Reign of Error

 

By: Paul Krugman

 

July 28, 2006

Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda.

At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole.

But it’s dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective.

Here’s how the process works.

First, if the facts fail to support the administration position on an issue — stem cells, global warming, tax cuts, income inequality, Iraq — officials refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Sometimes the officials simply lie. “The tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive and reduced income inequality,” Edward Lazear, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, declared a couple of months ago. More often, however, they bob and weave.

Consider, for example, Condoleezza Rice’s response a few months ago, when pressed to explain why the administration always links the Iraq war to 9/11. She admitted that Saddam, “as far as we know, did not order Sept. 11, may not have even known of Sept. 11.” (Notice how her statement, while literally true, nonetheless seems to imply both that it’s still possible that Saddam ordered 9/11, and that he probably did know about it.) “But,” she went on, “that’s a very narrow definition of what caused Sept. 11.”

Meanwhile, apparatchiks in the media spread disinformation. It’s hard to imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get a pretty good sense from my mailbag.

Many of my correspondents are living in a world in which the economy is better than it ever was under Bill Clinton, newly released documents show that Saddam really was in cahoots with Osama, and the discovery of some decayed 1980’s-vintage chemical munitions vindicates everything the administration said about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. (Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)

Some of my correspondents have even picked up on claims, mostly disseminated on right-wing blogs, that the Bush administration actually did a heck of a job after Katrina.

And what about the perceptions of those who get their news from sources that aren’t de facto branches of the Republican National Committee?

The climate of media intimidation that prevailed for several years after 9/11, which made news organizations very cautious about reporting facts that put the administration in a bad light, has abated. But it’s not entirely gone. Just a few months ago major news organizations were under fierce attack from the right over their supposed failure to report the “good news” from Iraq — and my sense is that this attack did lead to a temporary softening of news coverage, until the extent of the carnage became undeniable. And the conventions of he-said-she-said reporting, under which lies and truth get equal billing, continue to work in the administration’s favor.

Whatever the reason, the fact is that the Bush administration continues to be remarkably successful at rewriting history. For example, Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in. His most recent statement to that effect was only a few weeks ago. And he gets away with it. If there have been reports by major news organizations pointing out that that’s not at all what happened, I’ve missed them.

It’s all very Orwellian, of course. But when Orwell wrote of “a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past,” he was thinking of totalitarian states. Who would have imagined that history would prove so easy to rewrite in a democratic nation with a free press?

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Reign of Error”

  1. Jimmy Says:

    Paul Krugman is a national treasure.
    Thank God we still have him, even as Bush flushes the rest of the world down the toilet.

  2. oncor1 Says:

    It is dismaying that so many people are so easily mislead. They want to believe in right wing balony, just like the current adminsitration. As Colbert calls it, Truthiness is in. Believe what you want to believe and don’t worry about the facts. Inconvenient facts are ignored. It’s all about winning. Never say anything bad about the right wingers in charge regardless of how things are going. Faith based thinking as opposed to reality based. The only time they employ analysis is for development of a strategy for winning by any means possible. That includes touch screen voting machines that switch votes from Kerry to Bush. That’s how they make reality match their faith. They deserve to be in charge, they believe they should be in charge, so they rig the voting to make sure they are in charge.

    The right wing has declared war on anyone who disagrees with them…..and all is fair in war. Lying, cheating, stealing. They will do anything to win. So, where does that leave the rest of us? Where does that leave this country? Reality always wins in the end. The right wingers are leading us down the path to destruction. Our days as a superpower and great nation are numbered as long as they are in charge.

  3. Bungalow 360° » Popular Topics Says:

    […] I’m not fully informed as to what the “Reign of Error” is all about, but after reading the so called article, my first thought is that it’s laughable. I’m never very impressed with anything that bashes the president… My first impression after quickly grazing over the article is that it’s just an anti-Bush trash fest. But then again, I could be wrong. Feel free to share your thoughts or inform me what the article was actually about. Posted by: at 8:15 pm |     Categories: Popular Topics […]

  4. Who’ll Stop the Reign of Error? - The Fink File - On the web because paper is expensive Says:

    […] Krugman’s the man » Blog Archive » Reign of Error Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda. At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole. […]

  5. President LIndsay Says:

    Feel free to share your thoughts or inform me what the article was actually about.

    It’s about morons who are willingly led by packs of liars and wouldn’t recognize truth if it hit them upside the head. Sound familiar?

  6. The Long Goodbye » Blog Archive » I am sure you’ve heard a number of tall tales Says:

    […] I do not mean this to a direct comparison, but as I’m not blinded by the idolatry that seems to possess much of conservatism I can’t help but be reminded of this administration’s attempt’s to write a narrative of events that are contrary to the facts, Reign of Error Consider, for example, Condoleezza Rice’s response a few months ago, when pressed to explain why the administration always links the Iraq war to 9/11. She admitted that Saddam, “as far as we know, did not order Sept. 11, may not have even known of Sept. 11.” (Notice how her statement, while literally true, nonetheless seems to imply both that it’s still possible that Saddam ordered 9/11, and that he probably did know about it.) “But,” she went on, “that’s a very narrow definition of what caused Sept. 11.” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: