8/3/2019 the triumph of the big lie

1/4

The Triumph of the BIG LIE(+)by:lightseekerSun Jan 15, 2012 at 18:40:11 PM CST

The key principles of the Big Lie are old and well know:

The Big Lie

...never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concedethat there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives;never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him foreverything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one;and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.[5]

And yes, the Big Lie is never totally absent from our public discourse, butits wholesale use - shamelessly, without apology, with a sort of cynical

glee - that I think is new.

Where to start?

How about with the Romney stump speech. Let Paul Krugman tell it:

Untruths, Wholly Untrue, And Nothing But UntruthsNow, however, Mitt Romney seems determined to rehabilitate Bush's reputation, byrunning a campaign so dishonest that it makes Bush look like a model of truth-telling.

I mean, is there anything at all in Romney's stump speech that's true? It's all basedon attacking Obama for apologizing for America, which he didn't, onmaking deep cuts in defense, which he also didn't, and on being a radicalredistributionist who wants equality of outcomes, which he isn't. When theissue turns to jobs, Romney makes false assertions both about Obama's

record and about his own. I can't find a single true assertion anywhere.

And he keeps finding new frontiers of falsehood. The good people at CBPP find himasserting, with regard to programs aiding low-income Americans, that

What unfortunately happens is with all the multiplicity of federal programs, you

have massive overhead, with government bureaucrats in Washington administeringall these programs, very little of the money that's actually needed by those thatreally need help, those that can't care for themselves, actually reaches them.which is utterly, totally untrue. Administrative costs are actually quite small, andbetween 91 and 99 percent of spending, depending on the program, does in fact go

to beneficiaries.

Romney camp was caught misquoting Obama in an ad. Their reponse speaks

http://www.texaskaos.com/diary/7148/the-triumph-of-the-big-liehttp://www.texaskaos.com/hotList.do?diaryId=7148http://www.texaskaos.com/hotList.do?diaryId=7148http://www.texaskaos.com/hotList.do?diaryId=7148http://www.texaskaos.com/user/lightseekerhttp://www.texaskaos.com/user/lightseekerhttp://www.texaskaos.com/user/lightseekerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Liehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Liehttp://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/untruths-wholly-untrue-and-nothing-but-untruths/http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/untruths-wholly-untrue-and-nothing-but-untruths/http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/untruths-wholly-untrue-and-nothing-but-untruths/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Liehttp://www.texaskaos.com/user/lightseekerhttp://www.texaskaos.com/hotList.do?diaryId=7148http://www.texaskaos.com/diary/7148/the-triumph-of-the-big-lie

8/3/2019 the triumph of the big lie

2/4

volumes:

Mitt Romney attack ad misleadingly quotes ObamaRomney senior New Hampshire adviser Tom Rath tells CBS News the ad is "exactlywhat we want."

"They were using McCain's words to make fun of McCain. And we're using the exactsame technique," he said.

Pressed on whether it was unfair to lop off the top of Mr. Obama's comments --

which would show the president was quoting the McCain camp -- Rath said, "He did

say the words. That's his voice."

He then suggested that the more people discuss the ad, the better it is for the

Romney campaign.

Romney's tatics are accepted and effective because they build on a long,longpreparation for this cynical tactic. The Republicans have Think Tanks devoted to

nothing but the creation of Big Lies all dressed up in the best and most effectiveframing words (thanks Frank Lutz). For example, the AEI and their packaging of the"Freddie and Fannie caused the Great Recession lie, now on every Republican's lips.I heard it in a hamburger joint recently and had a hard time not throwing my

supper.

Dear GOP: Fannie, Freddie Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) repeated, for the umpteenth time amongRepublicans and conservatives, a pernicious misconception that places most, if not

all, of the blame for the financial crisis on the government-sponsored housingcorporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

"[The financial reform bill] does nothing-nothing-as I indicated, to rein in FannieMae and Freddie Mac, the main protagonists in the financial meltdown. This isabsolutely worse than irresponsible; it's the legislative equivalent of wrongful

conviction."

[snip]

[The truth]

A report (pdf) by the Government Accountability Office, the non-partisaninvestigatory arm of Congress, supports all these arguments. According to the GAOreport, Fannie and Freddie didn't go wild in the mid-2000s buying up mortgages inthe secondary market because of some government mandate, like the 1977Community Reinvestment Act, to increase homeownership among low-income

Americans. On the contrary, "Former [Federal Housing Finance Agency] Director[James] Lockhart stated that the enterprises' primary motivation in purchasing [Alt-

