Are politicians liars or worse?

[system]

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *

WOW. We should accept that politicians are liars because we are liars? This is by far the most interesting defense of Congress I have ever heard. While I can agree that at least some politicians truly want to do what they feel is good, then they come to power and find it to be an impossibility, I don’t agree that we should accept flaws in people just because we have them.

Striving is great. Achieving is another matter. Isn’t that what this religion thing has been about for, let’s say, two thousand years?

That’s the pot calling the kettle black? Well, the kettle is black, isn’t it? I don’t feel that it is an unreasonable request that our politicians act on their word. That word was why they were elected.

As I said:
(1) Politicians have to face up to cognitive dissonance. Not all of what people want is possible --and frequently wants, including your own, are mutually contradictory.
(2) Compromise is how non-authoritarian systems (and to an extent even authoritarian systems) work. That can be characterized as lying in some quarters. Purism is fun in theory, in fact it tends to get bloody. However, I see horse-trading as the way things get done, and that’s true in my experience in the private sector, albeit in large multinationals.
(3) Which word and how literally. What if the facts change? What about discretion?

I vote for my rep. in the hopes of reasonably honest representation of my views, but I understand my views have to be compared with the often quite contradictory views of my fellow citizens, so a bit of wiggling I expect.

Politicians should be better than the average Joe, you see, because they are controlling major portions of his life.

Better? Why? They’re not christ figures, they’re average joes elected to rep average joes. I don’t buy into this elites and platonic ideals crap. I’m voting for a joe not so different from myself. I long ago gave up on people being better than me. Some reasonable degree of honesty, fine. Better than the actual, living morality I see around me, nice to dream about, but I’ll settle for not being worse than average.

If they were just the same, there would be no need of them because, as you pointed out, we can lie to ourselves good enough without them.

That’s quite irrelevant. It’s a question of division of labor. I am quite capable of understanding legal issues and could, if I was so foolish as to wish to waste my time, work on some of the legal issues which come across my desk. But that’s why we have a legal officer in my corp. I pass it along. So too do I delegate governance to my representative. Like any contractor, I don’t expect perfection (oh how I wish for perfect, but…) but rather reasonable performance as compared to other choices. (in the case of government that might be a competing candidate or anarchy or whatever…) Not pretty but that’s reality, a bit messy.

Your argument lends itself better to why people wouldn’t need a government than in support of it.

I’ve done business in countries lacking governments, it ain’t pretty. No thank you, I’ll take the warty little democracy we have to the rule of the strongman and chaos. People need government.

Yes, they are only human. I can accept flaws in humans just as I accept them in myself. However, I feel that those flaws should not be of a political nature

Why is politics so different from any other subject?

To ask the people who control America to be honest…man, I would never picture that to be an item of debate. and yet, here we are.

What sense of honest? honest as in christ figures or honest as in reasonably honest compared to the folks around them (in reality not in self-perception)?

[Anachronism]

Have you ever seen a close play in a sporting event where the observers’ judgement of what happened was not determined by which team they are rooting for?

Thanks IzzyR, I think this is a great example of how this would apply to Joe Sixpack. So I guess it is human nature to act this way, that seems to be the best answer to my question so far.

[matt_mcl]

DEMOCRACY. …Democracy is not intended to be efficient, linear, logical, cheap, the source of absolute truth, manned by angels, saints, or virgins, profitable, the justification for any particular economic system, a simple matter of majority rule, or for that matter a simple matter of majorities. Nor is it an administrative procedure, patriotic, a reflection of tribalism, a passive servant of either law or regulation, elegant, or particularly charming.
Democracy is the only system capable of reflecting the humanist premise of equilibrium or balance. The key to its secret is the involvement of the citizen.
-John Ralston Saul, The Doubter’s Companion

Democracy is the worst system in the world except for all the others.
-Winston Churchill

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
Striving is great. Achieving is another matter. Isn’t that what this religion thing has been about for, let’s say, two thousand years?

I don’t feel that religion is necessary to the conversation.

aynrandlover:

That’s the pot calling the kettle black? Well, the kettle is black, isn’t it? I don’t feel that it is an unreasonable request that our politicians act on their word. That word was why they were elected.

As I said:
(1) Politicians have to face up to cognitive dissonance. Not all of what people want is possible --and frequently wants, including your own, are mutually contradictory.

