Mark Twain knew a thing or two about politics and the human
experience. "A lie," he observed, "goes half way around the world
before the truth gets its boots on." Today, that lie goes around
the world twice, through two news cycles and then develops a life
of its own as accepted fact. It brings to mind another Twain
observation: "It's not what they don't know that bothers me, it's
what they know that ain't so."

The growth of twenty-four hour cable news and talk radio has
substantially changed political debate in America. For a number of
years, conservative political philosophy has dominated that
discourse. In many respects, conservative control of the airwaves
has lead to disdain for honest, intellectual and factual
discussion. But now, many liberal commentators and writers have
simply had enough. Like Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's
Network they have stood up, gone to the window and
announced, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this
anymore!"

BIG LIES, by political writer Joe Conason, is one of those books
that has begun to peel away and expose that element of conservative
politics that cares little for the truth. Recent months have marked
the publication of several books in this vein. LIES AND THE LYING
LIARS WHO TELL THEM by Al Franken was recently reviewed on
Bookreporter. Efforts by liberals Jim Hightower, Molly Ivins and
others have been or soon will be published. While Franken is more
entertainer than political pundit, Conason writes from the
perspective of a man who covers politics on a full time basis. He
writes for the New York Observer and Salon. Along
with Gene Lyons, Conason authored THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT, an
account of the actions of the right wing radicals who tried to
hound Bill Clinton out of the White House. Quite simply, he knows
of what he speaks.

In each of ten chapters, BIG LIES confronts what Conason believes
are the false notions that are currently essential elements of the
conservative mantra. In one chapter he attacks the notion that
"liberals control the media and misuse their influence to promote
left-wing policies." Conason shows that this assertion is simply
false. How? By resorting to a method that many conservative pundits
would find appalling --- reliance upon cold, hard facts. An
empirical study by Professor Geoffrey Nunberg of Stanford
University finds that it is liberal politicians who are more often
labeled than their conservative counterparts. In addition, Conason
points out numerous examples in the past two elections, where print
and electronic media found fault with liberal politicians when
similar actions by conservatives were ignored. Finally, Conason
goes through the roster of commentators appearing on the political
circuit. Just a list of the names coupled with their political
viewpoint establishes the myth of liberal domination.

Next, Conason takes on the notion that "conservatives truly love
America and support the armed forces while liberals are unpatriotic
draft dodgers." This canard is easy pickings. A review of the
resumes of conservative and liberal politicians and commentators
shows that liberals do not shirk their responsibility to their
country. In fact, many liberals have fought for their country and
are decorated veterans. While conservatives are equally patriotic,
Conason does point out the irony that some very brave people have
been maligned as unpatriotic by others who, when given the
opportunity, avoided service to their country. In 2002 Senator Max
Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who lost three limbs in the war, was
attacked by his opponent for being unpatriotic. Saxby Chambliss,
who defeated Cleland in the Georgia Senate race, avoided service in
Vietnam with four student deferments.

There is much more material in BIG LIES. While it is a well-written
and researched book, it faces the problem that many political books
of this nature must confront. The people who should read this book,
conservatives, will avoid it. In the same fashion, liberals eschew
reading books by conservative authors. Preaching to the choir is
the nature of political writing. Equally important in these
political books is their lack of a solution to the problem of the
sinking level of political discourse. Democracy thrives on robust
political debate. As both sides of the debate sink deeper and
deeper into the muck of personal political attacks, the quality of
discussion and of democracy also sink. Both sides of the political
spectrum need to address that dilemma. Democracy deserves that
effort from all its citizens. Its very survival rests upon
improving both the quality and civility of political debate.