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57329447-503544/mitt-romney-attack-ad-misleadinglyhttp:/www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57329447-503544/mitt-romney-attack-ad-misleadingly-quotes-obama/-quotes-obama/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57329447-503544/mitt-romney-attack-ad-misleadinglyhttp:/www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57329447-503544/mitt-romney-attack-ad-misleadingly-quotes-obama/-quotes-obama/http://www.texaskaos.com/diary/7148/Dear%20GOP:%20Fannie,%20Freddie%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20the%20Financial%20Crisishttp://www.texaskaos.com/diary/7148/Dear%20GOP:%20Fannie,%20Freddie%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20the%20Financial%20Crisishttp://www.texaskaos.com/diary/7148/Dear%20GOP:%20Fannie,%20Freddie%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20the%20Financial%20Crisishttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57329447-503544/mitt-romney-attack-ad-misleadinglyhttp:/www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57329447-503544/mitt-romney-attack-ad-misleadingly-quotes-obama/-quotes-obama/

8/3/2019 the triumph of the big lie

3/4

A and subprime mortgage backed] assets was to restore their share of themortgage market, which declined substantially from 2004 through 2007 as the'nontraditional' (for example, subprime) mortgage market rapidly increased in size.FHFA further stated that the enterprises viewed such mortgage assets as offering

attractive risk-adjusted returns." In other words, they wanted to be bigger players

in the mortgage business again, to make money where they thought they could-notbecause Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) or some other politician told them what to do

Notice something, just as the Big Lie theory says, the charge in all such cases issimplicity itself, the explanation requires some thought and mental work tounderstand. The Big Liars who tell the Big Lie know that the average partisanRepublican as well as the 1/3 of the voting population we call "low information"voters will rarely do this kind of heavy mental lifting. In fact , the emotional gutlevel response triggered by the clear, ringing, simplistic accusations are hard toshake, especially if the other side (OUR side) is not good at this kind of propagandawarfare. Case in point on this: the rise of the "illegal immigrant" framing and

meme:

lightseeker::The Triumph of the BIG LIE

How the Right Made Racism Sound Fair - and Changed Immigration Politics

In 2006, the Senate passed a reform measure that offered a path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants, provided that theyenrolled in English classes and paid fines, as well as back taxes. The citizenship provisions, which did not include unauthorized immigrants

who had been in the country for less than two years, were coupled with significant enforcement measures, including the doubling of borderpatrol agents within five years and more than 800 miles of border fencing and vehicle barriers. Among the bill's supporters were 23

Republicans.

Vocal members in the House, though, were quick to criticize the bill's citizenship provisions, limited as they were. "Amnesty is wrong because

it rewards someone for illegal behavior," said Sensenbrenner. "And I reject the spin that the senators have been putting on their proposal. It

is amnesty." The House stuck to its talking point, killing the measure and seeing Bush sign instead a bill adding 700 miles of border fencing.

"The right was defining the debate; the amnesty charge just killed us," Sharry concludes. "Their top line beat our top line. Wesaid fix a broken immigration system and they said amnesty rewards lawbreakers. They had a visceral argument and we had

something wonkish. We came to a gunfight with a knife."

A 2005 memo by GOP strategist Luntz perfectly captures the talking points relied upon by anti-reform Republicans to kill any reform

measures. Luntz is known as a word genius for popularizing terms like "death tax" for estate tax and turning oil drilling into the friendlier-sounding "energy exploration." In his immigration memo, he instructed Republicans to "always refer to people crossing the border illegally as

'illegal immigrants'-NOT as 'illegals.' "

One sees the Big Lie active throughout the Republican positions on major legislation and issues. Remember "death panels"? Let me list just

some of the more important and current Big Lies:

The Wallstreet Journals representation of the "explosion of Federal Regulatory jobs" under Obama:

How the Wall Street Journal Misleads About Federal Jobs

Today's lead editorial, with its graph of "Obama's Growing Payroll," is a perfect example of how the WSJ misleads rather than informs. Thegist of the editorial is that Obama is presiding over a massive increase of government, exemplified by the surge of civilian

employees. The graph shows a striking rise of federal employment from around 1.875 million in 2008 to 2.1 million in 2011. ...

The Journal neglects the fact that today's 2.1 million workers is actually identical to the number of Federal employees in 1981 at the start ofthe Reagan Administration, 1989 at the end of the Reagan Administration, and 1993 at the end of the Bush Sr. Administration. The numberswent down slightly after that (by around 200,000-300,000 workers as of the late 1990s) with a decline in Defense Department civilian

employees, a decline that was probably offset by the rise of private defense contractors (not included in the OMB tables).There is no long-term trend at all. ...