No one is arguing that people want different things…the argument is for politicians to not lie about what they want to do. It is not a lie to take a stance, then have that stance be defeated. It is a lie to claim a stance to get elected, then when the time rolls around for action on the topic we find that the politician’s stance has shifted.

(2) Compromise is how non-authoritarian systems (and to an extent even authoritarian systems) work. That can be characterized as lying in some quarters. Purism is fun in theory, in fact it tends to get bloody. However, I see horse-trading as the way things get done, and that’s true in my experience in the private sector, albeit in large multinationals.

Compromise can, agreed, be characterized by lying. Yes, purism, or extremism, can get bloody. It can also create beautiful art. It can also drive people to solve complicated math problems, invent vaccines, and everything else dedication entails. I will not accept people being smeared for merely giving 100% to their cause. If you don’t like the cause, damn that. And if you see horse-trading as the way to get things done, I would love to trade with you…but if you feel honestry is not a necessary part of relationships, well, I’ll stick to my own circle of combustion engines. You can keep your horse.

(3) Which word and how literally. What if the facts change? What about discretion?

Fact, to my knowledge, are facts. They do not change. This is why they are, indeed, facts, and not guesses, hypothesis, or what-have-you.

I vote for my rep. in the hopes of reasonably honest representation of my views, but I understand my views have to be compared with the often quite contradictory views of my fellow citizens, so a bit of wiggling I expect.

I agree that my views won’t be exactly represented, but that is not a license to lie. I’m not expecting my views to be represented exactly, I’m expecting politicians to do what they say. My god, man, you expect that from everyone else!
You go to the store and your total clearly reads $5.03 but the clerk asks for $10.00 this is not acceptable
You ask your {mom, wife, husband, brother, whatver} what’s for dinner, and they tell you “Roast Beef” but you can clearly see them making lasagna. So you ask again, “But I can see you making lasagna!”; “No I’m not.” This is unacceptable.
Sell By Dates on beef or dairy products deliberatly false, and everything you buy is spoiled. This is unacceptable.

You vote a politician in on a stand of lowering taxes (Bush Sr.?) and, once given the opportunity, do the opposite. This is unacceptable.
aynrandlover:

Politicians should be better than the average Joe, you see, because they are controlling major portions of his life.

Better? Why? They’re not christ figures, they’re average joes elected to rep average joes. I don’t buy into this elites and platonic ideals crap. I’m voting for a joe not so different from myself. I long ago gave up on people being better than me. Some reasonable degree of honesty, fine. Better than the actual, living morality I see around me, nice to dream about, but I’ll settle for not being worse than average.

I didn’t say they were elite for god’s sake, I said they should be better…from the context I thought it was clear. It was hypothesized that poeple lied all the time. I said, then, that politicians should be better than that and NOT lie. I’m not putting them on a pedestal. I’m asking them to have integrity. I’m asking them, is essence, to do their damn job the way they say they will, or, equivilantly, quit promising things they can’t deliver. Neither of those are unreasonable requests.

arl:

Your argument lends itself better to why people wouldn’t need a government than in support of it.

I’ve done business in countries lacking governments, it ain’t pretty. No thank you, I’ll take the warty little democracy we have to the rule of the strongman and chaos. People need government.

You’ve done business with people? Are they liars too? How successful would your business be if everyone lied most of the time and promised things they couldn’t deliver? Consider, how much better would America be if its politicians didn’t lie and promise things they can’t deliver?

Why is politics so different from any other subject? I don’t know how to answer this…because its politics? How is an apple different from a car? We have a brach of ideas grouped politics because it is unique. Politics is not math, it is not biology, it is politics.

arl

To ask the people who control America to be honest…man, I would never picture that to be an item of debate. and yet, here we are.

What sense of honest? honest as in christ figures or honest as in reasonably honest compared to the folks around them (in reality not in self-perception)?

In reality not self-perception,eh? Didn’t I see you argue the other way in a different post, that reality IS self-perception? This would clearly explain why you feel integrity is not worthy, or worse, that persons of integrity are elitist, perhaps snobby…

[Anachronism]

My apologies to matt_mcl and anyone else who was offended. My post was intended to be somewhat inflamatory in hopes of provoking lively debate, did I go to far?

I am sure there are a lot of honest poloticians out there (stop laughing, I mean it), but I feel the two candidates we had to choose from are not among them.

BTW – I voted for Harry Browne.