Pages

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Speaking truth to power

One of the current objections to Palin is that she has exaggerated her record as a reformer. For example, that she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.

Now, unlike all the scurrilous attacks on her and her family, at least that’s a legitimate issue to raise. Comparing a politician’s claims to his actual record is fair game.

Speaking for myself, I think it’s a penny-ante issue. Not something I’d vote on. But I’ll use it to discuss some larger issues.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that she did exaggerate her record as a reformer. What should we make of that?

First of all, I don’t necessarily blame a politician who schmoozes the political establishment and cuts some deals on the way up the ladder. I’m more interested in what a politician does once he (or she) assumes a position of power. Does the politician continue business as usual? Or does he challenge the corrupt status quo?

It’s almost impossible to assume a position of power if you pick a fight with almost everyone in power. So I understand if a politician is more compromising in his rise to power. You’ll never get to the top if you alienate everyone above you.

I’m more inclined to judge a politician by what he does after he’s made it, and not what he does on the way up.

Of course, that doesn’t justify winning at any cost. You have to draw some lines.

Then there’s the question of honesty. Most politicians exaggerate. Do I have a problem with that? Depends.

I have low expectations for politicians. So it doesn’t surprise me or shock me or disappoint me.

And it doesn’t bother me personally since I’m not personally responsible for another man’s character.

There’s a reason that most politicians lie to one degree or another. The political culture punishes candor rather than rewarding candor.

Suppose a candidate for president were to say, “I’m not running as the education president. If you read the Constitution, that’s not in my job description!”

Do you think he could still win?

Suppose he were to say, “I’m not running as the economist-in-chief. That’s no part of my Constitutional job description!”

Do you think he could still win?

Or suppose he simply pointed out that a president doesn’t control a global economy. That’s beyond his power even if he wanted to.

Do you think he could still win?

Or what if he said, adjustable mortgage rates can go up as well as down. That’s what makes them adjustable. It’s a gamble. A roll of the dice. You win some, you lose some.

Do you think he could still win?

Suppose he were to say, “If you choose to live in a dangerous part of the country, you do so at your own risk. Don’t expect Uncle Sam to bail you out!”

Do you think he could still win?

Politicians are generally dishonest in varying degrees, and that’s because the electorate requires them to be dishonest to some degree. Most voters don’t want honest politicians. Year after year they vote for candidates who make campaign promises which they obviously can’t keep and won’t keep and have no intention of keeping.

Or take judicial nominations. Senators ask nominees trip-wire questions. They want to trap the nominee into admitting that a “Constitutional right” which is nowhere in the Constitution is, in fact, a Constitutional right.

If they successfully extract that confession from the nominee, they will then use it to discredit the nominee. As a result, nominees give evasive answers to trip-wire questions.

Or suppose Bush is privately of the opinion, knowing now what he didn’t know then, that if he had to do it all over again, he wouldn’t invade Iraq. What if he were to admit that, with the benefit of hindsight, it may have been a serious miscalculation.

(At the moment I’m not taking a position on the Iraq war—I’m just floating a hypothetical case.)

Would he be praised for his newfound capacity for self-criticism? Or would his moment of unguarded candor be ruthlessly exploited by his political opponents?

Do I think it’s a good thing that politicians lie to us? No. But they lie to us because most voters vote for the best liar. The candidate who tells them the lies they want to hear. So there’s a lot of blame to go around.

8 comments:

  1. Mr. Manata and other Triablogue team members,

    Could you please put this article on atheism in your blog roll? Google currently ranks the article #5 for the search atheism and several defenders of Christianity who have published Christian apologetic books or have earned doctorates have endorsed the article.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Does anybody else find this post difficult to swallow? You're literally saying "do evil that good may abound". I say stick with theology/philosophy...your politics are awful.

    Palin is a part of the problem when it comes to pork...that's why she's more of a pig with lipstick than a pitbull.

    Palin on earmarks in Wasilla

    McCain opposed Palin earmarks 3 times in past

    Palin's record opposite of what McCain/Pain campaign states

    She is not a reformer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ANTIPELAGIAN SAID:

    “You're literally saying ‘do evil that good may abound’."

    And you’re a very careless reader. Try responding to what I actually said, not your antagonistic caricature.

    “Palin is a part of the problem when it comes to pork...that's why she's more of a pig with lipstick than a pitbull.”

    I already did a post on earmarks.

    “She is not a reformer.”

    That’s a false, all-or-nothing statement. She went along with the system in some respects, but challenged the system in others.

    I’d add that NPR and the LA Times are organs of the liberal media. Why don’t you try to be more evenhanded in your sources?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve,
    I read your post carefully...and you seem to think our politicians ought to be given a pass when it comes to doing what is right...they function on a different moral code than the rest of us, apparently. That's where I got: "do evil that good may abound"?

