When I worked on the Hill it was not permitted to call another Member a liar. If a staff person did it it would be hard to retain your job. Congressmen were supposed to be ladies and gentlemen who did not do such things in public. There were some ways around it, but most Members didn't bother. It was easier to just avoid it altogether. It was possible to run ads saying a person voted for "starving children", to "reduce wages" when that was not the case at all, but that was not a lie, per se. It was a matter of political interpretation. They used to describe conflicts between each other beginning with the words, "My good friend and esteemed Member from South Carolina said..."
There is a new element to this now that I really don't like. Nancy Pelosi called Bill Barr a liar for expressing an opinion that was different than hers. She could have said his interpretation was not correct, or that he did not follow the law as written, or that he was mistaken, but she didn't. She called him a liar.
Now, in point of fact, Barr is not a Member and she did not violate the rule of calling another Member a liar. But, when did it become important for any administration's representative to agree with the positions of the majority leader, or be branded a liar? Knowingly and willingly making a false statement is a lie. The person who does it is a liar. That definition does not fit the circumstances where two individuals disagree on a conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment