David Corn engages Nicholas Kristof on the issue of lying. Kristof had taken Corn to task in a recent column for using the “L-Word:” #

“I’m against the ‘liar’ label for two reasons,” Kristof writes. “First it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.” #

True enough. Labels are always misleading and carry no nuance or explanation. It’s easy enough for the label to become convenient shorthand for points that then fail to be discussed. However, as Corn responds: #

These are tactical points—which Kristof is certainly free to make. But they are unrelated to the basic issue: is the charge true? More on that below. But even if we accept Kristof’s desire for a high-minded political discourse, consider this: if the president of the United States is not telling the truth about critical matters (war, taxes, global warming, stem cell research), isn’t he the one poisoning the cesspool and inhibiting effective governance? And if he is being dishonest on these fronts, wouldn’t illumination of that enhance rather than detract from the debate? The president of the United States has a bully pulpit; he has the largest megaphone in the room. If he is falsely describing the terms of the discussion, he is rigging the national debate. And if that is his M.O., why should it not be criticized? #

Read the whole article. Both men make fair points, in my opinion, but I do tend to side more with Corn’s point of view: speak plainly and honestly and let the chips fall. The President, of all people, shouldn’t be given latitude even to stretch the truth when American lives and freedoms are at stake. #

[UPDATE: Read Bob Somerby’s Daily Howler for more. He says better what I was trying to say about the “liar” label. Plus, he howls.] #

#

• No Related Post

Thursday, July 1st, 2004 @ 10:57 pm Politics Matters, Truth Matters
RSS 2.0 Both comments and pings are currently closed.