Orwellian Twist: Politifact’s Lie of the Year Is True

I posted this when the truth was nominated as a lie. Now, Politifact has elevated the truth to the Lie of the Year. The Democrats lie: Republicans Voted to End Medicare. I took them to task previously. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but as Pulitzer Prize-winning members of the media, they are immune to shame.

–Mb

In case you hadn’t noticed, Politifact’s bullshit detector isn’t 100% effective. Their work isn’t all bad, but some of it is seriously flawed by a simplistic view of truth and their mainstream media treatment of political rhetoric. Using a simple scale that ranges from true to untrue, Politico ignores levels of abstraction that complicate political discourse, which is more of an ongoing conversation that takes into account unstated definitions and assumptions. It’s not uncommon for politicians to equivocate, and true statements, therefore, that can be very misleading and apparently false statements can actually be true. Context is all-important, and Politico, in spite of some mainstream media efforts, ignores it.

These methodological weaknesses Politifact’s 2011 Lie of the Year, There are 10 nominees, 6 from Republicans, 4 from Democrats. A balanced, but not too balanced slate. The alleged lie by Democrats, that Republicans voted to end Medicare, has received attention in the blogosphere from Paul Krugman and Think Progress. As both blogs say, the alleged lie is “100% true.”

This headline of the nomination article earns Politifact’s rating of “Mostly False–The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.”

Democrats say Republicans voted to end Medicare and charge seniors $12,000

What’s the critical fact? The headline lumps all Democrats in with a DCCC commercial that makes the claim in question. Read the whole article and you’ll learn that other Democrats, such as the President, have, in fact, used the phrase “end Medicare as we know it.”  The article calls these three words a “critical qualifier,” but still lumps Democrats together in perpetrating a Pants-on-fire lie. The nomination article provides no evidence for anyone else repeating the claims of the DCCC commercial, but its headline and first sentence clearly suggest that all Democrats are saying the same thing text.

Are the Democrats lying? It depends how you look at it. Only the DCCC is allegedly lying. Republicans did indeed vote. True, it was a non-binding budget resolution, but it was still a vote. Would Republicans end Medicare? That depends on your definition of Medicare. Unfortunately, Politifact doesn’t offer a definition. The GOP plan, they acknowledge, is a “huge change,” but to say it ends Medicare is a “major exaggeration.” Why? “All seniors would continue to be offered coverage under the proposal, and the program’s budget would increase every year.” That’s a pretty weak definition of Medicare. As ThinkProgress writes, “Capping costs to beneficiaries, closing the traditional fee-for-service program, and forcing seniors to enroll in new private coverage, ends Medicare by eliminating everything that has defined the program for the last 46 years.” Follow Politifact’s logic and as long as we increase the budget a dollar a year and cover a yearly checkup, Medicare is still Medicare. As Atrios says, “when we replace the Marines with a pizza, we’ll call the pizza the Marines.”

The nomination article proceeds to provide quotes from a Democrat, a Republican, and an elder law expert (a that is, not a Presbyterian) on the DCCC’s contention. Rather than reasoned argument, we receive he said/she said reporting with very little probative value.

Republicans say that future spending projections for Medicare are not sustainable, and the program requires changes. Their proposal “protects and preserves Medicare — with no disruptions — for those in and near retirement and provides those now under the age of 55 with a strengthened, personalized Medicare program they can count on when they retire,” said Conor Sweeney, a spokesperson for House Budget Committee.

Most Democrats would probably agree that the Medicare is not sustainable as it is, but it’s is a red herring that makes the Republican position look reasonable. The issue at hand is not whether Medicare costs need to be addressed. It’s whether Democrats are lying. Sweeney’s words here are very general, and, I would argue, misleading. “Strengthened” means what? Paid for without increasing taxes? And personalized means? Krugman explains:

Medicare is a government-run insurance system that directly pays health-care providers. Vouchercare would cut checks to insurance companies instead. Specifically, the program would pay a fixed amount toward private health insurance — higher for the poor, lower for the rich, but not varying at all with the actual level of premiums. If you couldn’t afford a policy adequate for your needs, even with the voucher, that would be your problem.

The Democratic source is more useful in evaluating the truth of the DCCC’s position.

The Republican proposal will end the aspect of Medicare that directly covers specific services, such as hospital coverage. “It’s as if you took the Office of Faith-Based Partnerships and ended the faith-based portion of it, but continued to call it faith-based,” said Jesse Ferguson of the DCCC. “There is no doubt that Medicare– a health insurance program for seniors–would end under the House Republican plan and, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office, health insurance costs would rise for seniors.”

How should the different claims be reconciled? Anyone interested in the truth would probe the statements of his sources for precision, clarity, and honesty. Not Politifact. It decides to ask an expert in elder law. He certainly knows his area of the law, but he’s been asked a semantic, not a legal question.

“Nobody voted to end it,” he said. “They voted to hopefully change it one day, when they get a chance, but they would need a Republican-dominated Senate and a Republican president, neither of which they have.”

“It’s not as if this is of no consequence. But it doesn’t change Medicare,” he said.

The difference between the legal expert’s take on the DCCC commercial’s claims and the truth is one of levels of abstraction. The general semanticist S.I. Hayakawa delineated four levels of abstraction. Politifact confuses levels of abstraction. Democrats have focused on what the program does; Republicans have emphasized keeping the program name. At their respective levels of abstraction, neither party is lying. The appropriate question, the question Politifact fails to understand is, which level is the more relevant.

Like Politifact article, the DCCC commercial leaves out certain details, operating on a certain level of abstraction. This is par for the political course. Nothing about the statement “Republicans vote to end Medicare” is false. Is it the entire story? Nope. Politifact leaves out important context.

Republicans have wanted to end Medicare for years. To quote Ronald Reagan, ““[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” Or former Senator Bob Dole, “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare … because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” Should anyone be surprised that the Congressional Republicans, one of the most conservative and inflexible in years, had a plan that would end Medicare? Politifact apparently is.

Historical context is important in evaluating the Republican proposal and the alleged Democratic lie. Few political statements take place in a vacuum. Politicians equivocate and use different levels of abstraction to strengthen their claims and rebut others. There’s nothing wrong with calling them on it. But failing to understand the complexities of their discourse and oversimplifying it with a true-false continuum does everyone a disservice.