The word “lie,” one of the more basic terms in the ethics field, has been thoroughly blurred by a malign combination of ignorance, poor analytical skills, and partisan rhetorical dishonesty. A lie is an intentional misrepresentation of facts and truth in order to deceive. Genuine mistakes aren’t lies. Deliberate hyperboles made for effect but still obvious exaggerations are not lies. Jokes are not lies. Delusions aren’t lies. Opinions are not lies. Asserting a belief that one cannot reasonably know to be true is not a lie. A broken promise is not a lie if the promise was made sincerely. A prediction that does not prove accurate is not a lie. One contradicting what he or she once asserted as a strongly held belief does not prove hypocrisy—a variety of lie—if the individual has generally changed his or her belief in the interim.
In his brief interview with The New York Times last week former President Biden said that he orally granted all the pardons and commutations issued at the end of his term. Those who have suggested that the Presidential autopen was used without his knowledge by aides for such edicts are “liars,” Biden said.
“I made every decision,” Biden insisted.
What value is that interview? First, we know that Biden lies to enhance his own reputation: surely he wouldn’t admit that he was a cardboard cut-out POTUS if that is indeed what he became. Given what we know about Biden’s mental state, he may believe he made every decision, even if he didn’t. If fact, how would he know one way or the other?
Ethics Alarms 
Perhaps Doctor Jill assured him that he made every decision, and it seems that she is his window on reality.
People being manipulated are often “willfully” ignorant about it — which to me is not quite the same as lying, more a psychological avoidance of something one does not want to face. The spouse who “is the last to know” about an infidelity when everyone else sees the signs is an example. To me that is not exactly a lie, or if it is, it would fall into the category of motivated lying to oneself, a choice of self-deception over the anticipated pain of confronting a really unattractive truth. Doesn’t mean Biden isn’t lying about other things, but I suspect he is holding tight to his conviction that he made all the decisions, and (same category) maybe showed some signs of aging but still was physically and cognitively up to the job of POTUS.
I strongly suspect that the current president is also compromised (cognitive decline, possible early signs of dementia) in ways that affect his job performance, and also firmly believes that he is on top of things and calling the shots (well, except when Pete H is freelancing foreign policy, I guess). This also, to me, would not be a lie but more of a self-deception / delusion (these are different points along a continuum I think).
A somewhat different presidential behavior is one that I’ve had several discussions about with my partner. Trump is a rich source of demonstrably untrue statements (including, for example, claims that he didn’t say something yesterday when he is on tape saying it or he “truthed” it on his social media site for millions to read, or statements about numbers that keep inflating with every telling, like the person telling us about landing a fish that gets ever larger). However (unlike my partner) I don’t see DJT as a “liar” so much as a fabulist — someone who just makes stuff up that he feels will suit the audience and the circumstance WITH NO REGARD to the world in which things have a defined relation to reality that can make them demonstrably false or true. Sort of like how someone can be “amoral” which is neither moral nor immoral but indifferent to the realm — it doesn’t guide their behavior at all.
I THINK my distinction is in line with your definition of a lie as “an intentional misrepresentation of facts and truth in order to deceive.” This definition implies that the statement has a known-to-the-speaker relationship to facts and truth, rather than being an invention that might or might not be true but really, who cares as long as it has the intended effect? The goal is not so much to “deceive” but to spin a tale that you hope the audience will TREAT as reality.
Do I have that right?
Woop, Woop, Woop! Paid troll alert! Do not engage!
“I strongly suspect that the current president is also compromised (cognitive decline, possible early signs of dementia)”
DNC talking point. No one in their right mind thinks Trump is demented or otherwise mentally compromised. It’s clearly a pathetic, Pee Wee Herman level, “I know you are, but what am I?” headquarters issued distractor. Embarrassing.
Wait, there’s a paid troll position available? How do I apply, and what’s the compensation?
You tell me.
Take a drink
Glad you agree Biden was not really in charge, the remaining three quarters of the post is an attempt to get others to agree on a completely different issue. Does that counts as a “strawman” argument or a “whataboutism”?
Both. I see this all the time among the Trump Deranged, not to say Holly is among them. One of our commenters found it necessary to post Snopes argument that Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s, a favorite smear of the Reagan-embittered left.
And President Biden at his cognitive best during any time of his Administration was far worse than President Reagan at his cognitive worst during any time in his Administration.
Absolutely, no question about it, and I was going to write the same thing.
Hmm, James, I would call what I wrote an extended consideration about what makes a lie a lie (as opposed to all the other ways in which people — including Biden, Trump, someone whose spouse is cheating on them, you, me) can depart from factuality in other ways.
Jack offered a whole paragraph about what is a lie and all the things people conflate with lying–mistakes, delusion, jokes, hyperbole–aren’t exactly that, which got me thinking about the ways that Biden and Trump may be similar and different.
Do you actually find it a strange idea that two presidents (maybe all? this a job that only those with a very high opinion of themselves tend to seek) might both believe themselves to be more on top of the job than they actually are?
I think we need to move away from the whole gerontocracy–and not just because of age-related declines, which are inevitable. Yes these set in at different points and with different severity across people, but when we are considering people for 4 or 6 year terms, we need to be realistic. And the age-related decline is not the only problem — there are generational issues as well.
