First
Woman, First Black, First Latino, or First Honest President?
By Joel S. Hirschhorn
21 November, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The
phrase honest politician has become an oxymoron. We should not be impressed
by the prospect of having the first woman, first black or first Latino
president. What would be far more radical would be to have the first
honest president, if not ever, certainly in a very long time.
Presidents in recent memory
have been excellent liars, contributing mightily to our culture of dishonesty.
Bill Clinton had the audacity to look right into the TV camera and blatantly
lie to the American public. George W. Bush has probably set a record
for official lying, though it might take many decades to fully document
them. Carl M. Cannon saw the bigger truth: “posterity will judge
[George W. Bush] not so much by whether he told the truth but whether
he recognized what the truth actually was.”
Things have gotten so bad
that hardly anyone can even imagine an honest president. But if we don’t
expect an honest president, how can we expect to trust government?
Don Nash made these insightful
observations, “If America was ever faced with a politician who
spoke truth to the people, no-one would know what to make of the oddity.
This politician could probably not get elected to office. Sadly, Americans
can’t handle the truth. …Lies, then, are the consequential
destruction of American democracy. Little by very little, the lies and
lying politicians have chipped away at America’s Constitution
and the American form of government.”
Rampant lying by politicians
is a major reason why so many Americans have stopped paying attention
to politics, stopped hoping for political reforms, and stopped voting
Lying politicians probably
tell themselves that the public cannot take the truth. Many convince
themselves (lie to themselves) that lies of omission are not really
serious like lies of commission.
Just how bad things have
become is shown by the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the state
of Washington that lying politicians are protected by the 1st Amendment.
They are free to lie as much as they can get away with. Free speech
apparently is a green light for lying, even though it leads to rotten,
dishonest government.
During this primary season
it is worthwhile to look at Republican and Democratic candidates from
this honest-president perspective. A truly honest president would have
the greatest loyalty to honoring the rule of law, the Constitution and
the needs of the public, rather than what we have grown used to: greatest
loyalty to their party and the moneyed interests funding it. If the
nation really wants a change president, honesty should be a requirement
On the Republican side, Ron
Paul looks like the most honest candidate. Straight-talk John McCain
still seems to have better than average honesty, and Mike Huckabee seems
relatively honest, except when he talks about his record on taxes as
governor. On the Democratic side, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel look
the most honest, with Bill Richardson running close. Among third party
presidential candidates in recent history, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan
stand out for their honesty, which clearly was not sufficient to prevail
against liars.
Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson
and Mitt Romney are pretty comparable big-time, gold-medal Republican
liars. And with Romney we might get the first Mormon president, but
not an honest one. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, then the
most dishonest Democratic candidate will have prevailed. A Wall Street
Journal/NBC News poll found that only 34 percent of Americans view Senator
Clinton as honest. As to Barack Obama, viewed as 50 percent more honest
than Clinton in some polls, his statements about his upbringing, universal
health care, and campaign funding cast doubt on his honesty. Still,
he seems successful in selling himself as honest. Liars are bad, but
liars claiming to be honest are worse. Odds are that there will be no
honest Republican or Democratic presidential candidate to vote for in
2008.
An honest president would
threaten the corrupt, dishonest and rigged two-party political system,
so one getting a presidential nomination is improbable. How could an
honest person obtain financing for their campaign? How could they get
diverse groups to support their candidacy? Candidates tell different
groups what pleases them, and eventually contradict themselves. Flip-flopping
sounds bad, but is even worse when the new position is a lie.
Some may suggest that a candidate
does not have to be honest during campaigning, but only be honest once
elected president. But can someone with real character find it easy
to lie repeatedly during campaigning and then have the ability to stop
lying once elected? I think not. Besides, how can citizens detect the
potential honest president if that person is behaving like all normal
lying candidates during campaigns? A truly honest person must stand
out and be seen as exceptional by the public because of their habitual
honesty. Much of the appeal of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich is their
perceived honesty. But the candidates most likely to succeed attract
supporters for their policy positions, promises or ability to win, despite
not being seen as honest. That makes their supporters delusional. They
lie to themselves to justify their support.
This means that most people
reject choosing a candidate on the basis of their perceived honesty.
They knowingly choose dishonest politicians. Why?
Lies entertain. Honesty disturbs.
Honesty produces painful truths about the nation, government, and failed
public policies. Truth-telling politicians usually say things that people
would rather not hear and or think about.
Meanwhile the mainstream
media and pundits, promoting confrontation and horse races to entertain
and keep their audiences, are reluctant to call lying politicians liars.
Instead, they use oblique language and euphemisms to conceal the truth
about lying. They are as dishonest as the politicians they talk about.
How interesting it would be to have media people ask candidates something
like: Are you being the most honest person you can be in this campaign?
I don’t think the majority of dishonest ones would not say “yes.”
Instead, they would dance and blabber.
Tragically, Americans have
become used to lying politicians. Can our democracy survive when most
people believe that an honest president is both impossible and unnecessary?
Of course, honesty by itself
is no guarantee that someone will be a great president. Nor is it by
itself sufficient reason to vote for someone. But imagine if we insisted
that it be a necessary, minimum requirement for supporting politicians.
In the end, without honesty,
every reason we use to vote for someone is a joke. Delusional thinking
about candidates has produced our delusional democracy. Time to stop
voting for liars. Better to not vote at all. Voting for liars only encourages
more lies
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be
reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.