Government Deception and White Lies in a Democracy

Introduction: Truth and Transparency in Government

A Google search of the phrase "truth in government" returns approximately 84 million hits, none of them remotely associated with any action by the United States government to withhold information from its citizens. Most accusations of this kind are listed under the heading of homeland security. Conspiracy theorists abound, but there is some truth to the idea that the government sometimes withholds information for the good of national security. The question is whether this is necessarily good for the citizenry.

A recent report filed by the Inspector General's office verifies dirty dealings within the current administration regarding political appointments in the Justice Department. Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan testified before Congress that the Bush Administration purposefully hid mistakes in intelligence and refused to provide data to Congress during hearings regarding the leak of a CIA operative's name. Even more significant, it appears that the administration manipulated information about the Iraqi threat to the United States prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003. Bush apologists continue to state that information was withheld from the general public in the name of homeland security and to the benefit of the country as a whole. The question remains: is this justifiable?

As Americans, we believe participation of the people is the primary element of democracy, especially when decisions affect the lives of many. Transparency of government not only allows citizens to participate in democracy, but also to hold officials accountable for their actions. Was the secrecy surrounding current administration actions an attempt to protect us, or was it an attempt to avoid responsibility?

Security Secrecy vs. Manipulative Deception

Obviously, government transparency would need to differ in degrees. Not all secrecy is equal: some is genuinely protective, while other forms serve to manipulate or coerce. These types of lies — those that protect intelligence operations and lack elements of manipulation and deception — would appear to be understandable and allowable. The more troubling category is that in which information is deliberately shaped to influence public opinion toward a predetermined outcome.

The Case of Valerie Plame

A clear example of justifiable secrecy can be found in the case of Valerie Plame. Maintaining secrecy surrounding her role in the CIA was essential not only to her personal safety but to the safety of her contacts and operatives. The public naming of Ms. Plame constituted a breach of national security and was also found to be a violation of law under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Under this act, it is a criminal offense for anyone with access to classified information to intentionally disclose that information in an attempt to identify a covert agent. When questioned, CIA officials would have had to deny knowledge of Ms. Plame's employment — a "lie" told for her own safety.

These types of lies appear understandable and allowable in that they protect intelligence operations and essentially lack any element of manipulation or deception. They exist to shield individuals from harm, not to steer public behavior.

WMD Claims and the Iraq Invasion

Conversely, one must consider the information released in 2003 regarding the potential threat posed by weapons of mass destruction allegedly possessed by Saddam Hussein. Five years after the invasion of Iraq, it became clear that the statements made by the administration regarding the threat posed by Iraq were inflammatory and, perhaps, part of an organized campaign to galvanize public opinion in support of the invasion. Whether this constituted a deliberate lie or a case of the Bush administration itself being misled remains contested; the administration continued to stand by the data used to justify the invasion.

If the invasion of Iraq was based on deliberately misleading evidence, one must also consider the motivation behind such an undertaking. Motivation aside, the effect of statements surrounding the nuclear threat from Iraq — taken in the context of the recent World Trade Center attacks — resulted in a media environment in which reported "facts" supplied by the Bush administration were broadcast with little independent validation. If we are to believe the administration deliberately lied as a means to an end (the end being the invasion of Iraq), this would appear to differ fundamentally from the Plame case when one considers motivation. If the Bush administration deliberately fabricated information surrounding the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and exaggerated the degree to which Iraq represented a threat to the security and safety of American citizens, then one must assume this was a paternalistic device.

This type of lying is not made in an attempt to safeguard but rather to persuade and coerce. It coerces the American public subtly into support for an action that, had the entire truth been known, would probably have been rejected wholesale. The entire democratic process is then subverted, and transparency of government is destroyed.

Conclusion: Paternalism, Democracy, and the Right to Truth

So there are lies, and there are lies. The use of a white lie "for the good of the people" is, in this author's view, democratically unacceptable and morally reprehensible. It is not in the country's best interests to allow the delegation of control in the name of homeland security. None of the lies citizens have been told have been trivial, and many lives have been lost — at least 4,000 Americans and untold numbers of Iraqi citizens — leaving us to wonder what it was all for.

But even setting aside the question of triviality, it is not appropriate for the government to assume a paternalistic role and attempt coercion. It would not even be sufficient at this point for the administration to address the obvious manipulation of facts and events. The president is not our father, and we are not children. Of course, as in any government there is a requirement for regulation. But abuse of regulation borders on what may euphemistically be called "protection" and, more accurately, termed deception.

In this author's view, the government did not act in a genuinely "paternalistic" manner — a true father lies to protect children, whereas in this case there appears to have been manipulation and deception intended to advance a policy agenda. The administration most likely believed the lies told to increase popular acceptance of the invasion of Iraq were essentially altruistic and therefore acceptable. That kind of manipulation is reprehensible, and the American people deserve the truth. Although the administration may have believed it was acting with the best of intentions, history appears to have proven it wrong.

References

Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Washington, D.C., 2005.

Deputy Inspector General for Intelligence. Review of the Pre-Iraqi War Activities of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, 2007.

Bamford, James. A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies. New York: Doubleday, 2004.

Blix, Hans. Disarming Iraq: The Former Director of the U.N. Inspection Commission Gives His Account of the Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Events Leading Up to America's Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. New York: Pantheon, 2004.

Corn, David. The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003.

Draper, Robert. Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush. New York: Free Press, 2007.

Fleisher, Ari. Taking Heat: The President, the Press, and My Years in the White House. New York: William Morrow, 2005.

Isikoff, Michael, and David Corn. Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. New York: Crown, 2006.

Packer, George. The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005.

Risen, James. State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. New York: Free Press, 2006.

Ritter, Scott. Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the U.N. and Overthrow Saddam Hussein. New York: Nation Books, 2006.

Tenet, George. At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.