The problem is, and I have a couple of Repub friends, and they, and Indies and Libertarians, generally, believe that Bush doesn't really lie more often, about important issues, than any other politicians do. They believe they all suck. I'm not sure we can convince these people that BushCo are worse liars than most other polititians. Sure, Kerry should use the liar theme, but it shouldn't be a major theme.

I disagree, Babba, although I do see your point.

There is irony here. Few ideas can be counted on to send rightwingers ape-shit faster than to make any kind of argument in favor of "situation ethics." They disparage and bemoan the liberal (scientific method) tendency toward relativism. At the same time, they practice it incessantly.

Indeed, if it wasn't historically so, the use of the double-standard -- that is, pure hypocrisy -- has certainly become SOP for them in recent years. The example Nathan gives here is but one. Their whole position on giving judicial nominees fair and timely confirmation hearings ... their endorsement of judicial restraint except when judicial activism appears to favor their positions ... their embrace of states' rights except when a state wants to do something they disapprove of ... oh, goodness, you could crank out a list 20 feet long if you wanted.

Democrats and liberals, by contrast, tend to be far more consistent. Not perfectly, not always, not with every single individual, but on average. A good deal of this, I think, is because progressives tend to ascribe to larger, more "over-arching" principles and ethics than rightwingers (who tend -- and always have tended -- toward rigidity and absolutism), so they're more comfortable with shades of gray. So over time, they stake out broader positions to begin with -- e.g., "States' rights ARE important, but not absolute. It kinda depends on what they're trying to do, and whether or not it's consistent with the larger civil protections afforded by the U.S. constitution" etc., etc.

In other words, the irony is that because liberals tend toward a kind of "situational ethics", they end up being more consistent than rightwingers who tend toward moral and legal absolutes which they really can't live with when applied toward them instead of by them. (Once they find that political convenience must compel them toward yet some new act of brazen hypocrisy they then must find justifications for it. So they either deny they're really being hypocritical, or they accuse the other side of even worse inconsistencies, or adopt some other tactic with an equal veneer of logic overtop a core of craven dishonesty).

I know that's quite a digression, but I have a reason for making it. The rightwing argument you're citing boils down to, "They all lie, equally." It isn't true. It's the refuge of the lazy mind, the intellectual coward. God (and the devil) are in the details, and when you look at the details then the far greater frequency and seriousness of rightwing lies over liberal Democratic ones becomes painfully obvious. But they make this kind of argument in exactly the same spirit, and driven by exactly the same inner needs, as all of their other rigid beliefs: this is the only way to claim there is no hypocrisy, to cling to a kind of absolutist worldview in which they are not really behaving in ways worse than the hated liberals.

The only way to fight that is to call them on it. We can NOT just believe that the hypocrisy is so blatant, so clear, that the overwhelming majority of the public will somehow see it. They won't. We shouldn't argue that we are intrinsically more truthful than they are (though I believe that to often be the case), but we can certainly argue a kind of "exceptionalist" position vis-a-vis Bush: that HE in any case is uniquely dishonest, craven, and given to lying both casually as well as with considerable forethought.

We may take a hit with a certain number of (lazy) people throwing up their hands, saying "I can't tell the difference, so they must be ALL the SAME." But we take at least as great a hit in the short term, and I think a vastly greater hit over time, by failing to confront them consistently, boldly and honorably about their lying.

I'm glad to see that Kerry seems to have some sense of this, and isn't just letting them get away with their entirely plastic vision of the truth.

-- Roger Keeling

Still, Babba's point is excellent. Since Reagan (at least) the Republicans have been encouraging people to believe that all government is bad, that all politicians are corrupt liars, that government workers are lazy and worthless, and that The Peepul are being duped by The Gummint.

The more people believe this, the worse it is for Democrats. This has always been true, as it keeps people who would likely vote against Republicans from the polls. Now, though, it's incredibly bad, as it keeps people from distinguishing between a decent politician (such as Senator Kerry) who is imperfect, has misled citizens on minor matters, changed his mind on occasion, and acted for political gain, from a very bad one like President Bush.

Redintegro Iraq,
-V.