"Historians say many of our greatest presidents were the biggest liars -- and duplicity was part of their greatness.
"'Every president has not only lied at some time, but needs to lie to be effective,' says Ed Uravic, a former Washington lobbyist, congressional chief of staff and author of "Lying Cheating Scum."

"Even "Honest Abe," whose majestic "Gettysburg Address" the nation commemorated this week, was a skillful liar, says Meg Mott, a professor of political theory at Marlboro College in Vermont.
"Lincoln lied about whether he was negotiating with the South to end the war... He also lied about where he stood on slavery. He told the American public and political allies that he didn't believe in political equality for slaves because he didn't want to get too far ahead of public opinion, Mott says.
"'He had to be devious with the electorate,' Mott says. 'He played slave-holders against abolitionists. He had to lie to get people to follow him. Lincoln is a great Machiavellian.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/politics/p...?hpt=hp_c2

Mott's comment is good sound-bite, but ridiculous history. I'm not going to get into a discussion over whether a lie of omission is the same as a lie of commission, but her comment that Lincoln lied about his views on political equality for the black is absolute nonsense. To call Lincoln Machiavellian seems unnecessarily pejorative. I prefer the term politically shrewd. And to say that Lincoln "had to lie to get people to follow him" is specious. Any politician who doesn't recognize the limits of belief where the voters are concerned soon finds him or herself an ex-politician. Of course, Lincoln wasn't always "Honest Abe" in his political machinations, but as Otto Von Bismarck supposedly said, "one who likes laws or sausage should never watch either being made."

Lincoln personally felt that whites would never allow blacks to experience complete equality because racism in America was too strongly encoded in the national psyche. Regardless of whether or not he personally believed in the equality of whites and blacks, he knew that without public acceptance, nothing could ever be accomplished. Look at Lincoln's speech in which Booth, Herold and Powell were in attendance at the end of the war. Even then, Lincoln didn't propose suffrage for every black, only "the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."

In his October 16, 1854 speech in Peoria, Lincoln said "Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not." Lincoln was not lying. Even though Allen Guelzo disagrees, I think most historians have accepted that Lincoln's views on race, like his views on religion, evolved over time. If Lincoln lied about anything, he lied to Horace Greeley in his response to the "Prayer of Twenty Millions" editorial when he made the "my paramount objective" statement. He knew when he was answering it, the Emancipation Proclamation was, in his mind, a fait accompli. And by definition, that was a lie of omission.

Mott's comments need more context before I would give them any credibility. To be fair, she might have provided more context and the CNN producer may have deleted it. My personal experience with television reporters has never been favorable.

Some politicians do indeed lie. Others withhold all the details of a decision or proposal. Some may believe a lie of omission is still a lie, but there's nothing in the Constitution which requires a president to divulge all his secrets.

Best
Rob

It's my understanding that MOST politicians lie.....

It's part of the game and they are shrewd and good at working the system..... I should know. I work with them on a daily basis....

(11-24-2013 01:09 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Mott's comment is good sound-bite, but ridiculous history. I'm not going to get into a discussion over whether a lie of omission is the same as a lie of commission, but her comment that Lincoln lied about his views on political equality for the black is absolute nonsense. To call Lincoln Machiavellian seems unnecessarily pejorative. I prefer the term politically shrewd. And to say that Lincoln "had to lie to get people to follow him" is specious. Any politician who doesn't recognize the limits of belief where the voters are concerned soon finds him or herself an ex-politician. Of course, Lincoln wasn't always "Honest Abe" in his political machinations, but as Otto Von Bismarck supposedly said, "one who likes laws or sausage should never watch either being made."

Lincoln personally felt that whites would never allow blacks to experience complete equality because racism in America was too strongly encoded in the national psyche. Regardless of whether or not he personally believed in the equality of whites and blacks, he knew that without public acceptance, nothing could ever be accomplished. Look at Lincoln's speech in which Booth, Herold and Powell were in attendance at the end of the war. Even then, Lincoln didn't propose suffrage for every black, only "the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."

In his October 16, 1854 speech in Peoria, Lincoln said "Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not." Lincoln was not lying. Even though Allen Guelzo disagrees, I think most historians have accepted that Lincoln's views on race, like his views on religion, evolved over time. If Lincoln lied about anything, he lied to Horace Greeley in his response to the "Prayer of Twenty Millions" editorial when he made the "my paramount objective" statement. He knew when he was answering it, the Emancipation Proclamation was, in his mind, a fait accompli. And by definition, that was a lie of omission.

Mott's comments need more context before I would give them any credibility. To be fair, she might have provided more context and the CNN producer may have deleted it. My personal experience with television reporters has never been favorable.

Some politicians do indeed lie. Others withhold all the details of a decision or proposal. Some may believe a lie of omission is still a lie, but there's nothing in the Constitution which requires a president to divulge all his secrets.

Best
Rob

Oh, Rob,

Do we have another Troy in Mott?

Joe

I hope not, Joe.

Best
Rob

As a country, we should expect and demand more from our leaders for the very reason that they are our leaders. Mistakes are one thing, but a consistent pattern of behavior is another.

Maybe it's true that Presidents lie- it doesn't necessarily excuse the behavior. I suppose context has to be taken into consideration. A lie to save lives might be justifiable. A lie to advance a political party aim- maybe not excusable. I think when we the people elect a president we expect that person to tell us the truth. If there can be no expectation of truth then nothing really matters, does it?

Remember when Nixon told us that we were not going into Cambodia? Clinton did not have sex with Monica! Presidents never lie-they just stretch the truth!

When I was a child, I often heard the story about George Washington and the cherry tree. He was a young man. He had been asked if he had cut down the tree. He is said to have replied that he "could not tell a lie"- he cut down the tree with his "little hatchet." We know, of course, that the incident never happened. But there is a reason for the story to have become embedded in our culture- to fix in the minds of people that lying is wrong. We teach children that lying is wrong. Of course, life is complicated. Sometimes lies must be told to save lives, for example. So do presidents lie? Yes. History will judge if the lying was/is justified. But when it is all said and done- lying should be the exception and not the rule- and when lies are made- they better be made for exception reasons- or honor will not be given and legacies will go down in the dust.

Beautifully said, Bill. If there is no honor and truth among our leaders, we have little to look forward to as a society.

From previous Rob post:

”In his October 16, 1854 speech in Peoria, Lincoln said "Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not." Lincoln was not lying. Even though Allen Guelzo disagrees, I think most historians have accepted that Lincoln's views on race, like his views on religion, evolved over time. If Lincoln lied about anything, he lied to Horace Greeley in his response to the "Prayer of Twenty Millions" editorial when he made the "my paramount objective" statement. He knew when he was answering it, the Emancipation Proclamation was, in his mind, a fait accompli. And by definition, that was a lie of omission.“

Very important truths that a lot of people miss. I enjoyed reading it again!