Andrew McCarthy has written a National Review article entitled “Hillary’s Breathtaking Mendacity.”
It describes the lies that were revealed and “made explicit” in Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi committee on Thursday, and it’s well worth reading in its entirely. But it also exhibits a response that’s occurring only on the right. McCarthy’s clear and painstaking description of how Clinton lied to the American people (but not to her daughter) is freely available to all who read National Review, but how many people would that be, compared to those who read the ubiquitous MSM spin that says she acquitted herself admirably in the hearings and no one laid a glove on her, nor was any new or interesting information revealed?
The Benghazi hearings have underlined—even though such underlining wasn’t needed—how those who control the narrative control the perception and even the conclusion. Clinton can lie through her teeth about material facts for political reasons, it can be demonstrated over and over (or it can be obvious to anyone listening or paying a particle of attention), and if the media decides to ignore that fact, how many people will look for themselves and decide for themselves? Very few, I’m afraid.
Apparently, facts are not stubborn things. Not any more. Maybe they never were.
But there’s a lot more going on here than that. One thing that’s going on is that much of the public has become cynical enough not to care about Hillary’s lies. Yes, there’s the low information voter whose views are shaped by the MSM, and by the mere headlines in the MSM at that. But there are also a lot of people like the friend I described in this post from December of 2012:
The American people do not seem to be “concerned,” [about Benghazi] either, not at all. Major Garrett can ask all the questions he wants”¦but few people except us blogophiles on the right are listening, and Carney and Obama have learned that simply thumbing their noses at the American people is an excellent way to get the people to shrug”¦
I discovered this myself a few days after the election, when I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”
Well, they surely do””but not this brazenly, because most politicians at least have the fear of being called to account by the media and then the American people”¦
As true as that was then, it is even truer now. And I’ll go it one better: the left and a growing number of liberals applaud a lie if it serves the cause of the left.
The left was always like that, of course. But I think a lot of liberals used to be more principled than that. What’s made the difference? A decades-long immersion and education in the doctrine of moral relativism:
What is truth, and can it be determined? Way way too many people answer “no,” and so they’ve given up trying or caring. And if they don’t care, why should our public officials answer inopportune and potentially embarrassing questions? No; what’s important is feelings…And most Americans will nod, if they’re paying attention at all.
I will expand on what I wrote back then and add that, this past Thursday, what seems to have been important to most pundits in the MSM (and therefore most liberals) was Hillary’s demeanor: she was measured, calm, and quick to respond. It belied the idea (as did her performance in the recent Democratic debate) that she’s too tired and old, too mentally spent, to be president. She’s still sharp, all right, when need be.
But the substance of what she actually said and did, now and back in the fall of 2012 and after, should be seen as abhorrent. Yet it doesn’t appear that enough Americans care, and because of that we may be in the lamentable situation where Hillary is in a good position to become the next president of the United States.
