Habitual Liars or Just Sick?

Pseudo Populists, Politics and Legitimized Immorality

I try never to engage in conversations that have anything to do with morals. The biggest reason is that these exchanges usually wind up not being conversations at all, but highly opinionated and animated harangues, defiant, judgmental outbursts which preclude logic, ignore history and insist that God has had something definitive to say about it. Trust me, here, God did not invent or create the concept of morality: man did it, and he probably did it in order to get the upper hand in some awkward situation. He/she wanted to put something over on his/her brother/sister-in-law, to save some money, to get out of an obligation or to justify why he/she slept with his/her bother/sister-in-law/neighbor’s wife/husband and should not be prosecuted. But God had nothing to do with any of it and should be left out of the discussion. God has bigger fish to fry, or to create, depending upon your perspective. And please do not try in any way claim that any of the above reasoning had anything to do with intelligent design. Creative marketing? Maybe. And if morality was not treated so irrationally, we would not have racism, sexism or homo-phobia. You can tune in later, for that.

But the current political milieu in America is trying my patience. As much as I would rather not talk about morals, I am finding it much more difficult right now to avoid the issue. In order to continue this exercise, I need to ask you to agree with me on just one definition: Any acts, or deeds, or the thoughts that may precede them, are immoral if the end result is that another human being is hurt, harmed or suffers. Now I know that this can describe a wide range of both hurt and suffering: you may just get your feelings hurt or you may suffer financial loss. Or you may wind up being unjustly imprisoned. Or worse. Perhaps you might get blown up by a terrorist, or some “maverick” in an F-16 could napalm your village? Or perhaps it is a lesser crime, like having a drunk driver total your car or some foul degenerate rapes your daughter? Or a priest fondles your son or a right wing fundamentalist blows up an abortion clinic( killing three doctors and two nurses in order to “save a life”… it is amazing what people can talk themselves into). Immorality comes in all shapes, sizes and disguises, to be certain, but some of it we can stop, some it we can prevent and some it we can eliminate in it’s infancy before too many more people get hurt or suffer. Generally, we refer to that as a process of education. Generally that requires the dissemination of information.

Let me give you now, three elements of contemporary life to consider, both together and separately. These are 1.) the concept of “talking points”(one form of information dissemination), which has become 2.) the art of lying and deliberate deception, and then 3.)the acceptable parameters of mental illness in our society. Before you ask me how in the world I managed to hook these three items together, let me just say that if it were not for the electronic media and the challenges and intellectual fire alarms that were set off for me by two close friends, I would never have managed this conflagration on my own.

I have become increasingly annoyed and nauseated by the incessant, droning use of talking points to further the ends of political campaigns. I was recently reminded that this repetitive practice was originated by a man named Frank Luntz, and it has been a round since the 1960’s. While indeed everyone seems to employ the strategy, it is most commonly used by the non-thinking, regurgitative sect of the conservatives. These I call “pseudo populists” and are usually Republican office seekers and their surrogates. This strategy involves repeating two or three points over and over again, whether they have a grain of truth or not, in complete concert with your fellows (or girls), in the hope that if they are heard often enough, someone will accept them to be true. On Sunday, Oct. 5, Gov. Pawlenty (R-MN) and Rep. Mel Martinez (R-FL) appeared on a panel on the ABC weekly program, hosted by George Stephanopolous, and gave (almost) the best demonstration of talking point technique I have seen lately. Speaking from separate locations, speaking almost word for word, they both repeated the same mantra about John McCain: He is 1) a maverick (he is not, and everyone knows it now), 2) a populist (he is not: he is an erratic opportunist who owns too many houses and cars and has lost touch with anything down to earth), and 3) he is a “straight-talker”: that might be the case if you can figure out which side of his mouth he is talking from at any one time. He may have been once, but he has zigged and zagged and flipped and flopped so often that nothing is straight, any longer. Dare I say, the man lies?

As Joe Biden would say, “Let me say that again”: both Pawlenty and Martinez repeated the same three point message, nearly word for word TWICE. These three statements were all lies, and if accepted as fact, they will all surely hurt someone or cause suffering, somewhere. At issue for me is whether or not they actually believe what they said, and as lies, do the statements themselves constitute immorality? And what does it all have to do with what we will accept as permissible and acceptable levels of moral human behavior? More on that, later.

Putting aside, for just a moment, at least, the fact the DJ average is down 539 points as I write, and America’s financial crisis (which seems to have been brought on by copious lying and deception on Wall Street, which was seemingly enabled by copious lying and deception in the halls of government) is spreading to markets around the world at an alarming rate, let’s talk about Sarah Palin for a moment. Hell, the rest of the world is.

