One of the greatest concepts I ever heard about lying is, at its
foundation, beyond brilliant.
If
you never tell a lie, you only need to remember the truth.
No.
That’s not it. The idea that honesty is the best policy is wonderful.
Sure, I have seen plenty of people that lie so often about so
much that they seem to contradict themselves just by opening their
mouths. And, of course, telling the truth means you don’t have
to remember what’s the truth and what’s the lie (or lies), nor
do you need to recall who you told what.
Got
it.
But
nope. That’s not it.
Here
it is…
To
successfully lie, you must be willing to die for the lie.
The
reason I love this saying does not come from my own ethics or
experience or approaches to the world. Instead, it’s just a nod
of appreciation to the conviction and dedication involved in the
action.
“Honey, did you eat the last piece
of cake?”
“Nope.”
“Do you know what happened to it?”
“Nope.”
“Is that a plate next to you?”
“Nope.”
“Yes it is. I see it.”
“I don’t.”
“Right there. Next to you. I can see it. It has frosting on
it!”
“No it doesn’t.”
“You ate the cake.”
“Nope.”
“Bastard.”
“Nope.”
Ok…
you see the basics. Offer the lie. Respond with denials until
death.
For
some reason, I began thinking about this the other day, and realized
this is the only way to tell the difference between Republicans
and Democrats. And it has been for as long as I’ve been able to
vote in elections.
Democrats,
by nature, offer misdirection and hypnotism. When confronted with
evidence, they appear stunned by accusations.
Republicans
deny… deny… deny… deny… deny for so long, then move away as if
the issue has been settled, and eventually the questioners appear
frustrated and move on.
See
if this seems about right…
An
interview with a Democrat
“Did you chop down the tree?”
“I did not chop down that tree.”
“Are
you sure? Because we have a recording of you telling someone
how much you hated that tree.”
“I
doubt that. I would like to hear that, because I have actually
always admired that tree and the shade it provides. I don’t
think I would ever say I hated it.”
“You chopped it down.”
“That’s
an awfully strong accusation to make. Trees are so important
in this world. We all need to love trees and do what we can
to assist with their care and growth. I, for one, have a long
record of tree support. I have always been a supporter of trees.”
“Did you chop down the tree?”
“Let me be clear. I did not chop down that tree.”
“What
about this receipt from a garden center less than a mile from
the tree, in your name, and a statement from a cashier saying
that you bought a chainsaw?”
“Define ‘chop’.”
An
interview with a Republican
“Why are your policies anti-environment?”
“None of my policies are anti-environment.”
“But
studies into your three most recent actions demonstrated a negative
impact upon the environment”
“No. That’s wrong. None of my policies are anti-environment.”
“Scientists
are saying that if your latest bill is passed, two species of
birds will become extinct.”
“None of my policies are anti-environment.”
“But the birds…”
“Do you like soup? I like soup.”
“Soup is pretty good.”
“It is good. I like soup.”
Now
on the surface, I can see if your initial response to this idea
is skeptical. I’m purposely being vague and somewhat general and
even a bit silly. Most people know that I don’t find myself aligned
with any political party. I have questions and doubts and misgivings
about the professional motivations of virtually every politician
I’ve ever heard of or known. In summary, never blindly trust anyone
that shakes hands and kisses babies for a living.
My
theory here though isn’t directed at either side of the aisle,
so to speak, and as such I don’t really want to say either side
looks better than the other. And yet… let’s see if I can’t bring
some recent thoughts into it.
Clinton’s
e-mails.
Did
we ever get any clear story from her or those acting on her behalf?
I
recall denials. I remember facts and positions and statements
from her representatives being adjusted every day or so as new
information was presented. There were attacks on those investigating
the situation.
Misdirection…
attacks… everything but dealing with the problem.
And
then Trump’s wall.
Mexico
will pay was the claim. But everyone in Mexico said they wouldn’t.
Mexico will pay was the response to that. In Mexico, ex-presidents
and the current president and elected officials said they wouldn’t
pay. Trump: “The wall just got ten-feet higher.”
Clinton
believes the election was stolen from her.
Trump
still claims he’s building a wall.
My
hope is that politics are going to change as a result of this
most recent election cycle. I’d like to think that the raw emotions,
passionate responses… the joy and the anger and the criticism
and the outcries… all of this and more will result in people caring,
paying attention, and looking for quality representation.
I
have my doubts though. Just a bit skeptical.
Stop
me if you’ve heard this before… hope… change… the most important
election in our history. Yeah. The more things change, the more
they stay the same.
Even
if we forget about any voting taking place before it, the 2020
run to the White House will contain almost all of the same rallying
cries and themes that were shoved our way during this most recent
election and most of the ones before it. (Although, to be fair,
we can’t say we have the t-shirt. Those change. (And there are
hats!))
Someday…
perhaps during my life… the political parties will stop acting
as if an election is a game. I doubt it. But I suppose anything
is possible. What would be nice to see is an election built on
truth and accuracy and accountability. That would be incredible.
And getting re-elected? Well… sure… because if you told the truth…