The battle over Obamacare has led me to think about why folks lie when the truth would presumably do. To be more specific, the debate over Obama’s health care proposal has been marked with criticisms based on what have turned out to be false claims. For example, there was the infamous death panel rumors. As another example, there was Joe Wilson‘s factually incorrect charge that Obama was lying about illegal aliens and health care. Naturally, this use of false claims is nothing new. For example, John McCain was subject to false claims about him having a black child. Other examples include the false claims about Obama being a secret Muslim and not being a natural born American citizen.
Being a philosopher, my goal is to find truth. As such, the ease with which some folks deal in lies is especially disconcerting. In fact, this sort of activity marks someone as my nemesis. As a professor, part of my job is to teach students to reason, to assess claims and to be intellectually honest. Those who create and manipulate with lies are thus my most obvious enemies since they go against all that I try to do and teach. This, of course, is not a new thing. The war between the sophists (those who taught people to sway the masses so as to achieve success by any means) and the philosophers goes back to the ancient Greeks.
Of course, the sophists did not (and do not) see themselves as villains. After all, they argued that truth (especially moral truth) was relative and that what matters is success. If good and evil have no objective basis, then it does make sense to simply aim to achieve success-defined in terms of money, fame and power (but, if there is no objective value, why prefer these things over their opposites?). Perhaps the folks who cast untruths today have the same sort of view: they are merely using a tool (false claims) to achieve success as they see it. Of course, they cannot then claim to be serving a higher good (since they do not believe in such a thing). They are simply acting in a selfish way to get what they want (or what the folks who supply them with coin want).
Of course, some folks no doubt believe that they are telling noble lies. That is, they are using untruths as tools to achieve a greater moral good. For example, the folks who attacked McCain, Obama, and Obamacare might believe that they had to tell such untruths so as to try to protect the United States from McCain, Obama and Obamacare. Of course, the obvious reply to this is that if these men and plan are so bad, then there would seem to be no need to present untrue claims to attack them. The truth should suffice. If the truth does not suffice, then it might be suspected that the men and plan are not that bad.
Then again, some folks say untrue things simply out of ignorance. These folks cannot be taken to be acting out of malice (unless they refuse to learn out of malice, thus falling into a malicious sort of ignorance). While these folks should take steps to be informed before speaking, perhaps they can be excused on the basis of being incompetent. If so, they should be taken aside and educated in the hopes they will be less foolish in the future.
To close, an obvious reason why folks lie is that it is easy and it can be effective. In terms of being easy, just making up something negative (or positive) is far easier than doing actual research. For example, reading over the health care proposals and carefully assessing their impact and consequences would be hard. Making up claims about death panels or illegal aliens is wicked easy.
In terms of being effective, untrue claims can work quite well. This is especially true in the case of people who are already afraid or angry. After all, they are already inclined to think the worst and hence easily swallow such claims. Such folks also tend to be ignorant as well. Since they do not have the actual facts, they have little defense against the untrue claims (and they also tend to lack critical thinking skills as well). For example, most folks have not read through the health reform proposals, hence when they hear that Obama plans to have death panels or pay health care costs for illegal aliens, they might well accept such false claims as true.
One of the main advantages of an untruth is that it can, unlike reality, be carefully crafted for maximum effect. After all, going after real flaws or problems requires that the flaw or problem really exists. But, a false claim can easily be made to appeal to the target audience. For example, some folks are afraid of Muslims. Inconveniently, Obama is a Christian. So, all one needs to do is just make up the false claim that he is a secret Muslim.
A false claim can also be inflated with hyperbole, giving it even more emotional impact. True claims are, by their nature, lacking in such hyperbole.
Given the effectiveness of lies, it is hardly shocking that folks who value only success or believe the ends justify the means, or wallow in ignorance are quite happy to employ them.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i2.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Excellent, Professor. But one question, and not to deviate away too much from what you say here about lying (there is more than enough of that actually going on)–do you think that it is at all possible, that the Right and Left, simply ‘think’ differently? I have read articles that Conservatives and Liberals clearly think differently, I think it was in the LA Times, some study. If I find the link, I’ll post it for you. I have a blogging partner, and we clearly think differently on the matter of politics.
http://splashinthepacific.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/time-for-the-left-to-remind-themselves-that-this-is-their-country-too/
Good point. How people see the world is strongly influenced by their beliefs (“I would not have seen it if I didn’t believe it”). So, it could well be that many of the folks (left, right and other) who make false claims about health care are quite sincere in their mistakes. As such, they do not see themselves as lying and would tend to see their opponents as doing just that.
