Engaging Culture

Our First Post-Modern President?

If one of the prime tenets of post-moderism is that “Truth” is relative, then if elected,  Hilliary might be the perfect choice.  Her story of being shot at by a sniper after landing  in Bosnia in 1996  has proven (on film) to be false.  Not only was she not shot at and had to run for cover, but she was greeted by an official reception.  If she’ll make up stories like this for dramatic impact now, then what will she do in the White House?   To an extent – the lie is the result of
the pressure of the media.  Having to come up with more and more dramatic and significant stories to keep your candidacy alive isn’t that different from TV evangelists on telethons coming up with more and more outrageous stories to keep the money coming in.  It doesn’t excuse it, but it does help to explain it.

Related Articles

16 Comments

  1. I guess it goes back to a basic truism.

    The dominant media culture can't tell you what to think about something, but if you're not out there in that media nobody thinks about you. 

    Hillary is a reflection of the times she lives in.  She and Bill, like most politicians but to a degree more than most, has learned to manipulate the circumstances she finds herself in by playing to the media.  This is by no means new.  What's new is it's getting more attention now that the gotcha is on page 1 and not  back on page 18 which is what she usually counts on.

  2. In the information age, lying is the most politically hazardous thing a contender for elected office can do.  Mrs. Clinton and her team know that, and it's certain they would intentionally lie only out of total desperation.   The tall tale in question was superfluous, so I rule out desperation.

    I'm confident she did not intend to lie.  The limelight of elected politics and televangelism often attract people who get caught up in their own hype.  What started as a mild exaggeration may have become part of the mythos of her core following.  She may have more than half believed it, and if she did, no doubt her immediate following entirely believed it.

    I've been close to this phenomenon once, and it's a revelation to watch.  Someone else on this blog coined it as the "reality distortion field" of a certain type of leadership.

    We may joke about "perception being reality" or "tell a lie often openly and it will be accepted as truth" , but within one of these  reality distortion fields, normal people will believe wacky things.  It's abnormal NOT to get caught up in the fantasy.  Knowing this, it's unlikely Mrs. Clinton and her team knowingly lied.   It's more likely she and her closest followers had come to believe the tall tale. 

  3. 'ONLY out of desperation'? My fear is that it's not. This is the norm. As Phil pointed out, she did not tell one lie, it was a whole series of specific details that she made up that were untrue. And then her campaign said she might have 'mispoken'. Give me a break. She made up multiple details of an event that never happened. Phil pointed out that she was greeted but she specifically said that did not happen. They 'ran' to the cars "heads down' under sniper fire. None of that is true. It's not one detail that she 'mis-spoke', it's the whole story. A complete fabrication of details.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker