Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

[detbuch]

Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

No. Politicians are expected to lie. They lie to get elected. They paint negative portraits of their opponents in the primaries. They paint negative portraits of their opponents in the finals. They make promises they can't or won't keep. They lie to pass bills. They make back door deals to pass those bills all the while they pretend to be fighting each other. They lie to get re-elected. They again paint negative portraits of their opponents. They promise their donors to sweeten legislation to give them breaks or advantages. They spend most of their visible time on spin and "optics" to persuade us that they are fighting the good fight for us. When they achieve a secure status as tough, experienced warriors for the people, they achieve a comfort with each other and understand that the jabs they take against each other is just show for their constituencies, so are able to make
"bipartisan" deals that keep the ball rolling and keep the "trust" with their voters. Their constituents are perfectly happy to accept the lies which enable their warriors to win. They secretly cheer the lies, even if they have to justify them as not so bad, perhaps exaggerations, a means to a good end.

Politics is war. It is winning and losing. A politician's first priority is to win. They are subject to the principles of war. Wars require deceit.

Those that don't understand the rules and principles of war, but choose to run on rules and principles of governance, are considered purists--too naïve to win. They may inspire a following, even a considerable one, but the "smart" folks in the political, business, and media world don't respect their narrow naivete, so they are easily marginalized, made to look like fringe radicals or fools. The "smart," experienced and well backed pols on either side of the aisle use the "purists" for a push, then discard them when their goals are achieved.

Lying is not the issue. It is the mode. Unless you believe the medium is the message. But then you would be a purist. The issue is what is "good" for the people--do you subscribe to the "smart, pragmatic" ideology that society is best for all if it is directed by a bureaucracy of experts, Hobbes' version of the Leviathan--or if it is best for all if individuals determine how to live their lives, the Lockean concept.

Obama may seem to be "lying" more than most. I don't know if that is true. I think he believes in the progressive message, and that it is separate from the medium of lying. He is good at it. His handlers and his party seem to be better at it than their opposition. He and they are very successful. For the most part, their opposition not only seem foolish, but don't very much separate themselves in policy--they are not choosing a Lockean path of governing. For instance, they are trying to come up with an "alternative" to Obamacare. That is, another Hobbesian method--central planning. Those in their party, Tea Partiers, who would choose John Locke's method, were useful to win some elections, but are now seen to be an obstacle and are shunned.

The issue, then, is choosing either principle or progressivism. The former are adherents, the latter are the strategists. We have been guided by the strategies to be concerned primarily with economic conditions and with creating centralized economies of distribution rather than allowing free individuals wide reign to create wealth and distribute it through markets. And the public sympathy has been trained to favor government intervention in personal problems and catastrophes rather than private solutions.

Political progress has arrived at a historical place where most people do not feel adequate to live a modern life without government help. And the progression of how much help is needed has grown from little to a lot. Those who voted for Obama and his party have been persuaded that a lot of help is needed, and the more the better. He and his party and their fellow traveler "Republicans" have been very successful at engendering that attitude. Obama won't pay a price with them. He will be lauded.

And if "Republicans" win congressional seats or the Presidency, but continue to play Democrat-lite, it will merely slow down "progress" a bit.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Their constituents are perfectly happy to accept the lies which enable their warriors to win. They secretly cheer the lies, even if they have to justify them as not so bad, perhaps exaggerations, a means to a good end.

I would agree until it hits the" constituent's pocketbook" or takes away some
perk they have enjoyed under "their " politicians tenure. That's when the rubber
meets the road and suddenly the "stretched truth" ,which doesn't mean a good end
for them, becomes a lie.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I would agree until it hits the" constituent's pocketbook" or takes away some
perk they have enjoyed under "their " politicians tenure. That's when the rubber
meets the road and suddenly the "stretched truth" ,which doesn't mean a good end
for them, becomes a lie.

So true. But that is the natural spiral which actually grows the power of the progressive administrative State. That we have, as John Hayward put it, had an attitude adjustment--what I see as a worship of our "pocketbook" above the principle of freedom and the reverence for life and the human spirit necessary to achieve that life. Life is more than manna, but if the State can shrink us to worker bees who depend on it for sustenance, then spirit loses its function. Life becomes a matter of material economics. And when the perks the State gives us are lost, we look to it to fix the loss and give it ever more authority to rule us. New lies are fresher and more promising, and the State's promise to fill our pocketbooks in more equitable quantities becomes the mantra by which we live. If we "throw the bums out" the new crop continues the growth of the State with the same methods and lies. Our addiction grows.

[scottw]

http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/...ide-continues/

the question is what will happen when the "state" can't keep it's "promises" as it further exceeds it's boundaries, we've seen "three more years" scapegoat just about anyone/everthing for his failures...the most obvious scapegoats will be those "benefitting" from the phony stock market bubble and anyone that threatens all of these "entitlements"....

Originally Posted by detbuch

..."I think he believes in the progressive message, and that it is separate from the medium of lying.(it's still lying, whether or not you think it is separate from the medium because the message/purpose is noble in your mind.... the progressive message ignores reality and trounces the principles that we live under as a result of our founding, it requires lying or ignorance) He is good at it. (convincingly distorting truth)His handlers and his party seem to be better at it than their opposition. He and they are very successful. (when you operate, as a group, without conscience, not bound by the rules that you require others to adhere to...it's easy to be good, in fact, you should win most of your battles against those that will not descend to your level , I guess we should take solace in the fact that history shows us that while they win many battles and cause great misery it doesn't always end well -)

At some point the charade will be up and forces will require an accounting, it can't continue...they are wallowing in a mess , none can point to anything that indicates a sustainable or sufficient recovery to maintain the current levels of spending and promises let alone the additional future promises to be made as they double down on their "progressive message".......

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/...ide-continues/

the question is what will happen when the "state" can't keep it's "promises" as it further exceeds it's boundaries, we've seen "three more years" scapegoat just about anyone/everthing for his failures...the most obvious scapegoats will be those "benefitting" from the phony stock market bubble and anyone that threatens all of these "entitlements"....

It's difficult to determine at what stage the growth of the progressive State is in. But the method which has remained the same throughout has always been to "double down" when predictable failures occur. Failure is not due, in their view, to the progressive idea, but to inadequate implementation of it. So when promises appear to have been broken, it is explained that obstruction has stood in the way of fulfillment. And the target of blame has always been to accuse the "wealthy" and those who supposedly support them. Scapegoating, lying, are merely the necessary means to clear the path to their ultimate goal--the completion of the administrative State.

What will happen next depends on how successful they have been in transforming enough of the population to accept their "message". What happens after that depends on how much longer progressivism can expand before it collapses.

Originally Posted by detbuch

..."I think he believes in the progressive message, and that it is separate from the medium of lying.(it's still lying, whether or not you think it is separate from the medium because the message/purpose is noble in your mind.... the progressive message ignores reality and trounces the principles that we live under as a result of our founding, it requires lying or ignorance)

That's true, and he must know that he is lying (merely expanding the truth), but that the "good" he is trying to accomplish merely makes lying a tactic. Lying is one of the peculiar functions of language. Without language of some sort, lying would not be possible. Since the whole progressive idea is built on language rather than reality, all the possibilities of language are its tool.

Now, one might say that our constitutional founding was built on language. But the distinction is in its use of language to tell the truth. Truth being based on experience. And to arrive at "principles" dependent on human nature and that aspect of it which desires liberty. When language is based on its initial function of describing and communicating the observable "real world" it is fact or truth based. When language is removed from experience and drifts into pure theories of what is "good" it is already in a state which can lead to falsehood. It is merely one more step to use falsehood to achieve a desired theoretical end. And, yes, ignorance on the part of those you wish to deceive is necessary. But the desired end (whether they realize it or not) is supposed to be for their own good.


He is good at it. (convincingly distorting truth)His handlers and his party seem to be better at it than their opposition. He and they are very successful. (when you operate, as a group, without conscience, not bound by the rules that you require others to adhere to...it's easy to be good, in fact, you should win most of your battles against those that will not descend to your level , I guess we should take solace in the fact that history shows us that while they win many battles and cause great misery it doesn't always end well -)

Yes, the noble truth is difficult to defend against massive ignorance. Conscience being "the faculty of recognizing the distinction between right and wrong in regard to one's own conduct" is defenseless against those without principle who appeal to mass ignorance, the very ignorance they create with their lies and promises. And yes, all humanly constructed things, good or bad, eventually come to an end. Even Madison predicted that the republic the founders created would only last a hundred years. Though it has lasted longer, in some respects he was right. The gnawing away at it began after about a century and the final bites are taking place. But the true believers will fight to the end....

At some point the charade will be up and forces will require an accounting, it can't continue...they are wallowing in a mess , none can point to anything that indicates a sustainable or sufficient recovery to maintain the current levels of spending and promises let alone the additional future promises to be made as they double down on their "progressive message".......

And "what will happen" when the end comes may be "good" or "bad." Whether we return to a foundation built on experience and has individual liberty as its goal, or continue on to some new theory on how to rule the people may be a toss-up. In the meantime, the battle rages. If the minority who still see the value of our founding can convince enough with their "message" then the end of the Republic may be put off for a long time. If not, welcome brave new world.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

--what I see as a worship of our "pocketbook" above the principle of freedom and the reverence for life and the human spirit necessary to achieve that life. Life is more than manna, but if the State can shrink us to worker bees who depend on it for sustenance, then spirit loses its function. Life becomes a matter of material economics.

The problem lies in the self-centeredness of human nature where the Love of money is the root of all evil. Only a higher good can overcome it.
We have lost our moral compass in this country. Go back in the 30's, 40's and 50's and you'll see main stream Americans putting God and Country first. We were the beacon of Freedom to the rest of the world and had A PURPOSE in defending that Freedom.
Then came the drugs in the 60's and greed in the 70's which led us down the path we are on now, with no real purpose except the quest for material things.
Go back to Nixon where the impeachment proceedings were started because of lying. Compare that with today where, if it fits their purpose, lying becomes a wink and a nod, or a stretching of the truth, supposedly for the greater good. The problem is that lying is a falsehood and there is no reality in it. Problems cannot be solved unless their solution is based on truth.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by justplugit

The problem lies in the self-centeredness of human nature where the Love of money is the root of all evil. Only a higher good can overcome it.

Along those lines a major difference between those who adhere to our founding principles and those who replace those principles with the progressive model of government is in what each views to be the most important aspect of human nature.

The founding idea was based on that portion of human nature which sought an individual liberty to define ones life with the least amount of interference from government. The progressive idea saw individual humans as basically helpless against the flow of history. For Progressives the most important aspect of human nature was its need to be protected from life's misfortunes.

The Founders saw history as a consequence of human activity. The Progressives saw history as an inexorable force, a sort of Hegelian dialectic which could not be resisted and against which individuals were meaningless.


The Founders understood that there was a role for government in the protection of a society of individuals. A limited role that served the people. The Progressives saw government as the only power that could protect the people and that it must not be limited in its scope to do so.

The Founders devised a government which would promote what they considered the higher, nobler portions of human nature--to strive in those self defined ways in which they were endowed by a higher power, a creator, against the vicissitudes of life. The Progressives transformed that government to provide for the needs of that "lower" portion of human nature, the need to be sheltered against misfortune.

Problems cannot be solved unless their solution is based on truth.