We have people in their 80s making policies the consequences of which most won’t live to see. Republican caucus rules have helped on that side of the aisle; the Democratic caucus rules exacerbate it, and I think that played no small role in constraining other way-past-sell-by politicians hesitating to call a spade (too old, slipping) a spade.
Comparing Trump and Biden regarding mental acuity is itself a Big Lie. There is no comparison, as Trump has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt since his second term began. He has had more interviews and extensive public statements already than Biden did in his whole four years. The people who keep saying he is failing mentally did this in the first term too, because they don’t like his ideas and policies. Trump shows some signs of age, but he always has spoken like he does now—stream of consciousness, rambling word clouds that often run into a ditch—, and his energy level and powers of fortitude and endurance are incredible for a man 20 years younger. Of course people that old shouldn’t be President, or Senator, or Supreme Court Justices, but Trump is a solid counter argument to that.
As far as other Presidents, you have a lot of homework to do here, because Presidential character and ability is a major theme, covered in many essays. (Presidential leadership is a sub-main topic at EA.) I’d say very few Presidents were genuinely capable of the job, but yes, most thought they were, as they should if they are going to have the hubris to seek it. Up to the job: Washington, Monroe, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, Garfield, Teddy, FDR, Ike, Nixon, and so far, that’s it: 10 out of 47, less than 25%.
Looks like my belief that presidents typically have an inflated sense of their competence at the job matches yours. And you have inspired me to learn more about Garfield — I know almost nothing about him (he doesn’t generally get mentioned in top ten lists from what I recall). So now I’m curious.
Glad you agree with me about the gerontocracy problem! Although I am aging pretty gracefully in continued good health etc. the whole “age is just a number” thing is clearly BS.
For a great, very readable primer on Garfield, I heartily recommend Candice Millard’s “Destiny of the Republic.”
I think you will really enjoy it.
Thank you! Ordered 🙂
I don’t know how anyone can argue with you about the gerontocracy problem. We used to make fun of the Soviet Union: now the US is just as bad. There are a lot of posts here about it, and knowing when to quit is a life competence and an integrity marker. Yes, it’s hard giving up power, fame, influence…grow up, you old coot. Transition to something rewarding that doesn’t make it dangerous for you to have a lapse…
I have it on solid authority that Garfield loves lasagna.
jvb
PS: (chuckling. . . .)
Gave the verbal approval for every one.
Right.
Like he signed/approved of a “study” of LNG from Louisiana? Which was actually a pause.
Okay, here’s something Biden is “winning” at — capturing the attention of Fox News. Someone is counting (yeah, people have odd hobbies!) and Fox news tonight includes 85 mentions of Biden and 0 mentions of Epstein. Loyal foot soldiers! I’m assuming the references were to Joe Biden…. but maybe it’s time to resurrect some Hunter Biden stories? Start calling for release of the Hunter Biden files?
This is because, of course, the issue of a President’s power being secretly wielded by unelected activists and political hacks unknown, of which there is substantial evidence, is a matter of existential importance to a constitutional republic, and Jeffrey Epstein’s dirty laundry is only of interest to conspiracy theorists and “gotcha!” addicts.
That, and the fact that without Fox News, the Biden scandal would barely be publicized at all, because it shows what the mainstream media’s favorite party has devolved into.
Sex trafficking is a crime, one that has an extreme impact on the girls (and in some cases boys) who are victims. It is not “dirty laundry” or “locker room highjinks” or “boys being boys” or whatever term is used to minimize this crime.
Epstein’s associate Maxwell is currently serving a 20 year prison sentence for recruiting girls for child sex trafficking on Epstein’s behalf. LOTS of girls. Over the course of a decade at least. Apparently there was adequate evidence to convict her. And for Virginia Guiffre to win her defamation suit against Maxwell and her suit against Prince Andrew.
And now there are some reports (not yet corroborated) that Maxwell is willing to testify to Congress. If this is true that would be good news, right? If she actually feels anything akin to remorse, perhaps she would be willing to corroborate the reports of the many victims seeking justice in suits against Epstein’s estate. (In the 2005-2008 investigation when Epstein got a sweatheart plea deal, three dozen victims were identified).
Why do people care about this? Many many people know victims or themselves have been victims of sexual abuse (see: Catholic Church, for example). Of course the high profile involvement of Prince Andrew and the trial of Maxwell also kept this in the public eye. The media (mostly on the right, good for them) have also been reminding people to care about Epstein’s crimes and all those who participated for a decade now. I agree.
He’s dead. His victims got their day in court. He died in prison. There is literally no way the Epstein story (which was much about how wealth and determined evil can foil justice) has any impact or relevance to US challenges, issues, policies or legislation now. It is a flagrant distraction, and is INTENDED to be a distraction. Last night it was hilarious: I watch the Direct TV “News Mix,” and on either side of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN were going on and on about Epstein, Bondi, MAGA etc. while Fox and BBC were reporting on actual breaking news. This is more of the “Get Trump!” desperation we’ve seen warp the government for 10 years.