Sarah Palin came from relative obscurity and exploded onto the national scene largely because, lacking any substance, poise, intellectual acumen or inherent skills, she could read and memorize talking points. She can lie well and consistently. Pundits, critics and analysts have dissected her (somebody’s) every word for days. And they have worked hardest (especially on SNL) to cull (without result) any important and salient points from her debate performance. Everyone seems to agree that Ms. Palin can fluently repeat that she and McCain are both mavericks, she can display herself and speak (if crudely) as a populist, and has no trouble repeating the claim that John McCain is a straight-talker. Now does all that sound familiar? And the RNC expects us to accept her as legitimate. Be serious.

Clearly the use of talking points has reached a new peak. And clearly those using the points mentioned here are counting on the success of repetitive lies and then the deception that they hope will result. Which brings me to the subject of mental illness.

Also very clear is the fact that these pseudo populists will say virtually anything to get elected, and will say it over and over again. I am still mulling over what this may say about in what manner of regard they hold their fellow man (Palin speaks of Eskimos as “Arctic Arabs”?). But these talkers are like a Greek chorus in a tragedy that is playing out before us. In all the instances I have cited here, Pawlenty, Martinez and Palin have all fallen exactly in lock step with the party line, in an amazing uniformity. Ms. Ptof-whatever-her-name- is, as a McCain surrogate and spokesperson (and another pseudo populist) even showed enough boldness to appear on the Rachel Maddow show this week, and perform exactly in the same manner. I.e., she repeated the same claims with as much bald-faced-ness as Pawlenty, et.al. (What I find curious, as do many others, is that McCain himself, as the party standard bearer, has not been so consistent: indeed, from day to day he seems unable to remember what he claimed, as chapter and verse, from the gospel of the day before. That really inspires confidence.)

While it was the urging of one friend that I was forced to remember that not only pseudo populist Republicans utilize the talk point strategy (Democrats can and do employ it, as well), it was another friend that urged me to acquaint myself with the concept of “anti-social personality disorder”. Much to my surprise, this is the point at which my thoughts about immorality and mental illness (or health) came together.

Among the other information I gathered from reading Wikipedia entries about anti-social personality disorder, I learned that persons so afflicted have a blatant or “high disregard for the welfare of others”. This would seem to imply, at least to my way of thinking, that this disregard for the welfare of others is a kind of immorality, just as is lying, if it leads to the harm, hurt or suffering of others (has Ms. Palin shown us that she holds any other human being in high regard except John McCain? I know she doesn’t care about polar bears, but…). Now I would be loathe to make any broad, sweeping generalizations about either all Republicans, or even all pseudo populist Republicans, BUT….and I know I already have the nations mental health practitioners seething…

What is it that you say about a group of Republican (or Democratic) lawmakers (and aspirants to the same positions) who deny extending unemployment benefits to the 159,000 newly unemployed in the American work force, when you must think about this as a possible disregard for the welfare of fellow humans? What might you say about this group, when they blindly give $700BN to bail out Wall Street CEO’s and do nothing to stave off the home foreclosures for millions of the rank and file and the middle class? What do you say about this group who stand so firmly behind a President who authorizes the deaths of hundred and thousands (in fact hundreds OF thousands) of military and civilian people around the world for oil? What do you say and surmise about this group of people who deny health care to millions of Americans who have none and then offer subsidies to big pharmaceutical companies? What do you say about this group when they send thousands off to war and then deny them health care when they come home without limbs and afflicted by PTSD? Does it make you wonder if they have managed some form of collective denial? Or have they in some way become affected by serious anti-social tendencies?

Which brings me to this: what are we to say and think about the Pawlentys, Mertinezes, Palins, Rices, Cheneys and the Bushes when they lie so uniformly and consistently and without pause or hesitation? Have they succumbed to habitual lying? Is their notion of morality diametrically opposed to that of the rest of us? Do they really believe what they lie about so consistently, or are they simply delusional in their approach to life? Do they want power and control so badly that they are willing to skew completely their view of humanity and disregard its’ values? Are they basically immoral?

Pseudo populists of any ilk are seeking to legitimize immorality. Such abundant, consistent and pervasive lying will surely lead to the hurt, pain, harm and suffering of the many that will fall victim to it. Do I need to say that again, or shall I call Joe Biden?

And don’t give me any crap about that Ayres guy, in Chicago.

Life goes on in Texas