Liar, Liar

 

The latest Liberal meme has Poilievre’s photo and the tagline “How to Spot a Liar.”

This, interestingly, is the same tag used down south where the paw paws grow against Donald Trump. As previously noted here, the striking thing about Trump is that he speaks the truth. This complaint against Trump is a perfect example of confession through projection. Perhaps in Poilievre’s case as well.

Let’s examine their claims, about how to spot a liar, about Poilievre, and applied to Trump and to Trudeau as well.

 1. Deliberately vague on details.

With respect to lying, this does not fit. Being vague on details is as likely to be an honourable attempt to avoid lying—to avoid promises one may not be able to keep. If one is lying, one is surely just as happy to lie about details.

It is true that Poilievre has not given a lot of details about what the Conservatives would do in power. This is typical of an opposition party this far out from an election. To do so would be to give the government unnecessarily ample time to prepare their counter-arguments. Poilievre is merely playing the game as it is always played. He has made specific and striking promises: to defund the CBC, to tie federal money to housing starts.

Trump is generally vague or even wrong on details when he speaks. This has to do with speaking extempore, not from a teleprompter like most politicians. He is also not a policy wonk by interest and temperament, but a manager. On the other hand, he was more specific than other candidates when running for the Republican nomination: for example, he would build a wall on the southern border. And he did everything to fulfill that promise.

Trudeau is also not detail-oriented. “The budget will balance itself.” “Housing is not primarily a federal responsibility.” He is always vague, even though he is in power, and responsible for getting things done.

2. Uses embellished language.

This does ring true: a liar will try to buffalo the public or the opposition with word salads and impressive-sounding, official-sounding words.

This is the opposite of the case with Trump, who deliberately uses street language. They might have a case if they said he exaggerates, but that is not the claim. “Huge” or “incredible” or “nobody ever imagined” are not embellished language. Nor are they tailored to mislead.

Poilievre, too, always uses simple and straightforward language: “my home, your home, our home, let’s bring it home. “The common sense of the common people.” “Just answer: Yes or no.” This is his most obvious talent.

Trudeau is the clear offender here. Only a few days ago he seems to have invented a word, “biphobia,” in order to buffalo listeners. This, along with his other favoured terms “Islamophobia,” “transphobia,” and “homophobia,” are fake medical terms intended to sound scientific. How about the ever-evolving “2SLGBTQ+”? How about “peoplekind”? Trudeau likes big, important-sounding words and word salads.

3. Exaggerated emotional displays.

True for liars in general. Partly because they are actors; partly because the act of lying tends to get you agitated, as lie detectors know. I think of O.J. Simpson saying he “absolutely” did not kill his wife.

Trump seems oddly serene when attacked. He never seems to lose his temper or make an emotional appeal to his audience. “But that’s okay.” His appeals are humorous, which is broadly the opposite, an intellectual, rational appeal.

It is striking that Poilievre, too, always keeps an even tone, and never seems agitated. His voice is oddly monotonous, in the literal sense. He conspicuously avoids sounding emotional.

Justin Trudeau, on the other hand, often expresses anger, outrage, if faux outrage, in speech.

4. Relies on derogatory labels.

This is perhaps not lying per se, but it is not legitimate. It is ad hominem. Amusingly, this is exactly what this current Liberal meme is doing, in calling Poilievre a liar rather than addressing his arguments.

Trump indeed does it a lot. “Crooked Hillary,” “Lyin’ Ted,” and so forth. It is, to my mind, his worst characteristic.

Poilievre doesn’t seem to do it.

Trudeau does it as his standard first line of attack in debate. Opponents are always homophobic, misogynistic, Nazi sympathizers, racist, Islamophobic, far right, extremists, white supremacists, a radical fringe element, anti-vaxxers, and on and on.

5. Overuse of sarcasm/humour.

This is the opposite of the truth, and exposes the Liberals. Liars and miscreants have no sense of humour. Jokes are too likely to expose them. 

"Those who do not laugh have bad consciences." - Brothers Grimm, "The Twelve Brothers."

This is why courts used to deliberately employ court jesters—to keep the king and court honest.

Conversely, it is hard to imagine convincing an honest person that there is “too much” humour in the world.

