School of Lies
Bruce H.G. Calder - July 24, 2004

"Liar Liar Pants On Fire!" John F. Kennedy first uttered this immortal phrase during his third debate with Vice President Richard Nixon on October 13, 1960. Kennedy didn't really say that but I'm sure he wanted to. As a presidential candidate, your opponents will never call you a liar, simply because they're sitting on lies of their own. Don't get stoned in grass houses, or something like that.

Now that you've decided to run for President, you might be surprised by the stuff you're going to have to learn. Today's class, "Introduction to Lying" will deal with how and why you should lie to the public. Other related topics, including "Minority Appreciation," "Advanced Situational Ethics," and "Vocabulorosity" will be dealt with in other classes.

All you need to know about lying is that it's a necessary evil, like Medicare, and that you should avoid doing it if at all possible. Nothing is more embarrassing than being caught in a lie, but thankfully you usually don't have to "lie" to get people to believe an untruth.

Remember, every time you make a decision you are making somebody unhappy. Let a real estate developer tear down some subsidized housing to put up fancy condominiums and the welfare rights activists picket your office. Increase minimum wage and big business is jumping down your throat. It's getting so you can't even club a baby seal without somebody getting all bent out of shape. Make too many decisions and everybody's angry with you. If that isn't enough, you're also expected to be freaking psychic! Say something that turns out to be wrong, or do something that turns out to be a mistake and all of a sudden you're an idiot. George Bush was wrong when he said that weapons of mass destruction were going to found in Iraq, and his popularity suffers for it. Does it matter if had other darn fine reasons to invade Iraq? No, of course not. The people just don't care.

Learn the rules:

1. Be strong and decisive. People like that. You don't "think" you'll do a better job than your opponent, you "know" it. You won't "try" to reduce unemployment, taxes and crime, increase spending on health care, protect the environment and encourage industry, you "will." For things like these you can always fudge the statistics later to prove that you succeeded, or like the Georges Bush I & II, perhaps you can hide any report that shows you failed.

2. Breaking promises wins votes. In fact, it's vital for you to make some promises in order to break them later. Let's face it, your backers have invested too much time, energy and money to dump you over a few broken promises. The idea is to do enough to convince your support base (who make up far less than 50% of the electorate) that you're their champion, but not so much that everybody else hates you. Let's say you've been elected on promises to force single mothers off welfare, cut corporate taxes, and open up some virgin forest to unrestricted logging. You might be able to get the corporate tax cut passed if you back off the logging promise and vote to maintain welfare payments. If done properly, your fans will love you for the tax cut and the loggers will remain loyal because they see you making progress on your promises. You might actually gain support for your new found dedication to the poor, and environmentalists might decide that you're not so bad after all - at the very least they might stop pelting your car with tomatoes. For example, immediately upon taking office in 1993, Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act. This gave him the elbow-room to renege on his promise to force acceptance of openly gay soldiers in the military.

3. Don't disagree with people or make them angry if you can help it. Jimmy Carter often said, "I understand" instead of, "You're wrong." Bill Clinton would "feel your pain" even if he was only planning to feel something else.

4. Be upbeat. In 1979, Carter gave his "malaise" speech where he honestly itemized the problems in the United States, and what was required to fix them. The American people didn't want to hear things like "Our neck is stretched over the fence and OPEC has a knife." The American people didn't want to know that their nation was in the midst of a "crisis of confidence." The American people didn't want to accept that the solution to the country's problems had to be solved by their own effort, restraint, and selflessness. And so predictably the peanut farmer was booted out in favor of Ronald "Morning in America" Reagan. Carter might have been wrong, but the point is, he didn't lose to Reagan because he was wrong, he lost because the truth about the country's current problems couldn't compete with Reagan's painless plan for a bright future.

5. Most importantly - Be ambiguous. If you have to take a stand, try to do it in such a way so that you can never be proven wrong and you can truthfully claim that you're not flip-flopping, even as you diametrically change your position. Ideally your statement should give the impression you're saying something the public wants to hear, even if you mean something else entirely. President Bush's problem is that he has been unequivocal about too many things so it's too easy to compare his past words with his current deeds. Nation building was once a bad thing, but now he talks of fomenting "historic change throughout the Middle East." The United Nations had no credibility but now it has "a vital role to play." When you speak, you should at the very least consider adding "right now" or "at the moment" or "for the foreseeable future" to the end of everything you say.

Won't the public get mad at me for being so sleazy? Some will, but these people are just looking for an excuse to vote Green, Libertarian or Reform anyway, which will make it easy for you to dismiss them as crackpots. Be confident that months from now when you announce you were right all along, nobody with any credibility will be able to contradict you and your opponents can be branded as crybaby whiners.

The best example of ambiguity has to be Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman." Clinton's definition of "sex" which includes only intercourse, allowed him to "tell the truth" about his relationship with Monica Lewinski while giving the impression he never had sexual relations with her. Another good example is when President Bush said "Our coalition's quick reaction forces are finding and engaging the enemy." He's counting on the fact that the public will automatically assume that because they happen to be called "Quick Reaction Forces," their "finding and engaging" of the enemy is happening quickly. Brilliant!

When you find yourself tempted to say something clear and definitive, consider using more obscure words, preferably words with multiple meanings. As a case study, let's examine George Bush's use of the word "sovereignty." He mentioned Iraqi "sovereignty" 12 times during his April 13 press conference, including "On June 30th, Iraqi sovereignty will be placed in Iraqi hands." Why does the President talk about handing over "sovereignty," and not "power?" If you think the Bush is promising that Iraq will have a functioning and effective government on July 1 you're wrong. Webster's dictionary has 4 definitions for the word "sovereignty." Who can tell me which one the President is using?

1. The state or quality of being sovereign.
2. The status, dominion, rule, or power of a sovereign.
3. Supreme and independent political authority.
4. A sovereign state or governmental unit.

If you picked number two, you get a gold star. This definition can be re-phrased as "The status of a sovereign OR the dominion of a sovereign OR the rule of a sovereign OR the power of a sovereign." The Queen of England is a sovereign, how much actual power does she wield? Just as Clinton's definition of "sex" doesn't include oral sex, Bush's definition of "sovereignty" for Iraq doesn't necessarily include any power for an Iraqi government. The beauty of this is that almost everybody thinks it does. Isn't that a scream?

All of the following quotes were published the day after the President's April 13 news conference:
"While the troops will remain, Bush also said the United States would stick to a June 30 deadline for handing over political power to Iraqis." Terrence Hunt - Chicago Sun-Times

"Refusing to abandon the June 30 deadline for shifting political power in Iraq from the U.S. occupation authority to a new Iraqi government, Bush said..." Mark Matthews - Baltimore Sun

Reporters are simply frustrated novelists, so whenever one writes a news story, there is a desperate need to be "creative." Sure, they'll throw in some direct quotes, but for the most part they'll just write about their interpretation of what you said. Given the low pay and unreasonable deadlines under which they suffer, it's simply easier for them to go with the most obvious interpretations, especially if that's what everybody else is doing. Unfortunately, some people can walk and chew gum at the same time, so there are a few reporters whose creativity can actually help them write a more accurate story:

"Bush pledged to stick with his June 30 deadline for empowering an interim Iraqi government to assert more control over the country." Ronald Brownstein - Los Angeles Times

All you can do about these loose cannons is to refuse their requests for interviews and keep them out of the White House press gallery. Don't worry, for every reporter who knows what you actually said, there are dozens of others who won't be as quick, probably in the next cubicle:

"Bush insisted that his administration will press ahead with its plan to turn power over to the Iraqis by June 30." Maura Reynolds - Los Angeles Times

Yes, Bush said that sovereignty requires that Iraqis "assume responsibility for their own future" but that's beautifully vague. The only specific thing we really know about a "Sovereign Iraq" is that the American military with remain there indefinitely.

George Bush has absolutely no idea what an Iraqi interim government will be capable of, but with the use of the word "sovereignty" instead of "power" George Bush can have it both ways. Promising "sovereignty" allows W. to claim victory regardless of how much actual power is handed over to the Iraqis, and as a bonus he sounds decisive. What would you rather hear from your president?

"Sovereignty will be handed over to an interim Iraqi government on June 30."

On July 1, the President will be able to go on television and say that, as he promised back in April, there is a "sovereign Iraqi government" and he will be right. It will sound like progress, another step in his plan for Iraq fulfilled. With four months to go until re-election, progress, or at least the appearance of progress will be vital.

Now some of you might still believe that these are just self-serving tricks that might be in your own personal interest, but are certainly not in the nation's best interest. Well, look at it this way. Who's better for the country, you or your opponent? If being a little less than forthright helps you win, how can you say you're not acting in the nation's best interest?