In 1973, the U.S. had, back-to-back, two of the most dishonest presidents ever. Lyndon Johnson lied his way into a disastrous war and then lied about its disastrous course. Richard Nixon lied constantly although, unlike Clinton, at least he had the decency to sweat while he lied (as Jackie Mason quipped).
One big difference between 1973 and now is that, back then, Americans seemed bothered when politicians lied. Nowadays, they are bothered only when politicians who aren't on their side of the ideological divide lie.
This trend became pronounced under Clinton ("mistakes were made, it's time to move on"). It got worse with Trump, whose utterances were "taken seriously, but not literally" by a huge chunk of voters.
Brilliant. I read with especial interest because I am about to do a short piece on the FTC about their relentless lying. Notable are "headline lies" wherein some government agency leads a pronouncement with an outright lie (in this case that Amazon "forced" people to sign up for Prime) then in the main body of whatever document no such claim is even presented. (The FTC actually argues Amazon made the process of quitting Prime too cumbersome.) Small stuff but it is so relentless. I have always been a skeptic but I have never trusted the government less than I do today.
I agree in general with your comment, but we do need both ethical prosecutors and defense attorneys. The defense attorneys I admire the most are those who challenge judges and jurors to evaluate the law or the facts in ways that are not readily apparent.
Thank you for the response. Please keep up the good work.
Notwithstanding Mr. Otis's view in his linked blog post that dishonesty didn't start with Bill Clinton, I regard Clinton as the decisive break. In many areas of life, an elite has a duty to maintain standards even though others do not observe them -- indeed, especially since others do not observe them. For instance, newspapers should, and used to, use proper English at all times, eschewing slang which their own readers use. The upholding of standards by newspapers, which I presume used to be the main printed materials most people saw daily, provided an anchor which kept the language from degrading.
While other presidents lied before, Bill Clinton openly and repeatedly treated the truth as a game in which the press had to catch him in a lie, and he could talk his way out of it. Previous presidents acknowledged lying to be shameful, which is why they sometimes covered it up. Clinton distinguished himself with his shamelessness. People used to be able to look to the presidency as the pinnacle of society, and an anchor to what values society respects. Clinton did not pioneer lying, but did pioneer shamelessness. People saw that shamelessness was acceptable conduct at the highest level of society.
I agree entirely with the spirit of your comment and almost entirely with its specifics. When Clinton was willing to discuss with one young questioner whether he was wearing boxers or briefs, I knew we were in new territory. And then there was the question of what is is, and, well, don't get me started. The worst of lawyer sleaze was on full display.
I think our malaise goes beyond distrust and perceived dishonesty. A majority of the American people think the left is tearing the nation apart with its culture, its positions and its power. The majority sees a left that downplays the impact of fatherless homes and out-of-wedlock births; supports abortion on demand to the point of delivery, as Senator Cardin did on Fox News Sunday today; lets criminals go free or uncharged; defines crimes out of existence and takes no steps to stop lawlessness that threatens to hollow out once-great cities ; weaponizes the Department of Justice, the FBI and the IRS; hides the ball on the Hunter Biden laptop in a way that probably changed the result of the 2020 presidential election; pursues Donald Trump in a multi-year Russian collusion hoax; promotes open borders despite a flood of illegal immigrants, drug deaths in the hundreds of thousands, human and child trafficking, and terrorists that slip into the country; delivers a two-tiered justice system; pursues the Bidens with investigations that give slow-walking a good name while hounding Donald Trump; hamstrings the Biden investigations at every turn; believes with almost no dissenting voice, from the president on down, that boys should be able to compete against girls, use girls' bathrooms and share lockers with girls; believes that children of tender years should be able to get irreversible, life-altering surgeries; hoots down speakers or prevents them from speaking; promotes books with passages that can't be read in public hearings; believe parents should have no say in their children's education; and have captured colleges and universities to the extent only liberal voices can be heard from students and faculty, with sanctions against those who fail to follow the company line. I'm sure I've missed much, for it takes a checklist to give a complete catalog of leftist abuse of position and power. We had problems 50 years ago, but they were problems both Republicans and Democrats were willing to address. We don't have that anymore. Jim Dueholm
You make a highly persuasive case on the merits. The problem is that, while you and I agree that a majority SHOULD see things this way, I just don't see the evidence that it does. I think we've lost the popular vote in six of the last seven Presidential elections (although we did get a majority of the aggregate House vote last year). The fact that our side is routinely muffled and distorted by the MSM has a lot to do with this, but we're going to have to start winning elections. One thing that means is calling out the other side for lying, and for encouraging a dumbed-down culture that increasingly accepts lying. Another thing it means is avoiding nominees who provide a target-rich environment and beat themselves. A third thing it means is explaining how Leftist policies make your life and your kids' lives worse, in school, in sports, and on the streets that once upon a time were relatively safe.
