The Lies of Others

An objective examination of the two candidates is hardly possible. The American electorate can’t even determine who is a liar. A commentary.

The American left and right live in separate worlds. They fish from different information streams. Politicized media outlets and internet social networks put out a message of truth to their consumers that hardly overlaps with that of the other camp.

Even the vocabulary is different. When “undocumented immigrants” want to pave a “path to citizenship,” others rail against “amnesty” for “illegal aliens.” One’s “inheritance tax” is another’s “death tax.” The left promises “gun safety,” while the right fights against “gun control.” In the duel between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the polarization takes on a new dimension. The citizens have no common sense of truth and falsehood.

Lying, deceit and secrecy are the big topics of this campaign. Clinton hasn’t granted the government access to her emails as secretary. Details about the speeches before bankers, for which she could have been handsomely rewarded, remain under wraps. The Republican Trump refuses to release his tax returns. And no one can remember a presidential candidate that has had trouble with the facts nearly as much as Trump. But Clinton, not Trump, is reviled within the country as a “liar.” As Trump’s supporters espouse her mendacity, they assume his veracity without first correctly evaluating the facts.

Trump Trusts His Gut

Millions of Americans see Trump as raw. His simple, often grammatically insufficient and crude phrasing is seen as evidence that the “truths” he imparts are unfiltered beliefs. With baseless insinuations and easily refutable assertions, the candidate increases his credibility in the eyes of his many followers. Who could possibly be correct in every detail when one wears his heart on his sleeve?

The Polls

Even Hillary Clinton has wantonly bent facts into shape. Her assertion that the FBI said that she had “truthfully” answered all questions regarding her email affair won her the Washington Post’s Fact Checker maximum of four “Pinocchios.” An award of this kind doesn’t happen often. In interviews, she relies on sound bites. When asked something unexpected, she dodges rather than possibly saying something rash and her speeches are carefully constructed. In contrast, Trump trusts his gut. He celebrates the renunciation of think-first politics in a nation where the majority thinks, according to one study, that “ordinary people” could better solve America’s problems than politicians.

Clinton is much like Barack Obama, who often agonizingly searches for innocuous formulations of his desired message. The similarity causes many citizens to sense danger in the form of collusion. Concern for the sensitivities of certain groups or nations are not seen as the identifying mark of a prudent leader, but instead as a lack of sincerity. Trump spoke from the souls of millions of Americans when he said, “I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.”

All he has time for are more inaccuracies. But the list of things he has “never said,” despite contrary evidence easily found on YouTube, fills numerous pages.

No More Common Language

Clinton’s followers celebrated last fall after the former secretary of state finished an 11-hour congressional hearing on the deadly attack on the consulate in Benghazi. However, opponents of Clinton only saw confirmation that she was a master of deception. As former first lady, senator and secretary, she has been in the public spotlight for decades. She is living proof that something always surfaces when one dredges enough. Such accusations range from corruption associated with purchasing property to the murder of a government lawyer.

The fact that her husband Bill had almost been deposed for perjury doesn’t make things easier. Now the press is taking revenge for Hillary’s harbored distrust of the press. Trump, who collectively deems journalists as “dishonest,” “disgusting” and a “lower form of life,” has respectably molded the media for his own purposes. The front page of The New York Times recently pointed out that balanced reporting is hardly possible. So then how should things play out when a conventional politician competes against a man who instigates controversy daily and is considered by the most relevant people in either party to be a threat to the world?

Americans won’t soon enjoy a common language again, let alone a predominantly congruent interpretation of political progress. It would mean a lot if the public could at least return to a common principle: He who doesn’t base his arguments in fact, and instead uses myth and legend to incense fear and masquerade belief as truth, lacks the constitution for serving the general public in higher office. In short, a liar is someone who deliberately says something untrue.