Moral Responsibility and George W. Bush's Administration

One of the most interesting conversations I had at Jackson Hole was with someone who says that I am too hard on the Bush administration: that there are a number of issue areas where the Bush administration is on the side of the angels, that it is not the case that they are totally cynical and simply unconcerned with the public interest, and that they should not be subject to severe moral condemnation.

Perhaps, he said, the flaws in policy should be taken to be the result of bad implementation of decisions that were made with a good heart, or at least with a Republican understanding of what a "good heart" is.

For some issues on which the Bush administration is on the side of the angels, consider:

1. Reform of GSEs like Fannie Mae.
2. Reform of corporate pension accounting.
3. CAFTA--although the giveaways in terms of restrictions on imports from China needed to get CAFTA passed may well make CAFTA a net loser.
4. The Bush administration did not release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the run-up to the 2004 election (and the Clinton administration did release oil from the SPR in election season).
5. The Bush administration has been a roadblock in the way of airline bailouts--with the Transportation representative voting "yes" to every bailout, and the Treasury representative voting "no," the deciding vote on the airline loan committee is the Federal Reserve's Ned Gramlich.

But these are small potatoes compared to the other side--Bush administration actions that cannot be read as motivated by anything other than a deeply cynical lack of concern about the public interest or an awesome degree of incompetence. These include:

1. The steel tariff.
2. The lack of concern for the Doha round.
3. The 2005 highway bill.
4. 2004's corporate tax bill.
5. 2003's Medicare drug benefit.
6. The stupendous botch that is Bush administration fiscal policy.
7. The stupendous botch that is Bush administration foreign policy.

I find this line of argument unconvincing. There is a level of bad implementation that amounts to criminal negligence, and the Bush administration is far past that level--as we have seen in the past week.

Moreover, the fact that there are some--mostly minor--issues on which the Bush administration is on the side of the angels does not lead me to think better of them:

Sokrates: What do we think of those who choose bad actions because they do not know the Good?

Glaukon: Why, Sokrates, we pity them--and we try to teach them.

Sokrates: And what do we think of those who have demonstrated that they know the Good, but who turn away from it and choose Evil instead? We cannot teach them, can we?

Comments

[Tad Brennan]

Well....

I'm with you on the Bush part, 100%.

But I think you have attributed to Sokrates a view of moral psychology that is just about diametrically opposed to anything he ever thought. "Knowing the Good but choosing Evil instead" is just not a conceptual possibility given his understanding of psychology. (But I realize that fidelity to the niceties of the historical Sokrates' own views is not the point of this post).

[Xavier]

I rarely agree with DeLong, but I can't find much to criticize here except that it's redundant to list #6 (the complaint about "fisal (sic) policy") when you also list the highway bill, Medicare, and foreign policy. Without those, Bush's fiscal policy wouldn't look so bad.

[poster2]

Perhaps #8 (or #1) should be lack of concern for global warming. We currently have reach CO2 concentrations that haven't been seen for 10s of thousands of years. When the impacts from these levels reach steady-state who knows what the world will look like. Maybe only antarctica will be habitable.

[Mandos]

*sigh* I'd have agreed with most of it if it weren't for the CAFTA bit.

[Bill L.]

How did the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation (Iraq) miss the list? What, 20k to 100k dead Iraqis and nearly 2,000 dead troops in a war based on completely cooked intelligence at a cost of nearly 300 billion (and sure to grow) doesn't clear the bar? That's what a GOP controlled Congress and Senate (and soon, Judiciary) gets you. Granted this is a predominantly economics centric site, hence the money centric list, but c'mon now.

CAFTA is garbage, just as NAFTA is. Both treaties exist soley to open up foreign markets with weaker (or non-existant) labor and environmental laws to U.S. corporations while simultaneously giving U.S. based corporations an excuse to reduce or eliminate many job and environmental protections at home. Just look at the situation with MBTE in gasoline and Canada, among others listed here:

www.geocities.com/arthursank/nafta_ftaa.html

(though a simple Google search turns up endless examples) I'll get behind legislation for FAIR trade, not FREE trade, as in free to abuse third world countries and lower the domestic standard of living.

[christo]

You're sure these are the good talking points?

1. Reform of GSEs like Fannie Mae.

Have they started this reform yet? If they do get to do it, the reform will be to diminish Fannie Mae's ability to lend so private companies will get more volume while simultaneously introducing Fannie Mae type subsidies to the private lenders.

