The dangers of political cynicism
Yesterday Cornhead reported the following conversation from his experience at Hillary’s Iowa appearance:
I was talking to some old, rich, liberal white women in the line. It was freezing cold and they were talking about their winter vacations in the Tropics and summers in Vermont.
I asked them about Trump. He is “icky.”
I then cited the stat that 40% of voters think Hillary is dishonest. One argued with me about what section of the electorate did the 40% come from. I didn’t know. Looked it up later. Turns out it is 60% of all voters.
But one of them spun my stat and claimed that 80% of voters think ALL politicians are dishonest so therefore Hillary was only half as bad.
I was with the true believers and it was discouraging on many levels.
I wrote about this phenomenon a while back. Hillary is well aware of this cynicism, I think, and counts on it to help her out. Here’s a repeat of the post I wrote then, which still seems topical—more topical than ever, perhaps. It was written almost three years ago.
The more I think about Hillary Clinton’s question yesterday—“what difference does it make?”—the more important it becomes; a sort of leitmotif, not only for this administration, but for our times in general.
For the moment, let’s not talk about Benghazi itself. Let’s just mull over the fact that the priorities of the majority of Americans seem to have shifted. If the public doesn’t care about a certain tree falling in the forest, does it actually make a sound, even if the right is fussing about it?
The right has been outraged by a sequence of events and statements that have occurred under Obama’s watch, beginning with his 2008 campaign. Some are rather trivial (“corpse-man”) and some important (“bankrupt” the coal plants; “spread the wealth”). All have gained traction only on the right, because a majority (perhaps a small majority, but a majority nonetheless, and I believe a growing one) has answered the question “what difference does it make?” with the words “none at all.”
These are things that would have outraged an earlier generation. In fact, they have outraged an earlier generation; older people did not vote for Obama in large numbers (among voters 65 and older, Romney won 56% to 44%). But Hillary is correct; to most voters, Benghazi, and a host of other things that used to be considered important, make no difference at all.
One reason, which may seem somewhat paradoxical but really is not, is widespread cynicism. If the public doesn’t expect integrity or truth from what used to be called our public servants (what a quaint phrase!), then lies and strategic stonewalling will not bother most people at all. What matters is what those public servants can get for you, and what they can scare you into thinking the opposition will take away from you (tampons, anyone?)
I began to realize how exceedingly widespread this attitude of cynicism had become, and its effect on public perceptions about Benghazi, around the time of the 2012 election. I wrote about the incident afterward, here:
The American people do not seem to be “concerned,” [about Benghazi] either, not at all. Major Garrett can ask all the questions he wants…but few people except us blogophiles on the right are listening, and Carney and Obama have learned that simply thumbing their noses at the American people is an excellent way to get the people to shrug…
I discovered this myself a few days after the election, when I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”
Well, they surely do””but not this brazenly, because most politicians at least have the fear of being called to account by the media and then the American people…
Another big factor at work here is our decades-long education in moral relativism. What is truth, and can it be determined? Way way too many people answer “no,” and so they’ve given up trying or caring. And if they don’t care, why should our public officials answer inopportune and potentially embarrassing questions? No; what’s important is feelings, and so it made perfect sense for Hillary to act as though the best way to show concern about the deaths in Benghazi was to raise her voice in frustration and anger at the questions and cite her determination to “figure out what happened,” rather than actually exhibit that determination by answering questions about her own possible negligence in fostering conditions that may have contributed to those deaths. As for the subsequent cover-up of the reasons for the deaths, she’s implying that it’s just political business as usual, no biggee. And most Americans will nod, if they’re paying attention at all.
This administration has been stonewalling right from the start on whatever it just doesn’t feel like answering. Although previous administrations have done a little bit of that here and there, with Obama it is his recurrent m.o., made possible by the MSM’s abdication of its traditional role as questioner and challenger, and its adoption of the mantle of enabler.
A terrible development, to be sure. But it would not be possible if the American people didn’t allow it.
Was hoping you’d have something up about Bernie Sanders threatening to sue the DNC over this data access breach. I suppose it is a bit new to expect that already.
However, I was reading an article about it and a bunch of Democrats were posting. Many of them were very angry about the whole thing and think the DNC is in the tank for Hillary. I find that very interesting. Sounds like many Democrats (the Bernie-ites most likely) really despise Hillary and her bank buddies. They feel like she is bought and paid for by the banks and hate her immensely.
I just don’t see these type of people coming out in droves to vote for Hillary, is she’s going to be the nominee. I think many of these Bernie types will either stay home or vote against Hillary.
So let the wealthy Democrats ladies vote for her. I think the Democrats are about equally screwed up as the Republicans are right now.
