Nicholas Kristof's column today tries to have it both ways: Bush isn't a liar, but has a "casual relationship with truth." The shading is important in his opinion because it is such a sensitive topic, and thus we need to be cautious not to use counterproductive emotional laden language. Perhaps, but his column is a rather lame attempt to prove the point. A column perhaps especially worth examining because slight alterations might make it a fairly effective pro-Bush piece.
He starts with a pretty ridiculous example: a "charming little story" about a stuffed dog that takes up a significant amount of the column. The example is trivial and the fact there are various accounts really doesn't matter -- it is a typical example of a cute story that is told in different ways, the exact details not really mattering. A person who provides one version is not guilty of a "causal relationship with the truth," so the example turns out to be meaningless. It only becomes such once little parables told to express "mega-truths" concern serious matters, such as the presence of WMDs and such.
Kristof then notes that we all sometimes ignore the facts, discount data points, when we formulate our views of reality. No shit. What example does he provide? Military intelligence tests in the 1960s put Bush in a higher percentile than Kerry, but "most liberals" still think he is a nitwit. First off, I would challenge the easy use of both "most" and "liberals" -- many liberals surely do think he is smart (in a fashion, the term having various applications) and many non-liberals think he is rather dim. Anyway, some intelligent test in the 1960s does not prove one or the other is a "nitwit." It's a moronic comment to make.
And, then he truly becomes President Bush's ass kisser:
In fact, I'm convinced that Mr. Bush is not only smarter, but also a better man than his critics believe. Most important, he's not a panderer. While Mr. Kerry zigs and zags on trade and Middle East policy, Mr. Bush has a core of values and provides genuine leadership (typically, I believe, in the wrong direction, by trying to reshape America and the world according to a far-right agenda).
This is truly a gratuitous/ non sequitur ass kissing comment to make in a column entitled "Pants on Fire?" Just how does he reach this conclusion? What "critics" are we talking about? And, the comparison is patently false, so much that it truly pisses me off. President Bush flipped-flopped repeatedly, including on the 9/11 Commission, the Homeland Security Dept., the reasons for the war, and so forth. Sen. Kerry has "core values" as well, and it is a blatant libel to suggest otherwise, surely by the mere note of Kerry's positions on two issues (the zig and zag nature of such at least to some degree exaggerated).
And, "genuine leadership" is a bit much too. What exactly does it mean? I assume "casual relationship with truth" = "genuine" in Kristof's twisted calculus because Bush believes he is putting forth a "higher meta-truth." Such Orwellian fantasy is required to support Kristof's kudos on how good of a man Bush is, how great he leads, surely as compared to Kerry!
I was informed that the Denver Post supports President Bush because of his decisive leadership. Kristof praises this aspect as well, even in the promotion of foolish and crazy ends. After all, "his grim willingness ... underscores a solidity of character and convictions." Given Kristof is not a total nitwit, he does come out on the side of the "clear-eyed thinker." All the same, it is a somewhat skewered example of character to not be able to accept reality, in fact, to develop an administration that in many ways goes out of its way to remain blind to it.
[The exact details on the missing explosives are somewhat murky, but the President's response to criticism on them suggests the nature of this "character" Kristof admires. Since clearly he didn't do anything wrong, those who suggest he might have are the problem, and we need to keep information close to our vest to stop "them" from benefiting. Dahlia Lithwick felt when a justice tried another way, that is admitting he is human, it was "weird." This runs to the heart of the problem as this thread discusses.]
And, yes, examples can be raised of the solidity of Kerry's character and convictions (e.g., service in Vietnam and afterwards, votes against DOMA and the 87B, his support of abortion rights, and so forth). But, Kristof is for Kerry, so apparently has to prove his fairness by kiss up to Bush. President Bush does not deserve all these kudos because of his stubbornness.
A causal reader of Kristof's column can very well find it quite positive to the President. Liberals are criticized, Sen. Kerry is demeaned, the primary example of Bush's problem with the truth apparently is a story about a stuffed animal, and he sounds like a pretty good guy (smart, better than his critics think, not a panderer, has core values, and provides genuine leadership). All a pretty blatant example of overkill at trying to sound balanced, so crudely that it doesn't pass the smell test.
Finally, to get back to the apparent point of the column, Kristof doesn't call the President a liar because "reality to him is not about facts," but a set of higher truths, so his misstating the facts isn't really lying. I too find the word "liar" results in emotional reactions that often tend not to further debate, but this doesn't really work, does it? Saying Bush "isn't truthful" really doesn't help the tone of political discourse any more than calling things he does foolish or crazy.
And, to the average person, it sounds awful like "lying," anyway. If I think you are an asshole (mega-truth), wrongfully (including without proper evidence) implying you surely stole from your sister is still a lie, even if used just to prove the point. And, at some point, Bush is a "nitwit," if he can deny reality so much that he can convince himself of the truth of all the things he has claimed to be true. So, he's either a liar, or not such a good man after all -- take your pick, Kristof.
I'd add that the co-host on the Al Franken Show today suggested Kristof doesn't think non-malicious statements are lies. This appears to me a misreading of the editorial, though it might be what the editorialist believes. If so, it too is ill advised. We lie all the time in a non-malicious manner, such as the well-known "white lie" of the sort that you tell to a loved one so as not to hurt their feelings.
It's silly to deny we are lying just because the lies probably do not do much harm. And, it's silly to deny that Bush truly has a character flaw because he genuinely believes in his wrongful conduct. Such analysis would hold firm tyrants in higher regard than decent if flawed democrats, especially if you did a piss poor job in comparing the records of the two individuals.