[John J. Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth about Lying in International Politics, Oxford University Press, 2011]
Professor John Mearsheimer is perhaps the most well-known political scientist in the world today. This is due in large part to his many appearances on important podcast platforms regarding Israel’s war on Iran. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in the University of Chicago’s prestigious department of political science. His teaching and research are in the field of international relations. In addition to this book, I have purchased two of his other books that I look forward to reading: Liddell Hart and the Weight of History (1988) and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy with Stephen M. Walt (2007).
The topic of lying is limited in the book to international affairs, a topic that is relatively underdeveloped in political science literature, despite its empirical relevance. Political lying in the domestic realm is rampant, even epidemic, and, of course, long standing. Politicians in a democratic setting lie about their campaign promises and daily activities on a regular basis. Perhaps this is something that the majority of voters just assume to be a constant and uncontrollable state of affairs.
It is interesting that Mearsheimer uses the example of the US’s lies about Saddam Hussain to introduce the subject of the book. While 3 out of the 4 listed lies are clearly true, the first and primary lie is open to interpretation. The “lie” was the Bush administration claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction but never were able to reveal any evidence of such WMDs after conquering the nation.
The reason I hesitate to blame the Bush administration is that the US and the UK governments did provide Saddam with WMD in his previous invasion of Iran, and he even gassed his own people! The Reagan administration’s provision of Saddam with WMD led me to accept the notion that Saddam did have WMDs and I was mightily surprised they could find no evidence. What kind of dictatorship, empire, or fascist state would renounce and dispose of their WMDs and production facilities?
Mearsheimer tries to establish an objective rather than moralistic analysis. Here, some lies are purposeful and in the public good, such as when a small nation interacts (and lies) with a powerful empire. He also acknowledges that lies can backfire and he explores those implications as well.
He also acknowledges that, in the Kantian and Augustinian perspectives, lying is always wrong but that with the utilitarian perspective, lying may have a worthy public purpose. He pursues the utilitarian route, without developing the strategy of long-term commitment to telling the truth, or at least no outright lying. Surely there must be some utilitarian benefits from such a policy. He further narrows his analysis to strategic lying and sets aside selfish lies that politicians tell for their personal benefit.
Subsequent analysis explores what types of lies are told, the reasons why politicians lie in international relations, the conditions which increase or decrease the likelihood of lying, and the costs and benefits of lying. Even if you disagree with the author’s approach, it is a small book, and you can confront the facts about political lying in international relations on your own terms. If nothing else, a majority of the lies covered involve Israel, the United States, the Middle East, and the Cold War, so that coverage is very relevant and revealing to the events of our day.
There is also a brief mention of how lying might have played a role in early America involving the Constitutionalist Coup. The Articles of Confederation government was able to defeat the world’s greatest economic and military superpower of the time, but in the post-Revolutionary War period politicians sought through extra-legal means to change the format of government to that of a was more centralized and powerful form and one that was much more susceptible to the corrupting effects of the moneyed interests. Mearsheimer appears to support the public good argument in support of the coup.
In support of the coup, a whole slew of political lies and half-truths were circulated before the convention and during the ratification process in support of displacing our form of government. The “reasons” for the coup that I have investigated, such as the tariffs and inflation issues, are simply not true and new constitutional solutions actually made things worse. Mearsheimer seems to have fallen for the lies taught in high school and college, believing the “public interest” explanation.
Some political lies have been exposed but are still largely held to this day. For example, in the case of the Zionist expulsion of Palestinians in 1948. The original story told in the US, Israel, and elsewhere is that the Palestinians voluntarily left their homes and fled the country in anticipation of the Arab states invading and killing all the Israelis and laying waste to the whole territory. In fact, Israel defeated the Palestinians and ethnically cleansed the territory by driving most of the survivors out.
Other historical lies have been fully uncovered, revealed, and are almost laughable. The author quotes Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense that helped get us into the Vietnam War which resulted in uncountable deaths. He said that it was “inconceivable that anyone even remotely familiar with our society and system of government could suspect the existence of a conspiracy.”
To end on a positive note, while McNamara’s claim might have seemed correct before the assassination of President Kennedy and the Vietnam War, it was far less so by the end of that war and is even less believed now. In fact, the percentage of Americans who believe that everything politicians say and do is a conspiracy against the public is quickly rising. Even in utilitarian terms, that trend can be seen as a good thing.
