I do feel that it takes a special kind of person to be a good lawyer... and I understand the need for a lawyer to push back against all of the evidence. Dusty used to point out that a lot of times, even when the facts aren't in dispute, the case is ("yeah, I shot him, but it was self defense!").
I feel that the attitude that lets a person push back against the tearful testimony of a five year old, and to try to convince the jury that children make mistakes and are easily manipulated (a serious question that really does need to be examined) is also the attitude that, unchecked, leads to really ugly manipulation of the truth (like deliberately trying to push the emotions of the child in a way that the a defense psychologist suggests will work).
And I think that's how it is in political campaigns today. Taken in isolation, it was right to bring up Clinton's use of an e-mail server her family already had set up as a question of judgment, even though it was a made-up nothingburger. And there was a time when it would have been appropriate to check the legal ramifications, and kick up a fuss about how she's being investigated for improper use of classified information. But to continue to push the possibility of criminal charges, including by prosecutors, who knew it was a nothingburger, is what went far, far past the line.
So, it's like, sure, the e-mail server was a reasonable thing to do - it's not good, and it's bad for our nation when trivialities determine an election, but "see, I know Clinton's innocent, but I'll make a better President" is the kind of attitude a politician needs to succeed. And pushing an advantage you've got is reasonable even if untruthful, because elections are rarely, if ever, decided "fairly".
But it's not in isolation. There's a long, concentrated effort to vilify not just one opponent, but all opponents.
That's bad but eventually, the need for ever-continuing "scandals" means the need for ever more ridiculous trivialities. Eventually, they've been pushing the ridiculous lies to the point that they can't back away and confess they've been lying, *and* people are starting to believe them.
Really, this may, and I hope it will, someday be a lesson taught in civics classes. "So, in the early 90s, when it was no longer a winning strategy to say you're helping the rich so they'll create more jobs, the Republicans started lying about their opponents. Eventually, they manufactured so many crises based on lies that they collapsed, horribly and utterly."
Long story short: I don't think all of them are taking lies to heart over the truth - but they're in one of those situations, like, running on a treadmill that's going too fast, you have to keep running and praying you get a chance to get off before it flings you back.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2017-03-13 03:46 pm (UTC)I feel that the attitude that lets a person push back against the tearful testimony of a five year old, and to try to convince the jury that children make mistakes and are easily manipulated (a serious question that really does need to be examined) is also the attitude that, unchecked, leads to really ugly manipulation of the truth (like deliberately trying to push the emotions of the child in a way that the a defense psychologist suggests will work).
And I think that's how it is in political campaigns today. Taken in isolation, it was right to bring up Clinton's use of an e-mail server her family already had set up as a question of judgment, even though it was a made-up nothingburger. And there was a time when it would have been appropriate to check the legal ramifications, and kick up a fuss about how she's being investigated for improper use of classified information. But to continue to push the possibility of criminal charges, including by prosecutors, who knew it was a nothingburger, is what went far, far past the line.
So, it's like, sure, the e-mail server was a reasonable thing to do - it's not good, and it's bad for our nation when trivialities determine an election, but "see, I know Clinton's innocent, but I'll make a better President" is the kind of attitude a politician needs to succeed. And pushing an advantage you've got is reasonable even if untruthful, because elections are rarely, if ever, decided "fairly".
But it's not in isolation. There's a long, concentrated effort to vilify not just one opponent, but all opponents.
That's bad but eventually, the need for ever-continuing "scandals" means the need for ever more ridiculous trivialities. Eventually, they've been pushing the ridiculous lies to the point that they can't back away and confess they've been lying, *and* people are starting to believe them.
Really, this may, and I hope it will, someday be a lesson taught in civics classes. "So, in the early 90s, when it was no longer a winning strategy to say you're helping the rich so they'll create more jobs, the Republicans started lying about their opponents. Eventually, they manufactured so many crises based on lies that they collapsed, horribly and utterly."
Long story short: I don't think all of them are taking lies to heart over the truth - but they're in one of those situations, like, running on a treadmill that's going too fast, you have to keep running and praying you get a chance to get off before it flings you back.