2. Reform of corporate pension accounting.

Double whammy (means middleclass loses twice, no pensions and no dividends). I thought this was allowing corps to punt pension liabilities to help speed profit accrual to the present management. Kicking the problem over the hill. Allowing dreamscape return estimates. Profits certainly aren't going to stock holders in the form of dividends. When the corp goes bust, the pension holders will be depending on S.S. Reference steel industry, airline industry and soon car manufacturing industry. I guess we should blame workers for finding jobs in industries that will go bust.

3. CAFTA--although the giveaways in terms of restrictions on imports from China needed to get CAFTA passed may well make CAFTA a net loser.

Free trade, f-me free trade. Goodies were loaded into the highway bloat bill to bribe enough Republican free traders to vote for CAFTA.

4. The Bush administration did not release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the run-up to the 2004 election (and the Clinton administration did release oil from the SPR in election season).

so?

5. The Bush administration has been a roadblock in the way of airline bailouts--with the Transportation representative voting "yes" to every bailout, and the Treasury representative voting "no," the deciding vote on the airline loan committee is the Federal Reserve's Ned Gramlich.

As opposed to Bush farmer pre-bail out bill. Halliburton bail out bill. At most I rate this another so.

And ultimately I'm confused, but I always am and have gotten good at masking it. Are these points supposed to be the ones on the side of the angels? did I misread the post?

[christo]

Oh, I forgot to say when they say no to well paid worker airline bail-outs, the Bush administration helps push union workers down the poverty scale. Double whammy good for the administration, keep the heavy hand off the joystick of the marketplace and simultaneously get to shaft union members. Now on dry land, that's like a hole-in-one, drinks on me this afternoon at the private clubhouse.

[glenn hefner]

BDL - with all due respect, there IS a big risk (as I am sure you are aware) the more shrill you are, the longer you consistently take the anti-Bush position - even if you are in the right most of the time - you lose (all) credibility.

I believe - and as I live abroad, I'm not well aware of popular opinion - that Krugman, for instance, has lost alot of professional credibility, not so much due to the positions he's taken, as to seemingly rabid and very personal nature of his attacking the adminstration.

I used to consider myself a true compassionate conservative, and really despise the mentally-castrated Bush and his minions. As such, I welcome the intellectually honesty of your postings and positions, and desire the weight of respect that people have for you to make a difference, to shift opinions of decision-makers (okay, call me naive).

I am concerned that, as you travel down the same (or parallel) path as Krugman, you'll simply be painted as a biased, intemperate liberal, and "our side" will lose, much like with Krugman, a very thoughtful and potentially persuasive and influential voice.

Now you can shrug this (constructive criticism) off, as I probably would, because why would any inettigent person with any spine want to say anything different than what they believe in the way they want to say it?

That's not an entirely rhetorical question. There is an answer here, and I guess, to be trite, is that a person can win every battle, every argument, be right on every point, and still lose the debate. This is what keeps me up at night.

[glenn hefner]

And I guess I should add that I realize that this wasn't necessarily the point of the thread, but I just wanted to get that off my chest. I'd really hate, for many reasons, for you (and perhaps by association many of the issues you promote and support) to be attacked as and "reduced to" a "shrill, socialist liberal."

[Ari]

So the point is the because Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong are truthful, they are taken as partisan and lose influence. Nonsense. Paul Krugman and Brad DeLongd are extremely influential because they are truthful. A lack of truth and decency has just taken us to an immense tragedy on top of tragedies already needlessly created. I am not impressed by youy plea for moderation, for it is a plea for DeLong and Krugman to be false.

[liberal]

glenn hefner wrote, "BDL ... the longer you consistently take the anti-Bush position - even if you are in the right most of the time - you lose (all) credibility. ... Krugman, for instance, has lost alot of professional credibility, not so much due to the positions he's taken, as to seemingly rabid and very personal nature of his attacking the adminstration."

Nonsense.

If economists as a profession think Krugman has lost credibility because of his entirely proper attacks on the Bush administration, then economics as a profession has lost all credibility.

[liberal]

Xavier wrote, "it's redundant to list #6 (the complaint about "fisal (sic) policy") when you also list the highway bill, Medicare, and foreign policy. Without those, Bush's fiscal policy wouldn't look so bad."

