Written by Andor Carnes   

Abraham Lincoln was brilliantly brief in his dissertations, and they reflected a deep command of the subject and the pulse of the greater need they served. He was a master of driving highly disparate and cross-purposed rivals toward a common goal that tapped not compromise or cooperation but rather their visceral instincts to kill or destroy something. One can direct and inspire a mob-mind with brevity and a direct nod to their thirst to terminate. He knew everything circled those terms.

This Lincoln strategy of leading engagement depends on four main factors that are truly rare in complete combination: The first is the true understanding of what it is to care, undirected, about the other. The second is the fundamental command of facts, how to assemble them and the knowledge of how to fairly evaluate them. The third is how to deliver only what is needed because of clarity and not out of disrespect. The fourth is knowing that the evil nature in those around you and whom you face is a powerful advantage for an honest man with the first three.

For a Politician who clearly does not have any of these four factors, simply lying and being brief about it is a way to appear knowledgeable, and caring, when there are no immediate and sustainable public avenues to expose their flaws. When the statements are brief, and the windows of opportunity to hear them and evaluate them are brief, then virtually anything can be said that will project command and caring, regardless of the true nature of the speaker.

Conversely, when a rare Politician has the first three factors but not the fourth, they tend to believe that logic will prevail, and that leads them, when faced with lies and the needs for decorum, to longer explanations of issues and considerations. They believe the chances for cooperation and useful compromise to prevail are proportional to the facts revealed.

For the public served, these two diametrically opposed Politicians will confuse, and history shows the public will gravitate to the least information believing it to be the true indicator of a deeper command of the subject. This public tendency is counter-intuitive and incredible; however, the paramount example of this will be written into the history books by the 2012 Presidential Campaigns.

Lincoln would have done well in our government but not with our contemporary public media setting, where the crushing number of people fooled by a brief lie gains a momentum of its own in the media.

When there is no way for the truth to continually erode specific lies in a very public and effective way, then brevity loses its place in public discourse for all but those who lie. Lincoln knew that without forums to prove your credible caring and command of the subject and with everything remaining brief, both one’s supporters and enemies would start to view him and his opponents as equal. That is our society today. Even the rebuttals and fact checks have to be brief. There is nowhere for credibility to take root. Everything is suspect; so ten words, whether true or false, ring the same.

If Lincoln teaches us anything from the grave, it has to be in part that retaining and fostering the public nature of sustainable truth is what allows brevity to govern fairly.