The New York Times and other reliable sources are reporting now that US intelligence agencies believe that the Russian government has been acting to help Bernie Sanders in the 2020 election. The point of Russia’s help for the Bernster is to help president Trump win re-election. The apparent logic is that Putin views Sanders as the weakest democrat who is a serious candidate, so Putin wants Bernie to win the democratic nomination.
That’s not a bad calculation. The Russians aren’t stupid. The Russian leadership wants to see the president re-elected because they believe that best serves their interests. The logic is clean.
That sleaze is not the point of this OP. But, it is the grist for it. This OP begins to look into what a political lie is. I've written on the difference between facts, truths and logic. Lies are a different topic entirely.
Here is what the NYT writes:
“WASHINGTON — Russia has been trying to intervene in the Democratic primaries to aid Senator Bernie Sanders, according to people familiar with the matter, and intelligence officials recently briefed him about Russian interference in the election, Mr. Sanders said on Friday.
In a statement on Friday, Mr. Sanders denounced Russia, calling President Vladimir V. Putin an “autocratic thug” and warning Moscow to stay out of the election.
“Let’s be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand firmly against their efforts and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election,” Mr. Sanders said.
He also told reporters that he was briefed about a month ago.
“The intelligence community is telling us Russia is interfering in this campaign right now in 2020,” Mr. Sanders said on Friday in Bakersfield, Calif., where he was to hold a rally ahead of Saturday’s Nevada caucuses. “And what I say to Mr. Putin, ‘If I am elected president, trust me you will not be interfering in American elections.’”
What is a lie?
There are at least two main kinds of lies. Lies of commission are statements or acts that are intended to deceive, knowing the facts contradict the statements or acts that the liar asserts as facts or truth. In my opinion, lies of omission are just as bad as lies of commission. They consist of intentionally hiding inconvenient truth that is usually inconvenient, unpleasant or harmful in some way.After US Attorney General William Barr (1) refused to release the entire Mueller report to the American people and (2) lied about its content, it seemed to me that what Barr did constituted a lie of omission. The redacted Mueller report was released on April 18, 2019.
But what about the passage of time? It is not neutral in politics or in human life. The longer a lie of omission stands unchallenged, the more power its deceptive impact it has. I decided for myself, that lies of omission like what Barr spewed on the American people about the partially hidden Mueller report deserve to be counted as another lie each day that passes. Thus, if someone hides facts and/or truths for one day, they lie once. If they did that two days, they lied twice.
By the measure of one lie per day of hiding information the public deserves to know, Barr lied over 300 times about the Mueller report and as long as he keeps hiding it, he continues to lie.
That seems fair and balanced to me. If it isn’t, why isn’t it? What is the logic that says hiding information the public deserves to know isn't a lie every single day? Should the time window be every 12 hours? Every 48 hours? Every second? Every trillion years? If so, why use a different time period?
Bernie lied for a month
I presume that Bernie did not tell the public that the Russians were trying to help him because he understood that it would undermine his candidacy. The reasoning or logic is obvious: The Russians support what they believe to be the weakest democratic candidate to help their choice Trump. There’s nothing complicated about that logic.If that logic more true than not, then I conclude that Bernie’s lies constitute a month's worth of lies, i.e., he lied about 30 times to the American people.
Q1: Did Bernie lie ~30 times?
Q2: Is it nonsense (or worse) to believe that a lie of omission over time does not constitute anything worse that the original lie done just once?
Q3: Is it impossible for a lie of omission to gain power or influence over time the longer it is not revealed?
Q4: What if the Russian interference story is just a cover to confuse people or generate cynicism and distrust, and if so, how do you know?
Q5: What do you think about what Hannah Arendt said about lies, deceit and propaganda, e.g., was she full of baloney?
No comments:
Post a Comment