It is generally used when a reader of partisan leanings sees and agrees with the analysis of statements in which his or her party's politician was caught in a lie. In short, it is a way of dismissing the fact that the politician lied and cannot be trusted. It is a way to 'macro view' life as if nobility and integrity are inside jokes among the political elite, and evasive notions of the pollyanna crowd.
Even in the jagged world of politics, deception still matters, right down to the very bank account and liberty of you and of me.
"If elected, I promise to..." is not necessarily deceptive unless it is, when spoken, the subject did not intend to do what is promised. Many good intentions are thwarted for a variety of reasons, some beyond the subject's control.
I've lifted a line from Mark McClish in teaching Statement Analysis and Analytical Interviewing:
"There were two frogs sitting on a log. One decided to jump off. How many frogs were left?"
I enjoyed watching which investigators would not follow the crowd in shooing up the hand to be the first to answer. I noted those who paused, as always in the minority.
It is not a trick question, either.
The answer is: We do not know.
One frog made the decision to jump off, but we do not know if he followed through with his decision. The statement is important as it allows me to get the attention of the audience, and teach them to listen to what one says, rather than interpret.
I then take a statement out from a nurse involved in arson. In it, the now aware investigator can flag what one "normally does" in the course of the day, versus what one states without qualification, what one did during the day of the fire. It is an important tool in discerning deception. People use intentions in a way to deceive by employing it when they should have stated what they actually did.
What should you look for in politicians' lies and deceptions?
The single most important factor in applying Statement Analysis to a politician is the same principle in which we follow for everyone else, except that it is magnified by the power and authority the politician seeks:
Look for deception where deception was not necessary.
This is for politicians and for non politicians. It is indicative of habitual liars, or what some call, "congenital liars."
These are those who are well rehearsed from childhood. It remains an open debate within religious circles if this person can "change" and stop lying. The narcissistic strain within the habitual liar is a powerful statement of "me first", in all things.
Among politicians, this is extreme and the language shows an inability to put others first.
I will use Hillary Clinton as an example, particularly, in Benghazi, to highlight this principle, in upcoming articles. For a timely example, let's look at the speech given by President Barak Obama at the funeral of Daniel Inouye, in which he eulogized Sen. Inouye.
In spite of a prepared speech, Obama frustrated his advisors by, what they called, his penchant to "overreach" for himself. The setting was a eulogy, delivered by the President of the United States. This is the context: to speak of the deceased in an honoring way.
The White House, itself, posted the transcript. What they did not count on was that not only would the public see the narcissism, but that even the counting of his pronouns was widely done:
"Now, here I was, a young boy with a white mom, a black father, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. And I was beginning to sense how fitting into the world might not be as simple as it might seem. And so to see this man, this senator, this powerful, accomplished person who wasn't out of central casting when it came to what you'd think a senator might look like at the time, and the way he commanded the respect of an entire nation I think it hinted to me what might be possible in my own life.This was a man who as a teenager stepped up to serve his country even after his fellow Japanese Americans were declared enemy aliens. A man who believed in America even when its government didn't necessarily believe in him. That meant something to me. It gave me a powerful sense -- one that I couldn’t put into words -- a powerful sense of hope.
And as I watched those hearings, listening to Danny ask all those piercing questions night after night, I learned something else. I learned how our democracy was supposed to work, our government of and by and for the people; that we had a system of government where nobody is above the law, where we have an obligation to hold each other accountable, from the average citizen to the most powerful of leaders, because these things that we stand for, these ideals that we hold dear are bigger than any one person or party or politician.And, somehow, nobody communicated that more effectively than Danny Inouye. "
In the complete eulogy,
"I" was used 30 times.
"my" 21 times.
"me" 12 times.
He is honoring the late Senator by showing the impact the Senator had upon himself, therefore, making the senator "great" because he had an impact upon one "great."
The narcissist will lie when it comes to "self", putting "self" above others. Body language analysts have talked about "the Obama chin", that is, lifted in arrogance as he lectures others. Bill Clinton often complained that when Obama was unable to win an argument, or that his audience (including advisors) did not agree with him, his insecurity raged and he would either walk out, or be silent, only to be scolded by his wife to "get back in there" and attempt to displace Clinton's place in a room.
