Tags for This Article:

Media (3291)  Democracy (1945)  Voting (1676)  Truth (1660)  Lies (1290)  Politicians (1017)  Reform (582)  Funding (293) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
November 20, 2007 at 07:06:17

Promoted to column top on 11/20/07:
First Woman, First Black, First Latino, or First Honest President?

by Joel S. Hirschhorn     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 

Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

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?

 1  |  2

 

www.delusionaldemocracy.com

Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www.delusionaldemocracy.com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution, beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments. He is Chair of the Independent Party of Maryland.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 comments

A writer is a rogue goose. All other gees fly in a flock formation; every goose knows his place and time for honking. The rogue goose is undisciplined. He leaves the formation indiscriminately to have a look at it from aside. He roams back and forth, takes a peep at the leader, honks a little bit from behind, distracts everyone and writes on what he sees. Time passes and as he wants to return back to his place he discovers someone else there. Thus he either has to wait until they land for rest...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Mark SashineA writer is a rogue goose. All other gees fly in a flock formation; every goose knows his place and time for honking. The rogue goose is undisciplined. He leaves the formation indiscriminately to have a look at it from aside. He roams back and forth, takes a peep at the leader, honks a little bit from behind, distracts everyone and writes on what he sees. Time passes and as he wants to return back to his place he discovers someone else there. Thus he either has to wait until they land for rest...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Honesty

'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'

That was very well said except that.. it was said before in Greece, Rome,  France, England, Russia..  All societies balance between 'honest work for honest pay' and '  I am honest until proven otherwise.' This is not new. What is new  though is the damage done by these people.

The US  is facing the identitiy crisis: who are we and who is in control ( this one is the painful one).  This has nothing to do with democracy- it has everything to do  with interests and religions.  Deep down we all  are scared of someone else and  deep down we ( honesty, please), or at least many of us would  agree to any govt  which consists of the people we think are  like us: white males  want white males, Latinos want a Latino, Jews want Lieberman, women want a tight butt or  something in the skirt... As soon as most  of us do not face the real tough problems of survival ( or at least that is what we are told) we will  indulge our animalistic instincts in the 'privacy of our own homes' and that privacy is exactly what killed  those giant civilizations before  us- it became a masturbation instead of real sex, illusion instead of reality,  blubbery instead of real talk and cowardice instead of courage. All of that is  not new. The nuclear weapons and the consequences of  the inevitable painful transformations are.

Honesty does not make people happy. And as soon  as it is so, as soon as people know that and nobody told them otherwise they will prefer 'I am honest until proven otherwise' to 'honest work for honest pay'. Great man John O'Hara invented that mantra.

by Mark Sashine (54 articles, 19 quicklinks, 252 diaries, 3603 comments) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 8:21:36 AM
 


Lane Filler, newspaper editor and columnist, Spartanburg SC
lane fillerLane Filler, newspaper editor and columnist, Spartanburg SC

Huckabee and the election

Anyone interested in a funny (but it really happened) column about what Huckabee is really like face-to-face should try:

http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14

by lane filler (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 8:25:11 AM
 


Voluntarily retired California county elected official.
Shirley BianchiVoluntarily retired California county elected official.

How to elect a Republican

As a retired politician, I truly resent the statement that all politicians are dishonest.  Some are more so -- some are less so. 

If we liberals stay home and do not vote, the Republicans have won by default.  Great way to go!!

by Shirley Bianchi (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 95 comments) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 12:10:23 PM
 


Richard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.
Richard MynickRichard Mynick is a US citizen who, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, noticed something disturbing about how the 2000 election was decided, & felt it augured poorly for democracy.

Please tell us how things would be different, if Republicans

would have retained their majority in Congress in Nov '06.

You write, "If we liberals stay home and do not vote, the Republicans have won by default.  Great way to go!!"

Why would that be any worse than what we see before us?

Also, you seem to be using the word "liberal" as a synonym for "good." It's not. So-called "liberals" vote for military budgets in the exact same way that "conservatives" do. "Liberals" are not noticeably more opposed to torture than conservatives. They don't seem to defend the Constitution more than conservatives -- indeed, some conservatives defend it more strongly than many liberals (though neither group defends it all that well). The 2 groups are only marginally different on issues affecting corporate power.

Rather than reacting to the article as though it were a personal insult to you as a recovering politician, why not give some thought to the issues of substance that it raises?

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1230 comments) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 1:31:13 PM
 


Voluntarily retired California county elected official.
Shirley BianchiVoluntarily retired California county elected official.

Response

How silly of me to assume that not everyone subscribes to an abhorence of 'collective guilt'.  Not all Republicans are bad, of course.  Nor are all liberals bad.  Nor do all women respond to comments personally.  But the Republicans who are in office now certainly are not supporting the Constitution nor our civil rights.  By not voting and seeing to it that the Republicans who happen to subscribe to the same philosophy as those who are in office now, we will soon be writing our own, "Cry, My Beloved Country."

As to your assertion that I should not be offended by someone painting all politicians with the same brush personally, why should I not!  I am just as offended by someone painting all responders to articles such as these as stupid.  Any blanket statement offends me, as it should you.

by Shirley Bianchi (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 95 comments) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 3:01:16 PM
 


I am a retired civil servant. I was an electronics technician.
BarkerI am a retired civil servant. I was an electronics technician.

advertising

You bring up the interesting point - campaign donations.  Candidates rely on massive sums of money to get elected.

The people I voted for in 1996 did not have hugh campaign sums.  Alan Keyes did not have money, and Ralph Nader and his running mate were not wealthy either.  I voted for them knowing they would not win, and my vote would help them in future elections.

Does money influence votes?  There are candidates I will not vote for regardless of their money and advertising, such as Sen. Clinton. I ask you - at the end of election day, are people satisfied with voting for the biggest spenders?

by Barker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 120 comments) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 9:41:45 AM
 

 

6 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

End of the Road to Moronity by Rand Clifford

"Oops, We Meant $7 TRILLION!" What Hank and Ben Are Up to and How They Plan to Pay for It All by Ellen Brown

The Controversy Surrounding Obama's Birth by adeeba folami

George W. Bush Belongs In Prison by Joel S. Hirschhorn

10 INDISPENSABLE BROADCAST JOURNALIST'S WORDS/PHRASES by Vince Williams

Wal Mart Stampede: Where's Woody Guthrie? by 2kiwipress

Arlo Guthrie, Pete Seeger and families at Carnegie Hall Posted by 2kiwipress

Bush White House: That Ain't No Christmas Tree, It's a Chanukah Bush by Sandy Sand

Leading lives of quiet desperation this holiday season by Sheryl Letzgus McGinnis

Vampires in America by Rob Kall

Go To Top 50 Most Popular