Can a completely honest man ever get elected to be president of the U.S.?

Great Debates
1

So, awhile back there were quite a few threads on whether an atheist, woman, black person, homosexual, etc. could ever become president. I wanted to know if an honest man could become president.

First, let me set the stage. He is male, white, straight, tall, good-looking, well-spoken, married (never divorced), Christian (but not overly). In other words, he does not run into any of the other categories that we debated could disqualify him. He is quite moderate in all of his views. Either liberal for a Republican, or a conservative for a Democrat.

Let me define what I mean by honest. Our candidate doesn’t pander to any special interest group. How an issue polls has no bearing on his opinion, and he will will speak openly about all of his honest opinions.

For example, he has moderate views on abortion. He believes that it is a woman’s right to choose. However, he believes that such a choice should have to occur within the first six months of gestation. Whether you agree with this or not, this is a pretty moderate postion on the issue. When asked to speak in front of a women’s group, he will address this issue head on, and explain his position to them. Later that day, he will go in front of Focus on the Family, and deliver the same postion directly to them.

He is in favor of a right to bear arms, but automatic weapons should be banned, and he believes that waiting periods and background checks are reasonable. He will explain this to the NRA.

He believes that welfare should be a safety net for those in need to get back on their feet, and not a hammock to get comfortable in. When right wing groups complain about welfare, he will (diplomatically) explain that sometimes life throws shit at you, and you need some help. When left wing groups complain about workfare type programs, he will explain that perhaps such programs will help instill a sense of pride and self-worth with the worthy goal of getting off of public assistance.

He goes to church every Sunday, but will tell the religious right that his belief in God has no bearing on his role as President. He will also tell them that evolution should be taught in all high school biology classes (he doesn’t duck this issue by calling it a state issue), and intelligent design, unless it gets some scientific evidence to back it up, should be taught in Sunday school.

He is physically incapable of expressing falsehoods.

Could this man be elected, or would the money dry up instantly? Is pandering required to make a real run at the presidency?

2

Such a person is not to be trusted. If the situation demands a lie, you lie. Bald candor is wildly overrated.

3

Sorry, let me pull it back a bit.

I’m not saying that if a woman asks if the dress makes her look fat, he says yes. I’m not taking it that far. I’m saying, his opinion (which is moderate) is going to be made honestly, without polling, and will be made public, without hedging.

4

In order to be President, you have to convince a lot of people to support you. Some of those people are not that nice, but you won’t be the Big Cheese unless you get them on board. If you were honest enough to tell them what you thought of them, you’d not make it even to get your nomination papers signed.

IMHO, launching yourself into politics means you will end up making tradeoffs; if you haven’t the stomach for them then you’re better in another profession. This doesn’t mean you have to fully sell out, but there’s definitely a lot of negotiating and strategizing where you need to deal with situations where you choose the lesser of evils.

5

A man who always tells the whole truth could get elected president if, at all crucial points during every election cycle of his political career, the whole truth happens to be exactly the same thing as what most of the voters want to hear.

A more interesting question is whether a completely honest man would make a good president.

6

Which corporations would fund this man ?
And why not include women ?

7

The honest ones. :wink:

Lack of precedent. And the pol discussed in the OP is a guy.

8

The answer to your first question is I don’t know, and was something of the point of the OP. If the pharma lobby thought he was going to be elected, they would certainly throw some cash his way. Don’t know if this is the chicken or the egg though.

The answer to your second question was in the OP. He is a man to remove the confounding variable of gender from the equation.

9

In my eyes, the only difference between “doesn’t pander to special interests” and “doesn’t appeal to voters who care about issues” is merely a glass half empty/glass half full type of thing.

But on the larger point, as far as the issues you described (abortion, gun control, welfare, possibly even religion) I’d guess you voted for Bill Clinton. In terms of honesty, I think Jimmy Carter may come pretty close to filling the bill. (Remember how people just looooooooved that economic malaise speech!?! People really do like the truth… not!)

