriptions were more suitable to the 20th rather than the 21st. I think the reason why truth campaigns are hard is not just because of our highly (and often suspectly) mediated lifestyles, but because of the relationship between Australians and their government.
The idea that they are there to serve us. This leads us to accept the Weberian logic of sometimes they gotta do what they gotta do (grossly simplified.) This allows the more cynical politicians to start thinking that their judgement is almost absolute. We elect them and that’s about the end of it. I dont know about you guys but I think this indicates a broken relationship between Government and Citizens. The Brits agree. You only need to look at abstract of the recent ‘Power inquiry’ to see that. We should be governing ourselves. And that’s why a ‘he lied’ campaign goes way beyond John Winston Howard, as pollytickedoff mentioned. That’s why it’s not a waste of time. I reckon - and it would be worth some research - that such campaigns stick a lot better in Europe, where they are accustomed to multiple party elections and in particular somewhere like Switzerland with its system of government by canton (grossly simplified!) and the way it leans toward Participatory democracy.
Nevertheless, for some of the reasons mentioned above, particularly by Tim, JWH is a prize target. Not because of his walletgate ‘deal’, but because of his everyday behaviour. Decieving and ducking accountability has become a habit and, much worse, it seems to be becoming ingrained in our democratic system (see Nick Gruens troppo post of a few days ago.) The significance of Walletgate, and perhaps it’s morally questionable to seize upon it, is that the public seem to care a bit about it, probably because of it’s juicy tabloid nature. It is, perhaps the best chance to cut through, or would be if Costello wasn’t such an unloveable dope. Personally I’m pinning my hopes on the reports of the Cole inquiry.
At this stage, voting them out is not gonna do the trick. In fact if we just let things flow, it’s most likely the Coalition will be voted out on the strength of weak economy (sorry :-)What kind of mandate will that give the ALP? What will it do for the relationship between politics and lying in this country? If anything. it would seem to provide fresh excuses (economic instability) for a bit of truth stretching. There are a number of characters in the opposition who I do not want to gift that leveridge.
I think Kim’s strongest point was about the importance of not getting caught up in moral arguments to the detriment of hard policy. Such an appraoch has and does play into the elitist they just think were all dumb stereotype (which is sadly all too often true.) That ‘lefties’ think that not they are not that they are. But I don’t think anyone round here is arguing for such an approach. Policy is popular in these parts. In a way that’s precisely why this corruption of policy processes and outcomes needs to be stopped and soon.
As for the efficacy of such an argument in swaying the voters, well, I haven’t seen a strong argument against it. All we have is what’s happened in the past and I think that’s more an indictment on the political strategists who orchestrated those campaigns than anything else. It’s also a reflection on how the media works. But apathy is not terminal and beware the sleeping giant. Moreover, Tim is spot on about demoralisation. The ALP needs some strong direction
anyway! What else do y’all suggest?
July 19th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
can i just add something else to this debate.
it is by raising our expectations of the behaviour of others that improvements will occur.
it happens with troubled youth just as it does with politicians.
they are all people.
we need to reign in our cynicism and try to find the best in people - most especially those with power over our lives.
criticise sure! but don’t put our own desire to vent and rage before the potential good than can come from showing some understanding.
at the very least, if the trangressions persist, our criticisms will pack a greater punch if they are delivered from a background of patience and forgiveness.
July 19th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
we need to reign in our cynicism and try to find the best in people - most especially those with power over our lives.
Actually, there is little more cynical than letting lies pass unmentioned in the name of political expediency. And it’s precisely because they have power over our lives that I’m not willing to let them lie to me unchallenged. You suggest this is cynicism; Kim has suggested it is naive. It can’t be both, and I would suggest it is neither.
July 19th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
true.
witness this blog entry from 2003, and this one much more recently.
While I agree we can’t allow lies to go unremarked, we need to consider the bigger picture.
In other words, choose our battles carefully - making sure they are worth fighting.
The whole situation with Costello and Howard was a battle that should have been ignored - we don’t want Costello anyway, and Howard was following the right principle by not acceding to his wishes.
To bring in the ‘transcendent principle’ of truth on this battle is wasting all of our energies when there are more important lies that Howard will try to tell and that we should be primed and ready for.
Coming off some flexibility on the ‘Costello Deal’ puts us in good stead to influence Howard when that time comes.
July 19th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Being a great fan of Elizabeth Farrelly, I think that she sums it up very well in today’s SMH:
July 19th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
But what we’ve been left with is the Cult Of Howard: Howard as the omniscient father figure who’ll use rat cunning, threats and vengeance to support his “family” (us).
Leaving aside the honesty/truth question, Howard’s conduct during Walletgate is a textbook example of the difference between “rat cunning”, which he has in spades, and wisdom, of which he has precious little. Costello has handled his “challenge” with all the style and aplomb of a spoilt eight-year-old and taken a fearful beating as a result, but this has served to obscure the fact that his main contention - that the government would be best served by a smooth leadership transition in this term - is absolutely correct. If Howard were wise, rather than merely cunning, he would recognise this too. Howard’s constant refrain that he still has the support of the party and the nation (assuming that he actually believes it to be true) is a powerful argument for going, not staying. As it is, he is implicitly saying that he’ll only depart when his colleagues or the electorate are fed up with him, which would put him the same category as Keating, Hawke, Fraser, Whitlam and every other PM not lucky enough to die in office. Is that the best way to ensure a heroic legacy? If he wants to go out on top, now is the optimum time - his determination to hang on to power is just pure ego.
