We all remember the Jim Carrey movie “Liar, Liar,” yes? A lawyer who habitually lies about everything in his personal and professional life finds himself unable to utter anything but the truth, with no way to sugarcoat or evade. Hilariousness and mayhem ensue.
I believe that if all politicians were struck with this curse, obviously it would fundamentally change the nature of our political system. But I also believe that it would hurt Democrats more than it would hurt Republicans, because I think that for many issues, the gap between “what we say” and “what we really want and think” is wider for the Democrats than it is for the Republicans.
I think Republicans would lose in some areas, of course. I think that it’s easier for racists to hide in the GOP than in the Democrats, for example, and that this would quickly expose them. The lack of true interest in the poor’s welfare would also tilt against the GOP – although I suspect a Dem or two might take some hits there too.
But I think the Democrats would be hurt worse. I think forcing every Democrat to be utterly honest would hurt them on immigration, on gun control, on affirmative action. In each area, I think the country as a whole would be unsympathetic to the honestly-held Democrats’ views on those areas. Redistribution of wealth would also be a loser for the left side of the aisle, I think.
Abortion would be a wash, or maybe a slight advantage to the Democrats. Similarly environmental issues would help the Dems slightly.
But that’s the topic: nationwide imposition of the “Liar, Liar” curse would hurt the Democrats worse than it did the Republicans. Discuss.
Discuss what? Different people believe different things, one person’s lie is another persons’s truth yadda yadda.
Too wimpy for a Pit thread-maybe a mod could move it to MPSIMS if you ask.
Of course *you *would think it would benefit Republicans. You’re completely partisan.
First off the GOP would immediately enrage the teaparty, because most GOP members aren’t morons. But they’ve been acting like morons to court the completely moron Republican base.
As for the Dems, I don’t really see how it would overly hurt them. “I personally want guns to be completely banned, but I’d never vote that way, because I don’t want the electoral hit.”
I think this debate hinges on two things; the first is what the general public thinks on those particular topics. We could have a look at opinion polls to figure that one out, so while it’s tricky, it is at least possible.
The second part, which is considerably more problematic still, is deciding what, exactly, the secret and honest views of politicians are. How are we to know what their hidden views are? We could assume that politicians, in general, actually follow the views of some group - Democratic politicians generally follow the views of Democratic party members, or liberals, or whatever - but I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption, and it presumes that the publically registered views of that group aren’t also more considered version of their true opinions.
I think it’s that second part which is the big question. Which I suppose leads me to ask the OP; what method of determining the hidden views of politicians do you believe is reasonable enough to come to the conclusion you have?
I think you are both overestimating Democrats’ (defining “Democrats” as Dem officeholders, candidates and party officials) favorabilty to redistribution, and underestimating the general public’s favorability.
And yet I can point to many instances of my defending Democrats here. You, on the other hand, don’t seem to have a similar record for defending Republicans here. So while I grant that I am not studiously neutral, I would say that as between us, you are more “completely” partisan than I.
This is the kind of thing that I’m picturing WOULD hurt them, especially since the second phrase would, in my view, be more akin to “…and if I could vote that way without taking an electoral hit, I would.”
How about all the politicians that don’t give a shit about controlling spending? And how about politicians that reflexively back corporate interests? How about politicians that talk about Jesus but are actually just pandering? It seems to me that there are an awful lot of Republicans that talk about cutting spending but don’t do anything about it. And Barton apologizing to BP was the kind of gaffe where a politician accidentally says what he really thinks.
Maybe I’m just cynical enough to believe that both sides would lose out incredibly if this ever came to pass.
In fact, it might almost be enough to create a third party!
You forget, or perhaps you never knew, Dems aren’t pretending to be holier than thou. Republicans are holding up the standard of “family values”.
I will grant that the Dems probably have some people who dislike homosexuals as a class, but I’m sure it isn’t terribly high.
Also, every elected Dem but one isn’t an open Atheist. So positive statements of belief aren’t a bad thing for Democrats. I’m not sure how badly the Dem electorate would respond to declarations of atheism, but I’d presume the effect would be worse for the Republicans.
As for cheating, again, they aren’t the ones pretending to be holier than thou.
In order to have a meaningful discussion of this topic, we’d have to know what a majority of Democrats and Republicans “really think” about a whole slew of issues. Frankly, that’s not even remotely possible. So, what will happen is a lot of hand-waving (as was done in the OP) or cherry picking or anecdotes.
It’s like trying to discern the “original intent” of the Founders. Better to take the equivalent of a textualist approach and judge them by what they actually do. And that is still a monumental task, even if you limit the discussion to something reasonably manageable-- say, the US Senate. I can’t imagine getting a good grip on that.
Ok so I was deliberate with the hyperbole. Change the questions, same result.
My point being, all politicians would suffer as a result of the “liar liar” disease, much like most of this board is great at saying how much more the Republicans do things than Democrats. (kinda like you just did)
Nuance is a funny thing.
I assume that politicians stake out a position that is not antiethical to their beliefs, but moderated by electibility concerns and the real world. Beyond that, I suppose it’s the time-honored technique of guessing, which is not particularly a razor-edge precision tool.
It would be total mayhem. There’d be atheistic Republicans; Democrats (particularly the older ones) with racist and sexist views; tons from both parties who were contemptuous of their own voters; Republicans who thought being gay was no big deal or who believed evolution to be correct.
You’d also have a field day with “what votes did you make solely to please a campaign contributor?”
“I’m personally a little averse but I know that’s just an irrational response to the unfamiliar, and am strongly in favor of giving them full rights, because it’s the right and the moral thing to do, it gets me votes, doesn’t cost me dick. It’s not like I’ll have to hang out with them either way, after all.”
They lose 0.1 percent of the democratic vote.
95% answer some form of yes. Democrats are surprised there are that many atheists and don’t change their voting patterns.
Democrats are again surprised by the low numbers.
Democratic voters are as a class nowhere near as dogmatic and sickening-prone as republican voters.
Also, for the most mileage, you should just ask “is there any reason your voters shouldn’t vote for you.” I imagine that a hefty percentage democratic politicians and nearly all the republican ones would be able to think of some way to alienate their base if they tried to - which the Liar Liar disease would force them to.
Doesn’t that presuppose that there are no, or at least not many, politicians with a genuinely moderate, or at the least, not too harming to electibility, beliefs? I can certainly agree with you that there are politicians who smooth out potential wrinkles in their personal beliefs, but I don’t think there’s any way to know how many and to what extent beyond, as you say, guesswork. Really, if it’s based on that much guesswork, i’d tend to say we shouldn’t assume one group or another would lose ground in the “Liar, Liar” case.
Does this curse strike Fox News and right-wing radio? If so, the collapse of that industry would be devastating to the Republican party as it is now. It would be extraordinarily good for the public in general, as a rebuilt and reorganized party built around sound, rational conservative principles would be a refreshing change to the pitiful lows it’s been driven to.