Why Can Republicans Lie With Impunity?

Hunter makes an excellent argument about Palin:

So she lied. Baldly and repeatedly. McCain is now on a multistate tour, repeating the very same lies -- and for Republicans, they are applause lines. Huzzah to the "anti-pork" governor whose state is more dependent on pork than any other state. Hooray for the "anti-earmarks" candidate who made a name for herself as a champion of the earmark.

The question is: what of it?

There is absolutely no penalty for lying, in politics. None. Zip. Nada. Sarah Palin could stand atop a stage and declare herself moon-goddess of Endor, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Yes, the papers would correct her. There would be a few cable stories on how there was no prior record of her being declared a moon-goddess. In the end, however, it would not matter, and it would not matter because Republicans have decided that it does not.

For Republicans, there is no longer any moral taboo whatsoever against lying outright. The only relevant question is whether the lie is effective -- not whether it should have been done in the first place.

Hunter believes this signifies the end of the Republican Party:

So what of it, if Sarah Palin says crooked things with a straight face? Name me one Republican who will object. Name me one -- just ONE -- diehard conservative who will be angry at the lie, instead of praising her for it. To hell with facts, there is another election to be won.

This is why I consider the Republican Party to be, at this point, a wrecked party. There is no self-consistent philosophy other than the acquisition and protection of their own power: there are certainly no moral or ethical boundaries that the party will internally enforce. John Edwards, a Democrat, had his political career effectively terminated when news of an affair came to light; a Republican can visit a prostitute wearing a diaper, and find himself easily forgiven. You can lie, you can staff your government with morons and ideologues, you can give a speech saying one thing while doing the exact opposite (a Bush specialty, in his State of the Union speeches). We bemoan constantly the Democrats' failure to keep a unified front, in order to pass a more meaningful agenda -- but you would be hard pressed to find even a single, lone Republican in Washington willing to buck the moral collapse of their own party. Such people once existed: they were voted out of office. All that remain are "mavericks" like McCain, figures who will countermand every previous belief in order to regain the support of his own party.

One problem we have is our language doesn't have a word to properly describe McCain's behavior. Republicans can call him a "maverick" because it's the closest word we have to describe someone who's not predictable and doesn't stick to his positions.

We have other words like hypocrite, but that assumes a starting moral position that is subsequently betrayed; since McCain had no starting moral position, it's impossible for him to betray it.