Selective Political Amnesia

Americans are not very good at recalling history.  Ask them when the Civil War took place and many cannot identify the century.  They surely cannot tell you much about the Great Depression or the president who presided over it.  It is the same with more recent events.

There is, however, an important qualification.  What people recollect is often linked to their political affiliations. Just as selective perception is a psychological phenomenon, so is selective memory.  We usually have an easier time remembering congenial episodes, such as those in accord with our political leanings.

Most Democrats, for instance, can summon up the details of the tape of Donald Trump boasting of his sexual exploits.  It is doubtful, however, that they can do the same for the accusations of rape Juanita Broderick leveled at Bill Clinton.  The first item makes them look virtuous, whereas the latter does the opposite and is repressed.

For me, a current episode drove home how biased these reflections can be.  By distorting what happened, inaccurate recollections can reinforce outright lies.  In this instance, former president Barack Obama revised history so egregiously that it was barely recognizable.  Nonetheless, his partisans remembered events the same way he did.

Not long ago, on his “gee whiz, wasn’t I a wonderful president” tour, Obama stopped off at Rice University.  There he explained that while most Americans did not realize it, production of oil and gas rose every year during his tenure in office.

Barack made it sound as if he deserved full credit for our becoming energy independent. Somehow his policies were responsible for this development.  His audience agreed.  They applauded warmly when he made this claim.  Yes, this assertion was true—except that those darned conservatives refused to admit it. 

Only it wasn’t true.  It wasn’t even close to true.  During his years in office, Obama did all he could to reduce the production of fossil fuels. In line with his belief that global warming was destroying the planet, he sought to make carbon based energy more scarce, while simultaneously subsidizing alternatives such as solar power.

 Barack attempted to achieve this in many ways.  For one thing, he blocked the Keystone pipeline.  Although a slew of studies concluded that this conduit was environmentally friendly, he set these aside whenever he was required to approve the project.

Then there was his practice of reducing the amount of government land open to oil and gas exploration.  He would not make this additional territory available to Big Oil.  Indeed, he would roll back what had previously been authorized.

Next was his campaign against fracking.  This novel technique for extracting crude oil and gas from what had once been regarded as played out wells dramatically increased our fuel reserves.  Nonetheless Obama sniped at it every inch of the way. He agreed with the critics who argued that it was dangerous for the atmosphere.

In fact, our former president made it a policy to criticize carbon-based products at every turn.  This included coal.  He did not care that this would put thousands of miners out of work or significantly increase the costs of energy to the consumer. 

Events on the ground plainly contradicted most of Obama’s contentions.  He did not mind.  He was proud of his skills at distorting reality.  Amazingly, his partisans did not notice how profoundly his words departed from what occurred.  They applauded what amounted to easily refuted lies.

The same blindness to other facts was on display when Obama bragged that no one had been indicted for criminal behavior during his administration.  Somehow he left out the part about how his Attorneys General refused to bring charges against obvious wrongdoers.

How could this be?  Wasn’t Barack aware of the revelations about attempts to manipulate the presidential election by FBI and DOJ operatives?  Of course, he was.  And what about the IRS suppression of conservative tax exemptions?  Ditto.  What actually mattered to him was whether he could make his denials sound persuasive.

The more important question was whether his audience realized they were being duped. Had they forgotten the evidence that contradicted their hero’s allegations?  My guess is that it was a little bit of selective amnesia and a willing suspension of disbelief.

Either way, our politics have lapsed into a netherworld of fiction.  For far too many Americans, the truth is less valuable than promoting their partisan interests.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University