Lying as Context-Dropping—and How To Become Its Victim

Ayn Rand wrote: “Context-dropping is one of the chief psychological tools of evasion.” And it goes hand-in-hand with lying, when a speaker quotes his opponent and guides you to accept his own desired interpretation of the quotation by stripping it of all context.

That was among the lessons in epistemology that Ayn Rand illustrated by reference to presidential election campaigns. Another lesson was the “stolen concept,” which she exposed with the memorable example of “extremism,” a charge constantly leveled at Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election to attack his insistence on applying principles consistently.

In that campaign, and subsequently, however, she pointed how a candidate can “enable” such attacks, make himself vulnerable by his lack of clarity, hedging of his position, and ambiguity.

I have been through campaigns since 1960, when John F. Kennedy (D-MA) ran against Richard M. Nixon (R-CA). My impression is that today’s sheer, blatant lying into the camera on prime-time TV has reached a whole new level. That applies not only to candidates, of course, but to reporters and commentators throughout the media. Front and center is the technique of context-dropping.

We have a presidential contender today who to an extent new in my experience invites such attacks not only by lack of clarity but off-the-cuff remarks--perhaps intended to dramatize a point—that even in context leave his supporters shaking their heads. For his opponents and critics such remarks are invitations to distortion, including context-dropped.

There are few issues in the 2024 contest between President Joseph Biden and former President Donald Trump that could not be used to illustrate the technique of context-dropping and how to become its victim.

‍

Take one example: NATO

I will focus on a single recent example from President Biden’s June 10 press conference. At the outset, coming from a recent North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)) summit meeting, Biden told viewers that during Trump’s term as president he had endangered the NATO alliance and the security of Europe, increasing the likelihood of WWIII.

President Biden in his now-characteristic whisper said that Trump had told NATO members that the United States would not defend them if attacked by Russia—that is, he spurned critical NATO Article 5 that an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. Without that agreement, NATO is a dead letter.  

“He said that” repeated President Biden. He told a NATO leader that Russia could go ahead and attack his country. America would do nothing.

This is the White House Press room text of Biden’s remarks:

(Clears throat.) Excuse me.

Meanwhile, my predecessor has made it clear he has no commitment to NATO.  He’s made it clear that he would feel no obligation to ho- — honor Article 5.  He has already told Putin, and I quote, “do whatever the hell you want.”

In fact, the day after Putin invaded Ukraine, here’s what he said: It was “genius.” It was “wonderful.”  Some of you forgot that, but that’s exactly what he said.

Yes, Biden emphasized that he was quoting “exactly.” But what about the context of a remark? Is that important? President Biden does not think so.

And now the other side of the coin. I have been shocked at Trump’s obtuseness (or worse) in making remark after remark that sounds outrageous when quoted out of context. I know his dramatic political successes since 2015 (when he declared his candidacy on June 16), but can any politician shoot his mouth off, at will, knowing that every word he says will be interpreted by the mainstream media in the worst possible light—context be damned, just get Trump? In that light, Trump’s NATO remarks were shocking.

This is the “context.” At a meeting in 2014, NATO leaders set—reaffirmed—their commitment to paying their share for their mutual defense. The United States and a few other members had been paying the lion’s share for decades. The attitude was “let America do it.” At the meeting, however, they set a target contribution of 2% of their annual gross domestic product (GDP). At that time, only the United States, Greece, and Great Britain were meeting the target. Some 25 of the 28 members of NATO did not meet it.

These were the Obama-Biden years. And two years after that agreement, when Donald Trump entered the White House, only one additional member of NATO had complied with the agreed goal. One.

President Trump asked NATO nation leaders, in so many words: Do we have a deal or not? If you don’t keep your commitment to support the alliance, why do you think America will keep its commitment to Article 5?

Apparently, a NATO leader challenged President Trump. The details have not been reported, only the remarks most damaging to Trump. The leader asked if Mr. Trump meant that if Russia attacked his nation, which had not paid its contributions, America would not go to war?

The Wall Street Journal reported: “Trump, at a Feb. 10 campaign rally in South Carolina, recalled a conversation with an unnamed leader of a NATO member state who he said asked whether the U.S. would protect the leader’s country if it were attacked by Russia, even if it hadn’t met defense spending targets. Trump said he told the leader, ‘No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’"

In other words, Trump shot his mouth off. I would classify this as “wild talk.” But from what Mr. Biden said on July 10, you would believe President Trump officially had informed NATO that America would not keep its commitment to the alliance. Period. He would ignore Article 5. Period.

