Another post about Republican politics — because, cf. Heinlein, this is currently the greatest threat to the advancement of American society. Trump is a buffoon; Carson a mild-mannered religious zealot; Cruz an megalomaniac, evangelical religious zealot; Christie a political clown; Fiorina an unrepentant liar; Jindal and Huckabee religious zealots. Is anyone left? Perhaps Marco Rubio? Well, no.
He accuses Hillary Clinton of lying about the Benghazi attacks. But “The Republican candidate’s claims about Hillary Clinton and Benghazi fall apart under scrutiny.”
Narrative over reality:
On right-wing websites, you’ll find plenty of affirmation for this myth. National Review, Red State, Townhall.com, the Daily Caller, and other outlets agree that Clinton “blamed the ‘awful Internet video’ for the massacre,” told “the American public that the anti-Islam video was what caused the attack,” and “was the author of the lie about what caused the attack.” But when you click their links and study their evidence, the case falls apart.
And conviction over honesty, as the writer William Saletan concludes:
Clinton avoided saying what she didn’t believe to be true. She’s careful with her words. Rubio isn’t. His butchery of the Benghazi story—the intelligence, the context, the public record—betrays a disregard for evidence that doesn’t fit his agenda. He delivers his falsehoods with absolute self-assurance. What unites Rubio with Cruz, and distinguishes him from Bush, isn’t that Rubio sometimes says things that aren’t true. It’s that he does it without compunction.
My bold: What unites Rubio with Cruz, and distinguishes him from Bush, isn’t that Rubio sometimes says things that aren’t true. It’s that he does it without compunction.
Politics. Narratives. Social groups. And the realization that the history of the world, acknowledged to be written by winners, must be affected by this same kind thinking, in which powerful speakers say things that aren’t truth, but which their audiences want to believe.