So if you selected the right genes from Clinton and Carter, put em in a test tube, I’m guessing you’d be happy with the result?

10

Why would a completely hones man wish to be president?

Just wondering.

Tris

11

Wasn’t Abraham Lincoln known, non ironically, as “honest Abe”?

And look at his greatest achievement.

He kept a fragile union together by force of arms.

The original uniter, not a divider.

12

I don’t think that in the modern day, an honest person could get elected.

When “Honest Abe” was running, poor* people still hadn’t been enfranchised. Elections were decided by people who read newspapers and owned businesses. Elections were much more based on publishing your positions and the arguments you had for them (i.e. rhetoric.) Most often, people never saw the people who were running for President.

Since the advent of TV and the enfranchisement of the full population (over 18), charisma will get you a lot more than old-days rhetoric would have. People want someone who seems nice and who seems to have the same politics as themselves. And seeming like you will do something that people wouldn’t want you to do will get you automatically crossed off their list. So pretty much the fewer things you commit to, the harder it is to get elected. You just have to make it sound like you’re positive about dealing with whatever someone asks you about, but unclear about how you intend to deal with it.

I could never tell a thing that Bill Clinton ever said until he stopped running for office, for instance. He was a god at the job of running for president.

So if our hypothetical honest guy clearly stated what he wanted to do and how he intended to do it, he would end up marked off everyone’s list because even though he might be okay for 90% of all of anyone’s personal list of issues, he’ll automatically be marked off due to the other 10%. It might end up that no one else could even get 50% of anyone’s list–but they’ll stay as possibilities because no one’s sure whether they are for or against anything.

So, essentially, my argument is that most voters are stupid.

  • Specifically, men who didn’t own land.
13

Can he dodge questions?

Can he bluff?

Can he use platitudes and empty compliments?

Can he use rhetorical devices?

Can he omit?

14

That’s a belief, not an argument.

Have you considered the possibility that most men and women are rationally ignorant, as suggested by Robert Schenk in a discussion on how people make a political decision?

LogicOfChoice

So when you cast your thoughtful vote every few years or so, the instant you have placed it in the collection box, the political power you so fleetingly possess completely disappears (for a number of years).

15

He might as well bay at the moon.

With respect to the bulk of the OP, I think we did elect such a man, or close to it, in 1976.

16

There’s no difference. All arguments are opinions (beliefs.) Whether you can make a case that your belief jives with reality is the important point.

That seems like a reasonable hypothesis, but even if you don’t have time to learn about all the issues, or even the top issues, you can still try to figure out how the person thinks and how they approach problems. I don’t think most people would know how to spot critical thinking these days. (Partly I think that the problem there is simply that people need to receive more schooling on rhetoric, debate, and the scientific method, but that’s slightly tangential.)

17

Platitudes and empty complements are fine. He doesn’t have to tell Jerry Falwell that he’s an asshole, even if he feels that way. But, if asked about his feelings about Falwell, his opinions regarding Falwell’s intolerance and disagreeing with his message will be made clear, if sugar coated. Akin to McCain a few years ago, rather than McCain now where “agent of intolerance” = “raving asshole”.

Other than that, he doesn’t want to dodge questions or bluff or omit. At least on policy issues. Again, if he’s handed a check for the campaign by a group he disagrees with, he can keep it, and thank them. But not pander to them. He will still publicly and privately disagree with them.

18

I agree with you on that point.

I am also fully aware that once I have cast my vote, intelligently directed or not, or cast my vote in accordance with the principles of rational ignorance anticipated (quite logically) by Robert Schenk, I have totally lost all of my political power (until about three months before the next scheduled election for that political post).

19

Who is Jimmy Carter?

20

Perhaps someone can jump in here, but didn’t Lincoln soft-pedal his anti-slavery views during the 1860 campaign? (I believe in contrast to his more outspoken Senate campaign a few years earlier.) If my memory is in fact correct, I’m not sure Lincoln would fully fit the bill outlined by the OP.

Uh, am I being whooshed?