The Hyperion Chronicles

The Hyperion Chronicles
“Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?”

#304 The Just Lie Doctrine

In the aftermath of horrendous wars, the Just War Doctrine emerged. The concept was that war was only justified under certain extreme conditions¹.

The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that there is another theory that pervades all aspects of modern political life: the Just Lie Doctrine.

Here is what I mean: I have found that certain people feel justified in using prevarications², half-truths, distortions, and flat-out lies to support their cause.

These are not cynics passing on disinformation in a jaded fashion. These are True Believers, committed to their cause, in need of that eye-popping statistic or poignant visual moment that will hammer home their point.

So they justify the Lie.

Some examples: in 1982 Mitch Snyder, of the Community for Creative Non-Violence, felt that the Reagan Administration wasn’t doing enough to help the homeless. His foundation started purporting the “fact” that there were over three million homeless people in America. The truth wasn’t even close. The Census Bureau, for the first time rather than extrapolating, sent out over 15,000 workers to try to count the homeless in the best scientific method so far. They found 230,000. Even if their numbers were off by a whopping 100%, it still leaves us miles from Mitch. Snyder felt justified to help his case. He also omitted any reference to people who were mentally ill or on drugs. These people are real too, and defy conventional efforts to help them, but they didn’t fit into Mitch’s theory.

In the years leading up to Roe vs. Wade, the figure was widely given that over 10,000 women a year died from botched abortions. These numbers were off by a factor of up to 250. (For the specifics, go here). Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who cofounded the group now called NARAL Pro-Choice America, confessed that this statistic was completely made up, to dramatize events. We’re not talking here about the legitimacy of their cause (that’s another day). But they lied to help get there.

The other side isn’t any better. In 2000 emails began circulating how the Harry Potter books had sparked a rise in Satanism in children (in actuality, the email was taken from a spoof article by The Onion). It was completely bogus, but that didn’t stop groups like Focus on the Family from running spurious charges against the author.

Another circular continues to get widespread play that famous atheist Madeline O’Hare (who’s dead, but no matter) got Touched By an Angel taken off the air for using the word “God.” The truth was that time and poor ratings had come, and the show bowed out naturally. (Touched lasted 9 years, and still plays in syndication, which means if the Atheists were after it, they’ve done a poor job. This is what happens when the person accused of leading the charge is dead.)

Then there is the mother of all right-wing propaganda; Bill Clinton. Long-time readers will know that there is no love lost between Bill and me. ‘Twere I in charge, I’d have him drawn and quartered, but honestly; is there really a reason to make stuff up? There is so much actual material to work with…why bring in drugs and murder and black babies?

Which brings me to Michael Moore.

I used to be the biggest Moore fan. I loved Roger and Me. I was a huge fan of Moore’s show TV Nation, which I used to watch religiously. Then the love affair started to wane. I would see Moore on TV shows just saying the biggest lies imaginable about this and that (I had a hard time believing he believed it), and I couldn’t understand it.

Bowling for Columbine came out, and I got even madder. The movie was well-made, but so full of lies I was genuinely angry when it won the Best Documentary Oscar. It pissed me off to no end that a movie with so many distortions and so knowingly false could be called a documentary.

Now we have Fahrenheit 9/11, fresh off of Best Picture at the Cannes Film Festival and the “it” movie of the moment. Moore isn’t even pretending this piece of propaganda is a documentary, even-handed, or fair. He does, however, maintain is movie is full of facts and truth.

Of this I have my doubts. For one, he’s a proven liar (more on this in a minute). They tend not to tell the truth. If that’s not enough for you, try Christopher Hitchens. He’s a Liberal who has a reputation for being a straight shooter and voraciously going after the truth. If you care at all about politics, whether or not you plan to see this movie, read his response. I don’t vouch that everything he writes is true (although Hitchens has a much better reputation for truthfulness), but you at least need to add it to the equation.

So, where am I going with all this? Why did I write this column? Here’s why: for the life of me, I can’t understand these people who feel justified lying in order to support their cause. Actually, I can understand it, but profoundly disagree.

They do it because in the short-term, it works. They do it because they know that for the masses, truth isn’t all that important. People tend to believe evidence that already reflects their world-view, and discount what doesn’t. Think about it: if you get an email about John Kerry (or up here, Paul Martin), whether or not you’re skeptical about the negative claims depends largely on how you already view him.

But I think that purposely lying is not only wrong, but short-sighted. When you lie, you lower your credibility, which should be the stock-in-trade for people who argue about important political matters. In Moore’s case, there is something to all this anti-Bush stuff. I’ve been able to independently come up with information that upsets me greatly and leaves me with many questions. But when there are lies and distortions, it makes us wonder what else is wrong. It makes the liar’s position-which may be quite valid—seem made up and crazy. I don’t understand that.

Wouldn’t you want to be known as an honest person? Does it really hurt your cause to say, “This happened that doesn’t support me, but I still think you should think this way because of X, Y, and Z.”?

That’s the way I would (and hopefully do) go. I want to tell the truth, even if it hurts me. I just wish Moore and the rest of those “Just” Liars would do the same.

Hyperion
June 25, 2004

Notes
¹ You can read more about it here.
² In popular usage, to prevaricate means to lie. But it actually means to skirt around the truth in a dippity-do fashion, without ever outright lying. Now you can impress your co-workers with your knowledge.

Credits
Thanks to Skippy the Wonder Lizard
Editing by Tufloi

Motto Explanation
Read a Psychology book