觀點
真相，美國大選真正的失敗者
凱文··克魯澤 2012年11月08日
新澤西州普林斯頓
導演史蒂文·斯皮爾伯格(Steven Spielberg)的傳記片《林肯》(Lincoln)將於本周五上映，他在近期表示，在美國人經歷了又一場苦澀而尖銳對立的大選後感到精疲力竭之際，他希望這部電影能帶來"舒緩甚至治療的效果"。
但是，林肯另有一句在影片里丹尼爾·戴-劉易斯(Daniel Day-Lewis)扮演的角色沒有說的名言："你可以在一段時間裡愚弄所有的人，你甚至可以永遠愚弄一部分人，但你不可能永遠愚弄所有人。"
這個遺漏是有道理的。不僅因為這句名言可能是杜撰的，還因為這個選舉日也許能夠展示：你在問鼎白宮期間真有可能愚弄所有的人，至少是足夠多的人。
惡毒的人身攻擊，以及有關通姦、異族通婚甚至不正當人獸關係的指控，其歷史都和這個合眾國一樣悠久。阿龍·伯爾(Aaron Burr)甚至在擔任副總統期間殺害了亞歷山大·漢密爾頓(Alexander Hamilton)。
但是，儘管在政治中，事實與虛構之間的界限從來都是模糊不清的，可一些因素結合發揮作用，已經把我們的公民話語（如果還能這麼稱的話）置於高度緊張狀態，逼近破裂底線。
戰後年代，經濟繁榮和中產階級壯大，鼓勵着人們對官員、記者和學者相對尊重。沒錯，那時記者與政客之間的關係親切得多，但較慢的新聞周期也意味着有更多的時間用於驗證和分析。
候選人因此相信，如果全部的謊言被拆穿，可能損害他們的政治生涯，因此他們往往選擇歪曲真相，而不是完全打破。正如丹尼爾·帕特里克·莫伊尼漢(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)據報道曾說的："每個人都有權擁有自己的觀點，但不該自己編造'事實'。"
1948年，哈里·S·杜魯門(Harry S Truman)譴責共和黨金融家是"吸血鬼"和"特權饕餮者"，但他的這些煽動性言論確實是以國會立法記錄的事實為基礎的。他否認自己說過"讓他們下地獄"，只是在後來表示，"我過去說出了共和黨人的真面目，於是他們那麼說我。"
兩年後，來自加利福尼亞的理乍得·M·尼克松(Richard M. Nixon)在競選參議員時，稱他的對手海倫·加海根·道格拉斯(Helen Gahagan Douglas)"一直粉到了內衣里"，給她扣上一頂"赤色分子"的帽子，不過這句話源自她在聲明中呼籲的全球裁軍以及為婦女和黑人爭取公民權。
針鋒相對的1964年競選以林頓·B·約翰遜(Lyndon B. Johnson)危言聳聽的"雛菊廣告"(daisy ad)出名，這段廣告暗示，若巴里·M·戈德華特(Barry M. Goldwater)當選，可能會導致核戰爭。但這段廣告源於戈德華特表現出對核武器態度輕率的聲明（他曾開玩笑說，"扔一枚到克林姆林宮的男廁所里"）。
在有史以來最骯髒的1988年競選期間，策略師李·阿特沃特(Lee Atwater)為當時的副總統喬治·布殊(George Bush)設計了一系列攻擊廣告，這些廣告至少都有一點事實內核。布殊的對手邁克爾·S·杜卡基斯(Michael S. Dukakis)或許並不應該由於犯人休假項目導致威利·霍頓(Willie Horton)犯下更多罪行而被指責，但至少這個項目和這名犯人都是真實的。阿特沃特利用了這些事情，但至少沒有憑空捏造。
從上世紀70年代起，政客們撒謊的代價大大降低，更重要的是可以在競選的攻擊廣告中一再重複謊言。這裡至少有四個因素。首先是人們對各類機構和專業人員（從科學家和律師，到記者和公務員）的尊敬總體下降。
其次是媒體的監管方式和所有權發生了變化。1985年，由參議員傑西·赫爾姆斯(Jesse Helms)支持的保守派組織"公正的媒體"(Fairness in Media)試圖接管CBS，"成為丹·拉瑟(Dan Rather)的老闆"。這次嘗試以失敗告終，但兩年後保守派為更大的勝利搭起舞台。此前幾十年期間，人們認為廣播電台和電視台是公眾電波的管理者，因此它們在報道有爭議的公共辯論時，必須陳述多方觀點。但在1987年，由總統羅納德·里根(Ronald Reagan)任命的美國聯邦通信委員會的成員廢除了"公平原則"(fairness doctrine)。此舉為創立保守派的談話電台和有線電視頻道、對抗他們眼中的自由派偏向鋪平了道路。自由派也效仿推出自己的節目，但不如保守派做得有效。
隨着這種刺耳的聲音越來越強，政治操盤手們發現他們有更多空間可以誇大言辭，於是第三種趨勢便形成了。2004年，喬治·W·布殊(George W. Bush)總統的一位助手對一名記者不屑一顧，稱對方屬於"基於現實的社區，相信解決方案會從你們對明顯現實的明智研究中產生"。但即使是布殊也相信，曲解事實應該是有限度的。攻擊參議員約翰·克里(John Kerry)服役經歷的廣告來自於貌似獨立的"說出真相的快艇老兵"。廣告播出後，布殊稱其"對體制不好"。
第四點因素：多數新聞機構（有少數令人矚目的例外）已經放棄了政治裁判的角色。很多機構付諸於一種萎縮的風格，更像是做速記，而不是做新聞，把所有說法都陳述為是同樣站得住腳的。事實核實一度是所有報道的基石，而現在被視為只有少數專業媒體才做。
但是這場競選表明，即使是最盡責的事實核實員也沒起到什麼作用。
"政治事實"(PolitiFact)網站記錄了自2007年起羅姆尼說過的19個徹頭徹尾的謊言，奧巴馬說過7個這類謊言，但羅姆尼的謊言在性質上惡劣得多："道歉之旅"，"政府接管醫保"，"每個中產階級家庭激增4000美元的稅收"，放棄"從福利轉向工作"(welfare-to-work)規則，把俄亥俄州克萊斯勒工廠的就業崗位轉移到中國。羅姆尼的民調員之一尼爾·紐豪斯(Neil Newhouse)稱："我們不會讓事實核實員左右我們的競選。"
當然，奧巴馬競選班子在掩蓋和歪曲事實上也有份，包括在羅姆尼對於墮胎和國際援助的立場問題上。但奧巴馬陣營在這次乃至過去的競選活動中，在這方面都不及羅姆尼的團隊。羅姆尼陣營這種對事實的根本蔑視是全新的現象。
當然，選民們很可能在投票時懲罰這類不擇手段的操縱。但不論輸贏，羅姆尼的競選團隊都在一個命題上押上了歷史性的巨大賭注，那就是可以或多或少忽略事實而不受懲罰。
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Real Loser: Truth
November 08, 2012
Princeton, N.J.
THE director Steven Spielberg, whose "Lincoln" biopic opens Friday, recently said he hoped the film would have a "soothing or even healing effect" on a nation exhausted after yet another bitter and polarizing election.
But there's one line attributed to Lincoln that Daniel Day-Lewis, who plays the president, doesn't utter in the film: "You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time."
The omission makes sense. Not only is the line probably apocryphal, but also, this Election Day just might demonstrate that you really can fool all of the people — or at least enough of them — in the time it takes to win the White House.
Venomous personal attacks and accusations of adultery, miscegenation and even bestiality are as old as the Republic. Aaron Burr was the sitting vice president when he killed Alexander Hamilton.
But while the line between fact and fiction in politics has always been fuzzy, a confluence of factors has strained our civic discourse, if it can still be called that, to the breaking point.
