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

[Cervaise]

@Ravenman

People really do like the truth… not!

I agree. The majority of voters, I have decided over the years, do not want leaders who are completely honest with them. We want leaders who look nice, who talk nice, and who say the things we want to hear, whether or not they’re true, and who promise, in a parental tone, to shield us from the worst the world has to offer; and, perhaps most importantly, who are able to Get Shit Done.

The interesting thing is that this last qualifier doesn’t necessarily have to have anything whatsoever to do with the first set of qualifiers; there can be a complete disconnect between Strength, as in the ability to lead and/or achieve, and Charisma, as in the ability to be liked. As long as one is perceived as being Strong, the things one is strong about need bear no relationship at all to what one is perceived as being Charismatic about. Witness Bush, simultaneously Christian and Warmonger (“he loves Jesus, and he kicks ass!”), or Clinton, simultaneously Sensitive Guy and Serial Philanderer (“he feels our pain, and he gets crazy pussy!”). It’s fundamentally irrational, but then, hey, that’s the nature of people. More significantly, it permits, or perhaps demands, inherently dishonest leadership.

And, I sincerely believe, it’s that way because that’s what people want.

So, no, I don’t think an honest man has a chance in our democratic system. At all.

(Note that, as has been observed above, this is somewhat different in our television age than it might have been previously.)

[Sage_Rat]

@China Guy

Who is Jimmy Carter?

According to the Wikipedia, Carter “fudged” his beliefs on segregation when running for governor of Georgia. So he certainly had it in him.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Ravenman

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.)…

No, he didn’t. Lincoln was very clear that he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed, but that he shared the Republican Party platform’s view that slavery could not be permitted to expand into new territory. He was also clear in opposing the Dred Scott decision for its holding that Congress had no power to limit the spread of slavery in Federal territory or newly-organized states. He repeated these views in his First Inaugural. He didn’t issue the Emancipation Proclamation - which only freed slaves, as a military measure in his capacity as CINC, in areas actually engaged in rebellion - until late 1862, almost two years after taking office.

BTW, the short answer to the OP is yes.

And I’m available for a draft at any time.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sage Rat

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.

Property qualifications for voting were dropped long before 1860. And don’t forget, that was also a time when politicians would make “whistlestop” tours from town to town, and give really long speeches; and voters would make family trips to the county seat to hear them. With no TV around, that was a high point of entertainment. If something on the order of the Lincoln-Douglas debates were done today . . . well, it couldn’t be done today.

[Sage_Rat]

@BrainGlutton

Property qualifications for voting were dropped long before 1860.

Wikipedia says 1856. True, I now realise that I transposed the last two digits and thought that that was the same year as Lincoln died (1865), but I wouldn’t say that that’s a “long time.” I doubt that the methods for running for president had changed significantly over the course of the four years before he ran.

[Sage_Rat]

@BrainGlutton

Property qualifications for voting were dropped long before 1860. And don’t forget, that was also a time when politicians would make “whistlestop” tours from town to town, and give really long speeches; and voters would make family trips to the county seat to hear them. With no TV around, that was a high point of entertainment. If something on the order of the Lincoln-Douglas debates were done today . . . well, it couldn’t be done today.

Yes, but the question is how clear those speeches were. I’m not sure that I’ve read any of Lincoln’s speeches from when he was running for office, but I would still assume that they were a lot less waffle than modern day ones.

[gonzomax]

Public financing of elections would make it possible. look at the headlines. McCain in trouble because he is third in raising money. Romney quickly becomes a serious contender because of easy cash.
Obama now a threat because he is getting enough money to compete with Hillary.
This money has strings . It is bad for the system. They have to make paybacks that are not always in the best interests of the country.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Sage Rat

Wikipedia says 1856. True, I now realise that I transposed the last two digits and thought that that was the same year as Lincoln died (1865), but I wouldn’t say that that’s a “long time.” I doubt that the methods for running for president had changed significantly over the course of the four years before he ran.

One state ended the property qualification in 1856, many states ended it decades before. It had only been four years since North Carolina abolished the property qualification, it had been 46 years since South Carolina had, for example.

[BrainGlutton]

@Martin Hyde

One state ended the property qualification in 1856, many states ended it decades before. It had only been four years since North Carolina abolished the property qualification, it had been 46 years since South Carolina had, for example.

That’s federalism for ya . . .

[BJMoose]

A couple of folks have already mentioned Jimmy Carter, doubtless the straightest shooter my generation has seen.

