Summary

The article discusses the ethical dilemma faced by officials and public figures who support President Trump's false statements, particularly those related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the moral implications of doing so.

Abstract

The author reflects on a statement by Peter Navarro, who described President Trump's call to slow down COVID-19 testing as "tongue in cheek," suggesting insincerity or jest. The article scrutinizes the broader pattern of Trump's allies and officials endorsing his misleading claims, despite the potential health risks and consequences. It questions the point at which self-preservation and job security should give way to the greater good, such as the health and safety of the community. The piece ponders whether there is a threshold where the support of such significant lies becomes intolerable and whether those involved feel any shame or humiliation for their complicity. It also notes a shift where some former supporters of Trump's lies are now contradicting him, possibly due to economic self-interest or a change in public opinion.

Opinions

The author implies that Trump's comment about slowing down virus testing was not merely sarcastic but a lie with serious implications.
There is a criticism of the administration officials and others who back Trump's lies, suggesting they prioritize their jobs and re-election over truth and public health.
The article expresses skepticism about the sincerity behind the justifications provided for Trump's statements, such as claiming they were "tongue in cheek" or "alternative facts."
The author questions the morality of those who support Trump's lies, wondering if they ever admit to themselves or to Trump that they are backing falsehoods.
It is suggested that the support for Trump's lies is an implicit agreement to back any lie, regardless of its magnitude or potential harm.
The author is cynical about the motivations of those who have started to contradict Trump, believing they are acting primarily out of self-interest rather than a genuine concern for the truth.

Trump Knows They Know He’s Lying

The worst part is Trump knows they won’t say he’s lying.

Last night, I read the following in The New York Times:

Peter Navarro, the White House director of trade and manufacturing policy, said that Mr. Trump’s comment at the campaign rally about wanting to slow down virus testing had been “tongue in cheek.”

At the rally, Mr. Trump said: “When you do testing to that extent, you will find more cases. So I said to my people, ‘Slow the testing down, please.’” (The New York Times, 6/21/202, Brazil and the U.S. Drive New Coronavirus Infections)

I’d heard the tongue-in-cheek idiom many times before, and knew it conveyed sarcasm and irony. Still, English not being my native language, I decided to look it up.

Merriam-Webster defines it as: “characterized by insincerity, irony, or whimsical exaggeration.”

According to Wikipedia, the idiom “refers to a humorous or sarcastic statement expressed in a mock-serious manner.”

Tongue in cheek? For the love of God!

Navarro’s comment is just another instance of administration officials, politicians, businessmen, advisers, and “friends” backing Trump’s lies. And not just any lies, but lies that can lead to people dying.

I understand politicians want to be re-elected. I understand people want to keep their jobs. I really do. I don’t want to lose my job either. Neither do millions of other people, especially right now.

But is there no point at which the bigger picture, the greater good — in this case, the health and life of your neighbors, say— begins to sink in and matter more than your monthly paycheck?

When does supporting consequential lies begin to make you sick? When does one start to feel ashamed about, or at least humiliated by, playing along?

Do people in Navarro’s position at least tell DT, “Look man, I covered for you, but you were lying?”

Or is it just understood, “No matter how colossal, obvious or dangerous the lie, you will back it”?

Sadly, it’s the latter.

We have comments that validate lies: These are just alternative facts. He wasn’t imitating the disabled guy; that’s how he imitates everyone.

Justifications based on subtleties only the justifiers, experts on irony and jest (sarcasm here, btw), get: He didn’t mean it. It was tongue in cheek. He was joking and trying to make a point.

And the rationalizations that tell us directly “You will not get me to say anything at all”: I cannot psychoanalyze the President. I can’t speak to the President’s state of mind.

Most of us have been in a situation where a superior straight up lied and they knew we knew they were lying. Sometimes, we’ve played along. At times, we haven’t even confronted the superior after the fact.

Would we all back great lies if we worked for people in positions of great power?

Some politicians, advisers, and businesspeople DT previously counted on to support his lies have begun to contradict him, especially when it comes to COVID-19 lies.

I’m glad they are, even if they’re doing it mostly out of economic self-interest or political calculus, hedging their bets primarily because they detect a shift in public opinion.