Trump is a great stand-up comedian. It is characteristic of his opposition that they cannot see this, and actually “fact-check” his jokes and call them lies.

Poilievre is extremely witty, and generally responds to attacks with good humour.

It is, conversely, hard to imagine Justin Trudeau pulling off a joke; even scripted. I have seen no evidence he even has a sense of humour.

What, indeed, does this tell you?

6. References undefined “they.”

This is a fault—although blaming an undefined “they” is still better than falsely blaming, say, “the Jews,” or “men,” or “whites.”

Trump might be accused of this. He identifies “they” only as “the swamp in Washington” or “the Deep State” or “Antifa.” The problem here is that “they” refuse to identify themselves. They are, in the standard phrase, “faceless bureaucrats,” who avoid personal attribution and work behind the scenes. And then there is Antifa, who always wears masks. Trump cannot be blamed for their anonymity.

Poilievre blames “the Trudeau government.” That is realistically as specific as he can be. And his job as opposition leader.

Trudeau generally endorses conspiracy theories blaming men, whites, and Christians. He also blames everything said critical of his government on unspecified “foreign agents,” or “white supremacists,” or “American billionaires,” or the like; most often all of them working together. Always some amorphous conspiracy supposedly behind the people we see.

7. Assigns thoughts and motives.

This, if not lying as such, is also illegitimate in debate. It is close kin to lying.

Does either Trump or Poilievre do it? Not conspicuously, surely. Trump will do it, then draw back and point out that he doesn’t really know.

This is most obviously characteristic of Trudeau, who invariably attributes misogyny, homophobia, racism, white supremacy, Nazi sympathies, and so on, to any opposition.

8. Talks/changes topics quickly.

Two different things are conflated here: changing topic, and talking quickly. They are unrelated.

Changing topic is an illegitimate debate tactic: a red herring.

I don’t see either Trump or Poilievre doing this beyond what any politician will do when asked a loaded question. One cannot directly answer “have you stopped beating your wife?”

Trudeau and his ministers invariably use red herrings in question period. They will respond to difficult question by raising an entirely different issue. It is so ridiculous the Tories have resorted to counting the number of times in succession that Ministers of the Crown have failed to answer the same direct question.

On the other hand, talking fast is a sign of high intelligence; it is a sign of how quickly the brain is working. In fact, a liar will be more likely to speak slowly, because he must guard and measure his words.

Poilievre is extremely quick in speech, and quick-witted. So is Trump; although his actual speech is fairly slow, he is fast enough on his feet to come up with devastating quips in debate, or to speak for two hours extempore.

Trudeau speaks relatively slowly, with many conspicuous “ah’s” as he thinks about what he is about to say.

A sure sign of a liar.

9. Presents his own opinions as facts.

This would be lying indeed.

The issue is clouded, perhaps, by the realty that the postmodern left does not believe there are any facts. In the immortal words of The Dude, “Well, that’s just your opinion, man.” So whenever Trump or Poilievre actually state a hard fact, a statistic or the wording of the constitution, say, they are, in the minds of the modleft, presenting their opinion as a fact. Can’t win on that one.

I can, however, on the other hand, by either the traditional or the postmodernist definition, see examples of opinion presented as fact in the case of Trudeau. Claiming that men can be women, or women men. Claiming that the science is settled on climate change. Claiming that gays or trans are born this way. Claiming that Canada has no mainstream culture. Claiming that India assassinated a Canadian citizen. Claiming that the truckers of February were trying to overthrow the government. Claiming there were mass graves near or under the residential schools. Examples could be multiplied.

10. Projects extreme confidence.

This again is the opposite of the truth. Lie detectors operate on the principle that one is never fully confident in a lie. The convention of the duel, or the joust, as well, are based on the psychological wisdom that the hand of the unjust will falter in the crisis.

Jesus Christ projected extreme confidence in the crisis. As did Churchill, as did Martin Luther King.

Trump is indeed supremely confident—conspicuously more than most politicians. He has been tested more. So is Poilievre—certainly more than other recent Conservative leaders. 

Trudeau? He seems confident enough; but since he has been in power for almost all of his political career, he has not really been tested. To my mind, there is usually fear in his eyes.

What do we learn from this?

The Liberals have nothing on Poilievre. They have no arguments.