It wasn’t just a compulsion to speak the truth; it was a drive for truthfulness in general. Since fiction isn’t true by definition they were no longer capable of enjoying it.
Bricker is absolutely correct. Democrats don’t always say what they mean. Republicans do actually believe the stupid shit they’re saying.
Are there any conservatives that think this would hurt Republicans?
Or liberals that think this would hurt Democrats?
I don’t believe that bit about the republicans for an instant. Sure, some of them are complete loons, but most of them are relatively intelligent. Heck, I don’t believe that many of them even care about abortion anti-rights or gun rights or gays anti-rights at all, except for their usefulness as a hot-button topic.
Of course it would hurt Democrats - it would just hurt the Republicans more. All politicians are liars, but the pubs have elevated it to a fine art and a gravy train.
I think there are four separate levels of Republican: complete loons, half-loons (ie., people with serious cognitive dissonance issues), people who just say what voters want to hear, and decent folk.
I used to think John McCain was one of the fourth group. Now I wonder if they exist at all.
Exactly.
This seems much easier than actually trying to make an argument for why Democrats would suffer more from a spate of honesty than Republicans would, and has the added bonus of being basically immune from counterargument because it’s completely contentless! We could all learn from you.
Yeah? Well I think there are four separate levels of Democrats: blah blah blah blah
So there!
Is now the right time to mention Michael Moore? He lied a lot. If he had to tell the truth, what would happen to the liberal media!
That’s depressing, but you are probably right.
The world is not ready for an assplosion of Michael Mooreseque proportions.
This.
What might hurt the greatest number of present Dem reps is the populace realizing, not that they’re too leftist, but that they’re not really that populist.
Of course some form of this would affect GOP candidates as well. Anyone forced to say, “I really am just in it for myself!” will lose support.
Fox/Beck/Limbah would simultaneously Implode creating the black hole that people think Cern are going to create. it would put the Daily show out of business for at least a week because there would be nothing funnier anywhere than just watching these guys talk and speak the truth.
/end hijack
Virtually every incumbent will be thrown out of office, regardless of party.
I think it would be very difficult for anyone to command a majority vote if all their thoughts were made public. Almost everybody has some opinion about something that will alienate a substantial block of voters. Those who do win will only get a plurality.
I don’t believe that the current crop of Right Wing talking heads actually believe what they’re saying. Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh will have to go off the air, but will soon be replaced by True Believers and the right wing noise machine will continue unabated.
To throw an incumbent out, you need to vote somebody else in. If this affliction effects only sitting politicians this would be almost guaranteed to happen (unless the politician is both squeaky-clean and figures out how to play his opponents’ capability to lie against him), but if the disease effects potential politicians too then many politicians might survive, assuming they 1) aren’t too scandalous in the eyes of their base and the undecideds, and 2) they actually do beleive in and support the things they’ve always claimed to believe in and support. The populace will forgive them for not sugar-coating things - what other choice do the voters have?
Perhaps you could offer some questions that would be damaging to Democrats.
Given the low opinion Democrats and those who vote for Democrats already tend to have of their own representatives, I can’t think of any. They might even be helped if it turns out they aren’t as bad as they look.
Assuming the OP is modified to mean something like all politicians were forced to be honest about their policy views, then I agree with the OP’s conclusion.
The fact is that Democrats currently dominate the electoral landscape. Nigh 60 Senate seats, a healthy majority of the House, and even amid two wars and the worst jobs climate in decades, a significant lead in party ID and a favorably viewed Democratic President. At least part of the reason for this is that Democrats have been willing to recruit a broader coalition of candidates than Republican purity has allowed for that party, in places like Missouri, Virginia, Montana, Ohio, Colorado, and Nebraska. Consequently, they downplay elements that would cause internal division among the caucus, like gun control, public funding for abortion, and countless other (largely social) issues. If Democrats were to push those issues, they’d soon lose that dominance. Republicans, who have contracted to superminority status, on the other hand, control very few seats in districts or states where they do not have an advantage in party ID.
In short, Democrats currently control the center. And whichever party controls the center necessarily has a more diverse coalition, and more diverse coalitions are held together by studiously ignoring the issues that divide them. If Democrats were honest about those issues, there would be much more internal division in the party, making it harder for them to keep this massive coalition that now dwarfs the electoral power of Republicans.
I won’t weigh in on either party in general, but I think politicians on the fringes like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would benefit slightly because it would be shown that, though they’re certainly farther from the center than most, at least they actually believe most of what they say they believe. One of the benefits of being on the fringe is that they’re more free to speak freely because they don’t have to worry so much about losing the center/mainstream voter.
I think populists would fare worse. Even though many voters may like the outcome of populist behavior, they don’t like hearing a candidate say, “I swing whichever way the wind blows,” in so many words.
Actually, i’d say even that isn’t a guarantee. Sure, if you’re Ron Paul you don’t need to worry about the mainstream so much, because you’re not going to capture their interest. But you do still need the guys who are interested in what you have to say, however small that minority is. Even if they have less to lose, they still have it to lose.
Well, there’s damaging, and then there’s damaging. A republican saying “I’m gay” would be damaging, while a Democrat saying, “I don’t really give a crap about spotted owls, gay rights, abortion, or the environment, but I’ll vote for 'em if that’s what it takes to get you people to pay my salary”, while damaging, isn’t really even in the same hemisphere.
If you want a question that 1) has an instakill answer, and 2) we can reasonably expect that some noticeable percentage of democrats would say the instakill answer, then I think you might come up short, particularly if you want the answer to be systemically worse for democrats than republicans. I mean, “Have you ever committed a felony - and if so, what?” would doubtlessly weed out a percentage of democrats right quick, but I’d imagine that republicans would be effected to the same degree.