The Contemporary Presidency: Presidential Lies

When in doubt, tell the truth. It mill confound your enemies and astound your friends. --Mark Twain The impeachment and trial of President Clinton raised in the nation's consciousness (and conscience) the issue of lies told by presidents. Tom Delay, Republican House majority whip, argued that the impeachment proceedings were "a debate about relativism versus absolute truth" (Katz and Taylor 1998, 3322). The purpose of this article is to examine the nature of presidential lies and to distinguish among different types of lies.(1) Often presidents do not tell the "absolute truth," but not all presidential lies are equivalent. The argument that there are different types of lies is not an attempt to exonerate President Clinton nor is it meant to enforce the cynical view that "they all do it." The purpose, rather, is to present some examples of presidential lies and argue that there is a range of lies, from those that are justifiable to those that are unacceptable. The presidential lies under consideration will be broken into three broad categories: justifiable lies, lies to prevent embarrassment (including some serious breaches of the public trust), and lies of policy deception. In a democracy or a republic based on the consent of the governed, citizens need accurate information to make informed decisions about elections and public policy. Thus, it is wrong for public officials to lie about public issues. The only exceptions are situations in which reasonable citizens would agree that presidents of either party could justifiably lie to them. Lies might be justified by the need to protect lives or the effectiveness of national security operations that are being undertaken in support of a legitimate policy of the government (e.g., a hostage rescue attempt or espionage). This would include covert actions taken in support of legitimate (constitutionally acceptable) policies, but it would exclude covert policies (e.g., when the government says it is pursuing policy X, but it is in fact pursuing policy Y). Lies of policy deception are the worst sort of public policy lie because they deprive citizens of the information necessary to make informed choices. This article will begin by considering justifiable lies, proceed to take up lies to avoid embarrassment, and conclude with several examples of lies of policy deception. Justifiable Lies Some philosophers, such as Saint Augustine and Immanuel Kant, take the position that all lying is morally wrong (Bok 1978). But this absolutist position is difficult to sustain, since lies can sometimes be used to protect innocent people from those intending to harm them. Nevertheless, the presumption is that there is a strong burden to justify lies in general and, in particular, lies about public policy. The most convincing justification for lying about public policy is to protect national security secrets or the lives of soldiers or spies. Lying to foreign governments is often considered a necessary element of diplomacy, but presidential lying to citizens in a democracy should entail exceptional justification. If one accepts the legitimacy of a military establishment and the need to protect one's country in a hostile world, one must accept the occasional need for presidents to lie. Of course, the compelling nature of this justification often tempts presidents to use the justification to lie about things not necessarily essential to national security. This section will present several examples in which lies by presidents (or vice presidents) would be justified by national security concerns. It will also include a situation in which domestic politics justified a public lie. Nixon and Cuba, 1960 During the 1960 campaign for the presidency, U.S. policy toward Cuba was an important issue. Fidel Castro had led a revolution to overthrow the corrupt Batista regime in 1959 and had allied Cuba with the Soviet Union and other Communist powers. …