It’s not like they all don’t do it. But when we elect someone to change the tone in Washington, one of the core principals we expect is honesty.
Without honesty, one can not have an effective government that legitimately reflects the will of the people. Let me rephrase that: we are all sick of the lies that come out of our representative’s mouths.
There is a new game afoot, and it’s all the rage, it’s been around since the 50’s and it has a name, it’s not exactly a lie, but it’s not the truth: it’s called “If By Whiskey”.
By using the whiskey game, politicians can cleverly make one hear what you want to hear in their words, while failing to actually state their position on an issue. It works like this:
In 1952 there was a debate raging in Mississippi over alcohol legalization. Soggy Sweat, Jr, a state legislator decided to take a stand. Here is what he said:
“I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey.
"If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.
"But, If when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
"This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise."
He did not compromise.
Those who were against whiskey heard he was against it, those for it heard he was for it. It was the beginning of the current modus operandi entrenched in American politics – few of our elected officials will take a stand on anything. With Obama, I hoped this would change – but maybe that’s only what I wanted to hear.
I was an advocate for Single-Payer, Medicare for All. Something I thought Obama was for as well. I was very excited to hear HCR would be his first big challenge, and I was willing to go along with Obama’s desire to compromise, and settle for a public option. If I had only known about if-by-whiskey.
In August 2009 Obama said: “We said we need to have insurance reform, and that's going to include things like preventing insurers from dropping people because of pre-existing conditions. We said that we are going to need to expand coverage, that an insurance exchange that would provide people a menu of options was an important mechanism to expand choice and help to deliver help to people who didn't have health insurance or were underinsured. We talked about the need for a public option as part of that health-care exchange.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1913746,00.html#ixzz0w4KrKItRNow, if you are a progressive you heard that the President was advocating for the “need for a public option as part of that health-care exchange.” In other words – he’s fighting to bring us a public option as a compromise to Medicare-for-All.
But if you are an insurance executive you heard, “we are going to need to expand coverage… to people who didn't have health insurance”. In other words – we are going to force people to buy over-priced insurance from your company!
Could this be if-by-whisky all over again? Perhaps he read about it at Harvard.
Then we saw him take this uncompromising stance on Iraqistan June 4, 2009:
“No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.”
If we apply the if-by-whiskey fallacy we can hear him say, “No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.” For those of us who want to hear that he is ending the wars, we think we have heard just that.
But at the same time he states, “These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.” In other words, for those that want to hear we will continue these wars, he has stated that as well.
Here’s his Iraqistan argument in a nutshell:
“That is why we fight -- in hopes of a day when we no longer need to.” Obama, Arlington National Cemetery, Nov. 11, 2009
I.E. We are having a war in order to not have a war. Both sides are soothed into hearing what they want.
Finally, let’s take a look at the argument du jour – gay marriage.
Obama: “I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation…. What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed.… I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.”
If you are for gay marriage you think he’s stating he is for it. But if you oppose it, you’re sure he is against it.
Or as his senior adviser David Axelrod said, "The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples”.
Equality would be gay marriage, and nothing short of it. “Separate but equal” is not equality.
So, let this relativistic fallacy enter our hive mind and our lexicon: let’s recognize these if-by-whiskey arguments when they happen and not be satisfied by pouring over such remarks with endless commentary and speculation on what they mean – in the end they are meant to clarify nothing except what it is you want to believe was said.
We need to pin the administration down on what it is they mean, when they say it, and not attempt to divine meaning in the ricochet of obfuscations.
Actions have meaning. Legislation has meaning. Words, not so much.
We can only know who this man is by what he has accomplished, what he has done, and what he is doing – not by what he is saying. That said, most politicians play the if-by-whiskey game; but with Obama, we all know he can and will do better. Let us help him leave the legacy we elected him to create.
In sum, we need a president who will take positions, not take us for a ride, especially not if it’s by whiskey.
Please list any other if-by-whiskey arguments you have seen made.
“I have not come for what you hoped to do, I have come for what you did” - V