By the way, Jim, I appreciate your following Ringside and your numerous thoughtful contributions here.
I agree with Bill we've been losing elections, and I think it's unlikely a Republican presidential candidate will win a popular vote majority any time soon even if he wins the election, When I referred to people being on our side, I was looking to polls on the issues, not how we fare in elections. My guess, is that a lot of Blacks and Latinos who agree on the issues still have a hard time voting Republican. Jim Dueholm
I find it hard to understand how you could write this article WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING the sad and mega dishonesty and criminal conduct, at least since Trump came on the scene, of the United States Department of Justice and it's enforcement arm the FBI and it's public relations firm known as the Main Stream Media. Couple this with the obvious bias exhibited by the Federal Judiciary in many cases involving these battles in the last few years. But then you are part of the Bush/Cheney crowd so you obviously know something about dishonesty.
I believe that the American people are basically good and honest and will do the right thing once they have truthful information which in modern society has to unfortunately come from the top - the federal government and the media-both have utterly failed at this and not just out of negligent omission but out of commission.
I appreciated the article and the comments. !973 was not so great but I am less trustful today. In the '70s, the motto was "Question authority." Today, it is "F!!! authority." I was good with honestly questioning. I would really like some honest answers.
As a former prosecutor, I strongly disagree with the characterization of criminal defense attorneys as dishonest. In my experience, most are not - though they can be very creative.
I like your use of the word "creative." It's not that most criminal defense attorneys are personally dishonest. It's that the mission they're on -- to advance the interests of the client, who's almost always guilty of (at least) what he's charged with -- typically entails evasion of the truth, since the unvarnished truth is going to send the client to jail. Voluntarily staying in a professional role that you know is going to be mostly evasion (and sometimes things that are worse than evasion) is, to my way of thinking, quite problematic.
Still, the main problem is not with criminal defense. The main problem is that, since I became a lawyer way back when, society itself has become much more accepting of dishonesty than it was then. As long as this is the case, the trust that comprises our social capital, and largely our peace of mind in transactions big and small, public and private, is in big trouble.
In 1973, the U.S. had, back-to-back, two of the most dishonest presidents ever. Lyndon Johnson lied his way into a disastrous war and then lied about its disastrous course. Richard Nixon lied constantly although, unlike Clinton, at least he had the decency to sweat while he lied (as Jackie Mason quipped).
One big difference between 1973 and now is that, back then, Americans seemed bothered when politicians lied. Nowadays, they are bothered only when politicians who aren't on their side of the ideological divide lie.
This trend became pronounced under Clinton ("mistakes were made, it's time to move on"). It got worse with Trump, whose utterances were "taken seriously, but not literally" by a huge chunk of voters.
Brilliant. I read with especial interest because I am about to do a short piece on the FTC about their relentless lying. Notable are "headline lies" wherein some government agency leads a pronouncement with an outright lie (in this case that Amazon "forced" people to sign up for Prime) then in the main body of whatever document no such claim is even presented. (The FTC actually argues Amazon made the process of quitting Prime too cumbersome.) Small stuff but it is so relentless. I have always been a skeptic but I have never trusted the government less than I do today.
I agree in general with your comment, but we do need both ethical prosecutors and defense attorneys. The defense attorneys I admire the most are those who challenge judges and jurors to evaluate the law or the facts in ways that are not readily apparent.
Thank you for the response. Please keep up the good work.
Notwithstanding Mr. Otis's view in his linked blog post that dishonesty didn't start with Bill Clinton, I regard Clinton as the decisive break. In many areas of life, an elite has a duty to maintain standards even though others do not observe them -- indeed, especially since others do not observe them. For instance, newspapers should, and used to, use proper English at all times, eschewing slang which their own readers use. The upholding of standards by newspapers, which I presume used to be the main printed materials most people saw daily, provided an anchor which kept the language from degrading.
While other presidents lied before, Bill Clinton openly and repeatedly treated the truth as a game in which the press had to catch him in a lie, and he could talk his way out of it. Previous presidents acknowledged lying to be shameful, which is why they sometimes covered it up. Clinton distinguished himself with his shamelessness. People used to be able to look to the presidency as the pinnacle of society, and an anchor to what values society respects. Clinton did not pioneer lying, but did pioneer shamelessness. People saw that shamelessness was acceptable conduct at the highest level of society.