As promised:
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,2687256.story
I wish to propose a slightly more complex study (perhaps it’s already been done?). I believe there are identifiable differences between those who are more prone to believe a fiction is true (more gullible*)and those who are less prone to do so (more skeptical).
In the abstract world of language there’s a broad overlap between the worlds of “Fiction” and “Lie”. One might imagine that within that overlap exists a magical kingdom called “Fabrication”. The political party that captures the minds of the innocent inhabitants of that sunny realm, may be able to claim unmeasured wealth and unlimited powers.
Oh, that with a few judiciously attached electrodes and a pong-like video game it could be proven– and not just assumed– that some are more likely to believe fabrications than others.
If my suggested study were undertaken and successfully completed, Michael’s title question would, in part, be answered. More importantly, perhaps, fabricators of all political persuasions could more effectively focus their dollars and their messages.Perhaps they could reach what is apparently their ultimate goal: Achieve and maintain permanent political power and damn the country whatever the cost.
*Those who believed Billy Mays’ every claim/Those who believe soap opera doctors are licensed physicians, etc.
Let’s set the record straight.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/09/house-bill-does-cover-illegals.html
During Barack Obama’s speech tonight, Obama said it was untrue that “the reforms I am proposing” cover illegal aliens. Someone in the audience, reportedly South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson, yelled out “liar.”
Now this isn’t the British parliament, so I don’t agree with shouting out. Just who is lying, though, depends upon which plan is being used to determine if illegal aliens are covered.
Technically, Obama was correct that his plan does not cover illegal aliens because Obama has no plan that has been released, only concepts. So if Obama says his plan doesn’t cover illegals, then by definition it does not cover illegals — at least until we see the language in his plan. Similarly, the Senate HELP Committee bill defines an “eligible individual” in numerous places throughout the bill to include only citizens and legal residents (including for the public option, at page 111 of the bill).
So using the two measures, the non-existent Obama bill and the draft Senate HELP Committee bill which was not a full Senate proposal, Obama was correct.
But if the standard is the full House Bill, HR3200, then it appears that Obama was incorrect. There is nothing in HR3200 that excludes illegal aliens from the various coverage provisions (with a few limited exceptions). The Congressional Research Service agrees with this assessment (full report embedded below). For example, with regard to health care exchanges, the CRS found:
H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.
Since the Obama administration wanted a full House vote passing HR3200 prior to the August recess, Obama was okay with a bill that included illegal aliens.
Was Obama a “liar” meaning that he had knowledge of the falsehood of the statement he made at the time he made it? Hard to say. Maybe Obama was playing word games like Bill Clinton did as to the definition of “is.” Or maybe Obama simply was mistaken as was George Bush on WMDs in Iraq.
And another:
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/09/14/is-it-wishful-thinking-or-lying/
Here’s a question: if I went out and made a claim I believed but no one else thought possible – that a greyhound could outrun a cheetah, for example – would that be considered a lie or just naive, wishful thinking?
The reason I bring this up is because Bob Herbert made a rather astonishing admission about President Obama’s health care plan in his column on Saturday:
The president also said, as he estimated the cost of his proposal at $900 billion over 10 years, that he “will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.”
I’m sure he means it. But I have not spoken to anyone, either on Capitol Hill or elsewhere, who believes that is doable. (emphasis added)
So Obama’s assertion he can expand coverage and care without adding a dime to the deficit over the next ten years is, by the admission of even one of his most ardent supporters, a claim that virtually no one believes. Generically speaking, when someone makes a claim that no one believes it’s characterized as a lie.
But the difference between wishful thinking and a lie comes down to intent. This is why the operative line in Herbert’s column is “I’m sure he [Obama] really believes it.” Because if Obama really believes his claim then it can’t be considered a lie, just as I wouldn’t technically be guilty of lying if I believed in my heart that a greyhound could outrun a cheetah. What I would be guilty of, however, is gross naivete and wishful thinking.