No, the increase in employment is mainly in national-security-related employment: the military, homeland security, and justice(including prisons, FBI, drug enforcement, and the like). Welfare and entitlements programs little to do with. If we parse the increase

of 225,000 federal jobs between 2008 and 2011, three-fourths came in the Defense Department (+84,000), Homeland Security (+28,000),

http://www.texaskaos.com/userDiary.do?personId=168http://www.texaskaos.com/userDiary.do?personId=168http://www.texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7148http://www.texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7148http://www.texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7148http://www.truth-out.org/how-right-made-racism-sound-fair-and-changed-immigration-politics/1316192438http://www.truth-out.org/how-right-made-racism-sound-fair-and-changed-immigration-politics/1316192438http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/how-the-wall-street-journ_b_1206349.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/how-the-wall-street-journ_b_1206349.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/how-the-wall-street-journ_b_1206349.htmlhttp://www.truth-out.org/how-right-made-racism-sound-fair-and-changed-immigration-politics/1316192438http://www.texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7148http://www.texaskaos.com/userDiary.do?personId=168

8/3/2019 the triumph of the big lie

4/4

Justice (+13,000), and Veteran's Affairs (+45,000).

Of course the Journal's entire argument is absurd, a red herring, since the increase of 225,000 jobs represents all of 0.0017 of U.S. non-farmemployment of 131 million workers. The entire federal civilian workforce is a mere 1.6 percent of the total non-farm employment. The

Journal is taking tiny fluctuations and making them into a federal case, so to speak, for its propagandistic purposes.

The actual fact of relevance is that the federal government has been declining as a share of national non-farm employment,from 2.3 percent in 1981 to 1.6 percent in 2011. ... Partly this is because services that government should be providing have instead

been outsourced to political cronies (especially among defense and security contractors). Partly its because of the true shrinkage, notexpansion, of the federal government's programs relative to GDP in non-security activities such as the environment, job training, community

development -- the matters that benefit poor and working class households, who don't, incidentally, read the Wall Street Journal.

I could go on and on. Of great signficance now is the Voter ID debate , and its ginned up solution in search of a problem, for example.

Three Reasons Why Voter ID Laws Should Be the #1 Issue for the Occupy Movement

The voter ID movement is based on a bald-faced lie that voter impersonation is an issue. It's not. As the DNC humorously notes, a person is39 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to engage in voter impersonation, and 3,600 times more likely to report aUFO.

A recent debate on this issue in the Economist included a rebuttal by a responder claiming that the South Caroline DPS had found 900 illegal

voters, but offering NOT one screed of evidence, still in Republican circles the Big Lie will not die. I have heard good Progressive who don'tget why framing the issue as one of simply showing an ID seems pretty harmless to them. What they miss is such a framing turns the right tovote into a presumed NO right to vote. In other words the burden of proof is now on the voter, whereas before it was on the election officials!

Again, the issue is NOT spin but facts and their meaning. The people at the WSJ are not stupid, they can do the math as well as Jeff Sach.Being able to do something and doing it are of course different things. I have a stepson who is a follower of Fox News and their talking points.It is now at the point that facts make no difference to him. His gut reactlons have been involked, his views are fact proof. Maybe if he were astranger, I could try some approaches to breech this barrier, as it is , I have no way of doing this now. He is not , by a long shot, the only onewho is of this persusasion. The public dialogue hwas been reduced to gut level talking points rooted in lies. To do this has been the work of

decades. I honestly don't know if it can be undone, at least not in my lifetime.

A final note on why all this is so poisonous:

Science news: The "tipping point" for ideas-if as few as 10% of a social network's members are "intransigent," those ideas will go mainstream

And in totally unrelated science news, a group at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has found that in social networks, if as few as 10% of theparticipants are intransigent in their opinions, the other 90%, all consensus-seekers, will mainstream the intransigents' opinions.

This is a serious study, using computer modeling of three kinds of social networks-true peer-to-peer (everyone connected to everyone);networks with "opinion leaders" (a small number of highly connected members serving as hubs); and modified peer-to-peer (no hubs,

everyone connected to some lesser number of someones).

From the summary at ScienceBlog:

Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their beliefwill always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research

Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes themajority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the

movement of political ideals.

"When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take

the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority," said SCNARC Director BoleslawSzymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. "Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea

spreads like flame."

....

The study is here (subscription required). From the abstract:We show how the prevailing majority opinion in a population can be rapidly reversed by a small fraction p of randomly distributed committed

agents who consistently proselytize the opposing opinion and are immune to influence. Specifically, we show that when the committedfraction grows beyond a cr itical value pc10%, there is a dramatic decrease in the time Tc taken for the entire population to adopt the

committed opinion.

And we come full circle. Such research suggests why the Big Lie is here to stay. Pogressives had better learn to deal with it

http://carolineheldman.wordpress.com/http://carolineheldman.wordpress.com/http://www.americablog.com/2011/07/science-news-tipping-point-for-ideasif.htmlhttp://www.americablog.com/2011/07/science-news-tipping-point-for-ideasif.htmlhttp://www.americablog.com/2011/07/science-news-tipping-point-for-ideasif.htmlhttp://carolineheldman.wordpress.com/