Pants-On-Fire Politics can be an argument AND a tactic

I can’t agree with Ben Smith about “pants on fire” politics.  Smith writes “Democrats attack on  Republican honesty is a campaign ploy, not an argument.”  He denies a charge of “cynical postmodernism,” but I think this is precisely what Smith is engaging in.

The background, of course, is Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech at the convention, and the litany of fact-checksthat followed.

Following close on the heels is Ryan’s claim that he ran a sub 3:00 marathon, whereas it turned out his actual time was over four hours.

Ok, I get it, the last one has nothing to do with politics.  But anyone who has run a marathon will tell you that they know within a minute, if not a second, what they ran. And the difference between a sub 3:00 marathon, which only a small percentage of runners ever meet (for the record, my own personal best is 3:00:33), and 4:01 is tremendous.  It reveals, if nothing else, a tremendous amount of braggadocio if not an ability to rewrite history.

But I’m more interested in Smith’s claim that the focus on deception is somehow a distraction from what a “real” campaign should be about: policy proposals and policy differences.  The problem is that the American public have not been fully informed about the policy options that are in front of them.

Thomas Riehle writes about “Americans Magical Thinking About the Budget.”  Larry Bartels shows how Americans views of economic growth are strongly influenced by partisan bias, often overwhelming the facts.

Unlike Smith, I think the story of Janesville was an obvious distortion.  Ryan can’t blame Obama for failing to support a deficit reduction plan that he himself voted against (and as all the coverage points out, Ryan was central in solidifying GOP opposition).

Pointing this out is a campaign tactic, to be sure, but that doesn’t also mean it cannot also be an argument about the willingness of a campaign to fess up to the record of its nominees and the implications of its proposals.

Personally, I’d love to see a genuine debate in this election about the future of entitlements and Medicare.  I think we should debate whether or not Social Security benefits should be taxed (I believe they should).

I don’t hold out much hope, however, if the media are going to let candidates from either party off the hook when they say things that are blatantly false or even misleading.

This entry was posted in Faculty, Paul Gronke, Political commentary, voting and elections. Bookmark the permalink.