Half Truths and Other Lies

A “half truth” is an intentionally deceptive statement that contains some element of truth; a half truth is not truth. Such a statement is like a doctor saying, “Half of you doesn't have cancer; therefore you don't have cancer.  A half truth is half lie, and like water that is half sewage, it isn't fit for consumption.

Politicians are masters of half truths; Barack Obama is no exception, but he is not alone. In my own personal life, I give people the benefit of the doubt.  In other words, I try to trust people and assume they are being honest with me. However, once a person lies or fails to keep his or her word, that person must then prove worthy of further trust. I can accept that people would want to trust Obama; he has created an image that invites trust, and he made promises that many found appealing, promises of hope and change (though rather vague promises at that).

What I don't understand is how people, who desire something different and upbeat, can continue to look to him, now that he's shown his dishonesty, switched positions on issues, and abandoned people he once claimed as important to him. Even if one allows that the changes he promised were desirable, how can anyone believe those promises now? Will he meet with Ahmahdinijad or not? He has said both. Promises about Iraq and Guantanamo have not been kept? Do we believe him when he claims to have cut welfare in Illinois, or do we accept that he voted against the primary bill and opposed it? Our first “post-racial President” has encouraged racial and socio-economic division. So is he truly a unifying candidate that non-blacks can trust, too? Is he a man who understands people and chooses to fool them, or is he a man who was fooled by several of his closest friends for years? Of late, he has doubled down on demonstrable lies but avoids full exposure with the help of a complicit, that is equally dishonest, media.  The debacle in Libya on 9/11/12 is proving to be a final testament to this President's dishonesty.

Half-truths, equivocation, subtle deception, typical political rhetoric, and evasion are not the hallmarks of an honest man. These behaviors are the normal fair for the kind of politics as usual that Obama said he wanted to change. Is the only change ideological? Is he just “not Bush” or now “not Romney?” These are the same kinds of promises the Democrats made in 2006. The were going to bring honesty to Washington, but they brought as much, if not more, sleaze. They were going to bring the troops home, but two years later, despite their majority, they did not. The President has held low approval numbers for an incumbent. Congress does little better regardless of party mix, and the mainstream media is in the cellar! Could the lack of honesty be a factor?

If you have been an Obama supporter, I ask you, “How can you trust this man?” If you are not, I ask you, “How can you not be challenging those who are?” There is nothing more frightening to me that a nice, attractive fraud. They used to call such people “snake oil salesmen,” who sold totally phony remedies in order to steal from widows and the elderly or anyone gullible enough to buy their empty promises. Now such frauds sell their phony cures and get-rich schemes on 3 a.m. infomercials. Obama sells his worthless merchandise on prime time political ads, on TV shows like The View and Jay Leno, and in stadiums filled with the desperate, naïve, and gullible.

If you want real change, check out American Solutions where Newt Gingrich has lead a growing number of thinking Americans to find answers that will work, and he's done it apart from seeking the highest office in the nation. As for hope, I would not invest my hopes to strongly in any person, and certainly in not in a deceitful politician of half truths, untruths, and dubious promises. I see no reason to trust government more than the bare minimum necessary to deal with external threats and domestic order; I do not rest my hopes in the power of government for surely that power will serve its holders far more than those from whom it is taken.

One final question is the most difficult to answer. Does a man like Barack Obama believe his own rhetoric? Is he the kind of politician who will say anything to achieve his own agenda, or is he the rarer sort who genuinely believes that he can make the system work? The former is evil; the latter is naïve if not ignorant or delusional. I'm not sure which frightens me more in a President. Fortunately, the balance of powers still protects us somewhat from both evil and inept leaders, but both evil and inept, thus far, have been working overtime to erode our protections. We need not to give yet another of that kind the power to do further damage. We need to begin turning things around. Unfortunately, neither major candidate is likely to do that. Change will not come from the top down; it must come from the people.

We must not merely demand honesty. In each cycle, we must choose the most honest candidate, but not just for President; we must elect as many others who are honest to the Senate, Congress, and to state and local offices. We must reject the empty rhetoric of those who promise to do whatever they think will buy our votes. We should regard with deep suspicion any politician who easily asserts that he or she cares about the people, for often the most vocal demonstrate their compassion the least. Frankly, I have little sense that any politician cares about me, who doesn't know me and who knows nothing about my life situation.

I have picked on the incumbent here because he is the most obvious target. In a matter of weeks, we may or may not have the opportunity to evaluate the honesty of a different person. If the President is from a different party, and new chorus of voices will pick up the refrain of “He lies!” Since I regard honesty as a precious virtue, I despise those who use it without cause. I am so very disappointed to see charges and counter-charges flung around as a tool to bash the other side, while those, who could and should, fail to do their job of objectively distinguishing the truth from the lies. A lie is an intentional falsehood, not mistaken information, not ignorance, not a slip of the tongue. I have a tendency to “misplace” names, occasionally to call someone I know perfectly well by the wrong name; doing so isn't a lie, it's just a memory lapse (and I must confess that Vice President Joe Biden gives us numerous occasions to discern the difference!).

As this concerns dishonesty and politics, I must offer one more thing, this related to promise-breaking. If a person makes a promise with no intention whatever of keeping it, that is a lie. If a person makes a promise but gives little effort to fulfilling it, that shows a lack of character. If, however, a promise is made and every effort is expended to keep it, but forces beyond the promiser's control keep it from being fulfilled, then I don't call that a broken promise; I call that a disappointment. One of the obvious ways of telling the difference is whether the one who made the promise is disappointed or merely unwilling to be seen as dishonest.

The willingness of people to accept lies and deception saddens me. It shows something deeply amiss in our culture. Worse, the abuse of dishonesty leads to other equally disturbing changes. I just recently heard a very telling observation; it was suggested quite convincingly that Bill Clinton's assertion, “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinskey,” has led to the virtual redefining of sex, so that intimate oral/genital acts are not regarded as sex. In other words, when words are used to deceive, the result is a situation where words cease to have meaning. We use words to communicate, one of the marks of human intelligence; losing them lowers us ever closer to the beasts. Such is the danger of lies and half-truths.  (revision, posted 10/25/12)