Truth is a principle by which the Founder's system must operate, and on which the system was devised. In hammering out that system, they did not lie or dissemble to one another. They argued and debated about what they truly believed and desired. Their "truth" was based on the recorded history of human experience and the experience they were living. They were not afraid to face the difficulties of life as individuals, but understood that there was a need to provide for the common defense and welfare and to protect the free association and commerce among one another. They provided a constant, predictable social pact based on immutable principles, but provided for the necessity of change. The individual freedom, the free association, the common defense and commerce among each other depended on truth to be effective. Falsehoods would eventually distort and destroy the foundation and principles on which society depended.

For the Progressives, truth was relative. What was true in one generation might not be true in another, or even from moment to moment in the extreme. Constant change was the mode of existence and the way of governing. Principles were obstacles to change. Solutions would not be based on "truth" but on expediency. The exigence of the moment dictated how and what would be changed. Only an all-powerful central control of society could cope with this constantly shifting existence. "Hope and change" is not merely a catchy and attractive phrase, it is the essence of progressivism. And if those you wish to convert from so-called individual freedom to being protected and nourished by the collective, a few lies about what you are doing will eventually be appreciated when the greater good is established.

Of course, don't expect any change to last long. Time and history march on. The central power must constantly upgrade and reform. What may appear to be failures are just inevitable changes. New "theses" will always be followed by new"antitheses" from which new "syntheses" will be achieved--and the change will be faster as we technologically progress--until the ultimate synthesis is achieved--the perfect synthesis--utopia--the perfect society. Kinda like what Marx said.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Truth is a principle by which the Founder's system must operate, and on which the system was devised.

and it is a system that is/was unique in history, we have many examples of progressive(statist) movements to one degree or another throughout history but in each case the foundation that they were trying to erode(or in many cases they filled a vacuum) was not constructed to quite the degree and with the forethought and focus on individual liberty and limited government that our founders managed to engender. By doing this they, at least, perpetuated the inherent desire for individual freedom that I think represents the push back against all of these progressive agenda items that we see to this day...they were quite aware of the sophists and others throughout history who would use their "talents" to debase a culture and turn truth on it's head and advantage to a few in order to bring the balance of power about to a centralized form of governing and control..., but I'm not sure that the Founders provided a remedy for this, when truth becomes a casualty and those that benefit from the ignoring/twisting of fact and reality have wrested so much control over people and process

[justplugit]

Debutch, being a simple man I found your comparisons between our Founding Principles and the Progressive Model one of the best I have ever read.

I guess you could say a simple example would be a Declaration of Independence
vs. a Declaration of Dependence.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

and it is a system that is/was unique in history, we have many examples of progressive(statist) movements to one degree or another throughout history but in each case the foundation that they were trying to erode(or in many cases they filled a vacuum) was not constructed to quite the degree and with the forethought and focus on individual liberty and limited government that our founders managed to engender. By doing this they, at least, perpetuated the inherent desire for individual freedom that I think represents the push back against all of these progressive agenda items that we see to this day...they were quite aware of the sophists and others throughout history who would use their "talents" to debase a culture and turn truth on it's head and advantage to a few in order to bring the balance of power about to a centralized form of governing and control..., but I'm not sure that the Founders provided a remedy for this, when truth becomes a casualty and those that benefit from the ignoring/twisting of fact and reality have wrested so much control over people and process

No remedy is possible if the people don't want it. This brought to mind the quote "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". Out of curiosity I searched the quote and its source, which revealed different variations and attributions. But what I found most enlightening, interesting, was this item, a bit longish but well worth the read, or even sketchy perusal. It is a very thorough compilation of quotes on the subject of liberty, and by a wide spectrum of authors from the "right" or the "left", from the religious or the atheistic, from ancient times to the present, from the most famous to the lesser known--all with similar and incisive views on individual liberty vs. authoritarian power or vs. the security of that power or vs. ignorance or other related comparisons:

http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm

It can be read all at once in few minutes, or digested a few quotes at a time. Well worth looking at. I felt compelled to pick some quotes as examples, but there were so many really good ones that I let that go and just linked to the entire list.

Actually, justplugit's "a declaration of independence vs. a declaration of dependence" would be a good one.