Lies, bluster and totalitarianism

Submitted by Dan Simon (United States), Jul 23, 2012 at 01:46

As I pointed out during "Baghdad Bob"'s fifteen minutes of fame, his style of surrealistic bluster is neither rare, nor new, nor particular to the Middle East. It's actually an old, familiar tool of tyrants the world over, throughout history--witness, for example, the many paeans in ancient texts to the miraculous gifts, godlike feats and invincible powers of contemporary kings.

The most obvious use of such bombast is to bluff potential external adversaries out of attacking or otherwise challenging the blusterer's domain. But at the same time, it serves another valuable purpose: intimidating potential internal dissidents or rivals. For the latter, utterly ludicrous claims from the ruler present a painful dilemma: either pretend that the ruler's nonsense is not only plausible but actually true; or express doubt about it--thereby explicitly challenging his absolute rule, and risking his wrath. Those who choose the path of honesty thus expose themselves and their intentions--with all the implied consequences--while those who choose the more prudent path of acquiescence in brazen lies end up implicitly reinforcing the tyrant's aura of absolute power much more strongly than they would by, say, leaving a fairly plausible falsehood unchallenged. Either way, the tyrant wins.

Whether the autocrats' minions who spout nonsense about their leaders actually believe their own lies--let alone whether the listening public does--is thus quite beside the point. The point is, rather, the message behind the nonsense: "my leader is powerful enough to compel me to say utterly ridiculous things on his behalf--and if you're wise, you'll accept his compulsion, just as I did".

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".