What? Obama naive?
Quite right. From a moral standpoint, a lie generally requires an intent to deceive. Merely being wrong is not a lie; it is conveying a factual error. If Obama believes that he can have that sort of health care without adding anything to the deficit, then it seems most likely he is making a factual error (assuming claims about the future have truth values).
Here’s a useful link:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wilson-south-carolina-said-obama-lied-he-didnt/
So, on with it. Obama said, “The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
The “legal insurrection” piece asks “Was Obama a “liar” meaning that he had knowledge of the falsehood of the statement he made at the time he made it?”
Let’s establish a time line first .Stop me if the order is incorrect.
First, Obama, if I recall, spoke to members of both parties early on in the sausage-making process.
Then he gave plenty of speeches outlining what he hoped would come out of the Congress for him to sign.
While he was doing this, Congress was “handling its business”, so to speak 🙂
Multiple bills escaped House and Senate committees over the months. One, the Senate Finance version, has yet to be presented. By Wednesday, perhaps? 🙂
How’s that?
Before I continue, I’ll repeat that the post from ‘legal insurrection’ asks “Was Obama a “liar” meaning that he had knowledge of the falsehood of the statement he made at the time he made it.”
Given the first half of the article,the question is– to say the least– confusing and, more than likely, poorly politically loaded. Any answer would have to be based on the ‘assumption’ of the “falsehood of the statement” though the first half of the piece ends with the clause “. . .Obama was correct.”
The real problem with the question arises, however, from the implied and obviously false assumption that HR 3200 is the reforms Obama is proposing (see # below)upon which the second half of the article is based! That’s a lot of gap to cover to get to a justification for calling any president a liar while he’s speaking in a joint session of Congress.
Recap: The author says in the first half that Obama was telling the truth (para. 4) about his proposals and the question about lying is predicated on House Bill 3200. How, or better yet, why does the author ask if “[Obama] had knowledge of the falsehood of the statement” when Obama specifically refers to the “reforms I’m proposing” and ‘not’ HR3200. I repeat: The article said the “proposal” statement was true. ‘Tis a puzzlement.
#Also, I’m not certain why the author tries to hammer a point about “the non-existent Obama bill” when Obama specifically refers to “the reforms I am proposing.” The reforms are .Aren’t plans sometimes proposals for future undertakings and other times ‘in-place’ steps to be followed? “Plan your trip.” “Follow the plan.” Since this whole messy ball of wax hasn’t even found its way out of all of the committees yet, my common sense tells me Obama’s speech covered “proposals”. What’s the phrase? “Obama proposes; Congress disposes.” That hasn’t changed much despite struggles over the past near-decade to wrest the “disposing” power from Congress.
————
Conclusion: I see nothing here that can be legitimately referred to as proof that Obama is lying. The only one on shaky ground here is probably Wilson. He may have read all of the House bill.Let’s give him that. He surely hasn’t read the bill that ,eventually, come out of the Senate. And it’s devilishly difficult to call a proposal a lie, let alone prove such a claim. The man’s hardly in a position to call someone a liar. Perhaps, if he had shouted out “wishful thinker”, this House wouldn’t have admonished him today with a rare, not-strictly-partisan vote. (That’s not to say I think such a vote was necessary or should have been taken.)
————
Clean up time. In my 9/15 6:46pm post:
In the paragraph beginning with “The real problem. . .”:
“. . .obviously false assumption that HR 3200 is the reforms Obama is proposing”
should read
“. . .obviously false assumption that HR 3200 is the same as the reforms Obama is proposing.”
—-
There’s another error two paragraphs later, in the #Also paragraph.
“The reforms are .Aren’t plans sometime. . .”
Eliminate the accidental clause “The reforms are .”
—-
And, finally, in the last paragraph change
“the bill that ,eventually, come out of the Senate.”
to
“the bill that, eventually, will/may? come out of the Senate.”
That’s it. I hope.
Still no blogs on Van Jones. Sigh.