1. Foreign policy is apart from the *spending* for foreign policy.
2. Brad doesn't list the 2001 tax cut; presumably it's subsumed under "fiscal policy botch."

[liberal]

glenn hefner wrote, "There is an answer here, and I guess, to be trite, is that a person can win every battle, every argument, be right on every point, and still lose the debate. This is what keeps me up at night."

There *is*, of course, a legitimate tactical question---how to be most effective?

Let's note along those lines, however, that Martin Feldstein's idiotic bleatings about how Clinton's tax hike was going to stop the economy dead in its tracks didn't seem to harm *his* profession credibility. And unlike Krugman, Feldstein...was actually dead wrong!

[dearieme]

Oh well, he may not be much good, but at least he's not sent Federal agents in to wipe out an odd religious sect in Waco. Thank God for small mercies.

[liberal]

How is CAFTA going to be a net win for Central America when it extends the current rent-collection regime (aka "intellectual property rights") there?

[ChristianPinko]

The Bush administration's dawdling in responding to Hurricane Katrina, coupled with their speedy response to Hurricanes Ivan and Charley (in a crucial swing state in an election year), has convinced me that "criminal negligence" doesn't cover the situation. Try "criminal recklessness."

[rea]

"at least he's not sent Federal agents in to wipe out an odd religious sect in Waco."

You might look into the role of a couple of Bush Adminstration stalwarts in that fiasco, a pair of generals named Boykin and Schoonmaker

[RT]

The simplest explanation of everything the Bush Administration does is to see it as an enterprise dedicated to looting the body politic on behalf of its friends, which consist of the corporate world and rich individuals.

The looting itself is in the form of tax cuts that are almost entirely targeted towards those friends, and juicy government contracts shoveled in their direction.

Everything else this Administration does is aimed at perpetuating Republican power and destroying the opposition, which has the long-term goal of being able to continue the looting into the indefinite future.

It's hard to think of anything they've done that isn't explained by this simple, powerful set of assumptions.

If this explanation is indeed the truth (anyone got a better theory? I doubt it), then any instances of the Bush Administration's being 'on the side of the angels' with respect to some particular issue are purely incidental, and do not reflect any good-heartedness.

[Tim]

I agree with you on Bush, but I second Tad Brennan's dissent on what you say about Socrates. Nobody who truly knows the Good turns away from it and chooses Evil instead. For a Platonist who has that sort of moral psychology, you've got to wait for Augustine. And even he would say that evil is the free movement of the will, not from Good to Evil, but from a greater good to a lesser one: e.g., choosing to help out one's cronies in preference to providing basic safety and justice for the poor.

[Robert Waldmann]

Wow someone trying to defend the Bush administration really came up with that pathetic list ? You generally disaprove of using anonymous sources. My guess is that this defender has got to be about as pro Bush as you are.

The policies on the pro list are relatively minor and the list is brief. In spite of that it seems to have been inflated.

1) I see above that Fannie Mae reform is something good that they will do in the future. Right. People who are not on the side of the angels regularly claim that they are going to do good some time soon.

3) CAFTA is, as I think all agree, at best a very minor plus as most imports from CAFTA countries were already exempt on this and that. My sense is that they were on the side of the holders of intellectual property, that this was a trade agreement which had little to do with trade. I see this is noted above. An analogy, a medicare drug benefit is a good idea. The actual plan is distorted by an overwhelming desire to increase big Pharma's profits. Why is CAFTA different ?

Also, it is hard not to reach agreement when the other guy says yes to all demands. Once there is a negotiated treaty, the Bush administration goes to the beat the congress game. I think they pushed it through to keep their perfect record of winning all markee fights in congress Many things they were going to do never got done in congress (see above) but none were yes or no win or lose proposition.

4) you have got to be kidding me. Bush and Cheney are on the side of the angels because they didn't do anything to drive down the price of oil ? What would they do if they were on the side of the devils. Look the fact that these guys and their friends happen to profit from sound policy in this case, doesn't mean they have good intention.

That leaves 2 about which I know nothing and 5 which is a low profile decision made by maybe one guy (who for all we know will be spending more time with his family soon).

Brad I like your blog, but I have some constructive criticism too. I know you love debate and therefore are eager to present pro Bush arguments by people who can think. However, if you present such a feeble and anonymously sourced argument again, you may loose (all) credibility.

