Hillary and the Truth

Many people have been posting on social media links to stories about Politifact's finding that Hillary Clinton's public statements have been more consistently truthful than those of most other candidates for president in this election season, showing her in a virtual tie with Bernie.

This is, of course, contrary to the longstanding narrative.  HRC's defenders point to conservative commentator William Safire who, many years ago, called Hillary a "congenital liar" and never modified this appraisal because he never found reason to do so.  Safire is responsible, they say, for establishing this negative perception of her - and, they say, he was wrong.

Let me offer my own judgment of this latest take on Hillary's honesty and Politifact's appraisal of it.

I'm willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and withhold judgment regarding whether Safire's harsh criticism was fair.

Or at least I was willing to do that at the beginning of this electoral process.

Disclaimer: I am a Bernie guy.  Why does that matter?  Bernie is as honest as the day is long.  If he says something, you know he believes it.  Does that make it true?  No, of course not, but Bernie has been in public service for a long time, so when speaking of issues and problems and public concerns of all sorts, he generally knows the facts, and he generally tries to avoid making statements about things of which he knows little.  Contrast that last part with the behavior of Donald Trump, who might never say anything about anything if he followed that example.

I watched most of the Democratic debates, and I saw Bernie consistently talking about the problems facing this nation and his proposed solutions.  His statements were plainspoken, and his facts were accurate.  When he talked about HRC, he said some positive things, and his criticisms were fair and a direct reflection of the record.

Hillary, on the other hand, repeatedly and consistently distorted Bernie's record and sometimes told flat-out whoppers about it.  At the very least she viewed Bernie through a prism that afforded no room for nuance.  Bernie, meanwhile, defended some of HRC's votes in the Senate by explaining to viewers that sometimes one votes for a bill because it has things in it one likes, even when there are other things in it with which one disagrees.  Yes, he was defending himself at the same time, but he said voters should understand this when examining the voting record of any senator.

When speaking of Bernie's record, Hillary deserved Politifact's "pants-on-fire" rating more often than not.  Why didn't she get that rating from Politifact as often as she might have?

She is very artful with the language, parsing words and phrases carefully, producing statements that are quite misleading but can still be rated by Politifact as at least "partly true" - or even mostly true - when a (or even the) key element of the statement is blatantly false.

Here's what I think tells us all we need to know about her honesty.  She was asked whether, if elected, she was prepared to make the same promise Jimmy Carter did in 1976, when he famously said he would never lie to us.  Her answer?  She said she would always do her best to level with the American people.  That sounds like a "yes," doesn't it?  But in fact it is a resounding "no."

What that statement really means is No, I'll be honest when it suits my purposes.  Being charitable, it could mean she believes there are times when it is in the nation's best interests for the president to be less than forthcoming, to shade the truth, or even to say things that are false so as to avoid creating fear or panic or an undesirable public mood or opinion.  ("You can't handle the truth.")

Taken at face value, understanding the plain meaning of the words and exactly why Hillary chose to answer that question that way (as opposed to saying yes), it is clear that she meant for her answer to be interpretable as "yes" - or at least close enough to "yes" to be satisfactory to those who want the president to be honest with the people all the time - while binding her to do no such thing, because the real meaning of her answer is No, I will tell the truth when it seems the best option, and only then.

And so I consider this to be the most honest public statement she has made in the last year, if you understand what it really means.

So, getting back to Politifact: Hillary is mostly honest?  In scientific investigation there is something called "face validity."  A statement or conclusion that is strongly counter-intuitive, or contrary to what we are pretty sure we know to be true based on the available evidence, is said to lack face validity.  That is how I would describe Politifact's finding.  Not that I disagree that her statements are true more often than Trump's - although so many of his statements are false because he is an idiot and has false beliefs - but the idea that she is in a virtual tie with Bernie on the honesty scale is nothing short of preposterous.  Politifact is misled, and thus is misleading us, because they give her credit for partial truths, and her wording is so artful and clever that she gets credit for far more truth than is actually present.

Does this mean you shouldn't vote for her?  Make up your own mind about that.  Historically the American people do not vote in presidential elections for candidates they do not believe are trustworthy and honest.  And polling shows they do not believe Hillary is trustworthy and honest.  But not all of us make our voting decisions with honesty as a paramount criterion.  One of my friends said he wants an effective president, not a Girl Scout.  And she is running against a GOP candidate who, in my assessment, is the least qualified major party candidate for president this nation has ever seen.

