Ted Koppel and the False Premise, Part II: Why Play Games?
Date: November 24th, 2008
Category: Human Nature, Wisdom
What got me thinking about my interview with Ted Koppel on ABC News Nightline many years ago was watching how Sarah Palin was sandbagged by the media throughout the presidential campaign — particularly when her cerebrally deficient handlers threw her to the media wolves: Charlie and Katie.
Charlie Gibson’s now-famous question — “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?” — tongue-tied Sarah Palin for a second. And well it should have, because it was based on a false premise! Alert the media: There is no such a thing as the “Bush Doctrine.” The so-called Bush Doctrine can be just about anything you want it to be. There was no reason for the question other than to make Palin look bad. Why play games?
To her credit, she recovered quickly and fired back at Gibson, “In what respect, Charlie?” That caught him off guard, and he staggered against the ropes for several seconds. Then, instead of answering her question, he came back with, “What do you interpret it to be?” He sounded (and looked) like a stern college professor asking a student a trick question.
Up to that point, my scorecard had Sarah Barracuda ahead on points, with Gibson reeling and trying to stay on his feet. But when she blurted out “His world view,” she opened the door for him to press on with this nonsensical subject that was completely irrelevant to the presidential campaign.
Having been through this kind of Gotcha Garbage many times myself — and having the advantage of watching the Gibson-Palin interview in the comfort of my living room — I found myself wishing I could slip her a note. The answer I thought she should have given Gibson was something like, “First of all, there is no such thing as the Bush Doctrine. The term means different things to different people. Second, I’m not here to take a test on George Bush. I’m here to talk about what John McMush and I plan to do for this country.”
The point is that the premise of Charlie Gibson’s question — that there is such a thing as a “Bush Doctrine” — was false. But Gibson decided that Palin had flunked his little quiz, and he proclaimed that the Bush Doctrine is that America has the right to “anticipatory self-defense.” So, why play games? Why not just ask the woman, straight out, if she believes the U.S. has the right to anticipatory self-defense?
The lesson we should all draw from this is that as we make our way through the coming years of endless, deadly doublespeak, we must keep reminding ourselves to carefully check a person’s premise before answering his question. I find that when it comes to questions regarding politics, most of them are based on premises that are false. And it’s simply not possible to give the right answer to a question based on a false premise. For example, suppose someone responds to your stated belief that wealth redistribution is wrong by asking, “So, you don’t care what happens to the poor, the sick, and the homeless, right?”
First of all, the premise that wealth redistribution does, in fact, help the poor, the sick, and the homeless is false. In fact, I would argue that it makes them worse off — especially over the long term. Second, the premise that there is a correlation between a belief in redistribution of wealth and compassion for the poor, the sick, and the homeless is also false.
Politicians are notoriously prolific truth twisters. While they work hard at trying to make the world believe they are acting in the best interests of their constituents, their real purpose is obfuscate the truth to achieve their own ends.
They accomplish this by conditioning our minds to accept false premises, which are cemented into place by the government-controlled education system. A classic example of this is the widely accepted notion that the president and Congress not only have the power, but the ability, to perform such miraculous tasks as “getting the economy moving” and “creating jobs.”
The premise that a president can affect the economy in a positive way is ludicrous on its face, yet the vast majority of voters accept it as a premise. The reason for this can be found in French philosopher Michel Montaigne’s observation that “Men are most apt to believe what they least understand.” The vast majority of the population knows nothing about macroeconomics (and some would argue that the same is true of most professional economists), so they are ripe to believe almost anything — especially if it sounds like it’s going to put dollars in their pockets.
But this is not just true for politics and ideology. You have be alert to being asked questions based on false premises in your business and personal life as well. One of the games people love to play is to use their personal opinions as premises. Oftentimes, what this really means is that they use their conclusions as premises! The latter is known as an a priori argument.
I find that the best defense against being taken in by false premises is knowledge. Whenever my knowledge comes to my aid in refusing to acknowledge a false premise, it reminds me of Leonardo da Vinci’s words: “The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding.”
Above all, be vigilant about checking your own premises. The path to success is paved with correct premises, because they, and they alone, lead to correct conclusions. Thus, you have to constantly defend yourself against false premises on two fronts: (1) Those that others would use against you and (2) those you might be tempted to use yourself.
To the extent you succeed at these two objectives, you, too, will experience the noblest pleasure — the joy of understanding.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I’m not sure where you get the idea that there is no “Bush Doctrine.” I produced the movie “FahrenHYPE 9/11″ the response to Michael Moore’s film. In addition to Senator Zell Miller, Dick Morris, Ann Coulter and many others, we had David Frum as one of our interview subjects. Frum is a former Bush speechwriter (he wrote the “axis of evil” speech.) He very clearly explained the Bush Doctrine and referred to it as such in our film in 2004. It was a term used to define the same thing amongst most of our commentators. No offense intended, but if you’re not familiar with it, it doesn’t mean it isn’t both well-defined and well-known.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Mr. Ringer
> to perform such miraculous tasks as “getting the economy moving” and “creating jobs.”
Since young I used to ask myself and other I considered more knowledgeable, how can one man (the president) can “create jobs.” It just did not make sense to me even while being a naive youngster.
I used to get long and short replies, and never a concise and satisfactory answer.
Now I know the answer: They can’t.
However, millions of people rely on that false premise, hence they figuratively seat to get hired instead of going the laissez-faire way and take matters in their own hands.
I do like the libertarian way, I live that way since I finished university: no employer, no public health services, no government help beyond the infrastucture anyone has access to (not so, I pay for private toll-ways instead of public roads).
This prelude is to set the context for my question:
- Assuming millions of people exist “seating” while waiting for the president to get a job for each of them, and in an ideal world that Libertarianism and self-responsibility are suddenly applied… how to avoid all those millions of people go paralyzed or desperate (not knowing better) and maybe some of them turn to crime and chaos? Would I have to include on my expense my own police, like if living in ancient Babylon?
For people in my situation such world would be business as usual (except for paying taxes): I get hired by contract or project, I deliver, I get paid. But not for the vast majority.
And I wonder what kind of society would become on such turmoil.
P.S.
Such false premise (“getting the economy moving” and “creating jobs.”), is the last news about Obama’s team: They have a better plan to get that done, than the one laid out on campaign. I was hearing to that through all Sunday on CNN.
What a way to give hope to millions of people.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Dear Robert Ringer:
“A president can affect the economy in a positive way.”
A President of the United States of America who understands economics can encourage members of Congress to index for inflation capital gains, interest from savings accounts, and dividends. If the capital gains tax is not indexed for inflation, people may pay the capital gains tax when they have actually lost money because of inflation.
A President of the United States of America who understands economics and human nature can encourage members of Congress to stop taxing capital gains, interest from savings accounts, dividends, and estates. Businesses would have an easier time obtaining loans and investments for hiring workers, training workers, research and development, and plant and equipment. People would have an easier time saving money over time for downpayments on homes and fixed rate mortgages, college tuitions, and retirements. The less the government punishes savings the more savings is likely to take place. The less the government punishes investment the more investment and the more wealth likely to be created. More investment may lead to more innovation and more jobs created. The more wealth created the more consumption and savings that takes place. The more consumption that takes place the more jobs created.
LEADERSHIP MATTERS. A President of the United States of America who is a good communicator and knows how to sell may use video and audio on websites, interviews with the media, radio talks, and speeches to businesses and others to discuss important issues. Better informed voters may vote for better members of Congress and push members of Congress to pass better laws.
The American people have the power in our Republic. They have not used their power as well as they should have. We have many lousy leaders because the American people like to vote for lousy leaders. The American people have the power to bring about positive changes. They could push for a different Presidential primary process, term limits for members of Congress, and other things. The American people like to act like sheep when they should be acting like lions because they have the power of lions. If they read the United States Constitution on a regular basis and held members of Congress and other elected officials accountable, positive changes might take place.
I graduated from the University of New Hampshire in 1992 with a BA Degree in Political Science and a minor in Economics. I ran for United States Senate from New Hampshire in 2002.
I hope people will read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, John Locke, Machiavelli’s Discourses, and The Art of War by Sun Tzu translated by Samuel B. Griffith, and the second revised edition of Strategy by B.H. Liddell Hart.
The National Archives and Records Administration website http://www.archives.gov has the Constitution and many other things.
Sincerely,
Ken Stremsky
November 24th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Ah..Yes, the false premise, this tactic is used masterfully inside religious circles by leadership to control the congregation. I am not saying all religious leaders are this way. I know of some sincere and caring leaders who are not out to maliciously manipulate the congregation. Knowledge is definitely the best defense against being pummeled by the false premise.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
If we are going to learn anything as a country it has to come from the truth. Truth can only be derived if it starts with being honest with you first. You must be willing to “look at yourself in the mirror” and ask “what can I do better?” We’ve become a great nation at having the ability to point the finger of blame at others. But, in order to truly change one must learn first. If you refuse to apply self discipline and be honest about your actions and behavior you will never learn.
We’ve become our own worst enemy. I have heard that 30% of your thinking evolves from your emotion. Anger is a very powerful emotion. I know how to harness the energy of anger and use it for thinking. My anger gives me the energy and the passion I have to try my best to do what’s right.
I believe that our country needs to start expecting more from its leaders. Leadership is not defined by your position, but rather the opportunities you are given and what you do with those opportunities. You should easily be able to relate to me if you are a parent, grand parent, aunt, or uncle. You are leaders to our children. If you truly want to understand the problems we are having in our country, you have to start with pointing the finger of blame at yourself first.
Here is my business plans for our country:
1. Remove family matters from our court system. The system has proven to tare apart families not help. I wrote about my experience with our courts in my book The Principles of Leadership. I discuss how the court’s interpretation of the law tore apart my family in Chapter 5 – A Family Torn Apart. I understand the importance of truth. Here is the truth: If an individual asks you to let them do the talking for you, your problems will never be resolved. No one should be given the power to do the thinking for you. Court is big business. We are perpetuating the problem because we don’t apply depth to our own thinking. My promise is to never ask an individual if I could talk for them. People need to understand the power of anger and learn how to harness it. After all, 30% of our thinking evolves from emotion. If you let the emotion control your thinking, you will often make the wrong decisions. The action of thinking should always control your actions. Anger should only serve to energize your thinking. That will never happen if you are so angry that you agree to allow another individual to talk for you.
I agree with Robert Ringer, this country needs to start getting educated. The family core is being torn apart. The solution is not in our courts. The solution is in adult education. I will let Robert decide if he wants you to learn more about my plans. My dream is that we remove family matters from our courts and help them to focus on true criminals. Like those individuals that caused this crisis to begin with. Or after “so called leaders” who broke the law of prostitution, but were let go stating the “so called leader” had already paid their price.
2. Another area where I agree with Robert is our media. They have played a major role in our countries problems. I consider our media to be the “Leaders of Information”. But, they continually avoid the truth. We actually have the power to do something and this will cost you nothing. Don’t watch their television program. Demand that they tell you the truth. While this won’t cost you money it will cost you your time. As a leader, it is your responsibility to learn the truth. Once again, this falls back to adult education.
I believe my principles of leadership can help people think with depth and gain perspective. If this country is going to turn around it has to start with a focus on people. Once our family foundation is secure, we can then start building above us. If there is no foundation the upper structure will never be able to support us. As a leader, it’s your responsibility to learn more. When you start learning more about your emotions, you will be able to apply self discipline. When you learn you ultimately grow and succeed. The solution to this country lies within your ability to apply self discipline and be honest about your actions and behavior.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Ken, I thought the guy with the MBA (Bush) might do better with economics than he has. Apparently, though, the economics education he got was in what I’ve heard called “vulgar Keynesianism,” just keep on priming that pump until the water starts flowing! Before that you had tax cuts and public works projects in the form of increased military spending (conservative vulgar Keynesianism).
I was expecting more Laffer and Friedman. I got Keynes. Now we get guys who believe in Keynes and Marx. I don’t see any great political-econmists waiting in the wings.
Your program of education is wonderful. As Mr. Ringer says, it’s up to us to spread that knowledge, we can’t wait for the government schools to do it for us.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Speaking of false premises, how about the idea that the people need, want, or were ever intended to be “led” by the President of the United States?
November 25th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Response to jchays:
With all due respect, while there are some specifics generally attributed to “the Bush Doctrine,” to the best of my knowledge, no official document exists that bears that title.
While most would agree that George Bush’s foreign policy includes the right to preemptive strikes against countries he perceives to be enemies of the U.S., there is a wide range of other things that different people at different times have arbitrarily chosen to lump under the Bush Doctrine umbrella.
That is why I said that Sarah Palin showed a lot of cool by asking the question, “In what respect, Charlie?” What he then asked her, “What do you interpret it to be?” I felt she gave a very legitimate answer when she said, “His world view.” If there is such a thing as a Bush Doctrine, I would agree that his world view comes closest to defining it.
But all this misses the point: Why didn’t Gibson just come right out and ask Palin what she thought of George Bush’s world view? I was intended to be more of the media’s childish gotcha game.
All things considered (including McCain’s campaign people throwing her into the arms of a network commentator right out of the starting gate), I still give Sarah Palin an “A” on how she handled things.
In any event, I understand where you’re coming from on this issue, and I respect your right to differ with my view that the premise of the question — that there is such a thing as a Bush Doctrine — is false.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:29 am
A perfect model for respectful disagreement and discussion. Thank you.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Response to Mike B:
The (implied) premise that people want or need a government to govern them is false. If you did not personally sign the Constitution, you didn’t agree to anything that’s in it.
Though it is a well-intentioned document, the fact is that only the signers legally agreed to it. It’s like me signing a document with my neighbor saying that we agree to rule the rest of the neighborhood. I think it’s safe to say that the rest of the neighborhood wouldn’t be inclined to accept our unilateral proclamation.
But the legitimacy of the Constitution from a Natural Law point of view is no longer the main issue. The challenge today is to find a way just to stop the government from violating the rules set forth in the Constitution.