[Dubblblind]

Shorter glenn hefner, move to the right in order to garner respectability.

And glenn, I know you mean well but this need to move to the right in order to be perceived as having a legitimate position is getting tiring.

[christo]

4. The Bush administration did not release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the run-up to the 2004 election (and the Clinton administration did release oil from the SPR in election season).

Is it global warming yet? But the Bush administration certainly pulled out all the stops delivering aid to the upper middle class swing state, Florida, in the year of consecutive strong storms. Socialism to the middle class, FEMA immediate response. The head of FEMA (what's the color of shit) delivered millions, millions, to householders that didn't suffer damage from the storms. Jeebus, God delivers the photo ops opportunities in the election years, doesn't he?

Thanks for the salon update. Did you get any chances to ask Greenspan any hard questions? After getting into Collapse, I am extremely prejudiced against wide open spaces loving Republicans romance with that part of the west.

[sm]

If critiques such as BDLs get you dismissed in any public forum as "shrill" it is just one more indicator of the intellectual and moral corruption of that public forum.

The destruction of New Orleans, following on the destruction of Iraq, should be a huge warning sign that things are going very, very wrong. And on most of the planet, both phenomena are clearly seen to be such warning signs. What does that tell you?

[liberal]

sm wrote, "If critiques such as BDLs get you dismissed in any public forum as 'shrill' it is just one more indicator of the intellectual and moral corruption of that public forum."

Agreed. But the corruption of that forum should be obvious---it's the current meeting in Jackson Hole, during which all those hagiographies of Greenspan were presented.

[christo]

Witt wasn't carried over into the new administration.

We had to make room for the frat bro, what's the color of....

Greenspan, gotta hump my butt up to the big house, was carried over. Grant at Grant's Interest Rate Observer published research from another source that Mr. Magoo met at the W H 1.5 times a week during the Clinton administration while 3.5 times during the present Bush. What were they talking about?

[anne]

Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman ever have my gratitude for the courage they have shown in simple truth telling when courage is needed and too often though possibly understandably wanting.

[bailey]

Glen Heffner, It's bad enough that SDL leads a purported list of Chauncey credits with what could well be one of his Administration's biggest bungles - GSEs. If that's your best shot, to expose BDL as an uncaring, unsympathetic meanie you're wasting your time - no one on this site cares.

[bakho]

Many of the day to day decissions by the "Faceless bureaucrats" are going to be the same no matter who is in charge. Many of the policy decisions made by cabinet officials to continue ongoing programs would be the same in any administration. Maybe it is only fair to once in a while admit that the Bush administration or any administration will make the right call.

At the same time, no brainer decisions that have the backing of almost everyone would get very few comments. With valuable space in the NYT, why should Krugman devote that space to faint praise of minor bureaucratic decisions, when the Bush administration is way way off base on many of their major policies.

The Bush administration gets such low marks from Krugman because Krugman and Bush have views on policy and ideology that are fundamentally different. Krugman's book, "The Great Unraveling" details PKs philosophy and ideology and contrasts it with the ideology and philosophy of the GOP right wingers like Bush. This is not about Bush personally. This is about the USA and the direction of our great country. Many of us believe that Bush right wing policy and ideology is short sighted and will create problems for the US in the future. It is because we care about our country that we don't want to see it be led astray.

The problem with the Bush "You are either for me or against me" approach is that it necessarily stifles dialog and automatically places any criticism, however mild, well intentioned and constructive, into the shrill "You hate Bush" category. glenn hefner cautions against being shrill. I got news, any criticism of Bush or deviation from the GOP talking points will immediately be received as "shrill". Maybe Glenn thinks Paul O'Neill was fired for being "shrill"? Glenn would do far better to question the GOP attempts to stifle debate and to neuter constructive dialog by attacking anyone and everyone who holds a different opinion. Why can't we have constructive debates about national policy?

[christo]

Good comments, Back Hoe.

[dragan]

glenn h:
"and as I live abroad": that seems to me the crux of your confusion. Perhaps if you join us in the banana republic that these USofA are turning into, you might appreciate just how "insane" it is to tell the truth.

Maybe you can do a fact-finding tour that will find all the great things "compassionate conservatives" have done to this great country. Please share when you do for we are all waiting with baited breath.

