While doing research for this column, I came across a
passage that helps explain why, despite the worsening situation at home and
abroad, President Bush is not behind in the polls: “The broad masses of a nation… more readily fall victims to the big lie than
the small lie…It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal
untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to
distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be
so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the
grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been
nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all
who conspire together in the art of lying.”
Last week, Dick Cheney said "…
if we make the wrong choice (for President), then the danger is that we'll get
hit again.” He later apologized. But like the crooked lawyer’s innuendo that is
stricken from the courtroom record but not from the memory of the jurors, Cheney’s
“Kerry = terror” message will linger in the minds of swing voters, and he knows
it. Bush “disapproved” of the Swift Boaters baseless attack on Kerry’s war record,
but wouldn’t say anything to risk losing the 10% bump it provided. In his
convention speech, Bush continued to spin the biggest yarn of all - the link between his Iraq war and the 9/11
attack -- despite the contrary unanimous findings of a bi-partisan Congressional
Commission.
What gives power to these “large-scale falsehoods”? Part of
it comes from the sophistication of the “expert liar”, who skillfully wields
the tools of modern marketing: focus groups, behavioral psychology, film making.
Political smearing is also empowered by the weakness of opposition voices. The
monopolization of the news media, the unwillingness or inability of reporters
to question the lies, and the influence of big money on political campaigns all
fertilize the soil for the seeds of deception.
But the true strength of political fibbing comes from the
public. Candidates slime their opponents because it usually helps them win. In
a democracy, the effectiveness of political lies is the inverse of the
democracy’s health. When individual voters either don’t take the time to
discover the truth before they vote; or when they are put off by the stench
of the campaigns and refuse to vote, they pull another thread from the
fabric of democracy.
This is what scares me about the Bush campaign. True, if he
recaptures the White House, he’ll get another four years to wreak havoc on our
biosphere, national security, women’s and civil rights, and so on. But I’m more
concerned with *how* he might win. If the Bushies can
manage, in the words of columnist Maureen Dowd, “to paint a flextime guardsman
as a heroic commander - and a war hero as a war criminal”, why should the
President bother engaging with his critics? If they can continue to bury the
bad news - like releasing the report of the largest-ever Medicare premium
increase on the Friday before Labor Day weekend –how important can it be to
have policies that actually create good news for most Americans?
If they can intimidate and neutralize legitimate criticism
by branding it unpatriotic “Bush bashing”, what do they have to fear from
dissent? What becomes of a country whose commander-in-chief grows less and less
accountable to the interests of the great majority of the citizens? Or, worse, when
he uses lies and fears to drive the nation on a disastrous course. Sure, Bush sticks
to his positions, but so did Napoleon when he invaded Russia. And so did the
author of my opening paragraph quote: Adolph Hitler.
George W. Bush is not Adolph Hitler. And as sure as Jesus is
W’s savior, we can love George W. Bush the man…while we hate his behavior; and while
we fight that kind of behavior, locally and nationally. In my next column, I’ll
tell you how.