It does not exonerate Mr. Trump to report that his approach worked.  In Trump’s first year in office, only four NATO members kept their commitment. Three years later, by 2019, 10 members were keeping their commitments but more had arranged to keep their commitments by 2024—a total of $400 billion in pledged support. There were commentators, then, who said that Mr. Trump had saved the NATO alliance.

‍

“And I Quote…” (With Trump, it’s easy to do!)

President Biden went on. On February 24, 2022—two years into Mr. Biden’s presidency—Putin’s massed Red Army forces of tanks and troops rolled into Ukraine.

And President Biden said at the July 10 press conference, Trump "already told Putin and I quote, ‘Do whatever the hell you want.’ In fact, the day after Putin invaded Ukraine, here's what he said, ‘It was genius. It was wonderful.’"

Did Trump cringe, then, at having told the NATO leader that if he and others did not bother to support the Alliance, then, if Russia attacked them, he would tell Putin: “Do whatever the hell you want.” He was shooting his mouth off, but making a dramatic point. But was it matter for sarcasm--an attack on Europe? Is that a matter for dramatic ambiguity?

The Wall Street Journal reported the context. On a radio show, February 22, 2022, Trump explained:

"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine—of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent,” Trump said, adding, "Oh, that’s wonderful," sarcastically.

"So, Putin is now saying, ‘It’s independent,’ a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peace keeper. That’s the strongest peace force. … We could use that on our southern border," Trump said. "That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well. Very, very well."

Trump habitually makes it difficult to understand what he is saying. Is sarcasm like this a good idea when any words you say will be quoted for days, weeks, and years by grim-faced anchormen on prime-time media—quoting utterly out of context, in the most damaging light possible?

Will Anderson Cooper ever-ever mention: Mr. Trump appeared to be speaking sarcastically when he said: “Oh, that’s wonderful!” and “He’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper…”?

These were just Mr. Biden’s press conference remarks on NATO. He managed, by the way, to boast to viewers that during his administration, NATO members were flocking to pay their fair share. Yes, but is that the result of anything that President Biden did? Biden, who as one pundit wrote “walks softly but carries a big carrot”?

What is “reality” and “truth” anyway?

This dynamic plays out regarding every political issue, whether policy, attacking behavior, or indicting character. What is the value of “debate” in informing “our democracy” if truth is systematically evaded by context-dropping—among other things? Biden knows that Trump acted to strengthen NATO, not to gut it. He knows the truth.

But perhaps that assumes too much. I doubt that either Biden or Trump thinks much about philosophy, but anyone dealing with ideas today—at whatever“ retail” level—is inescapably affected by philosophy. And today, that philosophy is postmodernism.

Prof. Stephen Hicks in his enduring classic, Explaining Postmodern: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, makes these essential points (among others) about postmodernism (the summary is mine):

1.    Postmodernism is anti-realist, consistently maintaining that we cannot meaningfully speak of an independently existing reality.

2.    Postmodernism holds that neither reason nor any other method can attain objective knowledge of reality. The emphasis is upon subjectivism.

3.    For Postmodernists, although all truth is “relative,” and no one is “right” or “wrong,” the imperative in ethics and politics is to identify and fight for groups perceived to be oppressed.

To exemplify these generalizations, Prof. Hicks quotes leading postmodernists:

“It is meaningless to speak in the name of—or against—Reason, Truth, or Knowledge.” (Michel Foucault)

“…talk of correspondence [between our statements and reality] brings back just the idea my sort of philosopher wants to get rid of, the idea that the world or the self has an intrinsic nature.” (Richard Rorty)

“Reason and power are the same.” (Jean-Francois Lyotard)

Postmodernism “seeks not to find the foundation and conditions of truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.” (Frank Lentricchia)

“Reason is the ultimate language of madness.”(Foucault)

Does Mr. Biden consciously believe or espouse these notions? Obviously not, but he has operated all his professional life in an intellectual, cultural, and social milieu shaped by successive generations of U.S. college and university graduates indoctrinated with postmodernist ideas in the humanities and social sciences—and in professions such as teaching, journalism, law, higher education and scholarship, and public policy and politics, to name but a few.

NATO agreements, summits, policies, conversations—what is real? What is true? Donald Trump is a “threat to our democracy,” he is the scourge of the oppressed, he says all kinds of wild things. What is the truth”? That he must not win the election and become president, again. The “truth” is that the goal is to stop him. That is the “context.”

It is easy to justify when there is no objective reality anyway, when reason is ineffective, when truth is relative, and when political power has been your whole life.

‍