By David French
Monday, January 23, 2017
This weekend witnessed perhaps the dumbest political
debate I’ve ever seen. It started with an act of bad-faith media trolling.
Reporters noticed that Trump’s inauguration crowd was much smaller than one for
Obama’s historically huge first inaugural and began tweeting pictures like
this:
The pictures filled Twitter, leaked into longer news
stories, and became something like a liberal security blanket on a tough day.
They wrapped themselves in memories of Obama’s glory to ease their pain.
But who cares, really? Obama was the first black
president. Washington is a deep-blue city. Of
course he was going to have a huge crowd at his inaugural. Democrats
generally pull the bigger crowds, especially when they end eight or more years
of Republican rule. Given D.C.’s politics, holding a GOP inauguration there is
comparable to the Chicago Cubs trying to hold their victory parade in downtown
Cleveland.
By now, however, we all know that Trump will respond to every attack, so he sent Sean Spicer out
into the press room, where Spicer proceeded to utter a string of demonstrably
false statements. On Day One in office. In a short press conference at which he
refused to take questions, Spicer made false claims about crowd size, grass
coverings, subway use, and security measures. Kellyanne Conway then defended
Spicer, using an instantly unfortunate (and memorable) phrase, calling his
claims “alternative facts.”
The press was apoplectic. They were appalled that a press secretary would stand in front of the White
House press corps and “lie.” He violated “norms.” His actions constituted a
“breach of trust.” And these critiques were right. The entire press conference
was ridiculous. It’s possible to defend against silly media attacks without
lying. Spicer can do better, and he did do better in a generally uneventful
press conference Monday afternoon.
But here’s another thing that’s also true: Many of the
same people who were appalled at Sean Spicer were at the same time trumpeting
the allegedly “scandal-free” Obama administration, a presidency that featured
“If you like your health-care plan you can keep it,” a scheme targeting
tea-party groups that itself rested on an avalanche
of lies and deceptions, serial lies about Benghazi, and deliberate lies to
sell the Iran deal to a skeptical public. And that’s hardly a complete list.
While there were certainly good reporters who did their
best to hold the administration to account, outside conservative media there
was nothing like the breathless,
apocalyptic tweeting, writing, and speaking you see today. The cycle is so
familiar, and the cynicism is breathtaking. In the Bush years, dissent was the
highest form of patriotism. When Obama was president, dissent became
“obstructionism.” Now that Trump is president, obstructionism is romanticized
as the “resistance.”
There are those who wave away callbacks to Obama-administration
lies and media kid-glove treatments as “what-about-ism.” In other words, they
say it’s no answer to our critiques of Trump’s misdeeds to note that other
people have lied at other times. In a narrow sense, they’re correct. One
administration’s lies don’t justify the next administration’s falsehoods.
The larger truth, however, is that those with no
credibility make poor critics. Given the recent past, media outrage at Spicer’s
press conference starts to seem less like a principled stand for the truth than
an attempt to manufacture outrage. Thus, we see the wearying pattern of the
modern Trump media debate. The media call out his falsehoods and decry the
erosion of norms. His defenders call out media hypocrisy but then are
themselves often incapable of telling the truth. After all, to speak the truth
means “giving in.” It means “not fighting.”
Our politics is devolving into the pathetic spectacle of
liars indignantly calling out liars for lying. Rule-breakers are outraged that
other rule-breakers break rules. Norms that could be violated with impunity for
“social justice” can’t be violated for “nationalism.” We stick with our tribe,
through thick and thin — through truth and lies.
This conduct has a high cost. It leaves the public with
no one to trust. For several weeks I’ve been one of many voices calling for an
independent, bipartisan investigation into the totality of Russian efforts to
influence the American presidential election. In response, my friend Glenn
Reynolds raised a fair question: “Who do you trust to investigate? The news
media? The national security bureaucracy? Congress? All of them have gone out
of their way to prove themselves untrustworthy.”
Increasingly, we are reaching a point where we can
“trust” political actors (and, make no mistake, the press is a political actor)
only to be partisan. And to be partisan means trying to win every encounter,
every news cycle, and every argument. Truth be damned. Fairness be damned. Law
be damned. Partisans determine the “rules” only after they determine the
desired outcome and then apply those rules if and only if they help the “good
guys” win.
This weekend, I overheard a small group of Republicans
trying to reassure themselves after Spicer’s press conference. “Yes, it was
terrible,” one said, “but at least we’ve got Mattis and DeVos, so on balance
we’re still ahead.” Here’s the thing — it’s possible (and it’s not asking too
much) to have the truth and to have
General Mattis at the Pentagon and Betsy DeVos in the Department of Education. It’s
possible to defend a man and a movement without lying. And it’s possible to
refuse to lie for a man or for a movement.
Until a critical mass of the public reaches that rather
simple cultural and moral understanding, expect more of the same. Partisans
will win some. They’ll lose some. But they’ll always sacrifice their integrity when the chips are down.
No comments:
Post a Comment