    After all, you said:
    First of all, I don’t necessarily blame a politician who schmoozes the political establishment and cuts some deals on the way up the ladder. I’m more interested in what a politician does once he (or she) assumes a position of power. Does the politician continue business as usual? Or does he challenge the corrupt status quo?

    So after ascending the ladder via evil rungs, politicians ought to kick it away? How will others ascend said evil in order to oppose it?

    I appreciate what you have to say in your earmarks post, but it doesn't change the fact that Palin's administration in Wasilla hired a Washington lobbyist...she got a *ton* of tax dollars. Do you think Wasilla paid that much into Federal taxes to justify it?

    In regard to two liberal sources...NPR gets some things right...are you suggesting they reported inaccurate figures? Are you suggesting McCain didn't oppose Palin 3 times as the L.A. Times reports?

    Even if NPR and the L.A. Times are correct, you've already said you won't blame a politician for schmoozing his way up the ladder...so really, don't you mean to say:

    "So Palin got a ton of Federal money...way more than her constituents paid into...now she says she's opposed to that"

    ReplyDelete
  5. ANTIPELAGIAN SAID:

    “I read your post carefully...and you seem to think our politicians ought to be given a pass when it comes to doing what is right...they function on a different moral code than the rest of us, apparently.”

    i) One of my points is that it’s hypocritical for pundits (or voters) to attack a politician for a lack of honesty when the same folks will reward a dishonest politician by voting for him if he makes campaign promises that he’s obviously in no position to keep while, on the other hand, punishing another politician by voting against him if he’s too candid. It’s a hypocritical standard.

    ii) There are also mitigating circumstances. Take my example of judicial nominees. If a nominee will be penalized for giving the right answer, for speaking the truth, then the questioner is not entitled to a straight answer. He’s entitled to an evasive answer.

    If, say, a judicial nominee believes that abortion is not a Constitutional right, and if admitting that abortion is not a Constitutional right will guarantee that no nominee with that viewpoint will ever be confirmed by the senate, then the corruption of the confirmation process has forced the nominee to be less than forthcoming about his true views.

    “So after ascending the ladder via evil rungs, politicians ought to kick it away? How will others ascend said evil in order to oppose it?”

    i) Every compromise is not a moral compromise. And there’s no moral imperative to pick a fight with everyone you disagree with. You need to be prudent. To pick the battles you can win.

    ii) If, after you reach a certain position of power, you use your power to reform the system as best you can, then those who come after you don’t have to take the same route on the way up.

    “I appreciate what you have to say in your earmarks post, but it doesn't change the fact that Palin's administration in Wasilla hired a Washington lobbyist...she got a *ton* of tax dollars. Do you think Wasilla paid that much into Federal taxes to justify it?”

    When state taxpayers are forced to fork over so much of their income to the Feds, I think it’s better than they get some of it back than get none of it back.

    “Are you suggesting McCain didn't oppose Palin 3 times as the L.A. Times reports?”

    I don’t care. For one thing, McCain is a senator and Palin is a major turned governor. They were representing different constituencies at the time, with different responsibilities.

    Anyway, this is not the issue I’m voting on. The McCain campaign is going to emphasize the aspects of his record and hers that make them electable.

    That doesn’t necessarily reflect their own priorities. And that doesn’t reflect my priorities.

    They may personally think other things are more important, but if that’s what’s important to the voter, that’s what they will emphasize. There’s nothing wrong with accentuating things you actually believe in to help get you elected even if you yourself might rate the priorities somewhat differently.

    “You’ve already said you won't blame a politician for schmoozing his way up the ladder.”

    My actual statement was a good deal more qualified. For someone who objects to dishonest campaigning, it would behoove you to lead by example and not distort what I said.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve,
    I actually agree with your post when it comes to principled compromises...I do not think that is a fitting description of what Palin did as mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska.

    That's why I linked those articles. She did not "schmooze" her way to the top...in fact, it looks like she alienated a lot of people to get to the top.

    You and I agree...if someone gets to the top making practical compromises (not moral ones) then that's one thing...but Palin doesn't fit this description.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But they lie to us because most voters vote for the best liar. The candidate who tells them the lies they want to hear. So there’s a lot of blame to go around.

    Excellent article Steve.

    Voters should be apportioned some of the blame since they reward deceptive behavior by voting for deceivers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Steve ,I have been reading your blog for years now. I just created my blog today and wanted to ask you a question which is off topic, you mentioned before in your article about mother teresa that you wouldnt give much allowance to pope benedict xvi,raymond brown and karl rahner if they are saved unlike mother teresa , does that mean that it is nearly impossible for a RC clergy who is consistent with RC theology to be saved?, what about Eastern Orthodox priests?, also are all evangelicals who converted to Romanism and Eastern Orthodoxy lost ?you think there are elect RC priests even if they dont embrace solafide, I am from the Phillippines and just wanted to be clear about this since most people I talk to are catholics

    ReplyDelete