I don’t think you made a convincing case that there are intentional lies going around. Even in the case of Death Panels, is there any doubt that there’ll have to be health care rationing?
The only answer I have for the question posed by the title of this blog post, is that many people believe what they are saying, true or not.
It can be challenging to prove that a person is intentionally lying in such cases. After all (as you point out) some people believe that they are claiming, even when it is false. I would not say that such people lie, since that implies an intention to deceive. However, the fact that people who should know the truth make claims that are not true seems to point more to intent than innocent ignorance.
What do you mean by “rationing”? Do you mean that some folks will get more and some less? Obviously, people get different amounts of stuff from the state. People also get different amounts of stuff from the private sector. For example, my medical care is not as good as that a celebrity, major politician or pro-athlete would get.
So you want the government to decide what kind of health care you can get?
Well, my insurance company already decides and their bureaucrats probably are about the same as the ones that work in Washington.
You were covered and had successful surgery, right? What’s the problem? Why is this a Dem obsession even though plls show most people don’t want it?
Find me a person– a real life person you know, that needs something from a doctor that they can’t get.
Yes, but you have a choice not to have it and will not be fined if you do not.
Well, the he may not add another dime unto the deficit but that just means our taxes are going to skyrocket. By simple math the government was taxing a product it was not funding therefore at least making a little revenue that was quickly swallowed up by welfare health care. Now it will BE the process. So I just cannot figure out a way this will not add to the deficit without large tax increases. So he is either lying or holding back information which the general population would not take well as a whole. It has to be one or the other. I am told he is not a stupid man.
“I am told he is not a stupid man.”
That trait alone makes him the object of hatred among a vocal segment of the population who feel intimidated by intelligence. He’s not stupid. You even hear that from his enemies. If they didn’t admit that, they wouldn’t be able to pin various nefarious and complex plots on him.
Unlike the general public — whose world view seems to depend on the “wise” pundits and ranting talk show hosts (those who refer to one or another congressional committee’s health care plan as a done deal and base their specific arguments against aspects of reform on that premise, for example)—he knew when he delivered that 9/9 speech that this whole process is ‘still’ in the negotiation phase.
In negotiations, as you know, you go in aiming high, demanding the most you might gain, with the hope that you’ll end up somewhere in the middle, at a place that would still be acceptable to you. Thus, someone who takes a fundamental stand and refuses to budge isn’t negotiating. That person should have entered demanding much more so he’d have something to relinquish later in the process. In this speech Obama basically surrendered the public option and made some movement on tort reform. Let’s see what what response he gets from conservative Republicans and Democrats.
Of course, something must be said for negotiating from a position of power as well. . .
———–
“Well, the he may not add another dime unto the deficit but that just means our taxes are going to skyrocket.”
Tru dat.
I keep telling people, “Hey, if you want services, you’ve gotta pay.” Up here in PA we don’t have a state budget yet. People are screaming because their favorite program’s are taking a hit. Child care subsidies,public libraries, technology innovation programs. . . . One local librarian, a staunch Republican (pretty common in this neck of the woods), laments the closing of her small public library. Yet she fights tooth and nail against local, state and federal tax increases .
When it comes to budgeting, if you push one end (increased demands for services, smooth streets and highways that don’t destroy your car’s suspension,roads and bridges that are at least minimally safe, a defense complex that can support necessary wars ‘and’ wars of choice, local libraries, child care services. . .), you’ve got to pull the other ( ‘make cuts’ in defense or road construction or etc. that will likely anger many who demand the governmental goods and services I’ve just listed–or ‘increase taxes’ at the local and/or state and/or federal levels)*.
I hear money doesn’t grow on trees– but Americans seem think it does. That’s why we repeatedly reelect corrupt, incompetent representatives at state and federal levels who, if they accomplish nothing else, bring home the pork. . It’s why we’ll probably get some of kind of health care reform that ends up costing more than it should, and why we’ll bitch about our taxes, and
grieve the loss of our libraries, and the proliferation of potholes, and the crumbling bridges– yet we’ll continue buying
overpriced goods and services we don’t need with money we don’t have.