The economic boom and middle-class expansion of the postwar era encouraged relative deference for officials, journalists and scholars. It's true that reporters and politicians had far cozier relationships, but the slower news cycle allowed more time for verification and analysis.
Candidates accordingly believed that being caught in an outright lie could damage their careers. (As Daniel Patrick Moynihan reportedly said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.") They tended only to bend the truth, not break it.
In 1948, President Harry S. Truman denounced Republican financiers as "bloodsuckers"and "gluttons of privilege," but grounded his inflammatory language in the facts of Congress's legislative record. He denied his "give 'em hell" reputation, saying later only that "I used to tell the truth on the Republicans, and they called it that."
Two years later, Richard M. Nixon, running for the Senate from California, said his opponent, Representative Helen Gahagan Douglas, was "pink right down to her underwear," a red-baiting remark, but one that referred to statements she'd made calling for global disarmament and civil rights for women and blacks.
The brass-knuckle 1964 campaign is remembered for Lyndon B. Johnson's alarmist "daisy ad," which suggested that Barry M. Goldwater's election might lead to nuclear war. But it rested on statements Goldwater had made indicating a loose attitude toward nuclear weapons. ("Lob one into the men's room in the Kremlin," he once joked.)
The attack ads devised by the strategist Lee Atwater for Vice President George Bush in the 1988 campaign, one of the dirtiest ever, were grounded in at least a kernel of truth. Mr. Bush's opponent, Michael S. Dukakis, might not have deserved blame for the furlough program that let Willie Horton commit additional crimes, but at least the program and prisoner were real. Atwater exploited these events, but did not invent them.
At least four factors since the 1970s have lowered the cost for politicians who lie and, more important, repeat their fabrications through their attack ads. First is the overall decline in respect for institutions and professionals of all kinds, from scientists and lawyers to journalists and civil servants.
Second are changes in media regulation and ownership. In 1985, the conservative organization Fairness in Media, backed by Senator Jesse Helms, tried to arrange a takeover of CBS and "become Dan Rather's boss." It failed, but two years later conservatives set the stage for an even bigger triumph. For decades, radio and television broadcasters had been required to present multiple viewpoints on contentious public debates on the grounds that they were stewards of the public airwaves. But in 1987, members appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the Federal Communications Commission abolished this "fairness doctrine." The change facilitated the creation of conservative talk radio and cable outlets to combat perceived liberal bias. Liberals followed suit with programming (albeit less effective) of their own.
As this cacophony crescendoed, a third trend developed as political operatives realized they had more room to stretch the truth. In 2004, an aide to President George W. Bush dismissed a journalist for being part of a "reality-based community" of people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." But even Mr. Bush believed there were limits to truth-bending. The ads that attacked the military service of Senator John Kerry came from the ostensibly independent "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." After the ads aired, Mr. Bush belatedly called them "bad for the system."
A fourth factor: most news organizations (with notable exceptions) abandoned their roles as political referees. Many resorted to an atrophied style that resembled stenography more than journalism, presenting all claims as equally valid. Fact checking, once a foundation for all reporting, was now deemed the province of a specialized few.
But as this campaign has made clear, not even the dedicated fact-checkers have made much difference.
PolitiFact has chronicled 19 "pants on fire" lies by Mr. Romney and 7 by Mr. Obama since 2007, but Mr. Romney's whoppers have been qualitatively far worse: the "apology tour," the "government takeover of health care," the "$4,000 tax hike on middle class families," the gutting of welfare-to-work rules, the shipment by Chrysler of jobs from Ohio to China. Said one of his pollsters, Neil Newhouse, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers."
To be sure, the Obama campaign has certainly had its own share of dissembling and distortion, including about Mr. Romney's positions on abortion and foreign aid. But nothing in it — or in past campaigns, for that matter — has equaled the efforts of the Romney campaign in this realm. Its fundamental disdain for facts is something wholly new.
The voters, of course, may well recoil against these cynical manipulations at the polls. But win or lose, the Romney campaign has placed a big and historic bet on the proposition that facts can be ignored, more or less, with impunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment