A brief guide to the lies told in the presidential debate

‘I did not – I do not say that’

I don’t know about you, but it seems to me our presidential candidates love to hear the sounds of their own voices – and because of that, they’re constantly talking. And they have that right, the right to free speech because it’s guaranteed by the First Amendment of our Constitution. This freedom of speech – the idea that the government cannot limit the flow of information by controlling what we say, is imbued in the America national identity, from Norman Rockwell’s Freedom of Speech paintings to Susan Silton’s utility boxes in Pasadena, California, that are decorated with bold statements proclaiming the importance of the freedom of speech.

Utility boxes designed by Susan Silton line Colorado Blvd in Pasadena

But given all the loaded accusations, hurtful labels, and flat-out lies that have been worryingly common during this campaign season, at what point do we say that we’ve had enough? That the way these politicians are behaving is not representative of America or its citizens and is not how we want the rest of the world to see us? These are important questions to ask, during this election in particular, with the seemingly never-ending flow of withheld information, half-truths, and blatant lies.

The lies

The first presidential debate sent online fact-checkers into a frenzy, and for good reason. Both candidates have made claims that haven’t exactly been backed up by evidence, which makes one wonder what else they would be willing to lie about for. Here’s an example of one of the flat-out lies from the debate:

  • THE STATEMENT: Trump (in response to Secretary Clinton’s statement that he had called climate change a “hoax”): “I did not – I do not say that.”
  • THE REALITY: In a tweet from 2012, Trump said climate change was an idea created by the Chinese in order to gain a competitive economic edge over the United States.

The half-truths

It’s no surprise people have certain things they don’t want others to know about, so they choose to tell only part of a story. In politics, however, this is dangerous, because it can lead to voters not understanding what is truly going on, and it may lead to misplaced trust in one candidate over another. This next quote, also from Trump, illustrates how “stretching the truth” may affect voters’ perception of a political candidate.

Before Trump addressed his plan to create more jobs (or perhaps, more accurately, bringing back jobs that had already been outsourced to other nations), he said his “father [had given him] a very small loan in 1975,” which he was able to grow into the multi-billion dollar corporation that it is today. Now clearly, a “small loan” has different connotations for different people, but it’s probably safe to say that, at least to most Americans, $14 million is definitely not a “small loan.” To Fred Trump, however, who was worth more than $250 million when he died in 1999, perhaps it was.

But that’s not the point. The point is Trump, in his efforts to make himself seem more relatable to the average person, had made a huge understatement. Although what he said was not categorically untrue, it serves to highlight how political candidates may use their words, their constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech, to twist the truth and portray themselves in a more favorable light. And given the frequency with which these misstatements occurs makes them just as worrisome as the overt lies.

And what they don’t tell you

This is somewhat similar to the half-truths, with the withholding of information, but to a more extreme degree. And this isn’t something that is particularly surprising, either; we all have our secrets, but when you’re a politician and constantly in the nation’s spotlight, there are very few things that can stay hidden. Let’s take a look at what both of the candidates from the major political parties have tried to keep away from the public, and in doing so, have caused more national scrutiny.

  • Hillary Clinton: The Emailgate “scandal” has been around for over a year now, but the controversy has yet to die down. Part of the reason is certainly because, as a public servant, Clinton had been expected to conduct all of her government business with a government email account. In retrospect though, it appears that much of the contention had stemmed from Clinton’s attempts to downplay what happened and try to prevent the public from knowing about what information the emails contained and why she didn’t use a government server.
  • Trump: To date, Trump has not yet released his latest tax return documents to the public (although his return from the 90s was leaked to the New York Times this weekend), which has led to a considerable amount of scrutiny about what he may not want the public to know. This is also strikingly similar to what happened to Governor Mitt Romney when he ran for president in 2012, whose delayed release of tax returns caused no small amount of backlash.

So…Back to the free speech issue

While we can’t legally hold these politicians liable for the lies and half-truths that they have said, it doesn’t hide the fact that these candidates aren’t entirely honest. Although I won’t downplay the importance of free speech, especially in elections (after all, free political speech is conducive to the spread of ideas and is crucial to a democratic government), do be careful and even a bit more wary about what you hear.

It’s definitely hard to trust people who will lie to get where they want to be, who stretch the truth to portray themselves in a more favorable light, or hide information in order to maintain their reputations. And I think that this is when we say that we’re done with the lies and the secrets, that we should hold these politicians accountable for not only what they say, but also what they don’t say.

More
Cornell Politics