Both sides are fed up with D.C. insiders and politics as usual. 2016 is going to be a very different election year.
You’re right, and it’s pervasive in our culture. The concept of the “little white lie” is a given, and the movie “Liar, Liar” had as its premise (as I recall, never saw it), that a guy was made unable to lie and presumably chaos ensued.
Look at the statistics for cheating among young people. A large number of them, perhaps a majority simply see nothing wrong with it. It’s tied into the same thinking you described above… the goal is to get what you can. The ends justify the means.
It’s sickening and I have no tolerance for it, but I know I am in the minority. I also don’t tell “little white lies” or anything of the sort. I can’t say I’m perfect, but I try very hard to be completely honest.
Cynicism is now practically bred into us. Just looking at movies and TV alone, since at least the 1970s just about every thriller-type drama has involved corrupt politicians, evil corporate and religious leaders, etc.
The most cynical are the laziest among us.
I’m not cynical. I read entirely too much. I know the path we should be taking. Paul Ryan is not taking that path.
Why??????? OMG I’m so without respect for him.
If I had read this first, I could have saved myself the trouble of my last 3 comments in that other thread.
When the answer to “what difference does it make?” is, do you want your children to live? they’ll care.
When the answer to “what is truth?” is, ISIS is here and they want YOUR head… the cynicism will end.
America’s LIV’s are indifferent because they can afford to be.
That illusion’s ‘shelf life’s end date’ is fast approaching. ISIS and Obama’s determination that Americans suffer ensures it.
The mechanism for the cynicism is the political pegging (like currency) strategy where no matter what Democrats do, it’s automatically better than – and even necessitated – by the straw men they’ve constructed for Republicans in the Narrative.
The cornerstone of the straw men is the false narrative of OIF which has been employed to make Bush and Republicans by association out to be historic monsters, which via the pegging strategy, forgives the Democrats their political stratagems and controversies which appear minor (even justified) in comparison.
For example, the Benghazi controversy lacks legs in terms of political effect because the contextual backdrop is the ‘Bush lied, people died’ false narrative of OIF which dwarfs the Benghazi controversy.
Until Republicans re-lay the foundation in the people’s court regarding OIF, then as long as the false context holds sway, Republican attention to the Benghazi controversy will continue to look like an obscene lack of self-awareness.
In order to neutralize the pegging strategy, including and particularly for the Benghazi controversy, first the record must be set straight on the law and policy, fact basis – the why – of OIF and the false narrative (and false narrators) of OIF must be discredited.
More broadly, the way to fix the cynicism and enable and direct the people’s righteous fury against the bamboozlers who cultivated the cynicism for their own ends is to establish the premise to build the narrative that Bush (and Republicans by association) and America were in fact right on Iraq, whereas the Left-controlled Democrats conned America and the West with resulting monstrous compounding harms.
It’s not a one-step fix, of course, but it is a necessary foundation-setting step to turn the tables and re-set the whole political contextual frame.
Add: As I commented under the 2013 post, Obama’s Libya policy was overtly designed for contrast with Bush’s Iraq policy.
So again, as long as the prevailing view is that Bush was wrong on Iraq, then the costs of Obama’s Libya policy – including what happened at Benghazi to Ambassador Stevens et al – appear justified, at least forgivable, in that light.
Re-evaluating the Benghazi controversy in the politics requires first re-evaluating its contextual backdrop, the Iraq intervention, in the politics.
Eric, your comment is very astute. I also believe that a majority of Dem voters hate any action that seems war-like to them. So they are happy to see Obama do nothing. Even with ISIS raging and such. Many who vote Dem believe that we can have peace if we were just nicer to each other. And they think Obama is taking that course and love it.
This is why Republicans always end up looking like ‘war mongerers,’ because we have to clean up Dem messes when it comes to National Security. Carter did that. Bush II did that. And now the next president (if Republican) will have to do that.
Get ready for the accusations to fly about the ‘war machine’ and Halliburton.
Whoops, meant to say “Reagan” and not “Carter.”
Within their personal circles, all Leftists
a) are conservative; they want the best car they can afford, the best schools for their kids, etc.
b) believe in Truth. Mom does not like to be lied to by her daughter.
Outside their personal circles, it all turns upside down.
a)Socialism is good, capitalism evil.
b)Truth is relative. What difference does it make?
It is suicidal, of course.
Your last paragraph is the key, Neo. I have said (ad nauseam)…all this is the fault of the USA electorate.
…and until we get a better educated and a thinking electorate, things are gonna just continue to get worse.
There was a reason why our founding fathers didn’t want to let any person who just breathes to vote.
