Lies Versus Clarifications: The Non-Debate Between Right and Left
By M. Troiano
Each day, our media displays this foolish argument. The right asserts a knowing lie and the left falls all over itself to correct the record. The entire day, segment after segment, we see one right wing clown stooge blindly uttering his lying talking point and the opposing liberal (usually merely a centrist) must refute it with facts that are plain as day to anyone not willfully ignorant.
But to the casual observer who doesn’t concern himself with facts, the right winger’s parot-like refrain and the ease with which it is delivered is compared to the breathless delivery of the honest, left-leaning centrist. The left commentator seems defensive, outraged, in disbelief that he/she has to point out certain things. The right winger, dead to all but his corporate masters, does not have to think at all, just repeat the lying mantra. (”Waterboarding has been proven effective for getting information about impending attacks.” “Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate.” “America has the best health care system in the world.” Etc.) Because if the lies he/she asserts were true at all, right wing arguments do make some sense. The fact that the assumptions never are true matters not when you are targeting the low-information voter.
The mainstream media has long since regarded outright falsity, when asserted by politicians and political commentators as the “other side” of the argument — as if an argument that relies on verifiable assertions is in any way rebutted by one that relies on blatant lies.
So I say, enough of this crap. No more refuting lies. Just tell the right wing proponent that he knows he is lying and leave it at that. On second thought, why waste the energy? Just treat the right winger as you would an insane person.