Although the election is more than three months away, I will go out on a limb and say that, despite recent polling showing key battleground states are close, Hillary will be our 45th president.  Just don't expect much unvarnished truth to emanate from the Oval Office over the subsequent four years.  Instead, watch press briefings, watch how the White House press secretary chooses words very carefully when answering journalists' questions, and watch how reporters ask follow-up questions to pin down the press secretary and cut through the BS to get a straight answer.  That will help you to understand how difficult it can be to get a straight answer - and to recognize when we get very few of those from the second President Clinton.

  

Toward a "Post-Racial" America - A Differing View

Recent events - two more shootings of black men by police under dubious circumstances and the apparent "revenge" shooting of eleven uniformed officers by a sniper overlooking what seemed to be a peaceful protest organized by the group Black Lives Matter in Dallas - have further sharpened the public focus on racism in the United States of America. 

My long-time readers will not, I'm sure, be surprised to know I have a somewhat different view of the current state of race relations in the USA.  Different from what you're hearing from the pundits on television and online.  I posted a somewhat shorter version of these thoughts on Facebook, and a friend suggested it be made into an essay for this blog.

I have many friends who think African Americans should just "get over it" and "take race out of the equation," accepting the notion that all lives matter, and it's really just a matter of embracing the notion that people must stop killing each other.  Effectively, they are declaring that Barack Obama's vision of a post-racial society has been realized, or at least we should all behave as though it has, and somehow by doing that we will make it so.  In other words, it is really all a matter of state of mind, and all we need to solve the problem is the power of positive thinking.

Get over it?  Just take race out of the equation?  These directives reveal monumental ignorance and misunderstanding.

Taking race out of the equation is not something that can happen in a nation in which such a large proportion of citizens of African descent are trapped in an economic underclass by centuries of mistreatment.

African Americans went from enslavement to citizenship as a result of the American Civil War and the subsequent amendments to the Constitution.   But constitutional citizenship was unaccompanied by opportunity, and Reconstruction was ultimately one of America's great sociopolitical failures.

Then, in 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States declared, in its abominable decision in Plessy versus Ferguson, that ours could be a "separate but equal" society.  Never mind that white society was unprepared to allow blacks anything remotely resembling equality. 

Nearly six decades later, in Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the high court reversed its shameful stance, but that led to forced desegregation that yielded only intensification of bitter racism among Southern whites and many Northern working class whites.

Then, another decade brought the civil rights legislation of the 1960s that we have been struggling to enforce and to make meaningful for the last half century.  The struggle was severely hampered by two developments in the 1990s: welfare reform, which threw millions of black Americans off public assistance and deeper into poverty; and a crime bill that facilitated, among other things, a war on drugs that was really a war on the black urban underclass, and dramatically increased the number of black men in America's prisons.

And now we have arrived in one of the ugliest places in this nation's history of race relations, in which America's wealthy, in a craven effort to distract attention from their unbridled greed, have created a new class warfare.

Historically "class warfare" has meant everyone else against the rich.  But in the last two generations, the wealthy have pursued a very successful propaganda campaign to reframe class warfare as everyone else against the poor.  The most important part of this construct is setting the lower and middle strata of the middle class against the poor: those who are working hard to build a middle class life for their families are told that the undeserving poor are the economic enemy, living on government entitlement programs.

This is code for the new racism: it is the lazy, shiftless, inner-city blacks who are stealing from hard-working middle class whites.  All you folks in the lower-middle and middle-middle classes, struggling to get a little bit ahead of living paycheck to paycheck, take heed: the undeserving poor are the enemy.  It is they who are wasting your tax dollars and keeping you from achieving a more comfortable lifestyle.

[Never mind that the percentage of the federal budget spent on things like housing subsidies and food stamps is quite small or that many of the recipients of such aid are the working poor.]

This is how the wealthy are using third-millennial class warfare, fueling it with racism, to protect themselves from the next French Revolution.

If the struggling white working class and the black urban underclass ever figure out that neither is the other's enemy, and instead they have a common enemy, and it is the unrestrained greed of the top 0.1-0.5%, there will be blood in the streets, making the Reign of Terror look like a day at a Six Flags amusement park.  The blood will not be the blood of the police or of urban blacks.  It will be the blood of the 21st-Century aristocracy, and it will signal the end of the oligarchy and the return of this country to the people.

The storm is coming.