Often, liberals taut the notion that there are no real morals and that truth is somehow relative...this makes a whole laundry list of deceitful tactics okay for them...as long as they believe its for some greater good...
They Keep Using That Word:
The Left’s Fallacious Use of “Dishonesty”
For a person to be considered truly educated requires familiarity with three great works of Western culture: the Bible, Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and the 1987 movie The Princess Bride. While all three masterworks are essential for understanding man and his place in the world, “The Princess Bride” provides a particularly fitting metaphor for a common liberal fallacy.
In one of the most famous scenes in the movie, a not-as-smart-as-he-thinks-he-is kidnapper named Vizzini is attempting to make a getaway by boat. Vizzini is joined by a Spaniard named Inigo Montoya and a giant named Fezzik. The Dread Pirate Roberts, meanwhile, is attempting to rescue the damsel-in-distress:
Inigo Montoya: You are sure nobody's follow' us?
Vizzini: As I told you, it would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable. No one in Guilder knows what we've done, and no one in Florin could have gotten here so fast. - Out of curiosity, why do you ask?
Inigo Montoya: No reason. It's only... I just happened to look behind us and something is there.
Vizzini: What? Probably some local fisherman, out for a pleasure cruise, at night... in... eel-infested waters...
Vizzini looks back to see the Dread Pirate Roberts swimming toward them.
Vizzini: INCONCEIVABLE.
Once they reach the shore, Vizzini and his cohorts climb a rope attached to a cliff in order to escape. When the Dread Pirate Roberts attempts to climb the same rope, Vizzini cuts it. Roberts, however, continues to climb. “HE DIDN'T FALL?” cries Vinzzini in astonishment, “INCONCEIVABLE.”
”You keep using that word,” says the stoic Spaniard. “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
I'm reminded of this scene everytime I hear President Bush's liberal critics claim that he's “dishonest.” But, like Vizzini, they aren't quite as smart as they think they are. They keep using that word. But I do not think that word means what they think it means.
Take, for example, Al GoreÂ’s recent speech in which he made the claim that,
“[Bush] promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.”
What is truly stunning is that Gore can make such a claim with a straight face. Has he forgotten that he served under the President who was impeached for lying under oath? Apparently, he doesn't think “dishonest” means "disposed to lie or deceive." Otherwise, how could he claim that it applies more to Bush that to Clinton?
Gore, however, isn't the only one to subvert the meaning of the word. In a recent post discussing the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq, liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias wrote:
asically, they aren't good people, they're alternatively stupid, venal, corrupt, dishonest, fanatical, callous, and ignorant.
I used to think that such claims were rooted in the left's preference for epistmological rather than moral truth. In "Why Liberals Play the 'Liar Card'" I argued:
But truth (with a small-t) holds a sacred place for the Left. Liberals scorn moral language and so prefer to base their arguments on propositional “truth.” Where a conservative might consider a particular issue to be “right” or “wrong” a liberal would view it in propositional terms of being “true” (empirically verifiable) or "false" (empirically falsifiable). Conservatives tend to emphasize “ought” while liberal stress “is.” By discarding ethics from political arguments they are forced to rely solely on epistemology.
My assessment, however, is completely wrong; it appears that liberals actually don’t view truth as something which is empirically verifiable. Their primary contention that “Bush lied” was founded on claims that Saddam had WMDs and ties to Al Queda. You would expect that when evidence of WMDs was found and Saddam’s ties to Al Queda were established that they would admit that Bush hadn’t lied after all.
But that didn’t happen. Instead, their cries of dishonesty grew even louder. It’s almost as if they truly believe that reality is a social construct and that if they repeat the claim often enough it will become “true.”
Let me offer some unsolicited advice to those on the Left: stop claming “Bush is dishonest.” While it may make you and your ilk feel better, no one else is buying it. In fact, it’s hard to take you seriously when those on the Left stood by Clinton as he looked all of us in the eye and lied to our faces.
“Yes, but that was a lie about sex! When Bush lies it's about…”
Stop. Really, just stop. Either you care about honesty or you donÂ’t. When you chose to downplay and excuse ClintonÂ’s perjury, you showed that you put partisan politics ahead of the truth. The left sold its integrity to support a perjurer. Now you have to live with the consequences of your actions.
Besides, one of the problems with the truth is that it can be verified. If Bush is a liar then those on the left should be able to prove it. But they canÂ’t. They donÂ’t even believe they have to. While they may not be able to prove that Bush lied, they feel it in their gut. And, for them, feelings are as valid as facts.
Fortunately, Bush’s critics are too smug and self-possessed to even know the harm they are doing to their cause. While it grates on the nerves of those of us who support the President to hear such scurrilous nonsense, it will only help Bush in the long run. For whatever they mean by “dishonest”, it doesn’t mean what they think it means.
