On lies, bullshit, intended clarity and determined obfuscation

At the core of human civilization is The Word. I'll put aside The Word of theological origin, though many believe it's the core's very seed, without which civilized humanity would be impossible. I happen to have literary and philosophical objections — both, quite wordy — to that belief. But that's an opinionated difference for another day.

So before I digress again, I'll get right to it. My meaning of The Word is more prosaic, if that's the word. (The "many" might say uninspired or unenlightened. Yet another digression. Sorry.) I mean the principal manner in which humans communicate.

We're pretty bad at it. When it comes to clarity, that is. I could point out at least a dozen connotational uncertainties harbored in The Words above. What fascinates, though, is that some people are intentionally bad at communicating clearly when, ironically, clarity is their

intended target. And others are just downright superb at being clear when their target is intentional obfuscation.      

What I'm getting at here is the distinction between lying and bullshit. Said distinction was elucidated by Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt in his volume, On Bullshit. And what it comes down to is respecting the truth, or not.

"[As people] endeavor either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully," wrote Frankfurt, bullshitters disregard the "demands" the truth makes, while liars conceal the truth. In short, bullshitters don't care what they say as long as it sells. "By virtue of this," he concluded, "bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."

Can there also be the clear truth of intentional lies and perfectly clear bullshit meant as the truth? This struck me this morning when rereading The Particular Words of The NY Times and Donald Trump. About the latter, we take it as an epistemological certainty that he's "clearly" lying, always, not a dram of truth to be found. From the former, now and then we spot words of truthful intent that nonetheless are sheer bullshit.

Exhibit A, Trump's words. Over the weekend he said Portland, Oregon is "war ravaged," its U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities were "under attack," and so he's sending in the Marines, so to speak. Oregon's governor set him straight, saying "There is no insurrection." His response: "Well wait a minute, am I watching things on television that are different from what's happening? My people tell me different."

Then to the press, notwithstanding what the governor had told him: "They are attacking our ICE and federal buildings all the time." (About a couple dozen people have been arrested while protesting outside Portland's ICE building since June.) Continued Trump: "You know, this has been going on ... for years in Portland. It’s like a hotbed of insurrection." The screaming, unambiguous truth of his knowing lie which we knew all along? He was deadset on deploying troops no matter what.

And yet, because it's not pathologically diseased like Trump, the Times committed an even more egregious sin — in the form of pure bullshit. Yesterday it reported, with my emphasis, that "Trump and other Republicans continued to hammer at the misleading accusation that Democrats were shutting down the government in order to give health care to unauthorized immigrants."

I'll give Republicans this much: Their tediously repeated claim of Democrats demanding free health care for "illegal aliens" isn't "misleading." It's an immaculate lie — precisely what we thought applied without exception to Trump's words: not a dram of truth in them. On the other hand, the Times meant its report to convey truthfulness. As a literal matter of fact, however, its reporting — The Word — was the stuff of stark obfuscation.   

And here I always thought that between the two, Donald Trump was the lone bullshitter.

***

This piece is cross-posted in Substack.