*Republicans profess that they, too, want real health care reform. I hope that means more than it did when they passed Medicare D in one of the more controversial votes of Bush’s 2003 Republican Congress . How was that program supposed to be funded? Is there some reason to think they’re smarter than they were 6 years ago? If their party wants to pay for health care reforms will they be able to come up with enough money through cuts alone to achieve actual reform? Doubtful they can do it by tort reform alone. What about that proposal to have states take over? It would supposedly be supported by taxing employee health benefits and providing tax credits. Oh. A word I haven’t heard from conservatives in quite a while: Tax. But the tax is designed to affect workers with good benefits(the mighty middle class 🙁 ) . Tax credits, when applied, imply that somehow there’s a tax cut. But, doesn’t reducing the taxes taken in by government mean that there is less money for something else? Does that money magically disappear from the total money owed by millions of taxpayers and somehow not affect the overall budget? Where will the cuts be made to make up ‘that’ revenue reduction? Will less money be sent back to the states to help with state funding needs? Is the difference really made up by growth? Or is it only made up by desperate or stupid wishful thinking (outrageous credit card debt, ridiculous subprime mortgages, China’s astounding $800 billion amassing of US debt?).
Sooo, does that mean he will be lying about the deficit or no new taxes for 95% of Americans? We were talking about lying here.
Don’t expect a simple answer.
I repeat: “. . .this whole process is ’still’ in the negotiation phase.”
We’re talking ‘proposals’ here.The speech contained the following: “First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.” That’s a definitive statement. I believe it’s the ‘only’ statement that begins with “I will not sign a plan that. . .” Feel free to call him a liar ‘if’ he signs a bill that does add “one dime to our deficits”.
I’ll be right in line behind you, unless of course Republicans obviously contribute in one way or another to the deficit increases. I would note, however, that I think it’s interesting that many conservatives have shifted their opinions about Afghanistan. They now want us out. If they get their way, there should be many more billions/trillions of dollars saved that could be spent on health care.
Anyway, it’s also a crucial statement that forces him and his fellow Democrats and Republicans, if they’re at all as sincere about true health care reform in this country as both sides swear they are,to get their *hi* together and come up with a bill that meets that requirement. If that’s going to happen,those on the Left and the Right are going to have to step back from some proposals/demands they’ve been fuming and shouting about since this debate began. And if they’re really going to reform health care it’s probably going to require tax increases somewhere, somehow, for someone. If it’s for more than 95% of Americans, then his estimates will have been wrong. If he said “I will not sign a bill that increases the taxes of more than 5% of Americans”–and I’m not certain that he did– he still has the option of not signing the bill. It’s a far cry from escaping the halls of Congress.
We know Obama made the 95% promise on the campaign trail.We also heard Bush2 promise us heaven if his tax cuts were passed. During the next 8 years federal programs weren’t discontinued or controlled by the 6 years of Republican or the 2 years of Democratic control. Where were Tea Partiers then?
Within 8 years, before Mr. Bush even left office, we had fiscal hell instead. Does that mean he was lying? Merely misguided? An innocent victim of fiscal circumstances beyond his control? A guilty victim of circumstances that should have been within his control?
I know his lowering of my federal tax bill didn’t lower my taxes. It probably didn’t lower yours. My Fed taxes were lowered, but my local and state taxes increased. Push-Pull.
If Obama fails to keep his campaign promise about tax increases, will that mean he was lying? Merely misguided? An innocent victim of financial circumstances beyond his control? A guilty victim of circumstances that should have been within his control?
Don’t expect a simple answer.
Do politicians lie? Does the Pope poop in the woods?
Will it be a lie from Obama about illegals and healthcare if this comes to pass and the President signs it?
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/stunner-dems-vote-down-id-requirement.html
Stay tuned.
Well, the president proposes. Congress disposes.
They call the process going on now sausage-making.Lots of deals being made to get votes to pass a bill. Deals and manipulations and power moves are par for the course. The Republicans did it with Medicare D and the tax bill. They all do it. Should libertarians come to power, they’d do it, despite what they ‘profess’ to believe.
If you choose to believe that Obama lied after that bill goes through that process, that’s your prerogative. I’d says he’s just playing the game of politics. If he says he’s not—now that’s a lie.