I agree entirely with the spirit of your comment and almost entirely with its specifics. When Clinton was willing to discuss with one young questioner whether he was wearing boxers or briefs, I knew we were in new territory. And then there was the question of what is is, and, well, don't get me started. The worst of lawyer sleaze was on full display.
I think our malaise goes beyond distrust and perceived dishonesty. A majority of the American people think the left is tearing the nation apart with its culture, its positions and its power. The majority sees a left that downplays the impact of fatherless homes and out-of-wedlock births; supports abortion on demand to the point of delivery, as Senator Cardin did on Fox News Sunday today; lets criminals go free or uncharged; defines crimes out of existence and takes no steps to stop lawlessness that threatens to hollow out once-great cities ; weaponizes the Department of Justice, the FBI and the IRS; hides the ball on the Hunter Biden laptop in a way that probably changed the result of the 2020 presidential election; pursues Donald Trump in a multi-year Russian collusion hoax; promotes open borders despite a flood of illegal immigrants, drug deaths in the hundreds of thousands, human and child trafficking, and terrorists that slip into the country; delivers a two-tiered justice system; pursues the Bidens with investigations that give slow-walking a good name while hounding Donald Trump; hamstrings the Biden investigations at every turn; believes with almost no dissenting voice, from the president on down, that boys should be able to compete against girls, use girls' bathrooms and share lockers with girls; believes that children of tender years should be able to get irreversible, life-altering surgeries; hoots down speakers or prevents them from speaking; promotes books with passages that can't be read in public hearings; believe parents should have no say in their children's education; and have captured colleges and universities to the extent only liberal voices can be heard from students and faculty, with sanctions against those who fail to follow the company line. I'm sure I've missed much, for it takes a checklist to give a complete catalog of leftist abuse of position and power. We had problems 50 years ago, but they were problems both Republicans and Democrats were willing to address. We don't have that anymore. Jim Dueholm
You make a highly persuasive case on the merits. The problem is that, while you and I agree that a majority SHOULD see things this way, I just don't see the evidence that it does. I think we've lost the popular vote in six of the last seven Presidential elections (although we did get a majority of the aggregate House vote last year). The fact that our side is routinely muffled and distorted by the MSM has a lot to do with this, but we're going to have to start winning elections. One thing that means is calling out the other side for lying, and for encouraging a dumbed-down culture that increasingly accepts lying. Another thing it means is avoiding nominees who provide a target-rich environment and beat themselves. A third thing it means is explaining how Leftist policies make your life and your kids' lives worse, in school, in sports, and on the streets that once upon a time were relatively safe.
By the way, Jim, I appreciate your following Ringside and your numerous thoughtful contributions here.
I agree with Bill we've been losing elections, and I think it's unlikely a Republican presidential candidate will win a popular vote majority any time soon even if he wins the election, When I referred to people being on our side, I was looking to polls on the issues, not how we fare in elections. My guess, is that a lot of Blacks and Latinos who agree on the issues still have a hard time voting Republican. Jim Dueholm
I find it hard to understand how you could write this article WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING the sad and mega dishonesty and criminal conduct, at least since Trump came on the scene, of the United States Department of Justice and it's enforcement arm the FBI and it's public relations firm known as the Main Stream Media. Couple this with the obvious bias exhibited by the Federal Judiciary in many cases involving these battles in the last few years. But then you are part of the Bush/Cheney crowd so you obviously know something about dishonesty.
I believe that the American people are basically good and honest and will do the right thing once they have truthful information which in modern society has to unfortunately come from the top - the federal government and the media-both have utterly failed at this and not just out of negligent omission but out of commission.
Q: Is the best path back to a better “known”, or ahead to a better “unknown”?
I appreciated the article and the comments. !973 was not so great but I am less trustful today. In the '70s, the motto was "Question authority." Today, it is "F!!! authority." I was good with honestly questioning. I would really like some honest answers.
As a former prosecutor, I strongly disagree with the characterization of criminal defense attorneys as dishonest. In my experience, most are not - though they can be very creative.
I like your use of the word "creative." It's not that most criminal defense attorneys are personally dishonest. It's that the mission they're on -- to advance the interests of the client, who's almost always guilty of (at least) what he's charged with -- typically entails evasion of the truth, since the unvarnished truth is going to send the client to jail. Voluntarily staying in a professional role that you know is going to be mostly evasion (and sometimes things that are worse than evasion) is, to my way of thinking, quite problematic.
Still, the main problem is not with criminal defense. The main problem is that, since I became a lawyer way back when, society itself has become much more accepting of dishonesty than it was then. As long as this is the case, the trust that comprises our social capital, and largely our peace of mind in transactions big and small, public and private, is in big trouble.