Slate's Bizbox
readme: Policy made plain.

Lying in StyleWhat you can learn about a president from how he chooses to deceive you.

By Michael Kinsley
Posted Thursday, April 18, 2002, at 2:09 PM ET

Honest administrations are all alike, but each dishonest administration is dishonest in its own way.

Actually, there are no honest administrations. But each presidency does bring its own unique style to the task of deceiving the citizenry. And at least you can derive some truths about a president from the way he chooses to lie to you. Consider the latest three.

The characteristic lying style of George Bush the Elder derived from his core belief that politics and real life are separate realms. This derived in turn from the cherished preppy-snob distinction between life and games. In life one must be decent and honest and must not seem to be trying too hard. But in games—including politics—one must be ruthless, and one must win. One is not really misbehaving because it's only a game. So the memorable dishonesties of Bush I were highly original artifices on novel or obscure topics, such as Massachusetts prison-furlough policy or teachers who won't pledge allegiance to the flag or how many times Bill Clinton raised taxes as governor of Arkansas. The great ones were often technically true and essentially false at the same time, and the complete performance always included wave upon wave of follow-up obfuscation.

Bush the Elder didn't actually do a lot of the heavy lying himself. He had people for that sort of thing. For Bill Clinton, by contrast, a lie was a seduction—and a personal challenge. Clinton's biggest lie—will it ever be topped?—was a daredevil triple back-flip off the high board. It concerned Topic A on everyone's mind, not some issue invented in the campaign laboratory. It gave him no help in the plausibility department. And yet he offered it boldly, fearlessly, with an actual intention to persuade. And many of us were persuaded.

If the truth was too precious to waste on politics for Bush I and a challenge to overcome for Clinton, for our current George Bush it is simply boring and uncool. Bush II administration lies are often so laughably obvious that you wonder why they bother. Until you realize: They haven't bothered. If telling the truth was less bother, they'd try that too. The characteristic Bush II form of dishonesty is to construct an alternative reality on some topic and to regard anyone who objects to it as a sniveling dweeb obsessed with "nuance," which the president of this class, I mean of the United States, has more important things to do than worry about.

You can just see Bush rolling his eyes at the fuss—small as it is—over his administration's role in the recent military coup in Venezuela. It is unclear what exactly Bush administration officials said to the coup planners in meetings over the past few months. Conflicting anonymous quotes mean that there is some lying of the conventional sort going on. But a simple "Just don't do it: The United States believes in democracy" was obviously not the message or the coup would not have gone ahead.

One problem with reality of the traditional sort is that the pieces have to fit together. In alternative reality there is no such tedious restraint. We brag about our devotion to spreading democracy, especially in Latin America, but we don't care at all for this pesky left-winger these fools in Venezuela seem to have elected. Oh, him? "He resigned," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer with no basis and no twinkle in his eye. It would be convenient if he had resigned and so: He resigned.

And then two days later the coup fizzled and the elected president was back. I mean, how embarrassing is that? Not very, if you just stick to your story. "The people have sent a clear message … that they want both democracy and reform," Fleischer revealed. He went on to lecture the restored president—whose overthrow we at least tacitly supported—about "governing in a fully democratic manner." And National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice joined in to tell the Venezuelan president not to be so "high-handed." Who could blame the man for thinking, "Only one of us was elected president by majority vote—and it isn't you, George."

Alternative reality can be simple and sleek. That's one thing our Bush du jour likes about it. And simplicity is a genuine virtue in, for example, mobilizing a nation for war. It was quite effective for a while when Bush declared, after Sept. 11, that we were engaged in a Manichaean struggle with a single overarching enemy called terrorism. If anyone had told him it might be more complicated than that, Bush would have smelled nuance and sent the fellow on his way.

But then Reality Classic intrudes. Ariel Sharon says: Hey, I'm fighting an all-out war against terrorism, too. You got a problem with that? And the answer is, yes, we do. But it's hard to say what our problem is without admitting that we're not engaged in a Manichaean struggle with terrorism. American interests and values are more varied and complicated than that.

Another inconvenience of traditional reality is that there can only be one of them at a time. There is no such limit on alternative realities. You can stash them around the house for use as needed, like six-packs in the good old days. So Bush can have one reality where battling terrorism is paramount and another reality where Israel must negotiate and compromise with the sponsors of suicide bombers.

And if he can really juggle all these realities in his head without their bumping up against each other (in a condition known as "irony"), maybe it doesn't even count as dishonest.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for Time and the founding editor of Slate.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


It's entertaining to read the responses [in the Fray] to this column. Those on the right seem to have resorted to name-calling (you liberal!) or attempting to deflect (Clinton did it too!) in response to Kinsley's criticism of Bush. It's funny because none have bothered to address or dispute the charges. The thinking of the loyalist seems to be that hey, Bush beat Gore so get over it and quit criticizing the president. Sorry, he's open for hunting just like all the other politicians are.

Let's face it. Clinton was a lying s.o.b. and Bush seems no better. The scope and nature of the lies seem different, but I prefer neither. The bigger issue is this: Is it OK for either of them, or do we have a problem? See, the way I look at is we really don't have anyone overly concerned with the truth. I personally would vote for a communist if I was sure the deluded bastard was honest. At least you get what you were promised and not this three-card monty thing we have going now in politics. Who was it that said people get the leadership they deserve?

--Loran

(To find or answer this post, click here.)


When have you ever known honesty to be rewarded? If you're being honest, I think you'll have to admit the answer is "seldom" or "never." Far more often it's punished. All too frequently I've seen people suffer completely disproportionate, outrageous consequences for telling the truth--and most of the time it's in situations involving the law.

For politicians, the penalties of honesty are far higher. We expect these people to tell us all about their personal lives, and, in an age of liberty and license, we nonetheless expect them to claim to be squeaky-clean. Not just now, mind you, but all the way back to infancy. We demand promises from them, about everything from taxes to the national debt to the state of American culture--and we're appalled when we don't get them.

It's not about truth, mind you: it's about equality. Americans can't stand the idea of someone having authority over them who isn't fundamentally flawed. The sure knowledge that our leaders are corrupt liars makes it easier to live with their authority. A government of truly virtuous people would probably be overthrown within a week, by Americans demanding to know who the hell these people think they are.

The only drawback to this system is that foreign leaders sometimes make sweeping generalizations, and assume that our Presidents are bluffing when in fact they're telling the truth. Bush I and Bush II were being absolutely honest when they threatened military action against Iraq and the Taliban, respectively. . . but they weren't believed.

--Thrasymachus

(To find or answer this post, click here.)

(4/22)