[bakho]

The point that is overlooked by the friend of BDL is that the disagreements go far beyond mere issues. There is HUGE disagreement over the FUNDAMENTAL role of government. Are these ideological differences ignored as a way of avoiding congative dissonance? or intended to stifle debate? The GOP and Bush philosophy of governing is bankrupt and leads to shortsighted decisions and bad policy. It is more than just bad implementation of well intentioned policy.

The friend makes an interesting point. The fact that s/he only sees the disagreements over specific policies and overlooks the more fundamental differences of the role of government means that Bush critics are not getting our message across. We fundamentally disagree with the Bush philosophy of the role of government. Bush takes his governing philosophy to be correct and assumes that everyone shares his philosophy. I hope the US will be debating the role of government in the near future.

[donna]

Right-wing fundamental view of government: Support right-wing cronies and war profiteers, everyone else is on their own.

[glenn hefner]

Boy o Boy, you guys are reading the wrong thing. Simmer down, Ari, Liberal, Dragan. As for Bailey, just shut up. You wrote "an uncaring, unsympathetic meanie???" I'm not sure what you read, but you are 100% off the mark. Go back to school.

For the record, I am an American who has lived in Europe for 5 years. I'm painfully aware of the travesties that Bush and Greenspan have heaped upon the US (and the world). Though I am no economist, I deal with macro economy and finance as part of my job. I know how bad things have gotten.

Let me clarify a few things:

One, I did NOT suggest that BDJ or Krugman or anyone lie or say something they don't believe. I do NOT write that anyone should "move to the right" in their writings in order to have a legitimate position or be taken more seriously (Just pathetic, Dubblblind). I would never suggest anyone to be false. I guess what I was trying to say is that it's all about moderation of tone. Even if the positions of Michael Moore, as an example, positions are truthful, as they mostly are, and need to be told, he loses effectiveness because of his tone. He's become a parody.

Two, I also wrote that "I used to consider myself a true compassionate conservative." That is, before the concept was bludgeoned by Bush. Note "used to" and "true." These are important words, Dragan. Bush clearly is not a true compassionate conservative, seeing as how he is seemingly bereft of any compassion.

I could have written clearer - I should have written "there IS a big risk (as I am sure you are aware) the more shrill ONE is, the longer ONE consistently takes the anti-Bush position - even if ONE is in the right most of the time - ONE loses (all) credibility." I really did not mean to accuse DeLong of being shrill, though I do think his detractors (of whom I am NOT one, sheesh), might feel he is.

I believe Krugman HAS gotten shrill and personal and by doing so, his argument loses alot of weight among decision-makers (but clearly not with his fans), even if his argument is truthful and right, most of the time. Again, his tone reduces the weight of his argument.

My main point is that, personally, I would hate to see DBL get painted with that same brush. Maybe it's not important for some of you, or for most of you, to actually CHANGE things, to improve things. Perhaps you prefer to debate them and write these heartfelt phrases. For most of you, that seems enough. But not for me. I want change. Big changes. And while I'm not hanging my hat solely on BDL, I'm hoping that he and people like him can be change-agents.

As Liberal correctly pointed out "it's how ONE can be most effective" over the long term. That was my point.

[dragan]

Here is what I don't understand:

Why do you think that GWB and AG are deviations from "compassionate conservatism" and not its zenith? Today, in polite company, it is generally accepted that Stalin/Mao/Castro/Big Kim were genuine expressions of communism and not just deviations that spoiled Marxism for everybody else. While I agree that AuH2O is spinning in his grave watching this travesty, I don't buy it at all that GWB spoiled the compassionate conservatism.

Finally, here is a somewhat overwrought example. Did you think that, say, Sakharov lost his professional prestige for being a shrill running-dog capitalist pig? A lot of people did at the time. They believed that you have to go along to get along so you can change the system. And sometimes they are right. And sometimes they are not. I imagine we are on the opposite end of that chasm.

And as for you wanting change, I still extend my invite to come over here and help fight the good fight. Maybe if you didn't read Washington Pravda and David Broder so much ...

[glenn hefner]

I'll admit my ignorancy and say not only do I not read Pravda or David Broder, I don't even know what or who you're referring to. The same goes for Sakharof. The WSJ is too far right for me.

I don't think Bush coined a new concept or even a phrase with Compassionate Conservatism. You seem to treat it as some sort of refined school of thought, but I treat it as pure rhetoric. Suggesting GWB and/or AG are either deviations or the zenith of Compassionate Conservatism gives the concept WAY too much credit, IMO. To Bush, it really is nothing more than an advertising message, much like, for instance, No Matter How You Slice It, It's Still Bologna.