The women I met were about my late mother’s age. My Mom was mostly apolitical, but she hated liars. She was also grateful for the full infrastructure of America (e.g. Rule of Law, capitalism, etc).
Hillary just has a low character and I think people who back HRC also have bad character.
No way my Mom would vote for Hillary.
Cornhead:
Well, I don’t know about your late mother. But I’m virtually certain my late mother and my late mother-in-law and almost everyone I knew of their generation would have voted for Hillary.
And they were not of bad character at all. In fact, they were of good character. But they were not especially political, read the headlines and first couple of paragraphs in the Times and or the local equivalent, and voted Democratic ever since they first started voting in the FDR days.
I was thinking about the cynicism Neo posted about and asked myself if those women are really as cynical as they claim or are they using cynicism to throw off the questioner.
Lets give it a little thought here, do they believe it when the Democrats claim that Republicans hate women and are racists and bigots? Or do they say all politicians lie so those claims are lies? Do they believe the Democrats when they claim that they will make sure they get all the government goodies and that the Republicans will take them away or do they say politicians lie so we don’t believe those claims? What if Hillary promised them a lot of goodies and then when she was in office said, “what difference does it make now?” Would they be upset? You bet they would be. They are fully invested in the Democrat narrative when it suites them and they are fully expecting the goodies they have been promised. They aren’t as cynical as they claim when it comes to issues which they really care about.
Frog:
You write:
I understand your point, and that’s certainly true for most liberals and many leftists I know. But not for some liberals and quite a few leftists. Quite a few (probably not the majority, but a noticeable number, at least to me) are motivated in part by guilt about their own “privilege,” and drive old, worn-out cars for that reason, perhaps even dress in slovenly worn-out clothes (depending on their professions and whether they require dressing up), and even in some cases insist on sending their kids to state colleges or universities when they could afford elite private schools and their kids have the grades to get into them.
Again, it’s not the majority by any means. But when you write “all,” you are missing a significant group.
Dennis:
First let me clear up with thing: It is not just women doing this. I don’t think anything I wrote suggested that it was. In fact, the person I had that discussion with who I quoted in my post is a man, a friend of mine.
And yes, the cynicism is more marked when it doesn’t involve a betrayal of a promise on a very personal level. But it is my impression that the cynicism is global; a sort of shrug about government in general, but a continual investment in the idea of Democrats’ having good intentions and Republicans having bad intentions and being mean, and also the idea that Republicans lie more often than Democrats. Most of the people I’m talking about get their news from the MSM or NPR, which is trying to give that impression. They’re not political junkies, and they’re not keeping score on their own.
Recall the “Bush Lied, Thousands Died” mantra of a decade ago. Recall how the libs/progs told us how Obama was going to bring all those good things government, such as integrity, transparency, and an off-the-charts IQ. Then when it turned out that Obama as President had a much greater tendency to lie than President Bush- not a surprise after a close reading of Dreams From My Father- then we find out that all politicians lie.
The Dems have a huge advantage with women. Dems are anti-war under all circumstances. Get rid of those horrible guns. The GOP consists of mean and nasty accountants and racists.
And, of course, the whole zeitgeist favors liberalism.
Dennis
Lets give it a little thought here, do they believe it when the Democrats claim that Republicans hate women and are racists and bigots?
I am reminded of an apocryphal story attributed to LBJ about a candidate for county sheriff who claimed that “My opponent does unmentionable things with hogs.” [As no one involved was a Muslim, he wasn’t referring to eating the hogs. 🙂 ] Someone commented to the sheriff, “You know your opponent doesn’t do unmentionable things with hogs, so why do you say that?” The reply came back, “I know he doesn’t and you know know he doesn’t, but I love to hear him deny it.”
The Demo honchos don’t care about the veracity of their charges. They figure that the more mud they sling, the more will stick on the Pubs. They also realize that Pubs are not as likely to sling stuff back at them.
The Demo LIVs will simply believe whatever their honchos tell them. From my experience that is a fairly large contingent of the Demos.
Fair and reciprocal debating tactics are not what the Demos are about. I am reminded of a Demo whom I had Friday night discussions for years. One time he stated that Mexico was tending towards being a failed state, after having recently released some drug kingpins from jail. I replied that as Obama’s Fast and Furious campaign put guns into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, I could see why Mexico wouldn’t cooperate with the US. The reply came back that I was a hater. Stating a fact makes me a hater.
Yet this same Demo was Fast and Furious about calling his political opponents Teabaggers. After all, it’s not hateful to call your political opponents a term which originally meant “testicle licker.”
What if Hillary promised them a lot of goodies and then when she was in office said, “what difference does it make now?” Would they be upset? You bet they would be.
Except that Hillary would be better prepared this time, and simply blame those mean old Pubs for denying Hillary’s supporters the goodies. It worked for Harry Truman and his Do Nothing Congress, didn’t it?
I think it’s learned helplessness. With a cynical veneer.
‘Another big factor at work here is our decades-long education in moral relativism.’
The moral relativism causes the cynicism
Neo said:
“First let me clear up with thing: It is not just women doing this.”
I don’t believe I implied that it is just women who are that cynical. I’ve met that type myself among the male gender.
Eric,
Not to quibble but to keep the historical record straight; the false narrative of OIF which has been employed to make Bush and Republicans by association out to be historic monsters is arguably the capstone but not the cornerstone to the left’s narrative regarding greedy, selfish, racist, evil republicans.
The cornerstone is the first stone laid, the capstone the last.
The left’s narrative about republicans started at a minimum in the 30’s with Repub. Pres. Hoover and the great depression.
K-E Says:
December 18th, 2015 at 2:01 pm
Was hoping you’d have something up about Bernie Sanders threatening to sue the DNC over this data access breach. I suppose it is a bit new to expect that already.
* * *
One thing blatantly missing in the one story I have read today:
Sanders’ people accidentally discovered the window into Clinton’s data, and have been excoriated for peeking (they claim nothing was down-loaded or preserved).
Wouldn’t Clinton’s staff have the same possibility of accessing Sanders’ data?
Yet no one even asks that question.
K-E Says:
December 18th, 2015 at 3:16 pm
This is why Republicans always end up looking like ‘war mongerers,’ because we have to clean up Dem messes when it comes to National Security.
* * *
I knew a company whose CEO really liked “Joe” and put him in charge of one of the divisions; a few years later Joe moved on, and the division fell apart; Joe moved on to the next position, and the division he left fell apart; that went on several times.
The CEO concluded that Joe was a genius, because each division deprived of his leadership fell apart.
The employees working under Joe knew that he did so much damage while he was in charge, things would have fallen apart on his watch if he hadn’t been transferred just in time.
One’s conclusions depend on one’s perspective, and, as neo often points out, one’s degree of interest in getting accurate information.
Neo @ 5:33 pm:
Wow! There are no liberals like that in my part of the USA, at least not to my knowing. You live with a prosperous sackcloth and ashes crowd? When I visit Boston I have not run into those folks. All the libs I know up there (and I don’t know any conservatives!) care very much about their personal material welfares.
Frog:
I absolutely know people like that. Quite a few, actually, although not the majority.
“In a contest of cynicism between politicians and their voters, the politicians will win”, Edmund Burke, ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’ (quoted from memory.
Burke did not just mean that, in a cynical society, the average politician would still be more cynical than the average voter. He meant that politicians would win, and voters lose, on every issue, the more cynical the voters became. Scepticism good, cynicism bad.
All of which is a long-winded way of say, I agree.
So woke up this morning and read more details about Ryan’s about face in passing the latest budget bill, which looks just like what Reid would produce.
Cynicism??? You bet! I’ve been favoring Cruz, and still do to some extent, but as Madam Secretary so states, “what difference does it make?!”.
We have a one party system now. My real question is what part does Trump really play here? Is he a cynical exploiter of anger, or will he actually tear the house down? I suspect the former but would support him if I could be convinced of the latter at this point in time. Cruz has no chance in changing things if what happened with the new budget is any indication at all of how the government now operates.
The next two years are going to show whether we quietly slip into permanent tyranny or if a resistance of some sort will show up. I now longer believe that just voting in a GOP president will change anything….we are too far gone for that now as the GOP is totally corrupted.
Hate to be cynical but many have decided that “terrible developments” are the only motivation left to turn things around. Unless you expect the Government Party (Reps and Dems) to just magically change their ways.
This cynicism of so many Americans is distressing. So many people have died under Obama’s leadership. The bodies keep piling up.
Maybe some of the cynicism is caused by outrage overload. I recall within the first 4 months or so of Obama’s administration, when he had been making so many disturbing moves and statements, that I was overwhelmed and exhausted. Like a 24×7 news channels that constantly blares “Breaking News!!” with the latest ghastly crime or scandal, one begins to stop feeling anything. Obama has been sure to mix in his (underreported/stealth) outrageous maneuvers with his attention-grabbing stray voltage statements and proposal as distraction. It just never stops. It’s obviously a political strategy, and one that has worked magnificently for him.
This is what I call “naive cynicism”. Ignorance and laziness feeding a drive toward “moral equivalence”.
You’re only a cynic if you’re wrong.
Pingback:The dangers of political cynicism | Fun Sports