There was a day, before on-demand, before Netflix, before Blockbuster Video, before even HBO, when missing a movie in it theatrical release meant you had to wait for the television networks to broadcast it. Since the networks were subject to FCC regulations and couldn’t air “inappropriate” content (including violence, nudity, sexual situations, foul language and George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words, movies would routinely be “edited for television.” Such edits, carried out on R-rated movies, could be so severe that they’d render the movies incomprehensible. So, with an eye towards television broadcasting, movie companies would either have alternate versions of scenes shot with TV-appropriate language, have the movie’s actors record “clean” dubs for editing in, or at times have other voice actors dub in clean words.

Much hilarity has often ensued from the verbal contortions taken to clean movies up for television. One of my favorites, often quoted back-and-forth with my brother, is the substitution of the word “bamboozle” for “bullshit” in The Blues Brothers. After Jake was released from prison and found out Elwood had not kept in contact with the band as he had been telling Jake during his incarceration, Jake accused Elwood of lying.

Elwood: I took the liberty of bullshitting you.
Jake: You lied to me.
Elwood: It wasn’t lies, it was just bullshit.

A minor bit, made memorable only by the ridiculous substitution of “bamboozling” and “bamboozled.”

In this election season, where we are being buried by a combination of empty and conflicting political promises and naked lies, it’s worthwhile making the same distinction regarding the words that come out of politicians’ mouths.

First the bamboozling. Politicians routinely promise us the moon, knowing full well that they’re either not going to be able to deliver or that they have very little intention of devoting time and political capital to fulfill many of those promises. Many, if not most, voters know this, and accept the excessive and ridiculous promises as part of the political “dance.” The big “things are gonna be great if you elect me” are part of this, as are many promises made during campaigns.

Then, the lying. Lies are more specific. They either claim something that isn’t true or deny something that is. They may be forward-looking, as in “you can keep your doctor,” or they may be historical, as in “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

We might excuse bamboozling because it doesn’t rise to the level of lying, and because anyone who is paying attention knows that politicians routinely break the broad, vague promises they make on the campaign trail. We mustn’t, however, excuse lies, because lies are a deliberate violation of the public trust (and, at times, the law).

The bamboozler isn’t a prince, he isn’t Honest George, he isn’t Honest Abe. He’s selling himself with exaggeration and bullshit. In other words, he’s a politician. Tigers don’t change their stripes, scorpions always sting frogs, and politicians bamboozle. It’s on us to decide how much of a pol’s bag of bamboozle is legitimate, and we make that decision when we contribute, when we advocate, and when we vote.

The liar, on the other hand, is reprehensible. The liar isn’t exaggerating or engaging in puffery. The liar is flat-out violating what it means to be a public servant and a representative of the people. The liar is self-serving and cares only about self-preservation and self-advancement. The liar relies on those who’ve been supporting the liar in the past not wanting to be proven wrong, not wanting to appear foolish, and not wanting to believe that they could have been taken in by a liar.

The liar’s apologists, those who aren’t simply blinding themselves to the lies, pretend there’s no difference between lies and bamboozling. There is. A great big gaping chasm of a difference. When we excuse and accept liars’ lies or when we pretend that they’re simply a means to a desired end, we destroy the very fabric of our society and government’s relation to it. We stain our nation and dishonor our fellow citizens.

Yes, Elwood lied. But, Elwood wasn’t a politician, beholden to those who elected him while wielding power over them. Political liars are dangerous because they are in charge of everything. If they are given a pass on their lies, why shouldn’t they feel free to lie again? Why wouldn’t they feel emboldened, bulletproof, and invincible? Why, most importantly, would they feel obligated to represent the voters, rather than simply do whatever they wanted?

Tolerance of bamboozling isn’t nice, but it’s not the road to corruption and destruction. Tolerance of lying is.

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.