But I think you've gotten off message, dragan. I don't understand why the extrmemist Conservatives seem to get more press, and perhaps be given more credibility, like Limbaugh, for instance, than the extremist Liberals, and I'm not trying to explain how or why that is, nor justify it.

My entire point, dragan, is that for people like me who want change, truly want to make a difference, they have a right to be concerned if their thought leaders (yes, like BDL) become thrown into the Extremist pile (yes, like Krugman) resulting in a less effective message and perhaps tainting the valid and true arguments that these people make. I'm not justifying that at all, I'm just saying it happens. Personally I do not think most extremists are very successful at achiving their aims, and many times they do more harm than good. I am not saying that BDL is an extremist, but I'm worried that he gets painted as one. Feel free to disagree, but at least try to understand the point and try to stick to the message.

And where I live, dragan, doesn't change that at all. 'My fighting the good fight' again is off message and irrelevant to these points.

[dragan]

glenn:
what i hear as your message is that to effect change we must
go along ( at least some of the time ) with CW, bipartisanship, etc. i disagree. i can't imagine we can meet halfway across that abyss. i wish you knew about Sakharov and other dissidents and lessons that they had taught us.
i wish you best of luck.

[dragan]

But i do wish you would stop telling me when I am on or off the message. Remarkably enough, I am _always_ on message - my message.

[glenn hefner]

Dragan - I think you finally got it (MY message - the original post), or at least you're as close as you'll ever get, and as close as I care to take you.
And it's not remarkable at all that you're always on message with YOUR message. I'd venture it's one of the least remarkable things about you.

[J Thomas]

Glenn, let's go back to the original point.

Suppose that the situation has deteriorated to the point that truly you are either for Bush or against him.

Suppose that you see obvious incontrovertable evidence of financial corruption in the federal government. But the bots are spouting over and over that there is no problem whatsoever and furthermore the problem is entirely left over from Clinton. If you tell the truth and give the evidence, hardly anybody will look at the evidence which after all will be complicated and boring. And they will do their best to brand you as an extremist, hoping that people will ignore you because extremists lie about Bush.

But if you tone it down hoping that people will pay attention because you aren't an extremist, what then? You might announce "There are a lot of accounting irregularities." And people will think "OK, that isn't so bad, the reputable authorities think the government has been a bit sloppy, it could happen to anybody. A lot of fuss about nothing." By lying to sound respectable you help the perps get away with it.

And will they accept that? No, if you aren't for Bush you're against him. He won't forgive you for telling only half-hearted lies. If you're lucky he'll give you a clear-cut choice, either lie your heart out for him or get on the enemy's list and be declared an extremist.

So what good is it?

[glenn hefner]

OK. You're right, I guess, supposing those things. I agree with your assertions, but have things really gotten to that point? Is it really either/or? Is it black or white, right or wrong, red or blue?

Maybe so, but I still think there are plenty of people - the majority - that will listen to reason, but are turned off by, and tune out, the extremists, even those who are telling the truth. I know plenty of conservatives - people who generally vote elephant - who despise him. I think many are willing to listen to reason. But, hell, if it is as you say, then I'm wrong.

[J Thomas]

Glenn, I don't know for sure how the public responds. It's pretty clear how Bush responds.

And it seems to me far easier to simply tell the honest truth the best you know how, than think about the best lie to get people to believe.

After all, if you get caught lying then *you* are likely to suffer consequences. The liars who have the media licking their hands don't suffer from it, but you would.

And if you think you have to lie in Bush's favor so that people will believe you, then what? When people *do* start to believe you, will you be stuck with your lies? Will you have to weasel around to tell the truth without admitting you were lying before, or keep telling the lies, or admit you were lying earlier, or what?

If you ever become important enough to have a reputation, having a reputation for telling the truth is very very valuable. It's sad we don't have more politicians with that reputation. I remember how much respect Goldwater had for that. People who didn't like his politics respected him for it, and a lot of things were a lot easier for him because he could tell people things and they'd simply believe that he meant it. While with almost everybody else, they just didn't know.

Are the benefits of trying to do a lot of spin really worth it? Particularly when you're competing with the american grandmaster who has tremendous resources....