Incidentally, the definitive rebuttal is: The Biden Justice Department had the Epstein stuff, whatever it is, for years. If there was anything in there they could use against Trump—you know, because he’s Hitler and a threat to democracy—it would have been leaked with gusto. It wasn’t…because there’s nothing there.
Two words. Elder abuse. Biden in addition was in serious cognitive decline. This seems like one of those where the answer is technically true but much more was going on below the surface. I’m sure he said “yes” to a bunch of stuff. With others nodding yes or no on the sidelines.
Bingo.
When I first read Holly’s initial post, I got the same impression as James. Devoting ¾ of the post to running down Trump certainly gives a deflection vibe to it. I had to reread it multiple times to surmise that deflection might not have been her goal. Consequently, I refrained from commenting to see how others might respond. Reading her subsequent posts, particularly attacking Fox, and further deflection away from Biden’s lie or no lie topic with comments about Epstein and old people in office, suggests my objectivity regarding her initial post may have been misguided.
There was no reason to bring Trump into the picture, particularly so much so. Follow that up with attacks on Fox and sex trafficking suggest deflection, deflection, deflection.
Getting back to Jack’s original post, was Biden lying? Given Biden’s history, it suggests that if he was lucid during his NY Times phone call, then he was lying. If, however, someone was helping him to respond during the interview, then they were prompting him to lie, which he may or may not have realized.
Using Biden as a puppet to enact the goals and aspirations of unelected unknowns for four years is the worst fraud perpetrated in the history of our Republic. It is the pinnacle of the deceit, hubris, and unscrupulousness that is embraced by Democrats, most media, government agencies, much of academia, and the entertainment industry. Except for a total financial collapse or an attack by a foreign power, exposing the degree of the offence should not take a backseat to anything else.
TDS is just a symptom of the rot that has taken hold of much of our culture. This has been an evolutionary process perpetrated by those in the progressive movement. It has been decades in the making. It will not disappear when Trump becomes history. It will just get a new label.
I have written in the past about the United States approaching the tipping point. I do believe we are there. The unanswered question is, can President Trump, a narcissistic, uncouth bombast, pull the nation back from the brink? Can a leader emerge who can continue the work the Trump administration has started? No one comes to mind, but providence has blessed our nation in the past. Unlikely leaders have emerged in times of peril when our nation’s future looked bleak. Hopefully, such a leader will emerge and not a scoundrel capable of drawing us further into the abyss
Regarding Holly’s and Jack’s comments about old people hanging on to power, I agree it is a problem. Regrettably, it is an unfixable problem. The first problem is the brain-dead electorate addicted to free stuff from the government. Politicians have manipulated the tax code to their benefit. They have set it up so that approximately half of the electorate pays no income tax. This allows the politicians to buy votes by giving the electorate free stuff, paid for by rich folks and evil corporations who, supposedly, are not paying their “fair share”. The politicians also use the tax code to extract campaign contributions from wealthy individuals and corporations in exchange for carve-outs and exemptions. Also, think of how many attorneys and accountants would be out of business if we had a flat fixed fee that everyone paid. Think how responsive politicians might have to be if the entire electorate had skin in the game.
The second problem is that power is an extremely addictive drug. Additionally, many career politicians are somehow able to become quite wealthy on their government salary. Changing the rules governing the elected officials is a nonstarter. It would require the majority of elected old career politicians to limit their own access to power, prestige, and wealth. As I often say, good luck with that.
Since career politicians are not going to the honorable and retire at a reasonable age, say around 70, we are stuck with relying on the electorate to retire them. This will work in some areas of the country better than others.
[Tom P]Can a leader emerge who can continue the work the Trump administration has started?
My expectation is that JD Vance will be the Republican nominee in 2028. He is young, communicates well, is popular with his political base, and is a very active and highly visible Vice President. His Presidency will be Trump III.
As it stands today, the Democrats do not have a clear candidate who can win the Presidency. Their tendency is today is to nominate the extreme left in primaries (example: mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in NYC), and have a general problem to appear sane to the electorate. But a lot can happen in three years. Maybe they come to their senses and nominate John Fetterman, with Bill Maher or Stephen A Smith as VP.
So let’s assume that JD Vance wins convincingly in 2028, are we still close to the tipping point? Or are we just overly dramatic and apocalyptical?
About the conduct of the Joe Biden administration, I have doubts how much information Congress will elicit in their hearings. All the players including Biden’s physician will simply stonewall, take the fifth, or commit perjury (for which they will not serve time). I do not expect Brennan and Comey to be convicted of anything either. It makes me wonder how much sense all these hearings and investigations have, except to give politicians a platform to grandstand. Perhaps Congress and the Trump Administration should focus on getting laws passed, campaign promises fulfilled, and policies executed, and leave the sordid past to the historians. Same treatment for Jeffrey Epstein, DOJ should move on and leave this issue to the true crime authors.
“It makes me wonder how much sense all these hearings and investigations have, except to give politicians a platform to grandstand.” Apparently this is what many Congress believe is job 1? When they aren’t (the younger ones anyway) grandstanding on social media to gain likes and follows…. sigh….