It is not broken promises where deception is easily seen. Many may begin with intentions but either change, or are derailed, with not necessarily intended to deceive. When one intends deception, it can show up in the language.
"I will paint your house for $3,500."
This is a straight forward statement.
When the homeowner gets the bill for $4,200, it may be that the painter intended to paint for the original price, but then changed due to factors of repair, or other conditions. It does not show, in the language, his attempt to deceive in the original statement. Of course, he will have to justify his pricing.
"I guarantee you, 110%, that I will paint your house for $3,500."
This statement makes me want to say to the homeowner, "I guarantee you, 110%, that there will be overruns in the cost from this painter." I don't know how many homeowners would catch the irony of my words.
Barak Obama's statement, "you didn't earn it" is not a slip of the tongue, or a "mis-speak" as some have claimed. When at the Democratic Convention when Bill Clinton blamed "big government" for many of American problems, Obama was furious with him, as Clinton's "centrist" view is antagonistic to Obama's core beliefs. He believes that government is the savior of mankind, as does socialism. Like Woodrow Wilson, he believes his political enemies are not simply "wrong" as did Bill Clinton, who would then work out compromises, but that Obama's political opponents are "evil" and "to be ignored", or even utterly bypassed via Executive Order. His language indicates this and his belief that the U.S. Constitution, written by white males, is also wrong. His belief about America is very different than most, and it is only that which has taken years to unravel that the truth is just beginning to surface. We must listen carefully to what he says, even in prepared speeches.
Narcissism and self protection necessitate the use of lies. Those most skilled at lying are those most proficient at propelling their own agenda above others.
When the terrorist attack at Benghazi took place, there was no way Barak Obama was going to admit that a terrorist attack took place on his watch, nor would he allow Islam to be vilified yet again in the United States.
He and his team came up with a cover story: it was a spontaneous reaction from a crowd due to a video depicting the "prophet Mohammad" in a disrespectful manner. Obama, with his hyperbolic John Wayne best, vowed to punish the videographer. (We saw this same machismo threat against Vladimir Putin in which Obama put him "on notice" with threats. June 6, 2014, he was forced to not only see the date of his threat pass, but forced to see Putin a D Day memorials in France. These types of threats are the bane of the weak, as seen when Obama negotiated with terrorists, something President Reagan told a weary nation in 1979, we would never do, in response to the Iran hostage crisis of the weak Jimmy Carter.
Obama would not allow a "terrorist attack on my watch" happen. Even as the wars have produced chaos and death, he continues to blame others and Benghazi is a perfect example of how a liar cannot take responsibility for anything. He had to have a cover story.
A spontaneous crowd of protestors with sophisticated weaponry and discipline? On September 11th, no less? Concentrated and disciplined yet Muslim world wide?
Obama tried out the lie on the United Nations. It became a joke that he was forced to retreat from.
"A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy."
Note the passivity of the second sentence, which follows the attempt to portray this as widespread throughout the "Muslim world." Where, exactly, is the "Muslim world" in the personal, internal, subjective dictionary of Obama?
Obama's advisors told him the lie would not float and they were correct, so they begged that he order Hillary Clinton to go on the Sunday news talk show circuit and float the lie, to protect both the Obama administration and Islam.
Bill Clinton "forbade" her from doing so. She was quoted by a close friend using the f bomb over the phone to her husband, who at the time was racing through the streets of Los Angeles in a sports car chasing women less than half his age.
There was a quid pro quo element that Hillary sought to cash in on:
Take the fall for Obama, and he would back her for president, 2016.
"We can win without him" urged Bill. "We don't need him."
Hillary eventually made the decision to go on television after first refusing the President.
Bill Clinton threw every argument he could against her going on. He was quoted as saying, "If you go on those Sunday shows, the clips of you lying will be used by the Republicans in 2016 endlessly in attack ads against you."
As Secretary of State, she would not only propagate the lie, but also have the State Department, that is, Hillary herself, blamed for not giving security when it was begged for. Bill even tried to tell her that Obama may end up not backing her for president in 2016 as he has shown that he lies to both his enemies and his friends. Bill said, "Eventually, Obama will dump you."
Hillary was quoted as saying, "He'll never do that."
Hillary finally informed the President's advisor, Valerie Jarrett, that she could not go on and lie for the President. Jarrett tried to get National Security Advisor Tom Donilon to do it, but he refused due to the silly nature of the lie.
She then tried CIA Director David Petraeus but he refused. He called the lie a "joke" and that it was "utterly useless" to portray the organized local Islamic terrorist attack a 'protest.'
Susan Rice, however, was willing to make a go of it, as she still fumed over being by passed for Secretary of State in place of Hillary Clinton. She felt that Hillary Clinton had zero experience in foreign affairs and that she, having been a world traveler, understood foreign policy better than anyone else, and this would be a chance for her to show off that ability. She thought this would be a great audition to take Hillary's place.
Bill said, "I'm almost sad to see Susan take the fall." Hillary said that she was not, as Susan Rice was on Hillary's hate list because she supported Obama over her in 2008.
What pronoun would you expect to hear from Susan Rice while propagating the official lie, to the nation?
Answer: you can bet that the pronoun "I" will not be prominent in her answer. This is a natural distancing from guilt.
She used the two very things you would expect in deception:
The pronoun "we" to spread out the guilt;
and the use of passivity in language; to remove herself from responsibility.
When "Face the Nation" asked her if she believed this was a well organized Islamic terrorist attack that took months to plan, she said,
"We do not. We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or pre planed. "
"It was like watching a train wreck" Hillary was quoted as saying.
"I'm just glad it wasn't you" Bill was quoted as saying.
But why did this not impact voters, especially since it caused such a stir among politicians? We have since learned deception within the mainstream media:
In September, less than 24 hours after the attack took place Obama sat with his favorite journalist, Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes."
The interview aired on Septmeber 23, as the election drew closer.
But the portion of the interview in which President Obama refused to call the Benghazi attack an "act of terrorism", was missing.
This was met with calls of partisan politics, yellow journalism, and outright deception.
CBS stalled and finally said it would release the video before the election.
They did release it.
Not on "60 Minutes" but on their website.
Far fewer Americans saw it.
It took weeks, but the President finally admitted it was a terrorist attack, but only through the White House spokesman, and only when his team agreed to add that "the video was an excuse to violence", so that "video" would be kept in the equation.
Liars hold the rest of us in contempt.
They do not like to back down.
They do not like to be seen for who they are.
None of us knows how far a liar will go to protect himself.
Liars are capable of perjury, even in capital cases where the ultimate penalty can be assessed.
If you feel that you no longer recognize the United States as it is now, you are not alone. Politics have always been a high stake game of liars and poker players, but the misogynistic ways of belittling women with a wink, and then on to a frat boy president, seemed to be as low as we would go before recovering our self respect.
It was not.
We have gone deeper into debt than even the many dire predictions seem to suggest. The once hated "socialism" has become not only accepted, but praised. The very system that denies human nature and bankrupts societies, has us in a place where more people are on disability than who populate some European countries, and the vilification of successful people, the very ones who support those on disability, continues with increasing venom and volume.
The basics of mathematics are suspended. The "new math" where taxes increase in some of the most colorful and creative ways, is no longer questioned.
What will happen if the math imbalance continues?
What would happen in your town if, for example, bankruptcy meant that, one week, no food stamp cards were distributed,or that they simply did not work at the grocery store?
What would happen?
What has happened to the principles of hard work, and praise given for honesty, self assertion, and diligence?
The rich, who employ the rest of us, are demonized in the language of larceny where "the distribution of wealth" is no longer whispered in cafes of beatniks in the 1960's radicalism, by those who's resentment of hard work and delayed gratification had to stay 'underground' and away from main stream.
It is now spoken openly in the White House of the United States of America.