More on Politics and Lying
By Richard W. Crockett
Lies of public officials usually
derive from the desire for secrecy, to Òcover upÓ some event or fact, or to
manipulate public opinion for some political purpose. It is often to avoid
being discovered in the worst possible light. Sometimes a rational is offered that is nobler and higher
than mere selfish political ends, such as, Òit is in the national interestÓ or
Òin the interest of national securityÓ to deceive the American people. The late
political philosopher, Leo Strauss advanced ideas akin to this. The stories
offered in such cases are merely portrayals, which are making a political
claim, according to political scientist Debra Stone. But most of the times
these higher, nobler ends are used because of the recognition that the ends
can be made use of to justify the means. This is one thrust of what many
take from the work of Niccolo Machiavelli, the Italian Renaissance writer who
authored The Prince. Machiavelli counseled that a prince with good
impulses must Òlearn how not to be good.Ó
Often in presidential politics, the president himself has other people
do the lying for him so that he can maintain Òplausible deniability,Ó to use a
horrible Watergate phrase. Lying
by political leadership is by no means the exclusive turf of the United States
of America. Adolf Hitler believed
in use of Òthe big lie,Ó a lie so preposterous that its falsity is obvious, and
that if anyone is willing to say it in public indicates that it surly must be
true.
Lying in high places in America is
a bipartisan sport. For the record, while lying in American politics did not
begin with the twentieth century, even though the nineteenth century is
represented by the fanciful story of George Washington saying as a child to his
father, during the eighteenth century, ÒI cannot tell a lie—I cut down
the cherry tree.Ó This has been
described as the invention of a book publisher later trying to promote the sale
of books about George Washington.
To name only a few in the twentieth century, administrations, which are
ripe for mention include that of Dwight D. Eisenhower with the U-2 spy plane
incident, Lyndon Johnson with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Richard M. Nixon
with a cover up of events during Watergate, Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra
episode, Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinski affair, and the George W. Bush
administration in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Other politicians have
been caught in lies too, including the recent confession of John Edwards that
after previously denying it, he had in fact engaged in adultery. Others in
congress have been caught up in ÒsexÓ scandals, which they attempted to cover
up. Some writers make distinctions
between the seriousness of the lie and whether it is concerning personal matters
which in years past were Òoff limitsÓ to public disclosure or whether it
involves matters of state or matters of war and peace. The last two, matters of state or
matters of war and peace, are seen to be more serious, because they potentially
raise constitutional issues.
The U-2 incident occurred on May 1, 1960 when Francis
Gary Powers was shot down over the Soviet Union in his Òspy plane.Ó At first, the Eisenhower administration
issued denials, describing the plane as a weather plane, which was flying over
Turkey, and due to an oxygen malfunction while on autopilot had wandered
inadvertently over Soviet air space. They falsely stated, believing that the
pilot had been killed, that the pilot had radioed that he was experiencing
Òoxygen problems.Ó They even went
so far as to have similar planes painted up as NASA planes and ÒgroundedÓ them
to check for Òoxygen problems.Ó What the Eisenhower Administration didnÕt know
was that the Soviets had recovered not only the aircraft and much of its spy
equipment and the photographs it had taken but had captured the pilot
unhurt. After the Americans had
issued various explanatory statements in an attempt to cover up the spy mission
of the plane, Khrushchev announced to the
world,
ÒI must
tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that
the pilot was alive and wellÉ and now just look how many silly things [the
Americans] have said.Ó
This
deception might plausibly be
understood as an attempt to hide the secret fly overs of Soviet airspace by the
the American spyplane. The problem is that the Soviets knew. It came down to lying to the American
people as well as the international community.
In the
Gulf of Tonkin incident, which occurred during the Lyndon Johnson
Administration, is the name given to two alleged events on two separate days on
August 2 and August 4, 1964, an election year, between the United States and
North Viet Nam. On August 2, two American destroyers engaged three North
Vietnamese torpedo boats and sank one of them. A second engagement was reported, alledgedly having occurred
On August 4, which turned out later to be false. The incident served to justify the passage of the Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution by Congress allowing the United States to assist any
Southeast Asian country threatened by communist agression. This gave Lyndon Johnson the authority
to begin the build up of American forces in Viet Nam leading to war. There is a good deal of consensus that on the second day the whole
thing was staged and was aimed at mobilizing the support of the American people
for the war. Ironically, Johnson
ran as the ÒpeaceÓ candidate and Senator Barry Goldwater was portrayed as the
candidate ready to Òshoot from the hip.Ó Johnson won election in November of
1964 and began the buildup for the ill-conceived Vietnam War two months later
in January of 1965.
Richard
Nixon and the Watergate affair is an example of lies used to cover up the
involvement of the Nixon Administration through the Committee to Re-Elect the
President (CREEP) in a burglary of the Democratic national headquarters in the
Watergate Hotel in Washington, D. C. during the election of 1972. August
19,1972, Richard Nixon said that noone in his administration had anything to do
with the Watergate burglary. As it turned out his administration had everything
to do with it. On March 22, 1973, regarding the administrationÕs involvement in
the burglary, Nixon told his Attorney General, John Mitchell, ÒI want you all
to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment; cover-up or anything else,
if itÕll save it, save the plan.Ó When it was exposed, it led to prison time
for 19 administration officials and the resignation of the Richard Nixon from
the Presidency on August 9, 1974.
Iran-Contra
is shorthand for a scandal during the Reagan Administration involving Òguns for
hostages,Ó which Reagan denied had occurred, but later acknowledged. ÒDuring the planning of the secret
weapons sales to Iran, Reagan Cabinet officials, as well as the President
himself, had warned of dire consequences should the public become aware of
their plans: George Shultz argued during the crucial meetings that Reagan was
committing Ôimpeachable offenses,Õ while Reagan himself predicted that if there
was a leak to the media, ÔWe'll all be hanging by our thumbs in front of the
White House.ÕÓ The complicated
transaction allowed Israel to sell guns to Iran, and the United States would
reimburse Israel with replacement weapons. This created the impression that the U.S. was not bribing
the Iranians into releasing American hostages held by Iran. The Contra part of the scandal derived
from the transfer of cash generated by the sale of arms to Iran to the Contra
Rebels in Nicaragua who were in revolt against the Sandanista government. The
lie occurred when the President and high-ranking officials in the
administration met to create false accounts of the presidentÕs knowledge of the
transaction. ÒBut while the revelation did
convulse the nation's political system for a year or so,Ó according to
Alterman, Òit turned out that the
President and his men had overestimated the cost of being proven liars as well
as suppliers of weapons to terrorists.Ó
The second invasion of Iraq is
another example. Karl Rove,
Scooter Libbey, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenant were
all implicated in some measure in the falsification of intelligence. ÒOn January 28, 2003, when delivering
his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush made his case for
going to war with Iraq the heart of his presentation. The gist of his argument calling for the removal of Saddam
Hussein by force is found in eight purported facts Bush provided to Congress.
Based on material available in the
public record, it is apparent that Bush provided conspicuously
distorted, decepteive, and false information,Ó according to John Dean. According to Alterman, Congress,
the press, and the public bought a densely textured fabric of lies.
Several books and articles have
been published on the topic of lying for those who are curious, and three
deserving mention are by Eric Alterman, by David Wise, and by John Dean of
Watergate infamy. AltermanÕs book
is entitled, When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and its
Consequences (2004). Alterman has also done an abbreviated version of his
book in an article, which appeared October 7, 2004 in The Nation. WiseÕs book is The Politics of
Lying: Government Deception, Secrecy and Power (1973). John DeanÕs book, Worse Than
Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, started out to be
advice to the Bush Administration, based upon DeanÕs own bitter experience as
legal counsel to Richard Nixon, but as he investigated the matter the book
became a condemnation of what the Bush Administration was doing.
ÒJoseph Cropsey, a close friend and
colleague of the late Leo Strauss's at the University of Chicago, as well as
the editor of his [StraussÕ] work, explains that in Straussian thought, a
degree of public deception is considered absolutely necessary. ÔThat people in
government have to be discreet in what they say publicly is so
obvious—ÔIf I tell you the truth I can't but help the enemy.'" This is the dilemma. However most lies by public officials
cannot be justified in these terms and withstand scrutiny. Most are self-serving attempts to gain
or hold on to power.
092508