jawfish

Propaganda Technique Take 2
john posted in politics & culture on July 29th, 2005

Courtroom Speech, Where Everyone is an Advocate, Everyone a Liar

One element of the creeping cynicism and propaganda in politics is the replacement of civic values by courtroom values in public speech. Perhaps academia used to provide a competing model, perhaps our public life is now reserved for the cast-offs of the legal profession, in any case courtroom values are validating sophistry and lies across the land.

In American courts, justice is theoretically generated by the conflict of opposing advocates. each of whom should pursue the good of his client without regard for producing a truthful picture of events. And it is frequently in the best interest of counsel to obscure, hide, and deny facts. This may or may not be the best principle of criminal justice, but one of its side effects is to validate the use of lies, lies of omission, and deceit in formal debate. Taking the current craze for jury analysis, together with counsel’s rhetorical toolkit, you have a perfect little model of Bush, Rove and the speech-writers. Rather than advocating their view of what’s best for the country, they analyze what will move the electorate in their favor, and they relentlessly speak to that. Comedians replay their speeches and count the ridiculous number of times “terror” is mentioned. Never mind that their statements lack internal coherence, that the most important policy matters are justified by emotional bombast, that justifications change with the wind. If they can cause the jury of the electorate to be moved, especially to fear, then they have won the day.

In public life, with no judge and no rules of evidence, there is only the somnolent jury, the other party, and the indifferent press. The loss of independence at major electronic media is so complete, that it is ludicrous to call their product news. So too, with the news magazines. The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is as hysterically partisan as a sophomore Young Republican. The New York Times completely failed to fact-check the President’s argument for invading Iraq. Most newspapers simply reprint stories from the few national syndicates. Try Google News and you’ll see the same story repeated endlessly word for word across the outlets, from Binghamton to Bakersfield.

The great two party system obviously does not provide checks and balances, for all too often the same lobbyist money flows to both parties. Further, in spite of bloviating politicians, governmental issues cannot be resolved with a simple up or down verdict. Yet more and more, public figures are allowed to advocate positions and denigrate opponents with no punishment for lying, sophistry, and deception. They are allowed to ignore the important issues in favor of so-called wedge issues that move small sections of the electorate. A recent example of this came when John McCain, the great POW and friend to fellow veterans, stood by and did nothing while a group of Bush henchmen put up a completely false attack on his friend John Kerry’s unremarkable, but honorable war record. The press, rather than sorting through the facts and allegations, and denouncing the liars, simply reported what they said as if it had been checked for accuracy. The reporting itself legitimized the attack. Ironically, McCain himself had been the victim of such a scurrilous Karl Rove attack in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

Of course the current political mess has many other causes: too much money, incumbency, a co-opted press, the rise of corrupt Southern politicians to national power. Electoral speeches are infamous for vague promises and unfair attacks. But when official pronouncements are treated like a courtroom oration, we are deprived of an essential dialogue between the governed and the governing. We are treated as consumers of political advertising, not active citizens.

Business people have also taken up the style of lawyers. Corrupt CEOs drive companies through ill-conceived mergers, engage in criminal deception, and then blithely claim they knew nothing about it. Ousted, they calmly pickup a nine-figure check, and go on with their careers, while employees and investors are left with the shreds of a company. The same CEOs who claim that their genius for leadership makes them worthy of hundreds of millions in bonus dollars, turn right around and claim they weren’t involved in the day-to-day operation of the company. Fortunately, it’s not working for them in actual courts, as Bernard Ebbers was just sentenced to 25 years. Nonetheless, shameless deceit contaminates the executive suite, as short-time CEOs hide their narcissism behind Bold New Statements utterly unconnected with fact.

Baseball players change overnight from .280 doubles hitters to .320 home run hitters, and solemnly claim they never used steroids. Preachers self-righteously describe their limos and summer houses as legitimate expenses. Political appointees trumpet selling off forests as a conservation measure. The inevitable cynicism created by this blizzard of improbable lies, plays into the hands of the worst offenders. They are quickest to condemn their opponents, and even when their charges are not believed, a pervasive climate is created where no one is believed.

If your candidate has few accomplishments and a puny stature, then casting doubt on all statements damages your side least. When the low-minded call for honesty and good faith it always sounds better than when the high-minded do so. Jimmy Carter was rightly ridiculed for his teetotalling dinners, but the Bushes rarely give their dry dinners, and not a word is said.