Let me throw out another name: Harry Truman. I’ve read several books on the guy and my impression is that he was about as “honest” as anyone ever gets. He even, as the OP desires, avowed positions different from those of the crowd he was addressing. His telling off the Klan in his early political career comes to mind. Heck, he even had the temerity to stand up to his political “boss”, Tom Pendergast (“Harry’s the contrariest Missouri mule I’ve ever known”).

Course, Truman inherited the position before he ran for it. I doubt he would have won the race from a standing start.

[David_Simmons]

@elucidator

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

Righto. The character Kramer on Seinfeld always blurted out exactly what he thought resulting in endless embarassment and difficulties.

[ElvisL1ves]

First, *find * a *completely * honest man. *Then * I’ll tell you what kind of campaigner and President he’d be. And good luck with that, too.

[BrainGlutton]

@David Simmons

Righto. The character Kramer on Seinfeld always blurted out exactly what he thought resulting in endless embarassment and difficulties.

Once again, life imitates art . . .

[Little_Nemo]

Remember how people just looooooooved that economic malaise speech!?!

No, I don’t remember that speech. And neither do you. President Carter never used the word malaise in a speech. Here’s the transcript of what he actually said.

[Lust4Life]

By the nature of the western Democratic electoral processes ,no a truly honest man couldnt be voted in in any country.

Plus a completely honest man would be a disaster in international negotiations.
My personal opinion is that Carter has been one of the most honest presidents in recent years
but he was a liability when dickering with the Soviets.

Nixon was a total bastard but he achieved Detente with the Russians and got Red China talking to the West after many years of obsfuscation.
Less known is he prevented a second Cuban missile crisis without any fuss by sending without any publicity a message over the Hotline"take them out (the missiles landed in Cuba)or we ll take you out "
The following day the missiles were loaded back on board the ships that brought them out in the first place. Cite "The Real Spy World " Miles Copeland .

That said and without wishing to get involved in a U.S. domestic political debate being a total bastard is of no use at all if you re a complete ignoramus.

[Ravenman]

@Little Nemo

No, I don’t remember that speech. And neither do you. President Carter never used the word malaise in a speech. Here’s the transcript of what he actually said.

Good Lord. Its rare to see such an inconsequential nit be picked.

Are you arguing that I should have said it was the “crisis of confidence” speech that Americans hated; or are you saying that people LIKED the “crisis of confidence” speech?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

As to the OP, let’s find out. I’m now a candidate: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8618794

[Bryan_Ekers]

Personally, I thought Jefferson Smith was an idiot, so I’m rather dubious about fantasies of “honest” politicians. The candidate the OP describes may have a perfect grasp of what is moral and just - in the eyes of the OP. In reality, the United States is a vast collection of people with varying abilities and demands, all of which seem reasonable to them and a candidate who isn’t benefiting from some recent political anomaly (like Carter did) will have to tailor his message to appeal to enough of the people enough of the time, even people who might vaguely agree on one important issue and vehemently disagree on half-a-dozen others. Subject any such candidate to microscopic analysis and you’ll find lies, or at least weasel-words, in his speeches.

Lost causes aren’t worth fighting for - it’s a waste of time and energy.

[DrDeth]

@Fiveyearlurker

How an issue polls has no bearing on his opinion, and he will will speak openly about all of his honest opinions.

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.

Why shouldn’t it? In fact, I would not want a person to be my elected leader if he did not care about what his constituents think and want. If he, personally thinks some new proposed Law is wrong, but the voters want that Law by a large majority, he’d better damn well take the opinion of those that elected him into consideration. If I write him a letter (along with tens of thousands others) that should sway his opinion, and if it doesn’t then he has no business saying he “represents” me, as he does **NOT.
**

Waiting periods are idiotic and not reasonable. Instant Background checks work just fine.

But here’s is the point many dudes here are missing- you have not described an HONEST man, you have described the type of person you think should be a leader. The person you describe is not honest, he’s just a **Fiveyearlurker **defined “moderate” that can’t fucking shut up and blurts crap out all the time like Finnegans Wake. Christ, just what we need, the James Joyce of Presidents. :rolleyes:

[Sunrazor]

Maybe this is jyst cynical, but no, a truly honest man who speaks his mind couldn’t be elected because the coddled, self-centered, self-righteous and utterly spoiled American electorate would never vote for him.

Or her.

Wanna’ get elected? Tell me what I want to hear.