Moreover, one wonders if he, or anyone else, has tried this thought experiment: Howard pledges to contest the next election. Can he then plausibly commit to serving out the next full term until 2010? Even if he can manage to convince the electorate that he will, it would be a recipe for disaster for the Liberals. Never mind Costello; there would be any number of ambitious ministers, eyeing off higher office in the post-Howard era, who would be exceedingly twitchy. The government’s discipline has already begun to unravel in the current term. A fifth-term Howard government would be a case study in political entropy, and would likely produce the type of ALP landslide in 2010 that would leave the Liberals in opposition for a decade.
In his quiet moments, Howard might reflect that it took the Liberals a decade to recover from Menzies’ long refusal to release his death-grip on the reins of power. That is, he would do - if he were wise.
July 19th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Moreover, one wonders if he, or anyone else, has tried this thought experiment: Howard pledges to contest the next election.
That’s precisely the scenario I considered here, and why I think Howard is a lame duck in the making.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
If you think about lying on an ordinary day to day level, the lies we care about are the lies that hurt us, or others we care about. Hurtful lies hurt because of the trust we had invested in the liar.
Australians didn’t vote for Howard because they cared about Costello’s feelings. They voted for him because they trusted him to look after their economic well being. When he violated that trust with Workbumholes he hurt them. When he hurt Costello he only hurt Costello.
There are also two parts to prime ministership - the person and the institution. We seem to trust the institution more than the person, whoever it is. There is a subtle but important difference between “Howard” lied and “The Prime Minister” lied. When John Howard lies it amounts to celebrity gossip, when the Prime Minister lies, to all of us, with hurtful results, it’s altogether different.
The big, hurtful lie was the one about caring about us and our mortgages and flatscreens and private schools, which is what we trust the Prime Minister of Australia to do. All the other little ones may attach themselves to that big one, but they wouldn’t count for much otherwise because they didn’t immediately hurt us.
It might be more helpful for the left to articulate its objections in the dignified terms of the office, the institution, rather than on a personal level. The question then would not be whether Howard lied to Costello, but whether he honoured the expectations of people who elected him to fill the role, the institution of Australian Prime Minister.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Lyn,
the Howard lie I am concerned about is not a broken deal with Costello but lying to the Australian people about his preparedness to do such a deal. He berates the ALP over the Kirribilli agreement, but what is the difference with his deal with Costello (apart from the obvious, he didn’t honour it)?
This is the PM telling us he thinks it is despicable to do some backroom deal over leadership yet not only he is quite prepared to do such a deal he is prepared to lie about it as well as not keeping it.
You may also notice that although Howards lies were the ‘inspiration’ for Tim’s post it is really more important and far reaching than Howard alone. It goes to the heart of our system of democracy.
As invig (I think) mentioned if we do not expect better of our politicians and start insisting on it we will never get anything better (nor will we deserve it).
July 19th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
nice distinction lyn!
July 19th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Polly,
The preparedness to do such a deal is exactly what I meant about the Prime Ministership as an institution. The Prime Minister is supposed to be democratically elected by us, not decided privately over a quiet chablis with a friendly note scribbler standing by. If the Prime Minister respected the institution of his position he would realise that it’s not up to him to either decide who should lead or to lie about it.
I agree that we need to start insisting on and therefore deserving better, but I think we should be arguing in terms of the democratic institutions of the Prime Ministership and the parliament than in the more personal terms we do now.
I think Kim is right when she says that speaking in terms of Howard himself leaves us open to too many criticisms. If we expect more of the Prime Ministership itself, it wouldn’t matter who filled the position they would be expected to behave appropriately. Part of that would be meeting our expectations of trust when it comes to our welfare.
July 19th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Thank you invig, but the credit should go to Clinton. He argued that the Lewinsky business reflected on him as a person, not on the presidency. Leaders these days are celebrities and like other celebrities they come and go. And the gossip about them also comes and goes. The enduring thing is the institution which, in a democracy, matters a whole lot more than the personal foibles of the person temporarily filling the role.
July 19th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
I don’t think the institution lies: I think the individual does. Let the person take responsibility. If I, or anyone, attacks the prime minister for lying, no-one is going to hear that as an attack on the institution, so I doubt the distinction has any practical efficacy.
That said, I think it is a useful distinction. I think it is important, for instance, to hear the PM-as-institution speak in that role when, say, apologising to Aboriginal people. Or maybe when responding to a national tragedy or similar. So yeah, I see what you mean.
July 19th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
But institutions can decieve. Or at least they can encourage deception. Or discourage it. Not just the institution of the prime minister, but all those he/it has some control over. Seems to me its the current blurring of the two which is the point we should attack.
July 20th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Thats a good point too Tim!
One of the big problems with corporations is that there is (usually) no person who takes responsibility - yet they can act as legal entities.
Perhaps if we allowed an politican to choose where the institution ended and person began in each circumstance, we are in effect giving them an escape clause.
In the each case of decision-making - whether the politician desires to label it ‘personal’ or ‘institutional’ - it is decided in terms of public impact.
In other words, how does the incident affect us!
That way we can decide what is worth worrying about rather than the politician using the cover of ‘institution’ to excuse any duplicity or misbehaviour they choose to.
August 15th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
[...] I know some people think we shouldn’t bother pointing out political dishonesty, but I really don’t see that we have any alternative. Hannah Arendt’s view that you cannot defend the realm if you destroy truth seems exactly right to me. If terrorism is a fraction of the threat that the likes of George W. Bush keeps telling us it is, then his own behaviour, and that of his touts arounds the world, is every bit as dangerous to us as is what they are allegedly protecting us from. Terrorist can kill us, and will given half a chance, but only we can destroy the fundamental freedoms we are meant to be defending in this ‘war’ on terror. RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI [...]